Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fourswords
Baey Yam Keng is the nasi lemak man? Another white fxxker
90% of PAP backbenchers are redundant and doing nothing much but keeping PAP and Ministers in power.
Assuming PAP selection system is faulty, how many Ivan Lims already manage to avoid whistleblowing due to fear from whistleblowers and enter Parliament as PAP MPs. We dont know.
Most of the Ivan Lims PAP MPs only want Power, Money and Status to improve their own lives, not our lives.
Without strong Opposition and impartial Media to check/challenge on these Ivan Lims PAP MPs daily to make them reveal their fox tails, these PAP MPs will just enjoy the PAP gravy trains.
https://www.straitstimes.com/singapo...-2021-and-2025
Singapore Budget 2018: GST to be raised from 7% to 9% some time between 2021 and 2025
SINGAPORE - The goods and services tax (GST) is set to increase from 7 per cent to 9 per cent some time between 2021 and 2025.
This comes as the Government’s spending on healthcare, infrastructure and security has gone up and is expected to increase further in the years to come.
Finance Minister Heng Swee Keat made the announcement in his Budget statement in Parliament on Monday (Feb 19).
The exact timing will depend on three factors: the state of Singapore’s economy, how much the country’s expenditures grow, and how buoyant Singapore’s existing taxes are. But Mr Heng said he expected that the Government would need to do so earlier rather than later.
Mr Heng said the GST increase is “necessary because even after exploring various options to manage our future expenditures through prudent spending, saving and borrowing for infrastructure, there is still a gap”.
He said the 2 percentage point increase will provide the Government with revenue of almost 0.7 per cent of Singapore’s gross domestic product per year.
GST is a broad-based consumption tax levied on nearly all goods and services in Singapore.
The last time GST was raised was more than a decade ago in 2007, when it went up from 5 per cent to 7 per cent.
The GST hike comes after months of speculation. DBS Bank senior economist Irvin Seah had said in a report by The Straits Times in November that he expected the GST to be raised by 2 percentage points in Budget 2018. He predicted a staggered hike implemented over two years.
Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said last year that Singapore will be raising taxes as government spending grows, sparking speculation among economists and tax specialists about the type of increase and when it would kick in.
Nine of 10 economists polled by Reuters predicted an increase, with policymakers flagging the need to increase revenue to meet the future social spending needs of a rapidly ageing population.
On Monday, Mr Heng said the Government will continue to absorb GST on publicly subsidised education and healthcare.
It will also enhance the permanent GST Voucher scheme when the GST is increased, to provide more help to lower-income households and seniors. About $800 million is disbursed ever year currently under this scheme. The Government will be topping up the GST Voucher fund by $2 billion this year.
There will also be an offset package for a period to help Singaporeans adjust to the GST increase when it happens. Lower- and middle-income households will receive more support.
Mr Heng said more details of the GST increase will be released once the timing for its implementation is determined.
https://www.straitstimes.com/singapo...-2021-and-2025
Singapore Budget 2018: GST to be raised from 7% to 9% some time between 2021 and 2025
SINGAPORE - The goods and services tax (GST) is set to increase from 7 per cent to 9 per cent some time between 2021 and 2025.
This comes as the Government’s spending on healthcare, infrastructure and security has gone up and is expected to increase further in the years to come.
Finance Minister Heng Swee Keat made the announcement in his Budget statement in Parliament on Monday (Feb 19).
The exact timing will depend on three factors: the state of Singapore’s economy, how much the country’s expenditures grow, and how buoyant Singapore’s existing taxes are. But Mr Heng said he expected that the Government would need to do so earlier rather than later.
Mr Heng said the GST increase is “necessary because even after exploring various options to manage our future expenditures through prudent spending, saving and borrowing for infrastructure, there is still a gap”.
He said the 2 percentage point increase will provide the Government with revenue of almost 0.7 per cent of Singapore’s gross domestic product per year.
GST is a broad-based consumption tax levied on nearly all goods and services in Singapore.
The last time GST was raised was more than a decade ago in 2007, when it went up from 5 per cent to 7 per cent.
The GST hike comes after months of speculation. DBS Bank senior economist Irvin Seah had said in a report by The Straits Times in November that he expected the GST to be raised by 2 percentage points in Budget 2018. He predicted a staggered hike implemented over two years.
Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said last year that Singapore will be raising taxes as government spending grows, sparking speculation among economists and tax specialists about the type of increase and when it would kick in.
Nine of 10 economists polled by Reuters predicted an increase, with policymakers flagging the need to increase revenue to meet the future social spending needs of a rapidly ageing population.
On Monday, Mr Heng said the Government will continue to absorb GST on publicly subsidised education and healthcare.
It will also enhance the permanent GST Voucher scheme when the GST is increased, to provide more help to lower-income households and seniors. About $800 million is disbursed ever year currently under this scheme. The Government will be topping up the GST Voucher fund by $2 billion this year.
There will also be an offset package for a period to help Singaporeans adjust to the GST increase when it happens. Lower- and middle-income households will receive more support.
Mr Heng said more details of the GST increase will be released once the timing for its implementation is determined.
https://www.facebook.com/10001157271...7829510279463/
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10157579320785036&id=50073503 5
https://www.onlinecitizenasia.com/20...the-elections/
Leaked Audio: Chan Chun Sing said crisis will save PAP in the election
“Lee Kuan Yew’s death saved us. Before Lee Kuan Yew’s death, 9/11 saved us.”
Lia Cai by Lia Cai 8 July 2020in Current Affairs, Government, Politics
6 min read
In a roundabout way, Chan Chun Sing has confirmed that the People’s Action Party (PAP) is using the COVID-19 crisis as a means to have them re-elected given that their votes have been falling over the last 50 years.
“Every election the PAP-vote problems, you check back the 50 years and see. Then suddenly a crisis will save us. Then we’ll start dropping again. Until the next crisis save us, and it’ll drop again. You look at the last 40 years pattern,” said Mr Chan.
“Lee Kuan Yew’s death saved us. Before Lee Kuan Yew’s death, 9/11 saved us,” he added.
Mr Chan, formerly the Minister of Trade and Industry, was speaking at a PAP’s closed-door meeting to 60 attendees in the northwest division in Bukit Panjang on 9 January 2019.
The PAP won by close to 70% votes share in the General Elections (GE) 2015, a jump of almost 10 per cent from GE2011. PAP only won that election with 60.1 per cent of votes – its lowest since Singapore’s independence in 1965.
PAP’s Votes Share for the past 10 GEs:
GE 2015: 69.7% (Lee Kuan Yew’s death)
GE 2011: 60.1%
GE 2006: 66.6%
GE 2001: 75.3% (9/11 incident)
GE 1997: 65%
GE 1991: 61%
GE 1988: 63.1%
GE 1984: 62.9%
GE 1980: 75.6%
GE 1976: 72.4%
Mr Chan also mentioned another “crisis” in the previous year that would have been opportunistic for the PAP.
“The party could have called for an early election over the conflict with Malaysia if it escalated,” he revealed.
“The most important thing for PAP in tonight’s conversation must be the house majority. We will never know; our neighbour might do us a favour and we might call for election tomorrow. Are you ready?” said Mr Chan, indicating that the PAP would have capitalised on the crisis by calling for an election in 2019 instead.
He explained that “winning the election has nothing to do with the nine days of campaigning”.
According to Mr Chan, the PAP has four to five years to get themselves ready by “doing the right” in order to justify to the people that they have been cared for.
“If people feel itchy enough, and say that ‘I have nothing to lose’ or ‘I can afford to take a risk’, then PAP will be in trouble,” he added.
“No one will really understand politics until they understand that politicians are not trying to solve our problems. They are trying to solve their own problems – of which getting elected and re-elected are number one and number two. Whatever is number three is far behind,” said Thomas Sowell, an American economist and author.
What Mr Chan said was not surprising. What was surprising was his candid affirmation of what most Singaporeans have already thought.
There is a perverse line between being strategic and Machiavellian. A crisis is extremely opportunistic in politics. But what if that crisis concerns your citizens’ lives? Mr Lee’s death and 9/11 did not directly put our lives in any danger. But the COVID-19 pandemic is a whole different story and ball game altogether.
To solve a government’s problem, of being elected and re-elected again, will the PAP go so far as to jeopardise our lives? Mr Chan seemed to have confirmed that, just that we never knew – or even expected – the Government would go to this extent to win an election one and a half years later.
The dispute with Malaysia over airspace really “spiralled”
Mr Chan then switched to a part of an on-going foreign political climate under which Singapore lives under.
He talked about how tensions were so dense in early January 2019 over the airspace dispute with their neighbour Malaysia, so much so there was a real possibility of an armed conflict being anticipated.
Malaysia’s Transport Minister Anthony Loke said in parliament on 4 Dec 2018 that Malaysia will be reclaiming its sovereign and delegated airspace in southern Johor. This was in response to Singapore’s publication on Instrument Landing System (ILS) procedures for Seletar Airport released on 1 Dec 2018.
The ILS procedure is a supported navigational aviation facility at the airport which provides vertical and horizontal guidance to pilots while the flight is descending and approaching the runway. The Minister was concerned that aircrafts would have to fly lowly over Pasir Gudang airspace when it descends and lands.
“We can’t even build tall buildings in Pasir Gudang since Seletar Airport is very near the area,” Mr Loke explained. “There are currently some tall buildings above the limit over Pasir Gudang. So it is technically not viable right now for that flight path to be allowed.”
“(Therefore) developments in Pasir Gudang areas may be stalled as buildings and structures must comply with the impedance and height control limits set by international standards,” he stated.
As far as the descending of flight path is concerned, it cannot be over Pasir Gudang, Mr Loke asserted.
Singapore’s Transport Minister Khaw Boon Wan responded on 4 Dec 2018 saying that Seletar Airport was not a new facility, saying: “The ILS procedures are in line with the current flight profile, so we are not introducing new flight paths, new flight patterns with this Seletar Airport.”
He stated that it was Malaysia’s decision to “take back the airspace”, before going on to say that one cannot “just change the status quo” as ICAO procedures are “quite clear” that any such changes must improve on the status quo.
Malaysia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs was supposed to get back to Mr Khaw, but it never came.
“It’s not conducive for a good bilateral relationship to carry on with this current situation. It is not favourable for both countries,” the Minister stressed.
To resolve this diplomatically, both Mr Khaw and Mr Loke met for a formal discussion. In a joint press statement on 8 Jan 2019, it announced that Malaysia will immediately suspend its permanent restricted area in the airspace over Pasir Gudang, while Singapore will similarly suspend its implementation of Instrument Landing System procedures for Seletar Airport.
Mr Chan delved into this issue at the meeting on 9 Jan. He began by stating how serious the incident that happened on Christmas was, adding that the subsequent actions Singapore had to take at Seletar Airport were dangerous.
“On Christmas Day, [Malaysia] instituted a restricted area – north of Seletar – along the platform. So that means whether it is instrumental landing or visual landing, you cannot go through the platform [and fly over Pasir Gudang airspace],” he said.
Mr Chan went on to elaborate on what this would be on the ground: “Since 2 Jan, (any) plane coming into Seletar has to do the following removal: Right above 5000 feet, spiral down and land. When was the last time in world history that the country’s plane is forced to spiral down? The last time this happened was in 1948, (it was) called the Berlin Blockade.”
He added that “[spiralling] was a different skill set altogether”, stressing on the problems Malaysia has caused for them.
Malaysia’s uncertainty might do Singapore a favour by having call for an election, said Chan Chun Sing
Besides the airspace dispute between Malaysia and Singapore, Mr Chan also spoke about taking advantage of the situation in the neighbouring country.
On the certainty of Malaysia’s action, he said to the grassroots, “We never know, our neighbour might do us a favour and we may have to call for an election tomorrow.”
[Update: Wednesday, 8 July – 3:30pm]
Chan Chun Sing offers clarifications on the leaked audio tape, says it is “taken out of context” and being “circulated with ill-intent”
Not long after this article – along with the leaked audio tape – was published, Mr Chan took to his Facebook to clarify on its content.
According to him, what he uttered in the audio clip has been “taken out of context” and being “circulated with ill-intent”.
Mr Chan went on to clarify what he actually meant.
Chan Chun Sing
on Tuesday
It has come to my attention that truncated audio clips of one of my conversations, taken out of context, are being circulated with ill-intent. The timing of the release today is surely not coincidental.
This conversation occurred in early 2019, in the wake of Malaysia imposing a restricted flying zone north of Seletar Airport.
There were various parts to the conversation. I am aware of three parts being circulated.
Part 1. I explained the implications of Malaysia restricting airspace access north of Seletar Airport. There were grave implications to the safety of our flights in and out of Seletar. There were also grave implications to our lifelines when the approaches to our airports or seaports were restricted.
Part 2. I explained the deeper forces behind the various issues and that it was not personality-dependent, even though many thought it was so. If it was so, the issue would blow away when personalities changed. But we should not be under any illusion that it was such. And we must be prepared to deal with such bilateral issues beyond specific personalities.
Part 3. I warned our people to never be complacent, thinking that a crisis will help PAP secure the votes at an election. It may be true that historically during crises, there may be a flight to quality and stability. But we must never take it for granted. In fact, we must work hard to serve our people, take care of them and not depend on a crisis to secure the votes.
I trust Singaporeans will understand what was shared in context.
The points in the conversation are poignant reminders of our vulnerabilities as a small country, and the need for our people to keep serving with the right motivations and to put Singapore and Singaporeans at the forefront of everything we do.
As I said in one of the clips, winning an election has nothing to do with the 9-day campaigning. It has to do with the hard work over the previous many years. CCS
Also read:
Leaked Audio 3: Chan Chun Sing said PAP couldn’t blatantly say they’re going to let micro companies die as it was not politically prudent
https://www.onlinecitizenasia.com/20...cally-prudent/
Leaked Audio: Since Jan 2019, PAP has been worried about PSP’s Dr Tan Cheng Bock and Lee Hsien Yang, SDP’s Tan Jee Say, Workers’ Party
https://www.onlinecitizenasia.com/20...workers-party/
Leaked Audio: Chan Chun Sing says allowing Muslims to withdraw CPF fund for Hajj is “reasonable” but cannot be done
https://yawningbread.wordpress.com/2...ting-agent-me/
Counting agent me
“At the last election, we had only thirty-something polling agents and counting agents,” said Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) chief Chee Soon Juan at a briefing on Polling Day. He was smiling. The party office was full to overflowing.
I hadn’t planned to be a counting agent. Besides having an Australian visitor in town, for weeks my friends were hatching plans to hold election-watch parties. Eventually, nothing much came of those plans and so when at around 4 p.m., a text message came to me from Vincent Wijeysingha appealing for help to round up more counting agents, I was able to volunteer.
“How many do you need?” I texted him back.
“We need about 100. So send as many as u can,” came the reply. I later learned they were about 40 short as at mid-afternoon.
With a flurry of text messages, I rustled up a significant number from among my friends, and via the gay and lesbian network. It was amazing how many people said Yes without hesitation, jumping into taxis to make their way to a part of Singapore few have ever been to (the party headquarters is really out of the way). At least one friend cancelled dinner plans to come in. This lot may not be representative of Singaporeans generally, but at least among this section of Singaporeans the climate of fear is becoming a thing of the past.
The SDP was not the only party with a surfeit of volunteers, albeit a surfeit that poured in only when they realised ridiculously late in the day that they were short. I know for a fact from Sylvia Lim, chair of the Workers’ Party, that they too had more than enough polling and counting agents well before Nomination Day.
* * * * *
I shall take this opportunity to describe what happens at a counting centre, based on my first-hand experience.
After the briefing and the oath-taking (secrecy under the law) at the party HQ, three of us arrived at our assigned counting centre just before 8 p.m, to find three more volunteers for SDP already there. That made a total of six, the maximum quota for this counting centre. Shortly after passing through a security check to enter the hall, volunteers #7 and #8 came but were not allowed in because the quota had been filled. Wow, from being short of volunteers four hours earlier, the party had more than they could use!
The People’s Action Party’s six counting agents arrived after us, all dressed in party white, almost marching in like an infantry platoon — not like us, some in workclothes, one in shorts, complete with satchel bags and cups of sugar-cane juice. Ah, but beneath the ragtag appearance, we were armed with pens, notebooks and calculators. I wonder if the the PAP guys were surprised to see a full contingent for the SDP unlike previous years.
At around 8:30 p.m. the ballot boxes arrived from the six polling stations this counting centre would serve. The boxes (about three or four) from each polling station were brought to one of six assigned tables. Thus, each table would count the votes of one polling station, with an average of 3,000 – 4,000 ballots.
The tables were about 2 metres square — larger than a king-sized bed — around which was seated a table chief and four counting staff. Upon instruction by the officer presiding over the entire centre, the ballot boxes were shown to us, so we could verify that the seals which had been affixed at the polling stations at the close of the voting day were not broken.
The boxes were then opened and the contents poured out onto the centre of the table. Counting agents were free to move around to look over the shoulders of the counting staff. However, we could not speak to the staff, nor touch any ballot paper. If we wished to dispute the sorting of any ballot, we had to take it up with the table chief.
Generally, the counting process was very efficient, with all tables following a standardised procedure. There were several rounds of counting, with each block of sorted ballots rechecked and re-counted by another member of the staff.
Most of the time, the voter’s choice was obvious. Where the ballot paper had unusual markings, the counter would pass it to the table chief who would show it to a counting agent from each party and announce his decision as to how to treat that ballot. As counting agents, we could offer our views but his decision would be final.
Here are some of the things I remember coming across:
The vast majority of voters marked their ballot paper with a cross as in example 1. A few marked their ballot paper with a tick, but so long as the rest of the ballot paper was clean, the tick would be accepted as sufficiently indicative of the voter’s intention. Other than such clean markings, counting staff would pass the ballot paper to the table chief for adjudication.
Table chiefs routinely rejected ballots where any part of the cross or tick crossed the boundary line, such as example 3. Where the voter made more than one marking, as in example 4, it was always rejected by the table chiefs at the counting centre where I attended.
However, I later exchanged notes with my friend who was assigned to a different counting centre, and she told me that at that place, there was at least one incident when a ballot paper marked like example 4 was awarded as a vote for the “triangle and star” party. The table chief’s reasoning was that by law, the voter should mark his intention with a cross and since the cross was placed against the “triangle and star” party, the vote was given to it.
Occasionally I saw ballot papers with all sorts of strange markings, but so long as there was only one marking that did not cross the boundary (e.g. examples 5 and 6 above) the table chief would treat it as a valid vote.
More strange markings I came across, routinely accepted by table chiefs as valid votes.
I saw one ballot that looked like example 9, with two ticks. It was accepted as valid. There was one ballot that looked like example 10. It too was treated as a valid vote for the ” triangle and star” party despite my protest, the reasoning being that the voter only marked one half of the ballot paper and left the other half clean.
While watching another table, I came across another ballot rather similar to example 10, shown here as example 11. It too was accepted as a vote in favour of the “triangle and star party”.
However, the counting staff and table chiefs were scrupulously fair. For every “go to hell” ballot there were at least fifty more with the faintest of scratches, as in example 12. Again, they would use the same rule — so long as the single marking stayed within one box, they accepted it as a valid vote. The layman might think however that the marking was accidental, the result of a pen falling onto the paper or slipping out of the voter’s hand. Then again, there might well be some people who, liking neither candidate, deliberately let a dropping pen from a height of 40 cm make the choice for them. Who is to say that is not a valid decision matrix?
* * * * *
Democracy is a seductive concept in the abstract. Look too closely and you might see the whole thingamajig flying by the seat of its pants.
Factually or half truths to sidestep actual salaries by PM and ministers? Why the lack of transparency?
Terry Xu by Terry Xu 17 September 2018in Government, Opinion3 min read
https://www.onlinecitizenasia.com/20...and-ministers/
In a post published on the Factually website, the Singapore government seeks to address two “falsehoods”, one being the Prime Minister gets $4.5 million in annual salary and it is not upfront about how ministerial salaries are calculated.
The post on Factually is correct on both counts to say that the government is upfront with how the ministerial salaries are calculated and that the Prime Minister is not paid $2.2 million as base salary.
In the two review reports (2012 and 2017) on ministerial salaries, the Singapore Government clearly states the amount of salary the Prime Minister and the political appointment holders get annually and how the figures are derived.
As for the PM’s pay, the $2.2 million is a total of 12+7 months of bonuses, (12 months salary, 13th-months bonus, AVC and a six-month national bonus instead of three months as the PM does not get a performance bonus), which works out to be $110,000 per month or $1.43 million a year for his basic annual salary. So it is also right to say that PM Lee doesn’t get $4.5 million a year.
But what the post does not address or trying to sidestep with its half-truths, is the reluctance by the Government or the Prime Minister to reveal the total amount of bonuses received by the ministers.
Non-constituency Member of Parliament, Leon Perera had asked Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong in a written question in September’s Parliamentary sitting:
To ask the Prime Minister in each of the past five years, what has been the bonus paid to Cabinet Ministers in terms of (i) the average total number of bonus months (ii) the highest total number of bonus months paid to an individual Minister and (iii) the lowest total number of bonus months paid to an individual Minister.
In PM Lee’s reply to the NCMP, he merely revealed the average performance bonus received by the political appointment holders over the past five years. Noting that the bonuses are computed with the four components, PM Lee failed to reveal the amount of National Bonuses received by the political appointment holders which then can be used to calculate the total number of bonuses for the past five years.
So to find out the total annual bonuses that the PM and other political appointment holders get, TOC calculated the national bonus based on the KPIs set to determine the bonus months to be paid out.
Based on the calculated figures, we see that the political holders get at least 10 months of bonus on top of their annual salary for the past five years. And note that the Performance bonus is an average so some may get more.
As for the Prime Minister, as he is not paid performance bonus but instead given a maximum of 12 months instead of 6 months of National bonus, this means he would get 13 months of bonus in 2017 instead of 11.85 months like the other ministers and political appointment holders.
Which translate to PM Lee getting about 2.75 million in 2017 (25 months) and 2.83 million in 2013 (25.75). (Note that the basic pay has increased due to adjustment with the top 1000 earners)
But as much as the PM may be reluctant to share who is being paid the highest amount of bonus, we ought to have complete transparency in the matter and full disclosure, as salaries of the Cabinet are being borne out of public monies.
https://www.facebook.com/leonperera7...21826174642219
A busy weekend, with two walkabouts at Serangoon Avenue 4! Heard different perspectives on local and national issues from many constituents. There’s been much discussion about the need for the Workers’ Party to put forward alternative policies.
There has been less discussion about how the government should respond to such alternative policies. WP MPs have been conveying alternative policy ideas inside and outside of Parliament for years. There are a few possible ways the government can respond to these ideas:
𝐚. 𝐑𝐞𝐩𝐥𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐢𝐬 𝐛𝐞𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐮𝐨𝐮𝐬𝐥𝐲 𝐫𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐞𝐰𝐞𝐝. 𝐒𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐭𝐢𝐦𝐞𝐬 𝐚 𝐩𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐲 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐦𝐚𝐝𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐨𝐫𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐚𝐥𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐚 𝐢𝐧 𝐬𝐨𝐦𝐞 𝐰𝐚𝐲.
Of course, many voices may have contributed to prompting that policy change, not only the WP voice. But it would be good for the public to know when and by what pathway such changes happen, through fair media reporting and good public commentary.
𝐛. 𝐀𝐫𝐠𝐮𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐚 𝐢𝐬 𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥, 𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐢𝐧 𝐬𝐨𝐥𝐯𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐛𝐥𝐞𝐦 𝐢𝐭 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐝 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐨𝐫 𝐰𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐧𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞-𝐞𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐨𝐮𝐭𝐰𝐞𝐢𝐠𝐡 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞. 𝐁𝐮𝐭 𝐢𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐫𝐞𝐩𝐥𝐲 𝐢𝐬 𝐜𝐡𝐨𝐬𝐞𝐧, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐠𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐬𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐢𝐧 𝐟𝐮𝐥𝐥 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐝𝐚𝐭𝐚, 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐬𝐭𝐮𝐝𝐲 𝐨𝐫 𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐰𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐬𝐮𝐩𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭 𝐢𝐭𝐬 𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧, 𝐬𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐮𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐜 𝐝𝐨𝐦𝐚𝐢𝐧 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐛𝐞 𝐬𝐜𝐫𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐳𝐞𝐝.
Data and evidence can be subject to more than one reasonable interpretation. For example, the government conducts many public opinion surveys using state funds. I have raised in Parliament the question of why all of these surveys are not automatically published for use by civil society, scholars and alternative parties to better formulate alternative policy ideas.
Of course, sometimes evidence overwhelmingly suggests that something is a bad idea. But sometimes the evidence is inconclusive. The result of a new policy idea can rarely be guessed with complete certainty, unlike outcomes in the natural sciences. There can be different views about future outcomes of the same policy that are consistent with the available evidence. We ought to acknowledge that. Let’s have more transparency about underlying evidence and data.
𝐜. 𝐑𝐞𝐩𝐥𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐜𝐥𝐮𝐬𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐢𝐬 𝐚 𝐠𝐨𝐨𝐝 𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐚. 𝐁𝐮𝐭 𝐰𝐞 𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐭 𝐚𝐧 𝐞𝐱𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐞𝐬𝐭 𝐢𝐭.
This is what the Workers’ Party called for when it suggested a randomized controlled trial for the impact of smaller form class sizes in schools, through a Parliamentary adjournment motion in 2017.
𝐝. 𝐑𝐞𝐩𝐥𝐲 𝐛𝐲 𝐚𝐯𝐨𝐢𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚 𝐝𝐢𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐭 𝐫𝐞𝐩𝐥𝐲 𝐨𝐫 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧. 𝐇𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐚 𝐥𝐨𝐨𝐤 𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐱𝐜𝐞𝐫𝐩𝐭 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐏𝐚𝐫𝐥𝐢𝐚𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐫𝐲 𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐜𝐫𝐢𝐩𝐭 𝐛𝐞𝐥𝐨𝐰.
The WP had mooted an alternative policy approach to POFMA, namely that correction directives be approved by judges (among other things). If you read the way the Minister responded to this alternative idea in the excerpt below, do you think that the alternative was seriously considered and addressed?
One hopes that alternative ideas are debated vigorously in Parliament with respect to options (a), (b) and (c) above, and not (d).
-—————————————————————————–
Mr Leon Perera (Non-Constituency Member): I would like to pose a clarification to the Law Minister. I had intended originally to pose a clarification to Mr Cedric Foo. But I think in light of the Law Minister’s comments at this point, I will just pose some clarification to him.
It is quite simple. Is it the position of the Law Minister and the Government that our Courts could not be sufficiently resourced, structured, if necessary a new process, a new expedited process created, if necessary a new process for assigning judges created, additional capacity created? Is it impossible?
Is it inconceivable that this could be done in the future in order to issue interim prima facie decisions in urgent, time-sensitive cases under POFMA? Is that impossible by definition?
By definition is that impossible in the future if we take all these steps to put in the resources to put in the process, if necessary create a special of class of judges, so on, so forth. Is that impossible by definition?
And I would add that in other jurisdictions to the best of my knowledge, and I may stand corrected, in other jurisdictions, for example, in some states in the US, it is my understanding that an arrest warrant has to be approved by a judge under certain circumstances.
These arrest warrants are very time-sensitive and the judge has to make a decision on the balance of probabilities, whether to arrest the person. That is a serious matter. Whether to arrest a person in extremely time-sensitive circumstances. Sometimes, late at night the law enforcers will go and see the judge. Because that system has been created and structured and resourced in such a way that it is possible. So, that is my clarification.
Mr K Shanmugam: A number of points here. The first of which is this. Let us take the sequence, the process of these things. First, you got to draft something and file in Court. We are now talking about the Select Committee’s recommendation to do something within a matter of hours. You got to draft and file.
You got to put aside some time for that. After that, you must find the judge. Let us say in your scenario, we have a High Court Judge who does nothing but sits there 24/7 because it can break out anytime, and will be available as soon as the Government calls. It is technically not impossible.
Of course, you can have a Judge who does nothing but this, and no other cases. Because if he is hearing a case, he cannot break the case and come and listen to you. He has to go to finish the case for the sitting, until lunch time or until the evening, depending on the scenario.
Duty Judges hear their cases too. So, we are saying, if supposing something has happened and I want to stop the communication within the next two hours, do you think it is possible by going to Court?
Then, there are further factors which have further levels of uncertainty. You file, you go before a Judge and you say, “Look, Judge, it is so urgent that I am not going to serve this on Google, Facebook or whoever, wherever it is spreading. I just need an urgent order, ex parte, and then later on I will serve”. Sometimes, the Judge may agree but the Judge may also disagree.
Supposing he disagrees, then it takes a further length of time. The decision maker, the person who has the facts might take one view and the responsibility for dealing with that situation also rests with the Executive.
Have you not known of instances where within 24 hours, there have been riots and people have been killed? Supposing the Judge says, “I think I would like to hear the other side, urgent as it is”.
It has happened. Urgent ex parte applications have been heard on a contested basis. Any of these are possible. The Judge could give you ex parte. But he could also ask for contested ex parte.
He could ask the other side to turn up quickly. And if he does that, and the other side turns up, and then, they say, “We do not have time to file an affidavit but we want to know the basic facts before we can argue. We need until this evening; we need until tomorrow morning.” Once you set up a Court process, then, you must allow for the due process.
So, my point to you, Mr Perera is, having now heard this explanation, is it your position that definitionally, it is possible, every single time, whenever we want it to be dealt with urgently, that it can be dealt with urgently, in a matter of hours? Is that your position?
Mr Speaker: Mr Perera.
Mr Leon Perera: I thank the Law Minister for his explanation. And I think that there are a number of points that he made which relate to judicial capacity, for want of a better term, and process. I would imagine that, based on what the Law Minister has said, he can envisage, that the necessary capacity can be created to deal with such a caseload, based on what Law Minister said.
Mr K Shanmugam: Possible, if the Judge does nothing else but waits for the applications. That was what I said.
Mr Leon Perera: Yes. So, I would take it that necessary capacity can be created. We can create a special class of Courts, duty Judges. Capacity is a question of resource planning. So, with sufficient resources applied, necessary capacity can be created.
Next, there is an issue of process. And I think the Law Minister alluded to the fact that while the Government will have to word the submission, even an ex parte submission to the Court, and that is time consuming, and while this is going on, the clock is ticking away and the falsehood is viralising and so on.
But within the Ministry, or the Statutory Board or agency, the civil servants also have to word the submission to the Minister or communicate with the Minister.
Can we not create a process whereby the communication, the form and the format of communication between the civil servant and the Minister, is very similar to the form and format of communication between the Government and the Court in those very time-sensitive cases, to obtain an initial prima facie decision?
So, my point there is that I think, at the level of process, a process can be created to minimise the time lag from Ministry to Court. I would put it to the Minister that a process can be created in that way.
And I think we have addressed the issue of capacity and we have addressed the issue of process. The Minister has been talking about the current situation, right now, with the capacity we have and the process we have. If we can add more resources and capacity, and we change the process to make it expedited to arrive at that prima facie decision, to stop the viralisation, I would put it to the Law Minister that that is perfectly conceivable.
And I also want to address the other point that the Minister made, that in some cases, the Judge will not agree. That is precisely the point. In some cases, the Judge will not agree.
If the Judge feels that he is being asked to make a prima facie decision, but he is looking at it on a balance of probabilities and he feels that the Executive is over-reaching or the Executive is abusing its power, so he may not agree in that case. And that is precisely the value of the check.
Mr K Shanmugam: I would ask Mr Perera not to put words in my mouth. When I said “not agree”, it may be because he says, “I want to hear what the other side has got to say”.
So, my point to Mr Perera is: therefore, we can take it, and it will be very simple, can I take it your position is that, definitionally, every single time it is necessary to make a decision, you believe that the Courts can be used to make a decision to break the virality within a matter of hours; every single time, when it is necessary to do so? Is that your Party’s position? Is that your position? If it is yes, yes. If it is no, no. That is all. It will be very good to clarify that.
Mr Leon Perera: If the Courts are sufficiently structured and resourced and the process is defined to enable that to happen, then the answer is yes.
Mr K Shanmugam: And you believe that that can be done by simply putting some submission to the Court? Is that it, whatever the civil servant submits to the Minister, can simply be submitted to the Court?
Mr Leon Perera: What I am saying to the hon Minister is that a simplified process can be created to absolutely minimise the lead time between Minister and Court to get a decision. There is a certain amount of lead time, in any case, for the internal conversation between civil servants and Ministers in such cases.
What we are talking about is the additional lead time between the Minister and the Court to get that decision to break the virality. So, I would put it to the Minister that a process can be defined that is very simplified to minimise that lead time.
Mr K Shanmugam: Yes. I have got the clarifications I needed, Sir. Thank you.
Mr Speaker: Thank you. Mr Leon Perera, your speech.
https://sprs.parl.gov.sg/search/sprs...ortid=bill-366
