Questions filed and asked in Parliament: January 2012
Written Questions:
1. ALLEGATIONS OF CORRUPTION AGAINST SINGAPOREANS OR SINGAPOREAN COMPANIES
2. CORRUPTION SCANDAL AT ISKANDAR DEVELOPMENT REGION
3. REASONS FOR EMIGRATION
______________________
1. ALLEGATIONS OF CORRUPTION AGAINST SINGAPOREANS OR SINGAPOREAN COMPANIES
Mr Pritam Singh: To ask the Prime Minister if our enforcement agencies have investigated allegations of corruption against Singaporeans or Singaporean companies who are not charged or convicted in foreign jurisdictions and if so, under what circumstances.
Mr Lee Hsien Loong: Since the 1990s, there have been several cases involving Singapore Citizens committing corruption offences overseas and prosecuted in Singapore.
The Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) may conduct investigations into Singapore Citizens who have committed offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA) in any place, even if it is outside Singapore. This is provided for under Section 37(1) of the PCA.
However, any investigation in a foreign state requires the latter’s permission and co-operation. Hence, the approach taken has to be practical and is based on the premise that the state where the act of corruption takes place is usually best placed to investigate and deal with the matter. If there is a Singapore nexus, the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) would consider any mutual legal assistance requested by that foreign state and CPIB would extend its assistance where appropriate.
Based on the same practical approach, in cases where Singapore is better placed to investigate and deal, we will prosecute in Singapore. Examples of such cases are civil servants in our overseas missions committing corruption offences.
2. CORRUPTION SCANDAL AT ISKANDAR DEVELOPMENT REGION
(Request of Information from Malaysia)
Mr Pritam Singh: To ask the Minister for Law whether the Malaysian authorities have requested for information from our law enforcement agencies with regard to any Singaporean implicated in the corruption scandal at the Iskandar Development Region.
Mr K Shanmugam: Requests for mutual legal assistance in criminal matters are made pursuant to the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act. Under section 19(2)(c)(vii) of the Act, a request for legal assistance must be accompanied by a statement from the requesting country setting out the wishes of that country concerning the confidentiality of the request and the reasons for those wishes. Many countries express the wish that their requests for legal assistance, including the fact that a request has been made, be kept confidential. Confidentiality is required, amongst other reasons, so as not to compromise intelligence-gathering efforts and investigations.
In order to effectively respect these wishes for confidentiality, our general policy is not to reveal whether or not a request for mutual legal assistance has been made. We are therefore unable to disclose whether we have received any request from the Malaysian authorities relating to the corruption scandal at the Iskandar Development Region.
3. REASONS FOR EMIGRATION
Mr Pritam Singh asked the Prime Minister how many Singaporeans gave up their citizenship from 2000 to 2010 and whether the Government has devised strategies to address the reasons why Singaporeans decide to emigrate.
Mr Teo Chee Hean: From 2000 to 2010, an average of about 1,000 Singaporeans renounced their citizenship annually. The reasons for emigration vary. Some indicated that they prefer a different living environment, whilst others emigrated due to their marriage to foreigners or to reunite with family members overseas.
Our focus is on ensuring that Singapore remains the best home for all Singaporeans. Beyond developing an attractive living environment and a thriving economy which sustains good jobs for our people, we also seek to strengthen the bonds that Singaporeans have with one another and with the country.
We will also continue to engage Singaporeans studying and working abroad. Through efforts, such as the Overseas Singaporean Unit’s programmes, we hope to help this group maintain strong ties with Singapore, to facilitate their eventual return.
________
Supplementary Questions:
DISRUPTION OF MRT TRAIN SERVICES ON 15 AND 17 DEC 2011 (Statement by the Minister of Transport)
Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): I would like to thank the Minister for his reply. Incidents do happen and I am glad the Minister has proceeded to give a lengthy response to this House. I am concerned about the public’s cynicism about exercises like the North-Star series. To renew public’s confidence, can I request the Minister to consider getting the regulator, in this case, LTA to underwrite and approve all safety and communication-related SOPs implemented by the operator in future, as it does appear to be the case that this was where the SMRT’s response was indeed very woeful? This is also short of springing surprises on Singaporeans with unannounced exercises which I do not think is realistic.
Mr Lui Tuck Yew: Sir, I thank the Member for understanding that it is not quite possible to do exercises in that manner. Today, the role of the regulator with regard to the operator’s plans, for example, their Rail Incident Management Plan (RIMP), is that the operator submits this plan to the LTA for review. It is not a formal approval but they sit together, they run through the plans, they make sure that actually the parameters are set up quite clearly and then, as Dr Janil had asked earlier, we would hold them to it so that when there is a need to operationalise or to execute such plans, we are able to assess the variants and whether they have conformed to the plans. This takes place not only for incidents but also for their safety and maintenance plans as well.
________
SERVICE STANDARDS FOR PUBLIC TRANSPORT OPERATORS
Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): I would like to thank the Minister of State for her reply to the three separation questions. I think the point that was made was really the small penalties of $700 and $300. This has to be seen in the context where the public looks at operators which are running practically quasi-monopolies. They look at the operating revenue, the numbers that they see in those balance sheets, and the fines where there is a very significant mismatch. I think that is the issue that the public is concerned about – that these are not even slaps on the wrist. While I appreciate the Minister of State going through this lengthy policy control process —
Mr Speaker: Mr Singh, can you just ask your question, please?
Mr Pritam Singh: Yes, Mr Speaker, I will. Are those numbers something that the Government will increase? Are the fines going to go up for these operators, considering the economic circumstances that the Government is currently operating in?
Mrs Josephine Teo: Mr Speaker, Sir, as I shared earlier, the purpose of the framework really is to spur improvement. So, the real test of effectiveness is whether it has spurred improvement. As I shared with Members earlier, it is not as though the instances of non-compliance have not been higher in the past. They had been. Because the PTC had made the message clear to the operators, they have had to buck up. As I shared earlier also, the trends will indicate that the operators once again need to pay greater attention to the service standards. Even though the amounts seem to be small, by tracking those numbers, we know whether the operators have responded. If they do not take it seriously, it does not mean that we have no other avenues of making our views known to them; it does not mean that we have no other avenues of asking them to improve. So, we have to look at the framework of penalties in the whole context.
Mr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh, last question.
Mr Pritam Singh: I would like to thank the Minister of State for that clarification. Can I ask, beyond these fines which the Minister of State just referred to, what are the additional measures that the Ministry can use to ask the operators to buck up?
Mrs Josephine Teo: The LTA is in constant contact with the bus operators. They are in communication. There are avenues for feedback that we receive through grassroots groups, through MPs’ advisers who are operating on the ground, and these are also opportunities for us to raise issues with the operators. So, this is not the only way in which we deal with the operators.
_________
