Next sitting date: 15 Sep 2008 at 1.30 pm Speeches On Motion on By-Elections by Sylvia Lim and Low Thia Khiang Sitting Date: 27 Aug 2008Parliamentary ElectionsSylvia Lim's Speech On Motion on By-ElectionsPart 1Part 2Ms Sylvia Lim (Non-Constituency Member): Sir, the motion filed by the two Nominated Members calls for the election system to be fine-tuned. We in the Workers' Party are unable to support the motion for the simple reason that we have never accepted the GRC system and the motion attempts to entrench it. The motion is also flawed in some respects.First, it attempts to refine the GRC system by provided that the moment the minority Member has left the GRC, a by-election for the GRC will be called. We do not see the justification for the departure of any single Member, including the minority Member, to trigger a by-election in the whole GRC. In our view, this is a disproportionate outcome.Elections are won or lost by GRC teams, not on the merit of the minority Member alone. Each voter votes for the GRC team for different reasons - some may well vote because of the minority Member but others may do so because of the team leader or anchor Minister or because of some other MP.In 1999, one of the Members in Jalan Besar GRC, Mr Choo Wee Khiang, resigned his seat due to a criminal conviction. The House then debated the issue or whether to call a by-election in Jalan Besar GRC. Then leader of the House, Mr Wong Kan Seng, spoke generally about why one Member's departure should not trigger a by-election in a GRC. He said, and I quote,"the legislated intent was not to allow any particular MPs so elected as part of a group of MPs for the GRC to hold the rest to ransom, to resignation or otherwise. The thinking then was that all the other MPs should not be forced to vacate their seats on account of one MP vacating his seat for whatever reason; death, resignation, or whatever". This highlights one of the main weaknesses of the GRCs, that a team member's non co-operation could sound the political death knell for the rest. This is unjustifiable.Next, the motion goes on to propose that one half or more of the members of the GRC team have departed, a by-election in the GRC should be called as well. To propose this means that we prepared to accept the situation where one or even two members in a GRC have left, no by-election needs to be called. The reality is that the moment even one member of the team leaves, the issue of the constituents being under represented immediately arises. To say that constituency work can be covered even by non MPs is a dubious assertion as the residents will feel shortchanged. What about the parliamentary work? Can this be covered? Each MP is restricted to five parliamentary questions per sitting and can make only one speech in each debate. Just doing simple mathematics, the number of Parliamentary questions and speeches that can be made by the GRC team will be diminished the moment any MP vacates his seat. If GRC sizes are increased in the future, this motion will envisage three, four or even more vacancies before a by-election in a GRC is called. The under-representation of the constituents will become even more indefensible.Third, the motion asked the House to introduce amendments to the Parliamentary Elections Act such that a writ of by-election shall be called in the event that a Member of a Single Member Constituency vacates his or her seat for any reason. There is actually no need for the House to do this. This is already provided for under the Constitution and the Parliamentary Elections Act. Article 49 of the Constitution already states that the whenever the seat of an elected Member has become vacant for any reason, the vacancy shall be filled by election in a manner provided by law, meaning that it should be done. The Parliamentary Elections Act itself, section 24, further provides that the President shall issue a writ of election "to supply vacancies caused by death, resignation, or otherwise." There can be no argument that when an MP in an SMC vacates his seat, there is no vacancy. The issue is really with the timing of the by-election, which I shall return to later.Sir, indeed the motion shows that the GRC system is a system which does not promote representative democracy. The attempts in the motion to cure the problems with GRCs do not address the fundamental problem of the GRC that it dilutes the voter's voice. Instead of making a clear choice of which person they want to represent them, they are asked to pick a team of people and the outcome of their vote will depend on the aggregate outcome of voting in other constituencies. At the practical level, it also increases the bar for those who intend to contest, increasing the likelihood of walkovers.What Mr Wong Kan Seng had said in 1999 about one member holding the rest to ransom also applies at the nomination stage when candidates are putting themselves up for election. GRC team members can hold the others to ransom as the whole team must stand to qualify as candidates, in the correct racial mix.In view of all these objections to the original motion, I would like to propose that the motion be amended such as to call on the Government to introduce amendments to the Constitution to abolish GRCs and to revert to a system of single member seats and to set a three-month time limit for all by-elections to be called.Mr Speaker: May I have a copy of the amendment?Ms Sylvia Lim: Yes, Sir. I believe a written copy has been given to the Clerk.Mr Speaker: The amendment seems to be in order. Are copies made available to all Members?Ms Sylvia Lim: Could I request the Clerk to circulate to Members? [Copy of amendment to motion circulated to hon. Members. ]Mr Speaker: Would you like to move your amendment, Ms Lim?Ms Sylvia Lim: Sir, I beg to move,That the words in the motion from "fine-tune the electoral system" to "by-elections shall be called" in the last sentence be deleted, and the following words be inserted in their place:(a) introduce amendments to the Constitution to abolish Group Representation Constituencies and revert to a system of Single Member Constituencies", and;(b) introduce amendments to the Parliamentary Elections Act such that a writ for by-election shall be issued in the event a Member vacates his or her seat for any reason."Sir, the proposed amended motion has also been put down for the convenience of Members on paper.Mr Speaker: Have you finished your Speech?Ms Sylvia Lim: Sir, I will now speak on the amended motion.Why abolish GRCs after 20 years? To answer this, we should trace history and how we have evolved. We should then ask: are GRCs good for the people or good for the PAP?In 1988, GRCs were introduced as three-Member teams. Then Deputy Prime Minister, Goh Chok Tong, told Parliament that the GRCs would ensure minority representation. Just two years later, in 1990, GRC size was increased from three Members to four, the reason being population growth within three-Member GRCs. In 1996, GRCs were increased from four Members to five or six Members. We were told that this was to provide the critical masses of residents needed for the Community Development Councils or CDCs to work, but these arguments are clearly red herrings. As then Deputy Prime Minister Goh had already said in 1988, even if all seats were ran as single seats, MPs could still group together after the elections for economies of scale. The reasons given by the PAP also do not explain why, coincidentally, GRCs which were nearly won by the Workers' Party, such as Eunos GRC and Cheng San GRC, disappeared in the following elections.In 2006, some light was shed as to how the PAP benefited from GRCs. Senior Minister Goh spoke of the PAP's recruitment challenge, and he said, and I quote,"without some assurance of a good chance of winning, at least, their first election, many able and successful young Singaporeans may not risk their careers to join politics." Interesting. Are we to infer that the PAP candidates these days are not what they used to be? On a separate note, Minister Mentor also made comments that the Health Minister should be ready to lead his own GRC team after being under his wing in Tanjong Pagar GRC for four years. So, it seems that the GRC is a useful recruitment and training tool for the ruling party.Has the GRC strengthened or weakened politicians' mandate? Back in 1998, Dr Ahmad Mattar already hit the nail on the head. His views were quoted in Parliament as follows and I quote, "as a Malay, I do not think I would like to contest in any elections when my victory is guaranteed, not because I am a strong candidate but because I have a so-called strong twin brother to lean on."How do voters feel about GRCs? The Government might want to do a big national survey to find out. It is not uncommon for Singaporeans to become residents of different GRCs in successive elections without moving house at all. The jokes about boundaries are endless, with the residents of Serangoon asking for their Marine Parade seaview and Tanjong Pagar GRC now fronting MacRitchie Reservoir.In my view, there has clearly been political degeneration as a result of the GRCs. To arrest this, the amended motion calls for the Government to amend the Constitution to abolish GRCs and revert to a system of single seats where each candidate is judged on his or her own merits.Can this be done? Of course. The Electoral Boundaries Committee will give effect to any changes to the system that are made.How do we ensure that minority representation then, some might ask. Singapore's history has shown that, in the past, minority candidates stood and won single seats. PAP MPs, such as Mr Dhanabalan, Mr Rajaratnam, Mr Sidek Saniff, Mr Zulkifli Mohamad, had done so; so have Opposition leaders, like Mr Jeyaretnam in Anson, a predominantly Chinese constituency. This was so even in the 1984 general election. Are we now saying that Singapore has regressed as a society? Or is the PAP now saying that they have less confidence in their current minority Ministers, MPs or new candidates winning on their own?Finally, I move to the issue of time limit for by-elections under the system of single seats. Even though the obligation is already there, as I said earlier, the issue lies in the lack of a definite deadline by which a by-election must be called after a vacancy arises. This has led to long and unjustified delays in holding by-elections. For instance, in 1986, when MP for Anson, Mr Jeyaretnam, was disqualified from office, no by-election was held in Anson for two years until the 1988 general election. This loophole should be plugged.This is not a new issue for this House. It came up nine years ago when the Workers' Party filed a motion to debate whether a by-election should be held in Jalan Besar GRC. The ruling party was not willing then to write in a time limit. Even if a law sets no time limit for something to be done, the usual interpretation is that it should be done within a reasonable time: in this case, a few months, not years. In the circumstances, we support explicitly providing a three-month deadline which is the same period as in the earlier Malaysian legislation. The amended motion reflects this.Low Thia Khiang's Speech On Motion on By-ElectionsMr Low Thia Khiang (Hougang): Sir, while I respect the Speaker's ruling on the amended motion moved by the Workers' Party Chairman, Sylvia Lim, that it is out of order, I beg to differ on the interpretation of relevancy.Sir, the tenet of the motion before the House is, "That this House affirms the importance of representative democracy." Sir, the amended motion about GRC exactly talks about representative democracy.Secondly, Sir, the motion talks about by-election in a GRC. But the problem of by-election in a GRC - both in its technicality and practicality - is rooted in the problem of GRC itself. Therefore, instead of debating the substantive motion before the House on the question of by-election in a GRC, the fundamental question of whether the GRC system is justifiable and necessary should be debated first.Sir, the Members who spoke on the motion spoke at length about the original intent of the GRC is clear evidence of this relevancy. Therefore, I am of the view that the amended motion moved by Sylvia Lim is relevant. But, nevertheless, I respect the ruling of the Speaker and I shall speak on the question of representative democracy. Sir, I shall speak in Mandarin.(In Mandarin): Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, in our pledge, we pledge to establish a society based on justice and equality. The basis of democracy is to ensure that the people have the right to vote and the freedom to choose the government. In Singapore, although the Constitution provides that the elections will decide on the formation of government, the people have the right to choose the government, in practice, not every Singaporean has the right to vote. A recent report in the Straits Times shows that since 1988, with the introduction of the GRCs, the number of uncontested constituencies has increased steadily. In the 2001 general election, there were 55 uncontested constituencies, that is to say, more than 65% of the seats were not contested. In 2006, although there were some improvements, there were 37 seats uncontested. If the political landscape in Singapore remains the same, the prospect of whether the opposition party will be able to find enough candidates to field in future elections remains uncertain.The PAP conveniently attributed the situation to the opposition parties not being capable of fielding enough candidates, hence depriving Singaporeans of the right to vote. Nevertheless, we should examine whether we are in the process of creating another version of a democratic system which is a system of automatic election of ruling party candidates. We should ponder over how this system affects our country, our people and the legitimacy of the government in the long run? I met a middle-aged person at Suntec City and he told me that he was already 50 years old and the only time he voted was for the Election of President. However, except for the first Elected President, there were no contest for the subsequent elections for the President because there were no candidates contesting except for one. So there was no need to vote at all. This uniquely Singaporean electoral system where there are elections held but no contest and hence election being won by default is the only one of its kind in the world and the first in the world. I do not know what kind of system this is.According to the PAP Government, the purpose of the GRCs is to ensure that there is minority representation in Parliament and the PAP assumes that the majority of the Chinese will vote according to racial identity of the candidate. This assumption may not be correct. In the 1981 by-election and in the 1984 general elections, Mr Jeyaretnam, a member of the minority race, defeated the Chinese candidate of the PAP in Anson. Before the implementation of the GRC, we did not hear of a minority candidate of PAP not getting sufficient support and losing an election.Since the beginning, not many people believe the reasons given by the PAP for having the GRCs. And the PAP probably knew that the justification to ensure that there is minority presence in Parliament may not withstand scrutiny. Hence, Mr Goh Chok Tong, then PM, attempted to introduce new annotations to the original declared intent. He said that GRC system allows some PAP candidates who were not well known but have first class quality to avoid the challenge from the opposition candidates who are articulate and smooth talking but without real substance. Therefore, he says, GRC serves the interest of the nation. This is a serious insult to the intelligence of Singaporeans. This is like telling the people that they are not sufficiently wise to decide on the quality of candidate and if they are allowed to vote, they will not be able to vote in good leaders. So, the PAP has to implement this GRC system to select on their behalf. SM Goh has also said that the PAP needed the GRC system to assure candidates of the PAP that they will win when they come in. This will help the PAP to recruit new candidates. Are these candidates, who do not have a sense of political mission and commitment, but concerned only about their personal career and income, the best way to ensure the future of Singapore?The Constitution and the law should work for the benefit of all the people and not for the party. Unfortunately, the PAP has used its majority position in Parliament adopted different measures with grandiose ideas and reasons to change the Constitution to suit its purpose. In 1996, I had pointed this out in Parliament, we could see that in the 1988 and 1991 elections, the PAP had made use of the GRC system ---Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. Mr Low, are you speaking on the motion?Mr Low Thia Khiang: Yes, of course. I am speaking on parliamentary representatives, Sir.Mr Deputy Speaker: The motion calls for a debate on by-elections.Mr Low Thia Khiang: Yes, I am coming to that, Sir.(In Mandarin): The PAP continues to change the rules to increase the size of the GRC, so that these SMCs become less and less important and, therefore, I said at that time that the GRC would allow the PAP to absorb the areas where there was a high support for the opposition to be merged into a GRC so that the opposition voters will always become the minority and hence opposition candidates will not be elected.In 1997, the PAP nearly lost Cheng San GRC and after the election, Cheng San constituency disappeared, a major part of it being grouped into Ang Mo Kio GRC. When Braddell constituency had as much as close to 50% support for the opposition, it was absorbed into Marine Parade GRC. So, come next election, how will the PAP Government take advantage of the GRC to redraw electoral boundaries? Let us wait and see.The PAP Government, in order to win more seats, has adopted many measures so that many seats can be won without a contest.Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. Mr Low, please speak on the motion on by-elections. If you want to speak on the GRC system, it belongs to another motion. So when will you be speaking on by-elections?Mr Low Thia Khiang: OK. Let me now move on to by-elections.(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, under the present law, it is provided that by-election shall be held for Single Member Constituency but it was silent on whether a by-election should be held within a certain time-frame. Thus, the Government can use the loophole in the law to postpone by-elections. So, even if the next general election is to be held in two years’ time, the Government will not hold a by-election. In 1986, after Mr Jeyaretnam lost his seat, a by-election was not held. The meaning in PM’s speech on the subject is profound; I wish to remind voters that your vote for the PAP will allow the PAP to control everything, including the holding of by-elections.The meaning of election is representation. Without holding a by-election for a vacated seat does not conform with the spirit of electing representatives of the people. Elections also allow the people to experience direct participation in politics. This will nurture citizens’ sense of ownership in public policy discourse and national identity. Under the present Constitution and the Parliamentary Elections Act, we do not encourage the spirit of participation through elections, especially in light of the consequence of GRC, resulting in a scenario of having elections but voters being unable to vote due to no contest; If the situation continues, it will aggravate political apathy of Singaporeans and polling day would become just another additional holiday. This will be a sad day for the country.===========================================ST, 28 Aug 2008A House enthralledArguments and barbs fly in by-election debate; an attempted hijacking of motion and failure of equipment also add spiceBy Jeremy Au YongWP chairman Sylvia Lim caught many off-guard by suggesting an amendment of the motion - which would turn it into a call to abolish GRCsNOMINATED MPs Thio Li-ann and Loo Choon Yong thought they were taking aim at by-election laws. Little did they know that Non-Constituency MP Sylvia Lim would step into their spotlight to take a potshot at group representation constituencies (GRCs). The debate yesterday over a motion on refining by-election laws might have lasted over four hours, but this was one parliamentary sitting that nobody would have described as dull. Apart from the attempted hijacking of the motion by the Workers' Party (WP) chairman, the session also saw MPs trading barbs, equipment malfunctioning and one MP saying he had changed his mind about supporting the call to fine-tune the laws. It all started routinely enough. At 3pm, the end of the question-and-answer session, Professor Thio stood to present the motion on by-elections that she and Dr Loo had filed. She had been given one hour, and proceeded to make the most of her time with a speech that ran to 18 pages. She argued her points forcefully, elaborating and illustrating in parts with details from personal experiences. At one point, when speaking about laws that protect minorities, she recounted her time as a doctoral student in Cambridge in England: 'I spent many wearying hours huddled over dusty legal tomes with a comforting chocolate croissant and instant Nescafe coffee mix, studying how minorities were protected, from the Middle Ages to our Modern Age.' It was not the last time that a chocolate croissant would be invoked in a parliamentary speech. But the drama really began when Ms Lim stood up to speak. She sprang two surprises: First, that the WP would not support the motion because it entrenches the GRC system - a concept the party has never accepted. The second, the bigger surprise, was that she wanted to amend the motion. What it amounted to, in fact, was a complete re-writing of it, as Ms Lim deleted almost the entire motion and replaced it with a call to abolish GRCs. The move caught many off-guard. But like any good TV drama, Parliament took a 20-minute break, creating suspense before the ending could be revealed. And when it came, the ending was something of a damp squib. At the resumption of the session, Leader of the House Mah Bow Tan pointed out that Ms Lim's proposed amendments were not relevant to the original motion that had been filed. Parliament Speaker Abdullah Tarmugi agreed, struck out the amendments and suggested that Ms Lim file a separate motion later to debate the GRC issue. Opposition MP and WP secretary-general Low Thia Khiang (Hougang), who spoke later, disagreed that Ms Lim's amendment was irrelevant. He said that the problem with having by-elections in a GRC was rooted in the problem of the GRC itself: 'Members who speak on the motion speak at length about the original intent of the GRC. This is great evidence of its relevance (to the debate on by-elections).' To push his point further, he focused most of his speech on the ills of the GRC system - only to be told twice by Deputy Speaker Matthias Yao to confine himself to the issue at hand, which was on by-elections. Mr Gautam Banerjee, the only Nominated MP who opposed the motion yesterday, originally intended to support it. But he changed his mind after listening to Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong's speech.Mr Banerjee said: 'Having heard the Prime Minister, I am satisfied that we do not need to change at this time our electoral system.' Another MP who opposed the motion was Mr Hri Kumar Nair (Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC). And he couldn't resist taking a swipe at Prof Thio in his speech. Citing her comparison of a GRC that is short of MPs to the Beatles without Paul McCartney and John Lennon, he said: 'We are not dealing with the Beatles or the Bangles. Not even Earth, Wind and Fire.' He also responded to her chocolate croissant remark: 'Singaporeans know the difference between substance and form. They are less concerned with dusty books and chocolate croissants.' Prof Thio responded with some harsh words for him, accusing him of misrepresenting one of her points: 'We were not suggesting the blind transposition of foreign models. I think Mr Nair said that, I think that was a cheap political shot...' There was still time for a few more surprises near the end. Prof Thio did not know the procedure for calling a division in the vote and ended up asking for it three times. A division is when MPs record their stands electronically instead of just voicing it with an 'aye' or a 'no'. During the vote-taking, Mr Sin Boon Ann (Tampines GRC) and Nominated MP Kalyani Mehta complained their machines weren't working and registered their votes verbally. He voted 'no' and she voted 'yes'. 早报28 Aug 2008工人党反对集选区制度 对补选动议也投反对票补选一般对反对党较为有利，因为选民往往心想既然人民行动党已执政，投票给反对党，新加坡也不会因此变天。但是，反对党议员昨天却在国会上针对修改国会选举制度，规定政府在有议席悬空时，须按照规定举行补选的动议进行记名表决时，投下反对票。　　身为非选区议员的工人党主席林瑞莲一起身发言，就表态反对这项动议，说她压根儿就不支持集选区制度。她还因此要求修改动议，提议辩论废除集选区制度。　　由于国会在她发言后休息，国会领袖马宝山过后在恢复辩论时，立刻指出她所提出的修改动议内容离题了，议长因此也不允许修改动议。　　林瑞莲认为，国会的每一个议席都不能出现空缺。 　　“我不认为选区工作真能由别人代劳，因为选民会觉得货不对办。国会工作呢？每个议员每次国会复会时，只能提问五个问题，每项辩论只能发表一次演讲。简单算一下，一个集选区如果少了一名议员，提问或发言的数次就减少了。”　　工人党秘书长刘程强（后港区议员）发言时也借题发挥，大谈集选区制度弊端，结果遭议长屡次指责，要他言归正传，把话题转回补选课题。 　　他批评在推行集选区制度后，行动党候选人都在许多集选区不战而胜，导致“有选举而选民无法投票”情况出现。 　　他也不认为新加坡需要靠集选区制度来确保国会有少数种族代表。 　　“吴作栋资政在担任总理期间，就尝试为集选区重新注解。他说，集选区制度能够让执政党一些知名度不高但素质一流的候选人，避开能言善道但没真才实料的反对党候选人的挑战，顺利进入国会，因此符合国家的利益。行动党这种思维，严重侮辱了新加坡人的智慧。这等于告诉新加坡人：你们没有足够的智慧判断候选人的优劣，给你们选票也选不出好的领导人，行动党只好勉为其难，通过集选区制度帮你们选。”　　虽然他和林瑞莲都认为，议席悬空后，补选不应该无限期拖延，但他们都没投票支持动议。刘程强起身离开时，还和坐在他对面的副总理兼内政部长黄根成聊了起来，说他投反对票是他只认同半项动议。 Easy Access To Foreign Labour, Home Team And Immigration And Checkpoints Authority (Shortage of officers), Legal Profession (Amendment) Bill Sitting Date: 26 Aug 2008EASY ACCESS TO FOREIGN LABOUR IN SERVICE INDUSTRIESMs Sylvia Lim asked the Acting Minister for Manpower whether easy access to foreign labour in service industries is counterproductive to encouraging employers to upgrade the skills of Singaporeans and undermines Government retraining efforts in service industries.The Acting Minister for Manpower (Mr Gan Kim Yong): Sir, Singapore has limited local manpower. Foreign manpower has helped to augment our local workforce and enabled our economy to grow beyond our own indigenous workforce alone can support. Nevertheless, access to foreign labour is regulated. This is done through the dependency ratio as well as through the foreign worker levy. In services, for example, the dependency ratio is 50% with the foreign worker levy up to $450 for unskilled workers.The presence of foreign workers does not hamper the training of our workers. Based on a survey released by MOM last year, the level of employer-supported training has been rising from 2002 to 2006, a period when foreign employment also grew. In 2006, 72% of private sector establishments provided structured training to their employees, a substantial increase from the 52% in 2002.As I mentioned in yesterday's reply, the Government has invested heavily in Continuing Education and Training, or CET, programmes to help our local workers to upgrade their skills so that they can take on better jobs. Under the CET Masterplan, we have started by investing an additional $800 million into the Lifelong Learning Endowment Fund this year to ramp up our efforts significantly by expanding the number of good-quality training places in growth sectors. In 2007, the total number of persons who received training under the Workforce Skills Qualification (WSQ) system was 68,000, more than double the 31,000 persons trained in 2006. More specifically, 21,000 persons were trained in the services sector in areas such as food and beverage, tourism, retail and finance.Ms Sylvia Lim: Sir, two supplementary questions. In the MOM's recent annual report on wages released in 2008, it was reported that there was wage stagnation for the lowest income earners for the last 10 years and the economists attribute the presence of foreign workers as a downward pressure on residents' wages. Does the Minister agree with this assessment or that there is a cause-effect in this relationship?Secondly, in the Institute of Policy Studies Conference in 2007, economists noted that relaxed policies on foreign workers and the immigration have created a new economy where the lower wage workers are losing out. It was stated that large scale import of unskilled labour has its pros and cons and that we should do a detailed study on the cause and benefits of such policies. Is the Government indeed commissioning an independent study into this question? If so, could we have some details? And if not, why not?Mr Gan Kim Yong: Sir, let me explain. Wages of a job depends on several factors. Firstly, it depends on the value of the job, the skills involved, the knowledge content of the job, and it also depends on the productivity of respective workers, the affordability of a company to pay and the performance of the company. It also depends on the supply and demand of workers in the particular industry.For services, let me give you an example, since this question was on services. In 2007, total wages went up by 5.9% in the overall economy, and services sector wages went up by 6.5%. And services sector is a sector with a growing number of foreign workers in 2007, and therefore the hypothesis that foreign workers depress wages is a very simplistic conclusion which may not be true.Secondly, I would also like to share that there were certain segments in our employment market where these sectors tend to have more older people and these sectors include the labourers, the cleaners as well as contract workers. And these older workers, in the past, they have not been working. If you look at the employment rate of older workers, aged 55 to 64, the employment rate has improved significantly. Over the last three years, it went up by nine over percentage points to 56% last year.With this increase of supply of older workers who generally have a lower education level and lower skill sets, they tend to take on jobs that are easier to do and have lower entry barrier. As a result, the salary would generally be lower. We hope that we will be able to help these new workers to progress and upgrade. We do that through a number of measures. First, we try to engage these workers and reach out to them. We want to, first, encourage them to work. Therefore we want to provide a relatively easy entry point for these workers to come in and we give them the minimum skills so that they can start working and earn a decent income. After that, we want to find ways to reach out to them, to give them training and upgrading so that they can upgrade to a better job and earn better income. We also go through job redesign, to help redesign these jobs in the lower wage area, one example is the cleaning industry and another is the security industry, to enhance the values of these jobs. As I mentioned, wages also depend on the value of the job. And through enhancement and job redesign, we hope that the jobs would be able to pay better.Finally, even for these lower wage workers, we also, as my Senior Parliamentary Secretary mentioned just now, provide Workfare Income Supplement to help them improve their overall takings to support their family income. We have looked at the wage structure of our employment landscape. We think that it is more important for us to focus on training and upgrading. A very important question is, how can we improve our training and upgrading? Continue to press on with our CET, to equip our workers with skills, so that they can continually upgrade themselves and improve their income...Mr Speaker: Ms Lim, last question.Ms Sylvia Lim: Sir, the Minister has not answered my second question which was about the call by the economists at the IPS Conference for a detailed study to be done on the pros and cons of our current foreign worker policies, and my question was whether the Government is doing one or considering to do one and, if so, can we have some details. If not, why not?Mr Gan Kim Yong: Sir, I beg your pardon. I forgot about the second question. In fact, the Government has always been monitoring the effect of foreign workers on our overall employment market. We want to make sure that these foreign workers, while adding flexibility to our labour market, will not create problems for our local employees. As we can see, over the last few years, during the recession period, there was a significant reduction in the number of foreign workers and that is in response to the economic cycles. And during the same period, we also see the impact on local employment. Although the local employment has also come down, the extent is much smaller than the impact on foreign workers. So to answer Ms Lim's question specifically, there is no need to do an independent study. In fact, the Ministry is monitoring and studying the issue continuously because this is something that we need to respond and react quickly when the market changes. It is something that we will continue to monitor.HOME TEAM AND IMMIGRATION AND CHECKPOINTS AUTHORITY(Shortage of officers)Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs how long will the Government's study on Home Team resources take and whether interim measures are being put in place to ease the situation.Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs how far has the morale of the Home Team been affected by the recent security lapses and what are the implications of this on the security of Singapore.The Second Minister for Home Affairs (Mr K Shanmugam) (for the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs): Sir, with your leave, if I can take Question Nos. 3, 4 and 5 together?Mr Speaker: Yes.Mr Shanmugam: Sir, on 21st July 2008, I had said that the Ministry of Home Affairs has directed that a human factor study be conducted to look at operational fatigue, and the level of workload and resources within the Home Team. The questions raised by Mdm Halimah and Ms Lim on the morale and resource situation in the Home Team can be answered by looking at what the study has found so far.The Human Factor StudyIn July 2008, the Ministry of Home Affairs formed a committee ("Committee") comprising in-house psychologists and scientists to study the human factor situation within the Home Team.That Committee found that the fundamentals in Home Team are generally sound. Officers are committed to their work and they believe that they play an important role in keeping Singapore safe and secure. However, over the years, our officers have had to cope with increased workload, in terms of both sheer volume and complexity in the post-September 11 security climate. While work volume was high, many officers still feel that they can cope adequately with the demands of the work. But in some areas, the Committee found that officers felt overstretched, strained and stressed. Overtime and extra shift work were perpetually required, and officers had to cancel their leave to return to work. Many even had to give up some of their annual leave to meet the exigencies of service.The Committee also found that some of the most taxed areas of the Home Team are those that deal with the general public. Unfortunately, the experience of the officers has been that, from time to time, they encounter extremely demanding, unreasonable or even abusive members of the public as they discharge their duties.In general, the growths in population and traffic at the checkpoints have outstripped manpower growth in the Home Team. In some areas, this has taken its toll on our officers. Apart from the sheer volume increase, the Home Team also had to deal with new areas, such as in casino regulation and counter terrorism; and Terminal 3 and the Budget Terminal have added to the demands. Security coverage for major events, such as the IMF/ World Bank Annual Meeting in 2006 and the ASEAN Summit in 2007 has also been very taxing.In addition to the increased demands that I have listed, another pressure on manpower in the Home Team is that, in recent years, there have been more resignations due to the economic boom. Pay in the private sector became more attractive. However, the 2007 pay review for the civil service has helped to reduce the outflow.Morale situationMs Lim asked about the impact of the security lapses on the morale of the Home Team and the implications on the security of Singapore. Our officers take pride in their work. They know that Singaporeans expect high standards of them. There was disappointment that lapses occurred and a determination and resolve to do better. But there was also a strongly held view that some of the reactions to the errors were not proportionate. I had, on 21st July, tried to give a sense of how important it is to view security in its complexity and always in its operating context. It is important that we be fair to our officers, even as we expect the best from them.There has been intense scrutiny and at times harsh comments passed on the Home Team. But our officers are resilient. They remain dedicated to their work and are determined to set things right. Time and again, Home Team officers have performed well and risen to challenges under pressure. DPM Wong made an important speech in his recent National Day Observance. He gave his categorical assurance to Home Team officers that all of us appreciate their situation. He added that the Ministry will maintain a pragmatic balance and proper perspective when assessing their performance, rather than simply focusing on lapses only. Our officers have been greatly encouraged to know this.MeasuresMdm Halimah and Ms Lim asked what is being done to deal with the resource shortage. So far, we have tried to cope with the increased demands through outsourcing, introducing technological solutions and other such measures. However, in security work, these cannot be total solutions. People are at the centre of any security system and we need enough good officers to do the job.Recruitment and job redesignIn this regard, we have instructed the Home Team Departments to step up recruitment. We are also reviewing our employment criteria and job scopes to see if we can accept new sources of manpower in specific areas. For instance, we have already started re-employing retired officers. They are experienced and attuned to the needs of the organisation. If emplaced in the right jobs, they can start contributing straightaway once they are re-employed.Ensuring adequate resource levelsBut the fact remains that we will need more resources to cope with the increased demands. And the Ministry of Home Affairs has discussed this with MOF, and MOF has assured the Ministry of Home Affairs of its full support to ensure that the Home Team has adequate resources to meet these demands.The Committee of psychologists and scientists has also reviewed behavioural science studies that calibrate appropriate manning levels for various types of operational processes. The idea is to find the point where our officers feel sufficiently challenged and operate at peak efficiency, without feeling overwhelmed and fatigued. This is something which we think will be useful and serve as a basis for resource requisition.Mitigating human errorThe Committee has also done a best practice survey of the measures that can mitigate human errors and recommended them to the Home Team Departments. For instance, many industries, such as the US aviation sector, have a near miss reporting system. A near miss is an unplanned event that had the potential to go wrong. Identifying near misses allows problems to be surfaced and improvements to be made early. We are also looking into refining the existing system of "after action reviews" to ensure that mistakes and learning points are transmitted more thoroughly to all the officers on the ground. The Office of Chief Science and Technology Office in the Ministry of Home Affairs has also embarked on a review of system interfaces to make them more user friendly and compensate for human oversight.In conclusion, Sir, Home Team officers remain dedicated to the mission of keeping Singapore safe and secure. This is reflected in the sacrifices they have made over the years and continue to make every day. I am confident they will rise to meet the challenges ahead.Ms Sylvia Lim: Sir, the Minister mentioned just now in his answer that attrition among officers has risen due to private market being an alternative career. Has MHA also done any study on push factors that may have caused the officers to resign and what are the key push factors involved? Secondly, Sir, in the Minister's response during the Adjournment Motion at the last sitting, he mentioned the number of overtime hours clocked in by the immigration officers and that came as a surprise to most of us because it seemed quite a large number of overtime hours. Is the Ministry saying that there should actually be a certain number of overtime hours done by the immigration officers and what is the ideal range of overtime hours done or was it something that should have been picked up earlier and perhaps recruitment stepped up earlier?Mr Shanmugam: Sir, when we look at the resignation rate for our officers, for example, if you look at the senior officers, it has gone up from 3.2% to 3.7% and that of junior officers have in fact gone down from 3.7% to 2.3%. We will of course prefer fewer resignations but the situation, in broad terms, remains acceptable and we obviously have to compete with the market. I had said that in 2007, it was a booming market and the pay review has helped, and we believe that with redesignation of job scopes, to try and make it even more attractive and more aggressive recruitment campaign, this issue can be tackled.Secondly, as regards the overtime hours that have been put in, to some extent, as I have tried to explain in my earlier answer, this has been caused by the exigency of the situation. Some of it could have been planned for. A number of events could not be planned for, for example, our checkpoints are beginning to handle so many passengers, particularly the land checkpoints, that they are probably among the busiest in the world. And a number of the requirements, for example, the Woodlands Checkpoints, imposed on our officers cannot be planned for because the episodic demand surges. So it has resulted in our Home Team officers having to be deployed, for us to look carefully at resource allocations to bring officers from the checkpoints which are less busy to the busy areas, and require our officers to do overtime. That is one of the areas that was studied by the committee that was set up by the team of psychologists.In general terms, they have found that the stresses and strains within the system are within acceptable limits. But they have identified a few areas where they feel that we are not optimising the contact point between the stress that is necessary to make any job interesting and, at the same time, making sure that the officers are not over-stressed, and we will look at those.LEGAL PROFESSION (AMENDMENT) BILLMr Low Thia Khiang: Sir, it sounds to me that the Government's foreign talent policy has caught up with the legal profession. But I am not speaking on this issue as I believe that the lawyers are more than capable of speaking up for themselves.Sir, I refer to the proposed amendments to the disciplinary proceedings. A layman's representative used to sit at both the Inquiry Committee as well as the Disciplinary Committee will now be restricted to only the Inquiry Committee. Clause 34 of the Bill amends section 90(1) of the Act to say that the Disciplinary Committee will now consist of only two persons instead of four. The two persons who are dropped from the Committee are the Government legal officer and the layman. Although the Minister has explained briefly the changes in the disciplinary procedures, I think it is useful to recall the reasons why the layman was introduced to the process.Sir, in 1986, the then Second Minister for Law, Prof. Jayakumar, moved amendments to the Legal Profession Act to include lay persons to justify his move. He had said, and I quote, "At present, the persons who sit on the Inquiry Committee and the Disciplinary Committee are all lawyers. The errant member is therefore judged entirely by his peers. This is based on a traditional British practice of self-regulation which grew up in guilds of people in a particular trade, historically. In recent times, the permissive attitude of these self-regulating bodies have created doubts in their willingness to police themselves or to discipline members of their own kind." He continued to say that the inclusion of non-lawyers and of people who are regular users of the services of lawyers will help allay some of the apprehensions caused by the present inhouse nature of the disciplinary process. And the inclusion of lay persons or non-lawyers in the Disciplinary Committee would stop the belief that self-help and mutual forgiveness is the way lawyers maintain standards of professional conduct.Sir, are these concerns for mutual forgiveness and transparency no longer valid now? It is true that under the existing law, the lay persons at the Disciplinary Committee stage cannot vote. Nevertheless, he contributes to the deliberation of the Committee by reminding the Committee of how a client would perceive the event at hand. This would surely provide for a fuller, more informed discussion as to what is fair and just in the circumstances. Let us not forget that the Disciplinary Committee is a very important milestone in the disciplinary process. It is the gatekeeper of whether the lawyer under inquiry should face the court of three judges be struck off or suspended. Care should be taken at such an important stage and the laymen can make important contributions. If our experience has been that the laymen are too busy, perhaps, we should amend the Act to allow more people to qualify as laymen.==============================================ST, 27 Aug 2008Simplistic to say foreign workers depress local payBy Lee Siew Hua, Senior Political CorrespondentIT IS 'very simplistic' to take the position that foreign workers depress the wages of Singaporeans.Acting Manpower Minister Gan Kim Yong discredited this view yesterday in his reply to a question from Non-Constituency MP Sylvia Lim.She said: 'It was reported that there was wage stagnation for the lowest income earners for the last 10 years, and the economists attribute the presence of foreign workers as a downward pressure on residents' wages. Does the minister agree with this assessment?' Replying, Mr Gan noted that foreign workers form a big and growing pool in the services industry. Yet its wages were comparatively better.'In 2007, total wages went up by 5.9 per cent in the overall economy. Services sector wages went up by 6.5 per cent, and this is a sector with growing numbers of foreign workers in 2007.'Therefore the hypothesis that foreign workers depress wages is a very simplistic conclusion which may not be true,' he argued. Ms Lim also cited an Institute of Policy Studies conference last year, at which economists called for a detailed study of Singapore's foreign-worker policies. Will the Government do it, she asked. Mr Gan said the Government constantly monitors the impact of foreign workers on the job market.'We want to make sure that these foreign workers, while adding flexibility to our labour market, will not create a problem for our own local employees.'This flexibility can be seen during a recession, when there would be a 'significant reduction' of these workers. But for local employment, the extent of the decline was 'much smaller', he said.There was no need to do an independent study, he said, adding that his ministry monitors and studies the issue 'continuously because...we need to react quickly when the market changes'.Ms Lim also asked if easy access to foreign workers in the services sector dissuaded bosses from upgrading the skills of locals. Similarly, Madam Ho Geok Choo (West Coast GRC) asked if bosses think hiring Singaporeans would result in 'a loss of productive time' as they have to be sent for training.Mr Gan replied: 'The presence of foreign workers does not hamper the training of our workers.'A survey his ministry did last year shows the level of employer-supported training has been rising from 2002 to 2006 - 'a period when foreign employment also grew'.He reiterated that Singapore has limited local manpower, adding: 'Foreign manpower has helped to augment our local workforce and enabled our economy to grow beyond what our indigenous workforce alone can support.'BALANCING ACT'We want to make sure that these foreign workers, while adding flexibility to our labour market, will not create a problem for our own local employees.' Acting Manpower Minister Gan Kim Yong早报26/09/2008低薪工人工资十年不变 归咎于廉价外劳不正确把导致低薪工人工资十年不变的原因归咎于廉价外籍工人并不正确，人力部代部长颜金勇指出，低教育水平和低技能才是造成年长低薪工人的工资无法提升的主要导因，所以政府积极透过培训、工作改造和就业入息补助等多项措施，让他们能争取到更好的工作和待遇。　　颜金勇是针对非选区议员林瑞莲的提问做出答复。人力部今年7月发表的《2007年新加坡工资报告》反映低薪与高薪者之间的收入差距继续扩大，而低薪工人的工资更是十年不变。　　林瑞莲说，一些经济学者认为本地工人的工资因为外劳的出现而被压低，另外也有学者在政策研究院（IPS）最近主办的一项论坛上提到，政府放宽外劳和移民政策所创造出的新经济环境令低薪工人吃亏。　　颜金勇反驳外籍工人压低本地工人工资的论点，并指出这是个“过于简单化的结论”。他以外籍工人比例不断上升的服务业为例，说明外籍工人的出现不但没有压低反而促使该行业员工的工资呈强劲增长。　　本地去年整体平均工资增长幅度是5.9％，服务业员工的工资增幅则高达6.5％。　　颜金勇指出，工资最低的清洁、劳务和合约领域一般雇用较多年长工人，这些工人有些可能以前没有就业，教育水平和技能水平都不高，所以主要从事较简易、入行门槛不高的工作，而这些工作的工资向来偏低。　　他强调，政府已经采取措施，为他们提供培训、提升他们的技能、改造低薪工作，帮助他们投入一些高增值的工作，以赚取更高的工资。清洁和保安就是其中两个经历工作改造的行业。　　受访的学者也同意外劳并非导致低薪工人工资被压低的原因。　　新加坡国立大学应用与政策经济中心主任山得锐（Shandre M Thangavelu）认为，随着我国制造业朝高增值发展，许多被裁退的制造业工人只好转而投入入行门槛较低的服务业，问题是像零售业的工作大多没有竞争力，所以工资很难获得提升。山得锐指出，以人手短缺的海事业为例，它的工资并不低，但是本地人却不愿加入这一行，业者必须雇用外籍工人来维持竞争力。　　他认为，政府已经推出多项计划为低薪工人提供培训，低薪工人要争取更好的工资，就应该把握这些培训机会。Liberalisation of legal profession worries lawyer-MPsBy Lydia Lim, Senior Political CorrespondentOPPOSITION Member of Parliament Low Thia Khiang neatly summed up yesterday's main debate when he declared dryly that 'the Government's foreign talent policy has caught up with the legal profession'. The House yesterday passed the Legal Profession (Amendment) Bill. It paves the way for the opening up of the legal services sector, which has long been insulated from foreign competition.Six of the nine MPs who joined the debate are practising lawyers.Unsurprisingly, perhaps, three of them rose to express their concern that the liberalisation would lead to local firms being marginalised.Leading the charge was Mr Sin Boon Ann (Tampines GRC), who said that foreign firms, with their bigger names and deeper pockets, would cream off the best young lawyers and leave local firms bereft of top talent.He also cited Hong Kong as an example of a market where the dominance of foreign firms had stunted the growth of local firms, and prevented their development into major regional or international players.'We know it because unlike before, our first preference when it comes to engaging Hong Kong law firms these days are the international firms and not the local ones,' Mr Sin said.Mr Hri Kumar Nair (Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC) seconded that view.With 17 years of practice under his belt, he expressed confidence that Singapore's best legal minds 'are more than a match' for their counterparts in the top international firms.'But the glitter and the deep pockets that these foreign firms have will present local firms with serious issues,' he said.Some clients will engage foreign firms for high-end corporate work simply on the basis of their name and standing, he predicted.'Today, Singapore firms get involved in international deals to advise on Singapore law issues. By this involvement, our local firms build up their skills and expertise. Now there's a serious risk that they will be bypassed,' he said.The new law allows a few selected foreign firms to practise certain types of Singapore law, through Singapore-qualified lawyers.Mr Sin, Mr Nair and Mr Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah GRC) asked Law Minister K.Shanmugam if he was sure that the liberalisation would grow the economic pie for everyone, and not just for the foreign big boys.Yesterday's debate stood out from many others heard in the House because it is rare for a policy to hit PAP MPs so directly where it hurts - their pockets.For once, these MPs were not speaking on behalf of poor and underprivileged constituents hard hit by restructuring. They were speaking up for themselves.Economic restructuring has been part of the local landscape for a decade but the lawyer-politicians on the backbench are only now feeling its shockwaves.It seems fitting that the only other legislation passed yesterday was the Skills Development Levy (Amendment) Bill, which widens the scope of the levy beyond the upgrading needs of low-skilled workers to include the training needs of all workers.Acting Manpower Minister Gan Kim Yong explained that with 'economic restructuring, faster skills obsolescence and shorter job tenures, every worker, regardless of educational or skills level, must continually upgrade and update his skills in order to stay relevant and do his work better'.Yesterday's debate showed that those at the top are no less resistant than those at the bottom to change that forces them out of their comfort zone.In his response to the lawyer-MPs, Mr Shanmugam stressed that in making policy decisions, one has to 'leave aside emotion' and focus on where the benefits to Singapore, as a whole, lie.Did it lie in protecting local firms, or in opening up the market and 'allowing broader competition and broader choice to our young lawyers, and hoping that one day, both in the foreign law firms and in Singapore law firms, you will have a substantial number of Singapore qualified lawyers at management positions, and as a result create a more vibrant economic legal market?''When that calculation comes through, it cannot be dominated by emotion,' he said.The reality is that globalisation will leave no one untouched.And the faster Singaporeans of all income and education levels wake up to that fact, the better.As Mr Nair acknowledged, lawyers in local firms will just have to face up to the challenge of making themselves relevant in a globalised economy.'Some will succeed, others may not, but all must be prepared for change,' he said.早报，27 Aug 2008咖啡阿嫂与律师● 游润恬　　咖啡阿嫂和顶尖律师事务所的合伙人，想不到还有一个相同的苦恼——大家都面对外来的竞争。　　本地律师事务所长期垄断国内法律市场，以往外国律师不能上庭，而处理涉及新加坡法律的案件时也受到一定的限制。不过，这个竞争空间即将经历翻天覆地的改变。　　律政部去年接纳了由最高法院上诉庭法官VK拉惹领导的九人委员会所提呈的报告，决定开放法律服务业，以维护国家的整体发展利益。如此一来，实力雄厚的外国律师事务所将对本地大型律师事务所构成最直接的威胁。　　有趣的状况出现了：国会里从事律师业的议员们是会帮着同行大声打报不平，还是会以理智的声音去呼吁同行坦然面对竞争？　　本地四大律师事务所之一的德尊（Drew & Napier）的两名董事，即议员陈文安（淡滨尼集选区）和哈里古玛（碧山—大巴窑集选区），昨天都在国会对法律专业（修正）法案进行二读时，表现了对外国律师事务所进军本地市场的抗拒。　　他们指出，外国律师事务所以高薪招揽优秀的年轻律师，加剧了本地律师事务所人才难求的局面。另外，外国律师事务所知名度较高，还可能抢走本地律师事务所的生意，本地律师斗不过“过江龙”，也只好靠边站。　　这两名议员锲而不舍地跟律师出身的律政部长尚穆根辩论，使议事厅仿佛变成了控辩双方雄辩的法庭。陈文安呼吁政府不能牺牲本地人的利益，以及不应采取“不惜一切去发展经济”的政策。他形容本地律师事务所为“新加坡团队”，还认为一旦到了紧要关头，外国律师事务所必定会牺牲新加坡的利益。他也不忍心看着多年来与新加坡一起成长的本土律师楼在历史课本上沦为不起眼的脚注，并且表示开放市场对本地律师事务所是“致命的一拳”。　　这些煽情的话语，听起来和本地工人抗拒外来工人的论调似曾相识。反对党议员刘程强（后港区）就一针见血地表示：“看来律师们也开始感受到政府欢迎外来人才政策所带来的后果。”　　政府是公平的。当咖啡嫂埋怨生计被中国啤酒女郎抢走时，政府请她们接受外来人才能加大经济大饼的事实。当担任律师的议员们纷纷对让外国律师事务所进军本地市场表示抗拒时，政府也请他们务必接受经济开放和全球化所带来的挑战。尚穆根表示他体谅律师们的顾虑，但是从国家政策的角度来看，开放律师业不但能满足金融界的需要，并提高国内生产总值，还能为本地年轻律师提供更多更诱人的就业机会。　　他指出，政府不能为了保护少数大型律师事务所和它们的高级合伙人，而牺牲掉多数人的利益。他也强调政府其实早在九年前就暗示将开放法律服务市场，本地律师事务所应该有充足的时间作好备战准备。Black sheep? Baa to thatBy K.C. Vijayan, Law CorrespondentARE there really many black sheep in the legal profession?Dr Teo Ho Pin, chairman of the Government Parliamentary Committee for Law and Home Affairs, annoyed those among his colleagues who are lawyers yesterday when he portrayed those in the profession as guilty of an 'increasing trend' of misdemeanours.He pointed to a recent Straits Times report which listed the country's top 10 fugitives in terms of money stolen. Six are lawyers.These cases affect the professionalism and integrity of the legal profession, he said, while highlighting complaints from his residents involving lawyers. These related to gross overcharging, misleading statements and other forms of misconduct.'This increasing trend of lawyers' misconduct and complaints is disturbing and of concern to the general public,' he said.His remarks drew stinging rebuttals from four lawyers in the House.Mr Hri Kumar Nair (Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC) said: 'It's because a vast majority of lawyers are honest and honourable that when one falls, it makes the news and the public expresses its surprise and outrage...I think we will really be in trouble when lawyers fall and no one really thinks much about it.'Once that was cleared up, they turned their discussion to the new composition of the disciplinary tribunal which hears cases against errant lawyers.One change to the Legal Profession Act passed yesterday aims to speed up the disciplinary hearings against lawyers by introducing a two-member disciplinary tribunal to replace the current four-man panel.Two MPs voiced concerns about the composition of the tribunal. Rather than just two members, they suggested three.Mr Nair noted that if the two members disagreed, the decision of the tribunal's president - who is either a Senior Counsel, retired judge or Judicial Commissioner - would prevail. This meant the fate of the lawyer would be 'in the hands of one person'.The initial plan was for a one-man tribunal, but it was changed to two after strong objections by the Law Society.Mr Low Thia Khiang (Hougang) questioned the exclusion of laymen from the new tribunal.In 1986, a layman was made part of the four-member tribunal. The then Second Law Minister S. Jayakumar said that this was to stop the 'belief that self-help and mutual forgiveness is the way lawyers maintain the standards of professional conduct'. Mr Low asked if these concerns were no longer valid. Replying to Mr Low's point, Law Minister K. Shanmugan said tribunal hearings are 'quasi-criminal', with 'everything recorded'. In addition, 20 years of experience of having a layman on the tribunal showed that this delayed proceedings.The need for statutory declarations to support complaints lodged against lawyers was also queried. Nominated MP Gautam Banerjee called it an 'unnecessary inconvenience' and 'intimidating' to the layman.But Mr Shanmugam said: 'A complainant who has a genuine complaint is unlikely to be deterred by this requirement.'What it would deter would be the 'large number' of people who just want to file a complaint but do not believe in their facts, he said.The requirement for a statutory declaration already exists for complaints against doctors, architects and engineers, he noted. Elections (Amendment ) Bill, Obtaining Blood Samples From Foreign Workers In Aftermath Of Attack (Legal basic) Sitting Date: 25 Aug 2008ORDER PAPER:Ms Sylvia Lim: To ask the Acting Minister for Manpower whether easyaccess to foreign labour in service industries is counterproductive toencouraging employers to upgrade the skills of Singaporeans andundermines Government retraining efforts in service industries.Ms Sylvia Lim: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for HomeAffairs how long will the Government’s study on Home Team resourcestake and whether interim measures are being put in place to ease thesituation.Ms Sylvia Lim: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for HomeAffairs how far has the morale of the Home Team been affected by therecent security lapses and what are the implications of this on the securityof Singapore.QUESTIONS FOR WRITTEN ANSWERMs Sylvia Lim: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for HomeAffairs if he will clarify the legal basis for the police to take blood samplesfrom about 200 foreign workers in the aftermath of the attack on auniversity student at Clementi Woods Park in June 2008.================================================Sitting Date: 25 Aug 2008ELECTIONS (AMENDMENT) BILLMs Sylvia Lim (Non-Constituency Member): Sir, the proposed relaxations to increase the catchment of overseas voters are a step in the right direction, in particular, section 5 eases the residency requirement from two years out of five to 30 days out of three years which should enable more to qualify. However, I would like to seek two clarifications from the Deputy Prime Minister about the amendments. First of all, the definition of "overseas polling station" has now been expanded to cover the official residence of our diplomats. And based on his Second Reading speech earlier, are we to assume that the increase in polling stations is still confined, for example, to the political capitals of the countries in question? Second, is there any plan in the near future to explore other countries which are not currently listed? I understand that there are a fair number of Singaporeans, for example, in other countries such as New Zealand and India. Would those countries be considered in the medium term?Secondly, Sir, there is also the provision, section 39A, which remains unchanged that the polls overseas should not close later than the poll in Singapore which, I think, is a very right step. Is the Government considering closing the overseas polls early enough so that the overseas votes can be sent back to Singapore in time for counting to be combined with the local votes? As I previously said, this is important for voter anonymity, especially in smaller constituencies where the number of overseas voters may be very small.Lastly, Sir, I was also intending to raise issues concerning by-elections in the Group Representation Constituencies which are covered under the Parliamentary Elections Act. However, as there has been a motion filed by the Nominated Member, I will be raising my comments at that time.Mr Wong Kan Seng: Sir, I thank the Members for supporting the amendments in this Bill. I will answer the questions raised by both Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Siew Kum Hong.Ms Lim asked whether we could expand the number of overseas polling stations or not. Right now, we have nine. There are certain basic criteria we have to consider before we decide to open an overseas polling station. Firstly, we must have a Mission in that particular country. Secondly, we must have enough Singaporeans living in that country. And, thirdly, if the election is to be held in a particular city, we also must have enough mass in that particular city. What are the numbers we look at? If we have 10,000 Singaporeans living in a country, say, China, definitely, we will have a polling station in China. If there are more than 1,000 Singaporeans in cities like Beijing and Shanghai, we will have an overseas polling station in these two cities. Short of that, it is hard to justify opening an overseas polling station because it does require a lot of planning and resources to deal on the actual day of polling. So from the studies we have made, I think the expansion to the current list of nine cities is enough. If there is a need to do more, we will look at them and see what more can be done to open up more polling stations.On advancing the end of poll for overseas polling stations, I have explained before that it will shorten the time for overseas voters to make an informed decision. I have just heard Mr Siew saying that five days of campaigning is the same as nine days of campaigning, so why not close four days earlier. I am not sure if the Opposition will agree with that. I think we all want to have as much time as possible to put our views across. The timing right now to close the poll for overseas station no later than we close the poll for the Singapore station is a correct one. We will see how else we can deal with the situation of too few voters in a particular constituency. But as more Singaporeans go overseas to work and register themselves to vote, then the chances are that many of them will come from a particular constituency, and therefore the question of secrecy or anonymity of the vote will no longer arise. In fact, even if there are five overseas Singaporeans who voted for a particular constituency, nobody can tell really how the five individual members actually voted other than to know that maybe X number for one party and Y number for another party. Beyond that, who voted for who is anybody's guess. I think the Opposition Member, Mr Low Thia Khiang himself, also once agreed with me that the vote is secret and we cannot really tell.On the eligibility criteria, I have explained that. Mr Siew is quite happy with the change. His suggestion about Government funding the polling agent to go to a polling station overseas is something that we will not need to do, because there is no law compelling any party to send any polling agent to the polling station. It is not compulsory. They do not have to do it. In fact, there are some parties that could not even have enough polling agents for the Singapore elections. So we do not see the need to spend public money to send the Opposition or PAP polling agent to an overseas station. We should trust the integrity of the election process and, so far, there has been no complaint. People know that our election is fair and transparent and it is not an issue at all not to have polling agents to oversee it. If the party wants to do so, I think they are free to spend whatever they need or even to appoint somebody overseas as their polling agent. But, again, that must be subject to the availability of space in a particular overseas polling station because, as we know, Singapore is quite frugal. We do not have large Missions like some countries and, therefore, we may not be able to find enough space to accommodate all the parties that want to send their polling agents to those countries.On the last question of contingency plans, these are still being worked out. This particular Bill only deals with overseas voting and registration for overseas voting.WRITTEN ANSWERS TO QUESTIONSOBTAINING BLOOD SAMPLES FROM FOREIGN WORKERS IN AFTERMATH OF ATTACK(Legal basis)Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs if he will clarify the legal basis for the police to take blood samples from about 200 foreign workers in the aftermath of the attack on a university student at Clementi Woods Park in June 2008.Mr Wong Kan Seng: In the course of police investigations into a reported case of sexual assault at Clementi Woods Park on 18th June 2008, body samples were taken from foreign workers working at nearby construction sites. This involved taking blood samples after the workers had voluntarily given their consent.The legal basis for this is found in section 13D of the Registration of Criminals Act, which provides that a person may give a body sample, which includes a blood sample, on a voluntary basis if the person was present at the scene of a crime when it was committed, or if the person is being questioned in connection with the investigation of a crime.================================================ST, 26 Aug 2008Workers gave blood samples voluntarilyTHE 200 foreign workers who gave blood samples to police officers investigating a sexual assault case in Clementi did so voluntarily.In a written reply to a question from Non- constituency MP Sylvia Lim, Home Affairs Minister Wong Kan Seng explained that samples taken from foreign construction workers after the June 18 incident in Clementi Woods Park were obtained with the workers' consent.Ms Lim had asked what the legal basis was for the taking of those samples.Mr Wong pointed to provisions under the Registration of Criminals Act which stipulate that someone being questioned in connection with a crime, or who was present at the scene when a crime was committed, may give a body sample on a voluntary basis. Mas Selamat Kastari (whereabouts), Gaming Activities, Security Lapses & Public Confidence, Emigration of S'poreans, Emergency Ambulance Services ORDER PAPERMONDAY, 21ST JULY, 2008Ms Sylvia Lim: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for HomeAffairs (a) whether the Government has received and verified anyinformation that Mas Selamat Kastari is now in Indonesia; and (b) what ishis assessment of such an outcome on the reputation of Singapore.Ms Sylvia Lim: To ask the Acting Minister for Manpower whether easyaccess to foreign labour in service industries is counterproductive toencouraging employers to upgrade the skills of Singaporeans andundermines Government retraining efforts in service industries.Ms Sylvia Lim: To ask the Minister for Health how many persons are onthe waiting list for places in subsidised nursing homes particularly thoseoffering dementia care and what is the affordability of such care inSingapore.QUESTIONS FOR WRITTEN ANSWERMs Sylvia Lim: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for HomeAffairs (a) how many Singapore citizens emigrated from Singapore in thelast 3 years and which countries did they emigrate to; and (b) if available,what are their reasons for leaving Singapore.Ms Sylvia Lim: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for HomeAffairs what is the rationale for outsourcing emergency ambulanceservices to the private sector and what are the risks to Singaporeans ofsuch a move.==============================================ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONSMAS SELAMAT KASTARI(Information on whereabouts)Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether the Government has received and verified any information that Mas Selamat Kastari is now in Indonesia; and (b) what is his assessment of such an outcome on the reputation of Singapore.Mr Wong Kan Seng: Mr Speaker, Sir, our security agencies have been working and will continue to work very closely with their foreign intelligence and security counterparts. These include Indonesian counterparts with whom ISD have had several successes in the apprehension of Jemaah Islamiah fugitives including Mas Selamat himself in February 2003. The Indonesian authorities' recent arrest of a group of terrorists, including a Singaporean, in Palembang demonstrates the usefulness of cooperation with foreign security counterparts.Up till now, our security agencies have not received any information from their Indonesian counterparts to confirm that Mas Selamat is presently hiding in Indonesia. Neither do we have domestic intelligence that shows that he has left the country.Nevertheless, we obviously cannot dismiss the possibility that Mas Selamat could have managed to escape Singapore for another country. Singapore is not a fortress. As an island, our borders are porous. There can be no 100% control over all illegal exit and entry even if our enhanced security operations have kept this to a minimum. I am not aware of any country that can prevent with absolute certainty illegal entry or exit across the length of its borders over time.We will do our utmost to find Mas Selamat whatever it takes. If Mas Selamat has escaped abroad, we will work with the relevant foreign counterparts to track him down and bring him back into custody in Singapore. We have done it before; we will do it again.We will also continue to work on all possible scenarios. In this regard, although there is no intelligence at present to substantiate it, as more time passes, this scenario of Mas Selamat being harboured by sympathisers inside or outside Singapore must logically be treated as increasingly plausible.Sir, two private individuals have approached the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) and offered to put up a cash reward of $1 million for information leading to the apprehension of Mas Selamat inside or outside Singapore. They have asked MHA to operationalise their proposal because they wish to remain anonymous as they are concerned over the prospect of themselves, their families or business interests in the region becoming a target for retaliation.Sir, this is not the first time a bounty has been offered for information on Mas Selamat. In March, a labour-supply company and a non-government organisation offered $50,000 and $5,000 respectively for information on Mas Selamat. A security firm offered $1,000 to its staff to help track him down.As a policy, the Singapore Police Force does not offer cash reward for information on fugitives and unsolved crimes, or for assistance from the public. However, we do not object if private corporations and individuals wish to offer cash reward for information on the whereabouts of Mas Selamat.We are encouraged by such continued public support. We remain committed to finding and capturing Mas Selamat no matter how long it takes. We have done it before and we will do it again.Ms Sylvia Lim (Non-Constituency Member): Sir, four supplementary questions for the Deputy Prime Minister (DPM). First question is, whether there is any fresh intelligence that the Government has obtained that Mas Selamat is still in Singapore. Second question is, security analysts have observed that Indonesia is a logical place for Mas Selamat to escape to. In fact, as early as 1st March 2008, which is a few days after the escape, there were some analysts predicting that he already fled to Indonesia via a speedboat to Bintan. I would like the DPM's assessment whether this is a likely scenario. Third question, about one month after the escape, the DPM had said that his Ministry would examine if there are sufficient legal powers within Singapore territorial waters to do effective searches or whether the law will need to be amended. I would like the DPM to update us on this. And last of all, Sir, the Interpol Chief had commented in the aftermath of this case that when it comes to such escapes, the first hours are crucial and it is now being five months since the escape. I would like the Minister to tell the House whether he has changed his assessment of the likelihood of recapturing Mas Selamat in Singapore.Mr Wong Kan Seng: Sir, I have just said that we do not have any fresh intelligence to show that he is still in Singapore or he has left. We have no intelligence to show that he has already left and that there is also no intelligence from our foreign counterparts to show that he has already gone to another country. As regards the security analyst's assessment, that is his assessment and we do not have intelligence to confirm it.On the legal powers of searches, I think Ms Lim might have read about what I said some time ago regarding the legal powers of searches for vessels at sea. Right now, the Police have powers to search whenever they need to, and we do not think we need more powers in this regard. On what the Interpol Chief had said that the first hour is crucial, that is also his opinion. I am sure he is a professional and I believe that he has his own basis to make this comment. As far as we are concerned, we have done what we could during the first hour and we could not find him.SINGAPORE TOTALISATOR BOARD (AMENDMENT) BILLMs Sylvia Lim: Sir, under the existing Act, the Minister's approval is required before the Board can conduct gaming activities and the Minister approves schemes and may impose conditions on any gaming activity. Clauses 4 and 6 of the Bill collectively remove the need for Ministerial approval. It seems that the Board is now given a freer hand to decide what kind of gaming activities are carried out and under what conditions. For instance, it appears that it can decide the rules of the game, how to calculate dividends and what kind of credit facilities will be available.I would like to ask for clarification on the following:(a) What was the original rationale for requiring Ministerial approval in the first place? Was it due to a need to supervise the gaming industry to safeguard the public interest?(b) By removing the need for Ministerial approval, is the Government giving the Board more liberty to promote gaming as it sees fit? Is it foreseeable that gaming would proliferate society further, more addictive forms of gaming may arise and credit will be made more easily available? Are we putting society at greater risk with this approach?Mrs Lim Hwee Hua: Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to thank the Members for their comments and support of the Bill.As regards Ms Sylvia Lim's point about the liberty that is seemingly given to the Minister in varying the Scheme, let me assure her that this is actually a balance between trying to enable the Turf Club to exercise flexibility and to respond better to challenges. But the Club would still need regulatory approval for the introduction of new gambling products or, for that matter, changes to regulatory conditions. So, there would be no concern over the proliferation of newer products. This will just be simply variations of the existing rules that are allowed...SECURITY LAPSES AND PUBLIC CONFIDENCEMs Sylvia Lim: Sir, Mas Selamat's escape is an embarrassment and, together with the recent lapses, this has actually led some members of the public to ask whether MHA is breaking down.However, for each of these breaches, there are many other times when security was successfully provided. The nature of security is such that successful security operations are unnoticed, precisely because nothing eventful happened.Accordingly, we must not lose our perspective. At the same time, the Government owes a duty to the public to account for these lapses honestly and holistically. What I think is constructive in the long run is to step back and have a thorough review of the increasing demands on MHA, the resources needed and how to ensure that the public interest is protected.There are three questions which come to mind:(1) Are these incidents signs that MHA has work overload? I am aware of how heavily deployed the Home Team has been in recent years. Ever since 911, many Home Team officers have been deployed for counter-terrorism activities. While we seek to promote Singapore as a centre for meetings, conventions and exhibitions, every IMF meeting, every F1 Night Race is an added strain. Meanwhile, the public continues to seek police assistance every minute. We can try to leverage on NSmen, reservists or private-sector partners, but there are limitations to this.(2) The population has expanded to 4.7 million and is expected to breach the six-million mark. This will surely strain our social services, including those under the Home Team. We need more police officers, more firefighters, more immigration officers. What has been done to ensure that recruitment is keeping pace with the increased population?(3) Outsourcing of Home Team functions to auxiliary police and private security companies has become necessary. As jobs become divided and farmed out, coordination of security operations becomes more complex. There will be differences in organisational culture and mindset between a regular Home Team officer, auxiliary police and private-sector guards. Just as we have seen in Mas Selamat's escape, will each person be so focused on their area of work to the detriment of the final outcome? How smooth is the interface between the different agencies and how is this being monitored?EMIGRATION OF SINGAPOREANSMs Sylvia Lim asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs (a) how many Singapore citizens emigrated from Singapore in the last 3 years and which countries did they emigrate to; and (b) if available, what are their reasons for leaving Singapore.Mr Wong Kan Seng: Persons who emigrate generally do not declare this to the Immigration & Checkpoints Authority (ICA) when they leave. The only available data which gives an indication of the number of emigrants from Singapore is the number of Singaporeans who have given up their citizenship and left Singapore.Over the last 3 years, an average of about 1,000 Singapore citizens renounced their Citizenship each year. The reasons for renouncing Singapore Citizenship vary, ranging from marriage to foreigners, to yearning for a different environment.Most of the Singapore citizens who renounced their Citizenship took up new citizenship in countries in Southeast-Asia, the United States of America and Australia.EMERGENCY AMBULANCE SERVICES(Rationale for outsourcing to private sector)Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs what is the rationale for outsourcing emergency ambulance services to the private sector and what are the risks to Singaporeans of such a move. Mr Wong Kan Seng: Outsourcing of Government functions is not new. In 2003, the public sector embarked on a best sourcing exercise to incrementally market test functions provided by Government departments and statutory boards. The objective is to derive the best value without compromising service delivery to the public.In the case of the Emergency Ambulance Service (EAS), the number of calls has been escalating over the years. In 2004, the Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) EAS responded to 82,870 calls. By 2007, the total number of EAS escalated to 109,459, an increase of more than 30%. The elderly, aged 65 and above, accounted for 30% of all EAS calls. MHA expects the demand for EAS to continue to increase in the coming years with the ageing population. There is hence, a need to increase the supply of EAS services to meet the specific needs of the users.SCDF emergency ambulances and crew are costly and highly geared resources designed to handle not only EAS cases but also extreme crises, including biological and chemical terrorist incidents. For 2007, almost 60% of all EAS calls were non-critical medical cases, which do not require the high competency level of SCDF’s EAS. The outsourcing of such cases to competent private providers is hence a viable option without compromising service delivery. These private providers will be managed by SCDF and augment its current fleet to meet the rapid rise in demand for ambulance services. By providing a calibrated service, they will help keep costs manageable.Interested operators will be put through a rigorous and stringent selection process. Private providers selected to augment SCDF’s fleet will also be required to retrofit ambulances and hire crew according to almost similar specifications as per SCDF ambulances and crew. The standards required to be met by private ambulance operators are currently being reviewed jointly by MOH and SCDF, and the revised guidelines will ensure that all ambulances and crew will be equipped to handle medical emergencies for which they are despatched. Selected private operators will also be required to meet the same performance standard of reaching the incident site within 11 minutes, 80% of the time. Their ambulances and crew would also be subjected to regular stringent audits as is practised today for SCDF.To help ensure a steady pool of proficient fresh hires, SCDF collaborated with the Institute of Education (ITE) in 2007 on a 3-year dual certification programme in Nursing as well as Paramedic and Emergency Care. The first cohort is expected to graduate in 2009. The Civil Defence Academy will also provide training to operators to ensure that they are able to meet the required standards.===============================================ST, 21 Jul 20081,000 S'poreans give up citizenship each yearAN AVERAGE of about 1,000 Singapore gave up their citizenship each year in the last three years, said Home Affairs Minister Wong Kan Seng on Monday.The reasons they renounced their Singapore citizenship ranged from marriage to foreigners to yearning for a different environment, he said in his written reply to a question from from Non-Constituency MP Sylvia Lim, who wanted to know how many Singaporeans had emigrated in the last three years.Most of them took up new citizenship in countries in Southeast-Asia, the United States of America and Australia.Mr Wong said Singaporeans who emigrate generally do not declare this to the Immigration & Checkpoints Authority (ICA) when they leave.The only available data which gives an indication of the number of emigrants from Singapore is the number of Singaporeans who have given up their citizenship and left Singapore.ST, 22 Jul 2008Is MHA suffering from work overload, Sylvia asksShanmugam replies that ministry is looking at issues of operational fatigueBy Zakir Hussain IS THE Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) overstretched, as recent security lapses might suggest?In reply to this question from Non-Constituency MP Sylvia Lim, Second Minister for Home Affairs K. Shanmugam said his ministry was conducting a 'human factor' study to look into issues of operational fatigue.The study will also look at resources and manning levels in the Home Team and 'see if there are sub-optimal areas that need urgent attention'.Mr Shanmugam did not elaborate further on the study, but said the ministry was exploring whether it could continue to operate at current manpower levels.Contacted by The Straits Times, Mr Jay Jhaveri, Asia director for World-Check, a private-sector firm that maintains a database of high-risk persons and entities, said such a study would typically look at the issue of risk.'In areas where risks are greater, the study could identify where more technology or human resources or a combination of the two would have to be deployed,' he added.The study comes at a time when a number of Home Team agencies have been embarrassed by security lapses.In February, Jemaah Islamiah (JI) detainee Mas Selamat Kastari escaped from detention. In June, two robbery suspects escaped from police custody at the Subordinate Courts but were quickly apprehended.The same month, a 61-year-old retiree got past immigration controls at Changi Airport using his son's passport.Ms Lim, who is the chairman of the opposition Workers' Party and a polytechnic lecturer, acknowledged that for each of these breaches, there were many other times 'when security was successfully provided'. 'What I think is constructive...is to step back and have a thorough review of the increasing demands on the MHA, the resources needed and how to ensure that the public interest is protected,' she said.'I am aware of how heavily deployed the Home Team has been in recent years,' she added, citing counter-terrorism activities and the strain of hosting large-scale events like international conferences.She pointed to the growing population as another strain, as more firemen and police officers would be needed, for example.Mr Shanmugam acknowledged that the changed security landscape since the Sept 11, 2001, terror attacks on the United States had 'raised significant demands' on the Home Team.Front-line officers had been 'stretched and strained' on high alert since end-2001, he said.That was when the authorities uncovered a plot by JI members to mount attacks in Singapore.The total number of overtime hours clocked by Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) officers varies between 23,000 and 28,000 every month, Mr Shanmugam added.He also noted that last year, the ICA cleared some 143 million travellers through land, sea and air checkpoints, or close to 400,000 travellers each day. Of these, an average of five people carrying the wrong passports were detected every day.It also detected 37,800 cases of smuggling at the borders and more than 2,200 foreigners who tried to enter Singapore fraudulently. Singapore Dollar Policy(Inflation), Myanmar's Cyclone, Mas's Escape, Malay Village, Bail Court(Extent of success) QUESTIONS FOR ORAL ANSWERMs Sylvia Lim: To ask the Minister for Health how many persons are on the waiting list for places in subsidised nursing homes particularly those offering dementia care and what is the affordability of such care in Singapore.Ms Sylvia Lim: To ask the Minister for National Development (a) why the Malay Village has not been able to thrive since its inception; and (b) how the new plans to revamp it will be an improvement from the past.QUESTIONS FOR WRITTEN ANSWERMs Sylvia Lim: To ask the Minister for Law whether and to what extent the Bail Court constituted in 2007 has succeeded in (i) its aims; and (ii) more persons being released on bail pending investigations, trial or appeal.----------------------------------------------------------------------Sitting Date: 26 May 2008STRONG SINGAPORE DOLLAR POLICY(Impact on inflation and competitiveness)Mr Low Thia Khiang (Hougang) : Sir, the Minister said that the Government takes a multi-pronged approach to mitigate the high inflation in Singapore. But I thought there is one particular approach that the Minister had not considered or it is not up in the Government's sleeves and, that is, the tax-cut approach, for instance, cutting GST rate or petrol tax.Mr Lim Hng Kiang : Mr Speaker, Sir, our approach is aimed at the medium term. The GST adjustments that we put in are necessary to have a better balance between direct and indirect tax. So I do not think it is useful for us to tweak the GST tax rate in response to a short-term phenomenon which is the cost increases we face. I think we should look for an array of tools or instruments with a medium-term outlook.Ms Sylvia Lim (Non-Constituency Member): Sir, the Government had previously predicted that inflation would actually ease off in the second half of this year due to the effect of the GST hike last year being dissipated over the year. Given that now there is an unprecedented inflation in food and oil, does the Government see a risk in inflation rate in the second half of this year not actually easing off?Mr Lim Hng Kiang : Mr Speaker, Sir, that is still our central scenario, that is, in the second half of the year we should see an easing-off of inflationary pressure both for domestic reasons as well as for external reasons. For domestic reasons, because of the way we calculate the inflation, the impact of the GST, it would ease off after July and also the impact of the annual values of HDB flats. For external conditions, you can see that the sharp run-up of food prices, for example, the momentum ought to ease off towards the second half of the year or, at least, this is what most analysts are projecting. AFTERMATH OF CYCLONE NARGIS(Assistance measures by ASEAN and Singapore)Mr Low Thia Khiang: Thank you, Sir. I would like to ask, since Myanmar joined ASEAN, what contributions have Myanmar made to ASEAN and whether it value adds to ASEAN as an entity in its reputation internationally or rather it has become a burden to us.Mr Zainul Abidin Rasheed: Myanmar has already been accepted as a member of ASEAN, the ASEAN 10. Sometimes we wish that as though life can be so perfect that we want everything to be rosyand nice. But I think it is also part of our life challenge that when we have problems, we have to learn to cope with problems and those challenges. And I think ASEAN has proven that despite the setbacks we have faced in terms of some of the attitudes from countries that are outside ASEAN in wanting ASEAN to move faster in some areas, as far as Burma is concerned, wanting to put more pressure on Myanmar, I think we as a group has shown that we have our way of dealing with things, our ASEAN way. So, the fact that Myanmar continues to be a member of ASEAN to me is a contribution. As a group we want to remain united despite the challenges, despite the problems, we want to show that we can also work out the challenges but I think there are occasions where we need more time and better understanding. But more important, I think we need to build on trust and confidence between Myanmar and ASEAN, and also between Myanmar and the rest of the international community. MAS SELAMAT INCIDENT(Update on disciplinary actions against officers)Ms Sylvia Lim: Sir, I wonder if the DPM could clarify. For the officers who were eventually dismissed and demoted, were they given the opportunity to be represented by somebody during the proceedings, which is usually the case for such civil service proceedings?Mr Wong Kan Seng: Yes, The right to have somebody represent them. It is not just restricted to those who were dismissed. All officers who were charged for particular offences and they have to appear before a disciplinary board have right to get somebody to represent them.MALAY VILLAGE(Revamp) Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Minister for National Development (a) why the Malay Village has not been able to thrive since its inception; and (b) how the new plans to revamp it will be an improvement from the past. Mr Mah Bow Tan: The Malay Village site was sold to Malay Village Pte Ltd for a commercial development, on a 20-year lease which commenced on 27th September 1991. The lease will expire in 2011. It is a private development and Government has no hand in its operations. As such, I am not able to comment on its business performance.Under the new Draft Master Plan 08, which URA unveiled on 23rd May, the Paya Lebar area will be comprehensively redeveloped into a commercial hub called Paya Lebar Central, where new commercial floor space for retail, office and hotel use will be located.The site occupied by Malay Village will be re-parcelled for more optimal land use. A substantial portion of the site will be reserved for a new civic building that will house a variety of amenities, including a Community Club, the Community Development Council office, and possibly a Community Library. A new open plaza space, about the same size as the open atrium space at HDB Hub, will be created next to this civic building. This space will allow for community uses, including activities related to the Hari Raya celebrations. Another portion of the Malay Village site will make way for an improved road network to reduce traffic congestion in the area.To retain the ethnic character of the area, a new pedestrian mall will be created along Geylang Road to accommodate more stalls during the annual Hari Raya bazaar.In summary, the comprehensive redevelopment of Paya Lebar Central into a new sub regional commercial hub will allow us to cater to new commercial and civic uses, while retaining the rich Malay heritage of this area.BAIL COURT(Extent of success) Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Minister for Law whether and to what extent the Bail Court constituted in 2007 has succeeded in (i) its aims; and (ii) more persons being released on bail pending investigations, trial or appeal. Mr Shanmugam:(i) Whether the Bail Court has succeeded in its aims:The Bail Court was set up in 2007 in order to provide a dedicated process to deal with bail review applications by accused persons. Managed centrally by a judge, the Bail Court seeks to bring a consistent approach to bail conditions and quanta of bail set (with the aim generally to, where possible, reduce the bail amounts), reduce time spent in remand and ensure that review applications are dealt with expeditiously. At the same time, it was also intended that there would be an individualised and offender-specific assessment made for each bail review application. The setting up of a specialised Bail Court thus sought to strike a proper balance between the rights of the accused, the victim and public interest. I am informed by the Subordinate Courts that the Bail Court is meeting its stated objectives. Bail reviews are now conducted daily, from Monday to Friday. The extensive use of video-link facilities has speeded up applications by the accused or through his counsel. In about 30% of the cases it dealt with, the Bail Court has reduced and/or varied bail terms. The Subordinate Courts also work with the Criminal Legal Aid Scheme (CLAS) and the Association of Criminal Lawyers of Singapore (ACLS) to have volunteer lawyers present, where necessary, to assist the remandees in the bail review applications.The Subordinate Courts have published online the "Bail Guidelines", a comprehensive and useful guide on how bail decisions are made by the Courts, describing factors the Courts take into account, and the general bail formulae. To assist the general public, the Courts have provided information on the bail process and the responsibilities of a surety through the Subordinate Courts Practice Pamphlet.(ii) Whether more persons being released on bail pending investigations, trial or appeal:The Subordinate Courts have not kept the data of the number of persons released on bail prior to 2007. It may not be a meaningful exercise to compare whether more persons have been released now on bail compared with any previous year(s). Each bail application must turn on its own specific facts. Whether there is a successful application depends on a variety of factors including: whether an application for bail is made in the first place; the specific facts of the case, including the gravity of the offence; and the Court's assessment of the likelihood of the accused jumping bail. What the setting up of the Bail Court has done is to ensure that there is a dedicated and centrally managed process to deal with bail review applications, to achieve a consistent and expeditious approach towards such applications.Nevertheless, the Member may wish to know that from May 2007 (when the Bail Court was first set up) to April 2008, 5,981 cases were fixed for bail review in the Bail Court and 52% of the cases were bailed out (ie, 3,154 cases). The Subordinate Courts closely track the cases of accused persons who are not bailed out and try and ensure that such cases are disposed of fairly and efficiently.================================================= ST 27 May 2008Inflation will ease in second half of yearSURGING inflation will ease in the second half of the year despite spikes in global food and oil prices, said Trade and Industry Minister Lim Hng Kiang.He was responding to a question from Non-Constituency MP Sylvia Lim yesterday on the inflation outlook for this year.Mr Lim said: 'It is still our central scenario for an easing off of inflation in the second half of the year. Domestically, the impact of the goods and services tax (GST) rise will ease off in July, while externally, the run-up on food prices is expected to ease in the second half.'The Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) and the Monetary Authority of Singapore revised their full-year inflation forecast last week to between 5 and 6 per cent - up from an earlier estimate of between 4.5 and 5.5 per cent - citing dearer food and oil. Inflation last month hit a 26-year high of 7.5 per cent.But the revised forecast remained consistent with the earlier expectations of a second-half cooling off, the MTI said.While Mr Lim admitted that it was impossible to insulate Singapore from higher global prices, he said that the Republic's exchange-rate-centred monetary policy, which has been in place since 1981, remained effective in staving off the full impact of global inflation.He said that domestic inflation had been low over the sustained period between 1981 and last year, averaging 1.7 per cent. By contrast, inflation averaged 5.5 per cent for the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), a 30-strong group of the world's richest countries.The exchange-rate policy of maintaining a strong Singapore dollar also helped to reduce the cost of imports, Mr Lim said. 'For example, between January last year and March this year, global food prices - measured by the International Monetary Fund's food price index - surged 50 per cent, whereas the domestic cost of food imports rose by a much lower 14 per cent.'Opposition MP Low Thia Khiang (Hougang) raised the possibility of cutting taxes, such as the GST and the petrol tax, to help Singaporeans cope with rising prices.But Mr Lim said that a multi-pronged solution was more desirable: 'It is not useful to tweak the GST rate in response to short-term phenomena and we have adopted an approach aimed at the medium term.'This approach, announced in February, includes the diversification of food sources to minimise spikes in prices due to supply disruptions.At the same time, the Government is providing direct assistance to Singaporeans, especially those in the lower- and middle-income groups, who are affected by the higher cost of living, said Mr Lim. Government Responsibility (Mas's Escape), Infectious Diseases (Amendment) Bill, Sitting Date: 22 Apr 2008GOVERNMENT RESPONSIBILITYMs Sylvia Lim (Non-Constituency Member): Sir, I would like to thank the Prime Minister for his Statement. A few clarifications for the PM. First, could the PM clarify what, in his view, is the oversight role of the MHA vis-a-vis the ISD? Is it a hands-off approach leaving everything to the Director ISD? Or should the Ministry actually monitor some annual data from the Ministry? For example, we were told yesterday that there were no regular audits done at the Whitley Road Detention Centre. Should MHA have a system in place to pick up such systemic problems? Second clarification, Sir, is with respect to the inquiries that are held after lapses in Government function. In this case, the inquiry was held under the Prisons Act and, as we know from the legislation, the Committee would report its findings to the Minister and it is a closed door affair. Sir, of course, when the incident first happened, we do not know the cause of the lapse - whether it is actually a policy matter or whether it is simply an operational matter. And, in the interest of having a rigorous regime of inquiry, would it not have been more prudent to have a presidential inquiry where the President would be the gatekeeper of the information rather than the Minister whose department is being investigated? Third clarification is that the Minister Mentor made some remarks around March and April saying that the Government is not to be blamed for this incident and that it is the people's complacency that has led to this. Is this also the Prime Minister's view and the Cabinet's view that the Government should not be blamed for this incident?Mr Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, first of all, what is MHA's oversight role over ISD? ISD is an organisation which is subordinate to MHA, reports to MHA and is accountable to MHA for its performance. ISD's role is not primarily to be a jailor. That is the Prison Department's role. ISD's role is internal security, that means, identifying threats, pre-empting them, neutralising them. One of its responsibilities is to hold the detainees when people are detained under the Internal Security Act. This is done in the Whitley Road Detention Centre, under a Superintendent. MHA monitors ISD by tracking whether Singapore stays safe. Do threats get caught in time? Do we know what is going on? Are we able to react? There is no 100% guarantee that we would be there all the time. As Prof Jayakumar mentioned in his speech about 10 days ago, we have to be lucky every time, but the enemy only has to be lucky once. Our job is to make sure that we stay safe and that we do not just depend on luck, but on capability, dedication skill and focus on dealing with the threats, and that is what ISD has to do. Inquiry under the Prisons Act - would it have been better to have a presidential inquiry? Whatever level I put, I think the same question can be asked, why not raise it higher? In this case, one person has escaped, he is an important detainee no doubt, the Prisons Act, a Committee of Inquiry commissioned by the Minister, I think, is adequate. It has to be conducted in private, in camera, not in public, because of the contents of the hearings, of what is being investigated. But, finally, the substance has to be reported and the Minister is here to explain what happened and to answer questions. He spent one hour explaining yesterday. He spent two hours answering questions yesterday. The Member had ample opportunities to ask questions. If she had some more questions, we could have continued longer. So I think that we got it at the right level, and the Committee did a good job. And there has not been any suggestion from any Member in this House that the Committee was less than thorough or less than candid. Thirdly, I do not remember the specific quote from the Minister Mentor that the Government is not to blame, that it is a matter of complacency. Anything which happens on the Government's watch, the Government is responsible. What the Government does about this and what the Cabinet and the Prime Minister do about this depends on what happened and what we assessed after investigating the facts - what went wrong and who was handling it, who was responsible, who was directly responsible, who was supervising, because this was in his charge and he should have done something about it. I have explained my philosophy. The buck has to stop somewhere. If you take this to a logical conclusion, it should go all the way up to the Prime Minister and every time something happens in the Government, you change the Prime Minister. I do not think that is how this Government works. That is not how other governments work. There are some countries when things go wrong down the line, Ministers routinely fall on the sword, or CEOs in the private sector. It is part of their culture. But then what happens is that, instead of getting the problem solved, the ceremonial change of guard is seen as the solution of the problem. So the fundamentals do not get altered, after some time, the problem pops up again, you change Ministers again or change the government again. I do not think that is the way we want to do things. We want to get to the root of the matter to solve it properly. The person who did what he should not have done or did not do what he should have done, if he was negligent, complacent, did not measure up, he has to move. But the people who run the system and who have done a good job, I think we need to depend on them and we need to back them. I said just now that the Europeans and the Americans have a high opinion of our Intelligence Services. It is not just hearsay or reporting of what the experts say. I have met them. I have talked to them. They briefed me, they explained to me their problems. I explained to them how we have dealt with our situation and they looked at me and said, "We envy you." Because of what we have been able to do, dealing with the threat, because of what we have been able to do, reaching out to the community and keeping the community on our side while excising the cancer cells. Because we have been able to get the religious leaders also on our side and to step forward and volunteer their services in the Religious Rehabilitation Group (RRG), to try and set the detainees right who have wrong ideas and also to manage the families so that the families get looked after and do not get wrong ideas and, yet, stand tall in the community and be seen to be standing up for the community, and not be just doing the bidding of the Government. That does not happen by chance. That is the quiet work of ISD or MHA or the Government, and I think we should give them a lot of credit for that. So we say that this is a mishap, but there is a context. And you have to take disciplinary action but you have to be fair and just, and do it in perspective. That is the reason.Mr Low Thia Khiang (Hougang): Sir, two clarifications. Was this the result of what MM has said that Singaporeans are being complacent and expecting too much from the Government? Certainly, I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether he sees fit for his Government to apologise to Singaporeans over the lapses and resulting in the escape of Mas Selamat. Mr Lee Hsien Loong: I think this is not an exercise in spreading adjectives around. The complacency was in the Whitley Road Detention Centre. I think it is true that Singaporeans have very high expectations of the Government and, therefore, whenever there is a lapse, they take it very seriously. In other countries, things regularly go wrong. In Singapore, things do not go wrong, and we make sure things work. When something messes up, we take it seriously, the public takes it seriously. That is a fact. And that is not a bad thing. But we must also understand that when we look at the problems which come up. Apologising? That was the first thing which Mr Wong Kan Seng did as Deputy Prime Minister in Parliament, the day after this occurred, and I think that is adequate. I would say that when the Deputy Prime Minister speaks, he speaks on behalf of the Government.Mr Low Thia Khiang: Sir, does the Prime Minister agree that this is not a question of a witch-hunt as to who should be directly responsible? It is a question of accountability of the Government and at what level and what responsibility a Minister should take. I think we will remember that, when we debated the Ministers' salaries in this House, we were talking about pitching the Ministers' pay to the corporate world or the private sector. But in the private, corporate world, when something goes wrong, heads roll, and it includes the CEO, whereas here, when something goes wrong, we are talking about honest mistakes. So, I think a lot of people, including myself, cannot reconcile the principle on which the Government applied in looking at the salaries of the Ministers, pitching them to the corporate world vis-a-vis when it comes to accountability and responsibility. Would the Prime Minister clarify? Mr Lee Hsien Loong: I thought the Member would eventually come to this question. I have explained where lines have to be drawn. Even the Member has not suggested that I should resign because I appointed Mr Wong Kan Seng, and Mr Wong Kan Seng was a Minister, and a soldier under him let this happen. A line has to be drawn somewhere. We have to see this in perspective. Even in the private sector, you have to see things in perspective. A company turns turtle, the CEO leaves. Problems happen in the company, CEOs have to stay to sort them out. Companies which change CEOs every two months or every two years do not prosper. So I have to make a judgement who is responsible at what level, and I have discussed this with the DPM, and I agree with his judgement and I have confidence in him. The DPM was here, the Member yesterday had full opportunity to question him. If there are any questions which he found unsatisfactorily answered, he could have pursued the matter. If there are any questions which showed that the DPM was not up to this, that he was to blame, he gave the wrong instructions, he told people not to grille up the window, he suggested that we did not need so much fencing and therefore this happened, he should have raised it. Nothing happened. Today, the Member comes around and throws a general cloud and says, "You are well paid, you should resign." Let me ask the Member whether he thinks the DPM ought to resign because of this. No answer. So, I think that settles the point. INFECTIOUS DISEASES (AMENDMENT) BILLMs Sylvia Lim: Sir, I have two queries on the Bill. The first is in relation to section 17A. Sir, clause 12 inserts the new section 17A which allows the Minister for Health to declare either the whole of Singapore or a part of it as a restricted zone and he can do this if he considers that a serious outbreak has occurred or is imminent. As the outcome of this order is very drastic and will affect the movement and livelihood of our people, should this be a decision left to the Minister alone? Is it not possible to have an urgent Parliament session to decide whether the order should be made in the first place? Section 17A(6) provides that the Minister should present the order to Parliament as soon as possible after it is made and Parliament will have a chance to annul the order, in which case the order will cease to have effect. Is it the intention for the Members to have a free vote to support or rescind the order, or will the Whip remain in place in which case the Minister's order will be endorsed as a rubber-stamping exercise? Sir, my second query relates to sexual activity by a person who has reasonable cause to believe he has been exposed to AIDS or HIV. The existing section 23 only requires those who know that they have AIDS or HIV to take certain steps to inform their partner and obtain consent before the sexual activity. Clause 18 of this Bill amends section 23 to include this category of persons who do not know but have reasons to believe that they have been exposed to a significant risk of contracting AIDS or HIV to take certain steps. During the Ministry's e-consultation with the public, I noted that there was feedback that the phrase "reason to believe that he has been exposed to a significant risk" was ambiguous. MOH's reply to the feedback was helpful in listing some examples of activities considered risky by the Ministry, for example, intercourse with sex workers, unprotected sex with multiple partners and sharing needles when misusing drugs. While the list can never be exhaustive, I would support putting into the Act some examples as illustrations which should be helpful to people trying to understand and comply with the law, rather than to make them read Hansard, the website and so on, to have a sense of the ambit of the section.Mr Khaw Boon Wan: ..Ms Sylvia Lim has asked whether Parliament, instead of the Minister, should make the decision to declare a public health emergency. Foreign legislations that we have studied do not require the legislature to be convened to decide on whether public health emergency should be declared. This is because of the urgency of the situation, as pointed out by Dr Lam. We have taken heed of this foreign legislation provision and also make it a ministerial executive decision subject to Parliamentary oversight, and we believe that this strikes a good balance between acting speedily to protect public health while ensuring public accountability....Ms Sylvia Lim has suggested that we hardwire these illustrations into the Act. But we think this is not necessary, firstly, because the examples will never be exhaustive; secondly, because our public health education programmes will clearly emphasise what activities put a person at risk of contracting HIV/AIDS and the necessary precautions to be taken to reduce that risk. Let me clarify that the new provision does not ban such a person from sex. It merely requires him to take any one of the following three measures before he has sex with another person: (1) Inform his partner of the risk and then allow the partner to make an informed decision as to whether to accept the risk and have sex with him; (2) Undergo regular HIV testing to determine that he is not HIV-infected at the time of the sexual intercourse; or (3) Take reasonable precautions to protect the partner, eg, by using the condom. Any one of these procedures would then protect him legally. While we encourage such a person to take all three steps to protect his partner, he is legally protected if he takes any one of the three steps.. Ms Sylvia Lim: Sir, I wonder if the Minister could clarify this point which he did not refer to. It is concerning section 17A, subsection 6, where he mentioned that after making the order, he would have to come to Parliament to convince Parliament that the order was necessary. My query during my speech was whether at that time MPs would be given a free vote on the matter or would the Whip be in place. Mr Khaw Boon Wan: Sorry, I forgot this particular query on Whip. It is not for me to decide whether the Whip will be lifted. But all I know is our MPs, Whip or no Whip, will have the full interest of the public at heart, and I am sure they will vote according to what is needed to protect them. The key point of making such a declaration is not straightforward. It is not one of politics. It is about assessing information which almost certainly will be limited and incomplete, and to make a judgement call - do you declare or not to declare? Let us see the current outbreak of hand, foot and mouth disease where the number of cases has exceeded last year's. I have received many emails. Many have asked me to close down all primary schools and nurseries, to break the transmission. But how to do so? Because hand, foot and mouth disease has been around for years, and it will continue to be around for years. If each time there is a cluster, we were to close down nurseries, we will end up not having any nursery open at all throughout the year, because it is one of those infections that spread throughout the year. People will vary according to their risk appetite. So it is not easy to make a call. A couple of months ago, you may remember, Hong Kong declared a closure of all their schools because of the flu outbreak. After the event, it is easy to comment whether that decision was premature, necessary or correct. But while you are in the midst of the outbreak, having to judge what is likely to happen next and what you should do now is not an easy decision to take. That is why, in my speech, I emphasised that this is a heavy responsibility and a decision which we will take very carefully, after weighing the options. Because if I were 'trigger happy', I think Prof. Thio used the words - I am always happy but I am not 'trigger happy' - and I cry wolf every now and then, I lose credibility. And when the real wolf appears, nobody believes me; I may declare social distancing and people still go out to restaurants and elsewhere, and it defeats the whole purpose, because I have lost credibility. That, to me, is the single most important safeguard against any abuse of these very harsh measures and powers which we are asking the House to provide us.------------------------------------------------------------------ ST'If heads roll in the private sector, why not in government?'By Lynn LeeTO WHAT extent are practices in the corporate sector applicable in the public sector?Two MPs noted yesterday that since ministers' salaries are pegged to those of the top earners in the private sector, they should also be held accountable for lapses the same way corporate leaders are.People's Action Party MP Inderjit Singh (Ang Mo Kio GRC) and Workers' Party MP Low Thia Khiang (Hougang) both noted that in the corporate world, heads roll when something goes wrong.'Here, we're talking about honest mistakes,' sniffed Mr Low.Both he and Mr Singh were responding to Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong's speech on government responsibility for the Mas Selamat incident.PM Lee said the Government took responsibility for the incident, and Deputy Prime Minister Wong Kan Seng had already spoken on behalf of the Government when he apologised for it.The Government had given a full account of its investigation, and was also plugging gaps in the system, PM Lee added.Dissatisfied, Mr Low said many people, including himself, could not 'reconcile' the different principles the Government seemed to be adopting when it came to ministerial pay on the one hand, and the issue of accountability and responsibility on the other.Replying, PM Lee said that while a minister was ultimately accountable for his ministry's work, it did not mean that every level in the chain of command up to him should be punished whenever a lapse occurred.'Even in the private sector, you have to see things in perspective,' he pointed out.While some chief executive officers (CEOs) did resign when a company turned turtle, sometimes, they also stayed on to fix the problem. And companies in which the CEOs were changed frequently do not prosper, he told Mr Low.PM Lee then asked the opposition MP if he thought Mr Wong should resign. Mr Low did not reply.Said PM Lee: 'No answer. So I think that settles the point.'Human resource consultants interviewed said that in the corporate world, the severity of the mistake will determine how a top honcho is dealt with.For instance, senior figures at some global banks were held accountable for their role in their banks' collapse in the wake of the global sub-prime mortgage crisis, and they resigned.Executive search firm Robert Walters' (Singapore) director, Ms Andrea Ross, said: 'People tend to want someone to blame. At that level, they will be responsible for what has cost the organisation millions of dollars.'She added that sometimes, CEOs might also be made the 'scapegoat' for wrongdoing in the organisation, even if they were not aware of them.'There is a certain level of responsibility as a leader and they need to ensure an environment in which controls are in place,' she said.Mr Patrick Chan, assistant director of GSI Executive Search, noted that much depends on whether a mistake damages a company's bottom line or shareholders' interest.Also, if he is found to have questionable ethics, by taking kickbacks for instance, he will be asked to go.PM Lee made a similar point in his speech, saying that if a minister was found to be lacking in integrity, he 'has to go, even if the actual incident is minor'.Said Mr Chan: 'I don't think a CEO would be automatically asked to leave in a case where the slip-up stained the company's reputation.'But he'd have to look into the problem and show that he can remedy the situation.'PM: Let's keep things in perspectivePM Lee responds to MPs' questions on procedure, accountability and complacencyMHA's roleSYLVIA LIM: A few clarifications for the PM. First, could the PM clarify what in his view is the oversight role of the MHA (Ministry of Home Affairs) vis-a-vis the ISD (Internal Security Department)? Is it a hands-off approach, leaving everything to the director of ISD, or should the ministry monitor some annual data from the department? For example, we were told yesterday there were no regular audits done at the Whitley Road Detention Centre. Should MHA have a system in place to pick up such systemic problems? Second, the inquiry was held under the Prisons Act and as we know from the legislation, the committee would report its findings to the minister and it is a closed-door affair. Of course when the incident first happened, we do not know the cause of the lapse, whether it is a policy matter or whether it is simply an operational matter. In the interest of having a rigorous regime of inquiry, wouldn't it have been more prudent to have a presidential inquiry where the President would be the gatekeeper of the information rather than the minister whose department is being investigated? Third, Minister Mentor (Lee Kuan Yew) made some remarks around March and April saying the Government is not to be blamed for this incident and that it is the people's complacency that has led to this. Is this also the PM's view and the Cabinet's view, that the Government should not be blamed for this incident? PM: What's MHA's oversight role over ISD?ISD is an organisation which is subordinate to MHA, reports to MHA and is accountable to MHA for its performance. ISD's role is not primarily to be a jailer. That's Changi Prison's, the Prison Department's role.ISD's role is internal security. That means identifying threats, pre-empting them, neutralising them.It also is to hold the detainees when people are detained under the Internal Security Act, as (was) done in the WRDC (Whitley Road Detention Centre) under a superintendent.MHA monitors ISD by tracking whether Singapore stays safe. Do threats get caught in time? Do we know what's going on? Are we able to react?There's no 100 per cent guarantee that we will be there all the time. As Prof Jayakumar (DPM and Coordinating Minister for National Security) mentioned about 10 days ago, we have to be lucky every time, the enemy only has to be lucky once.Our job is to make sure we stay safe and that we don't just depend on luck but on capability, dedication, skill and focus on dealing with the threats and tha