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.

________

Today’s article in the Straits Times, Shrinking HDB flats due to need to maximise land and to adapt http://www.straitstimes.com/BreakingNews/Singapore/Story/STIStory_738271.html got me wondering. Almost exactly 10 years ago, the same argument was employed by the government to justify smaller flats (see article below by Lydia Lim – “Think small and put the buzz into Singapore“). Back then, Singaporeans responded unambigiously – NO to smaller HDB flats.

There is little reason to believe Singaporeans feel any differently today.

All sorts of reasons were peddled by the government to justify smaller flats then and now – the most consistent one being smaller families. But 10 years ago, even more doubtful arguments were pursued – smaller flats would encourage people to go out more (not beyond their means I hope), we would be encouraged to “socialise” (that seems to have been a rip-roaring success), more land could be set aside for parks with smaller flats (building upwards anyone?) etc. None of the HDB’s reasons measured up. But this year, the reasons for smaller HDB flats, most recently revisited by the HDB CEO, appear to focus squarely on smaller families. The other reasons are largely absent the public discussion, as evinced from the mainstream media at least. Perhaps we really live in politically different times from 10 years ago. Or perhaps the HDB’s reasons just do not make sense to discerning Singaporeans.

By the HDB’s own admission, new HDB flats are only “slightly smaller” than older ones. But if this is so, why would any government withstand a barrage of public criticism just for a few square metres of space? Are Singaporeans really asking for an arm and leg? Are our requests a bridge too far for the HDB? If they are, I have yet to hear from anyone in the HDB or government why this is so.

Perhaps the government can be nudged to think counter-intuitively on this one. Whichever way one looks at it, making HDB flats smaller, no matter what the reason, takes away choices from millions of HDB-dwelling Singaporeans. While families may have grown smaller, the longstanding HDB policy of building smaller HDB flats will ensure Singaporean families remain small.

In real terms, what additional costs are incurred if a “slightly larger” (as opposed to “slightly smaller”) flat is offered to Singaporeans?  The costs of construction, when split among new HDB buyers ought to be very little when compared with the cost price of their flat. The construction challenge of a 35-storey flat instead of a 30-storey flat does not seem insurmountable. Parks will be spared for sure with taller flats. Perhaps most importantly, in the Singapore context at least, the prospects of an extra study table for the second child ought to jolt urban planners into designing policies that work for Singaporeans. Such a policy would make more sense rather a justification of HDB policy through the logic of similiar housing policies pursued London, San Francisco or Paris. Perhaps we really should not ape the West blindly!

The HDB has done a phenomenal job of housing Singaporeans. Its ability to influence the real estate marketplace in Singapore is equally phenomenal. With one change of policy, it can affect the lives (positively or negatively) of 80% of Singaporeans who live in public housing. Singaporeans want those extra few metres of space in their HDB flats. Our country is small enough as it is.  And there is nothing populist about giving Singaporeans more choices.

_____________

Think small and put the buzz into Singapore

17 May 2001

Lydia Lim / The Straits Times

HE SPOKE with passion — and at length — about how to make Singapore one of the great cities in the world to live in, comparable to places like San Francisco and Vancouver.

Mr Jonathon Sze, an engineer, was one of 13 people to speak at a public forum held to discuss the draft of the 2001 Concept Plan, which will guide Singapore’s physical development in the next decade.

He was brimming with ideas on how to make this country more vibrant, more attractive to foreign talent and, therefore, more competitive.

Why not have jetties along the Singapore River so that people can travel to and from their waterfront homes in boats, creating a new kind of “high society living”, he asked.

Why does Hongkong have a buzz but not Singapore? Well, because Hongkongers live close to their places of work, leisure and learning, he said, answering his own question. So after work, they head home for a shower, then head out again.

They are “motivated to socialise”, he said.

In contrast, Singaporeans spend up to an hour commuting and are so knackered by the time they reach their doorsteps, they don’t want to step out again, he added, concluding that this is where Hongkong has a competitive advantage.

At the end of his extended presentation, National Development Minister Mah Bow Tan, who was chairing the forum, said with a smile: “I can’t disagree with any of the points you’ve made.

“I just want to add one point though. Maybe it’s because Hongkongers’ flats are smaller than Singaporeans’ that they spend more time outdoors,” he said, to much laughter from the 300-strong crowd.

Of all the points raised at last Friday’s dialogue, I found this last comment by the minister the most telling.

It said to me that flat size is an issue that is still on the minds of Singapore’s leaders and urban planners. And rightly so.

With so little land to be shared among so many competing uses, housing density — that is the number of housing units on a given piece of land — is a key issue in urban planning.

In September last year, The Straits Times published a front-page article that was headlined “Get set for smaller homes in future”.

It quoted Mr Mah as saying that with shrinking family sizes, it was “only logical” to build smaller homes. However, it would be difficult to get people to accept the idea.

“Human nature being such, I think we still want to have same-size houses even though the sizes of households are getting smaller,” he said in last year’s interview.

“So it does not follow that we will be able to reduce the house sizes too much, but I think over time, this has got to be the trend,” he added.

The article was reprinted in the Chinese and Malay newspapers and set off a feedback frenzy.

Many people called the Housing Board and the URA to register their unhappiness with any plans to reduce flat sizes.

Smaller flats emerged as the top housing issue last year, prompting the most number of responses to the Feedback Unit.

The issue also sparked a heated exchange on the Straits Times Interactive (STI) website, where 200 people posted their views.

Most who called or wrote to the various government departments and the STI were strongly opposed to the idea. Some felt it contradicted the Government’s push to encourage Singaporeans to have more babies. Others railed against the unfairness of shrinking HDB flats that kept ballooning in price.

Much of the unhappiness was due to a misunderstanding of what the minister had in mind.

Mr Mah was not announcing HDB’s plans to shrink flats.

He was merely pointing out that if the average size of a Singapore household falls from four to three, which it is expected to do with rising affluence, then it only makes sense to build smaller homes so that more land can be set aside for parks and other uses.

I agree.

I am not suggesting that in the future, all families — regardless of size — be squeezed into the equivalent of a three-room flat. Neither was the minister.

What I am suggesting is that both public and private sectors build smaller homes to cater to the growing number of couples with no children, and singles. This will allow us to house a bigger population, yet preserve the greenery, old buildings and neighbourhoods precious to so many Singaporeans.

To make the idea more palatable, I suggest a name change for HDB homes.

Instead of labelling flats as either five- or four-room, thus bringing with it the attendant associations of first and second class, why not market public housing like private condominiums?

Flats could be named after the precinct they are in, such as Sengkang Cove or Punggol Point. This would go hand-in-hand with the HDB’s pilot build-to-order scheme, which invites flat-buyers to choose flats in specific locations.

The price, of course, would still depend on the size of the individual unit.

I think this would go a long way to assuage the angst against smaller flats, which I believe is due more to material aspirations than any crying need for bigger living spaces.

After all, the average working adult spends very little time at home, as work is likely to swallow up two-thirds of his day.

I think the minister may be right to suggest that if homes become smaller, Singaporeans will change their lifestyles accordingly.

In a recent article, architect and planning consultant Robert Powell argued that old Chinatown enjoyed a vibrant street life because people’s homes were smaller, and so they tended to go out more, transforming the street into “a communal living room”.

My memory does not stretch that far back, but I do recall visiting a friend, a Japanese girl, who lived in the heart of Paris with her family.

Their flat was tiny, her bedroom so cramped that she had no space for a bed. She slept on the floor on a mattress, which she pushed against the wall during the day so that she would have more room to move around.

Yet, I don’t think the size of her flat compromised her quality of life in any way.

On the contrary, she thrived in Paris, a city she knew as well as the back of her hand.

She showed me where to get a top-class panorama of the city, not the Eiffel Tower, but the roof of a shopping centre called the Samaritaine; where to head for the definitive display of Monet’s water lilies, and what to look out for when visiting Notre Dame Cathedral, whose facade she described as “perfect”.

From her, I learnt that it’s not the size of one’s flat that matters but the broadness of one’s mind.

Smaller flats will take some getting used to. But, instead of bemoaning the lack of space, which good design and clever layout can go a long way to compensate, why not look forward to less time spent cleaning up at home, and more time spent meeting and mingling with others, or indulging in a whole range of sports and other leisure activities?

Let’s not close our minds to the idea that smaller flats may mean bigger buzz and broader horizons.

Ends.

Useful link

BBC: Architects say new houses are ‘shameful shoebox homes’ – http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14909066

2. PUBLIC AWARENESS OF THE CONSTITUTION OF SINGAPORE

3. REPATRIATION OF FOREIGN WORKERS (Cases of Alleged Forceful Repatriation)

4. PALESTINE’S MEMBERSHIP IN UNESCO

___________________________________

1. PENSION OF RETIRING MINISTERS

Mr Pritam Singh: To ask the Prime Minister (a) what is the amount (in monetary terms and detailed component breakdown) of the pension received by each retiring Minister after the 2011 General Election; and (b) whether the aforesaid pension will be reduced retrospectively in light of the upcoming Ministerial pay review.

Mr Lee Hsien Loong:

Pensions paid to Ministers are computed in accordance with the Parliamentary Pensions Act. The Government has explained how pensions are calculated on several occasions in Parliament and through media releases.

Ministers have to serve at least 8 years as a political office holder to qualify for a pension. The pension is based not on the total monthly salary, but only on the pensionable component of this salary. The pensionable component has been frozen since 1994, and all salary increases have been added to the non-pensionable component to contain pension costs. Thus, the pensionable component has been decreasing as a proportion of total monthly salary. The annual components of salary (such as the 13^th month payment, Annual Variable Component and Performance Bonus) are also not pensionable. 

A Minister qualifies for the maximum pension only after having served as an office holder for 18 years. The maximum annual pension is about 10% of his annual salary prior to retirement. The pension will be less if he has served for a shorter period.  The value of the pension that a Minister may receive upon retirement is fully taken into account when ministerial salaries are set against the benchmark.

A Committee chaired by Mr Gerard Ee has been formed to review the salaries of political appointment holders which are to take effect from 21 May 2011. This includes a review of the pensions for Ministers. The Committee has said that it expects to complete its work by the end of this year. The Government will take into consideration the Committee’s recommendations when deciding on the pensions for Ministers.

2. PUBLIC AWARENESS OF THE CONSTITUTION OF SINGAPORE

Mr Pritam Singh: To ask the Prime Minister in light of a recent survey done by the Institute of Policy Studies which found that Singaporeans remain confused on the role of the President, whether the Government will consider making it mandatory for Singapore students from secondary school level upwards to learn about the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore.

Mr Lee Hsien Loong:

Schools teach our students about the roles and responsibilities of the President, the Government and citizens of Singapore primarily through subjects like Social Studies and History, pitched at a level that is consistent with the maturity of the students.

The formal curriculum does not cover the specific legal articles of the Constitution or all the roles and responsibilities of the President. However, students learn about the principles and values enshrined in the Constitution, including the President’s role as the Head of State and in safeguarding the interests of minority groups with advice from the Presidential Council of Minority Rights. In addition, students also learn about the structure and powers of government, the election process and the rights of citizens to elect the government.

These issues are all part of helping students understand what it means to be a Singaporean. MOE is current reviewing the Character and Citizenship Education curriculum with the aim of improving citizen education in schools.

3. REPATRIATION OF FOREIGN WORKERS (Cases of Alleged Forceful Repatriation)

Mr Pritam Singh: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Manpower in light of reports on the wrongful restraint of foreign workers and their alleged forceful repatriation by foreign worker repatriation companies (a) whether these allegations have been investigated and, if so, what is the outcome of the investigations; and (b) whether the Government has any plans to regulate the activities of such repatriation companies.

Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam:

Responsibility of employers towards foreign workers

Employers are responsible for the repatriation of their work permit holders upon the completion or termination of the employment contract. Some employers use third parties such as repatriation companies to ensure the smooth and proper exit of their workers. Sometimes, employers also use repatriation companies to house workers in the interim while any claims are being resolved before they are repatriated back to their home countries.

Whether the employer or a third party repatriates the worker, the repatriation of foreign workers must be carried out in accordance with all our laws. That must be clear. Any act to wrongfully restrain or confine foreign workers is criminalised in the Penal Code. The Employment of Foreign Manpower regulations states that the employer shall ensure all outstanding salaries or moneys due to the foreign employee have to be paid before the foreign employee’s repatriation. This includes any work injury compensation that employers are required to pay under the Work Injury Compensation Act.

Safeguards to prevent wrongful repatriation

The government takes seriously all cases where members of the public, workers or NGOs claim that repatriation agents may have breached the law. If the worker is confined, MOM and the Police will ensure that the worker is not confined against his will and that his issues are addressed in a timely fashion. Possible labour or Penal Code offences are thoroughly investigated by MOM and Police respectively, against both the repatriation companies and the employers. As an additional safeguard, MOM has an arrangement with the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) to surface complaints and refer departing foreign employees who express employment grievances at the immigration checkpoints. These employees will then be referred to MOM for investigations.

Complaints against repatriation companies

There are no plans at present to regulate repatriation companies. Potential abuse related to repatriation is already covered under existing legislation and applies to employers as well as third parties. In 2010, an employee from a repatriation company was prosecuted and sent to jail for voluntarily causing hurt to a foreign worker. The employers of the foreign worker were given a stern warning for abetment to wrongful restraint.

The number of complaints made against the handful of repatriation companies has also remained small over the years. Since 2010, MOM and MHA received seven complaints against three such companies, a fraction of the approximately 16,000 non-domestic work permit holders repatriated to their home countries in that time.

Proactive Enforcement Against Repatriation-Related Offences

Notwithstanding the above, officers from the Ministry of Manpower, Singapore Police Force and Singapore Civil Defence Force have taken proactive enforcement action, jointly inspecting the premises of repatriation companies for breaches to ensure that repatriation companies comply with the law when carrying out their business.

The inspections are an initiative of the Inter-Agency Taskforce on Trafficking-in-Persons, co-chaired by MOM and MHA, to ensure that foreign workers are not victims of labour trafficking being forcefully repatriated to prevent them from making valid claims or complaints against their employers.

While no infringements have yet been uncovered, and foreign workers were found to be allowed free movement in and out of the premises under escort, advisories have been issued to the companies reminding them to abide by the law and refer foreign workers to MOM if there are any outstanding salaries or injury claims owed to the worker.

The Ministry of Manpower recognises that no worker should be forcefully repatriated without his claims being settled. We will work with the Police to look into all such complaints and continue to maintain proactive checks against employers and repatriation companies to ensure they comply with our regulations.

4. PALESTINE’S MEMBERSHIP IN UNESCO

Mr Pritam Singh: To ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs what are the reasons behind Singapore’s decision to abstain from voting to grant Palestine full membership in the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).

Mr K Shanmugam:

Singapore has long supported the establishment of a Palestinian state as part of a negotiated two-state solution, which will see Israel and Palestine living side by side in peace and security.  But in our judgement, the recent move to grant Palestine full membership in UNESCO would not contribute to such a solution.

Singapore was one of the 52 countries that had abstained on the vote to admit Palestine into UNESCO.  We understand and sympathise with the desire of the Palestinians to become a member of UNESCO.  But the application could not be considered apart from its broader political context.  More importantly, it is also questionable whether it would help or hinder UNESCO’s primary mission of promoting education, science and culture.

From the reactions to the application and the outcome of the vote, it is evident that UNESCO had been seriously divided and possibly weakened by this issue.  The politically fraught atmosphere hinders UNESCO’s primary Mission – Members would have read in the media that the US Congress has cut funding to UNESCO which was entirely predictable.  That dimension has been ignored by those who sought Palestinian membership.  It also adds a further complication to the already complicated negotiations over the Palestinian issue and has set back those negotiations.

Furthermore, the application was submitted just after Palestine had applied to the UN Security Council for full membership in the UN.  That application is still under the Council’s consideration in New York.  Therefore, we could not ignore the fact that UNESCO’s decision would have a political impact.  It is not part of UNESCO’s mandate to play such a political role.  As such, we decided to abstain from voting on the UNESCO application.

Ends.

4 November 2011

The Straits Times (c) 2011 Singapore Press Holdings Limited

A call for Singapore to consider a Freedom of Information law was issued in Parliament two weeks ago by Workers’ Party MP Pritam Singh. More than 80 countries have such laws, including Asian ones like South Korea, China and India. Insight looks at the experience of two countries in implementing such legislation: the United States and Britain.

THE UK: TONY BLAIR’S BITTER REGRET

“FREEDOM of Information. Three harmless words. I look at those words as I write them, and feel like shaking my head till it drops off my shoulders. You idiot. You naive, foolish, irresponsible nincompoop.’

Such was former British prime minister Tony Blair’s bitter regret – expressed in his memoirs – over introducing the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act to the United Kingdom.

In opposition, his party had called for precisely that. ‘Unnecessary secrecy in government leads to arrogance in government and defective policy decisions,’ said the Labour Party’s 1997 manifesto.

But a decade later, Mr Blair bemoaned the Act’s undermining of the government’s ability to have ‘frank conversations’, and the media’s wielding of it as a weapon.

‘For political leaders, it’s like saying to someone who is hitting you over the head with a stick, ‘Hey, try this instead’, and handing them a mallet,’ he wrote in his memoirs, published last year.

Given the scandals uncovered in the mere six years since the Act’s passage, Mr Blair’s regret seems understandable.

From commercial lobbying to MPs’ expenses, scoops acquired under the FOI Act have not painted a flattering portrait of government.

THE FACTS

It began with…

THE Labour Party’s 1974 election manifesto, which included a commitment to introduce an FOI Act.

Labour won the election, but changed its mind about the Act the next year. Instead, it tried other ways of increasing government openness, such as reducing the scope of the Official Secrets Acts and encouraging voluntary releases of information.

Still, the commitment remained in every Labour manifesto during its years in opposition, from 1979 to 1997. In 1997, Labour returned to government and made good on its promise.

The Freedom of Information Act was passed in 2000 under Prime Minister Tony Blair. It came into force in phases, with individual right of access granted only in January 2005.

How it works

ANYONE – regardless of age, location, or even nationality – can request information from Britain’s public authorities.

These include government departments; Parliament; the local authorities; the police; the armed forces; the National Health Service; government-owned companies; and publicly funded organisations, including schools and universities.

After receiving the request in writing, these organisations must provide the information within 20 working days.

The price of information

REQUESTS are free, unless it costs more than &pound450 (S$920) to get the information, or &pound600 for requests made to the central government or Parliament.

If those limits are reached, the body can refuse the request. But if it costs less to fulfil, requesters will be charged only for services such as photocopying and postage, not for the information itself.

Refusals

THERE are two types of exemptions under which requests can be refused.

One type is absolute exemptions.  They include information that:
• can be obtained by other means; and relates to security matters.

With the other type – qualified exemptions – the body receiving the request must decide whether the public interest is benefited more by the information being withheld or released.

This includes information that:
• relates to the formulation of government policy;
• might prejudice international relations;
• might compromise law enforcement.

If an authority decides the information cannot be released, it must tell the requester, explaining which exemptions were applied and why.

A requester can ask the body to review its decision. Requesters who disagree with the result can appeal to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), an independent body that can order wrongfully withheld information to be released.

Those who disagree with the ICO’s decision can in turn appeal to the Information Rights Tribunal.

Annual requests and refusals

CENTRAL government bodies have received 33,000 to 44,000 requests each year since 2005. The population of the UK is more than 61 million.

Figures for all the public authorities do not exist. A 2006 independent report estimated the public sector receives at least 87,000 requests each year, in addition to those received by government. But the report’s methodology has been criticised.

Every year, about 60 per cent of requests are granted in full. For another 15 per cent, information is partially withheld. In about a fifth of cases, the information requested was completely withheld.

Who asks?

MOST requesters are individuals. Businesses account for about a fifth of requests, and journalists for between 10 and 20 per cent. But media requests tend to be the most complicated and costly.

Taxpayers’ money

THERE are no regular estimates of how much FOI compliance costs the government – and by extension, taxpayers.

The same 2006 report estimates that dealing with FOI requests costs 24.4 million pounds a year to the central government, and 11.1 million pounds a year to other bodies.

The total, 35.5 million pounds, is 0.007 per cent of government expenditure in 2005, which was 524.6 billion pounds.

IN PRACTICE

Revelations and scandals

INFORMATION obtained under the Act has made headlines – from how much public funds rich landowners receive in farming subsidies, to the number of patients who died in operations performed by every heart surgeon in the UK.

But perhaps the biggest revelations came in 2009, when a scandal erupted over MPs’ expenses claims.

MPs in the UK can claim expenses and be reimbursed from public funds.

Under the FOI Act, the parliamentary authorities had been ordered to publish details of such claims.

A heavily edited document was being prepared for public release – but an uncensored copy was leaked to British newspaper The Daily Telegraph, which began publishing details of the claims.

Some MPs were found to be abusing the system. For instance, MPs can claim expenses for the cost of having a second home, such as renovation and furnishing.

However, some would switch which home was listed as their ‘main home’ and which was their ‘second home’, allowing them to claim for both properties.

There were also some eyebrow-raising items among the claims, from thousands of pounds spent on gardening to petty purchases such as a trouser press.

The revelations sparked public outrage – and a wave of MP resignations, both from the then-ruling Labour Party and the opposition Conservative Party.

Chequered history

THE Act has been dogged by controversy.

From the start, it was criticised for lacking teeth, and giving too much leeway to public bodies to refuse requests.

There have since been several failed attempts to weaken its power.

In 2005, then-lord chancellor (a senior government position) Lord Falconer suggested changing how costs are calculated.

This would make more requests fall over the cost limit, meaning that they could be refused. The proposal was meant to curb frivolous requests, but met with resistance from MPs and the public, and was not introduced to Parliament.

In 2006, Conservative MP David Maclean tabled a Bill to remove MPs from the Act’s scrutiny. It did not become law.

But things have since taken a different turn. In January this year, Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg suggested that hundreds more organisations could be covered under the Act.

In August, a public consultation was launched to improve FOI. The consultation document called for changes such as raising the cost limit to 1,000 pounds and setting time limits on internal review of requests for data.

THE US: FEW CARED….UNTIL WATERGATE

WHEN the United States first gained a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), few paid attention.

President Lyndon B.Johnson quietly signed the Act into law in 1966. It was the fulfilment of a decade-long struggle by journalists and a handful of Democrat congressmen.

But just a few years later, things would change.

In the early 1970s, public discontent was brewing against the backdrop of the prolonged Vietnam War. Many citizens felt the government had embroiled the nation in a needless conflict.

With revelations in the early 1970s that the administration of then-President Richard Nixon had engaged in political spying, public distrust grew.

In this climate of disillusionment, the government started to be seen not as a force protecting citizens, but one against which citizens had to be protected.

Things came to a head with the 1972 Watergate scandal.

A botched burglary at the Watergate office complex led to revelations of extensive cover-ups and abuses of power by the government.

Matters were not helped by the discovery of a secret taping system in the White House – and President Nixon’s  refusal to release the tapes.

As the scandal dre to a close two years later with President Nixon’ resignation, freedom of information took on a new and urgent importance.

THE FACTS

It began with…

THE formation of a special sub-committee in Congress, when the Democratic Party gained control of the House in 1955.

Headed by congressman John Moss, the committee aimed to pass a law allowing public access to government records.

Then, the movement was supported mainly by the press, with little public pressure and a Republican government hostile to the idea.

Eventually, in 1966, the FOIA was signed into law. It came into force the next year.

However, the law lacked teeth. There was no time limit for agency responses, no penalties if agencies did not comply with requests, and no limits on how much they could charge.

It was only in the mid-1970s that the Act came to resemble its current form.

How it works

ANYONE, whether or not he or she is a US citizen, can file an FOIA request. After receiving the request in writing, the agency must respond within 20 working days.

The Act covers the executive branch of government: government departments, agencies and offices; federal regulatory agencies; and federal corporations.

But it covers neither the legislature, that is Congress, nor the judiciary. Nor does it apply to parts of government whose sole function is to advise and assist the president.

The Act applies only to the federal, or central, government. But individual US states have similar legislation.

The price of information

THERE is no initial fee for requests.

Agencies can charge for search time and duplication, though the first two hours and first hundred pages are usually free.

Certain fees are waived for news organisations and educational institutions.

And fees may be fully waived if the requested information will contribute significantly to public understanding of government, and is not chiefly in the requester’s commercial interest.

Exemptions

THERE are nine exemptions under which agencies can refuse to release information. They include exemptions for:
• classified national security information;
• confidential business information;
• information that, if released, would be an invasion of someone’s privacy;
• law enforcement information that, if released, might hamper enforcement, reveal confidential sources, and so on.</ul>

If a request is denied, the requester can appeal for the decision to be reconsidered. If this appeal is denied, the requester can seek judicial review.

Annual requests and refusals

DATA is collected on the number of requests, but agencies used to report combined figures for FOIA and Privacy Act requests. FOIA figures alone were released only from 2008.

The number of requests has ranged from 557,825 in 2009 to 605,491 in 2008.

To put that into context, the population of the US is more than 312 million.

Since 2008, about half of requests were granted in full. A fifth of requests were partially fulfilled in 2008, rising to almost two-fifths in 2009 and last year. Information was completely withheld for 4 to 7 per cent of requests.

Who asks?

THE US government does not release data regularly on who uses the FOIA.

A 2006 report by the Coalition of Journalists for Open Government, which surveyed 17 bodies, found that more than 60 per cent of FOIA requests were made by commercial interests. Of these, a quarter were filed by professional ‘data brokers’ on behalf of clients.

Requests from individuals formed about a third of the total, while only 6 per cent came from the media.

But requester profiles might differ by agency. Between 1995 and 2000, the vast majority of FOIA requests to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) were from private citizens.

Taxpayers’ money

THE annual cost of FOIA-related activities ranges from US$338 million (S$431 million) in 2008 to US$416 million last year. Only about 3 per cent is recouped in fees.

This is about 0.01 per cent of total government spending, which was US$3.5 trillion last year.

IN PRACTICE

Growth spurt

THE FOIA gained importance in the mid-1970s as the political climate changed.

By dealing a death blow to public trust in the government, the Watergate scandal was instrumental in stirring up support for freedom of information.

In 1974, President Nixon resigned in the face of possible impeachment. That same year, Congress moved to strengthen the FOIA, by means of several amendments.

These narrowed the scope of the national security and law enforcement exemptions, allowing much more information to be released.

In 1976, the Act was amended again to clarify – and limit – what information was exempt from disclosure.

The Privacy Act was also enacted in 1974. It restricts the government’s ability to collect and disclose information about individuals. The Act also allows individuals to request government-held information about themselves.

Since the 1970s, health and safety issues have been a major theme of FOIA requests. These have resulted in cars being recalled, chemical substances being banned, and mandatory warning labels for certain types of medication.

The media has used the FOIA to reveal wasteful public spending and unethical government conduct, such as torture.

And in a reflection of the political cynicism dating back to the 1970s, the FOIA has been heavily used to scrutinise the conduct of US intelligence agencies, the Central Intelligence Agency and the FBI – particularly with regard to their surveillance of citizens.

But it has not been a straightforward march towards transparency. Over the decades, the Act has been both expanded and restricted, by legislation and through ‘executive orders’ passed by the government without the assent of Congress.

Some shrinkage

IN THE 1980s, agencies’ ability to withhold information under certain exemptions was increased. The 1990s saw the expansion of the FOIA instead, while the past decade has seen movement in both directions.

And each new government has had its own attitude towards FOIA compliance, with some administrations being more secretive than others.

______

INSIGHT on Friday is where you will find analysis and fresh perspectives on the big political issues of the day.

We would like to hear your views on these issues and invite you to write to us at stinsight@sph.com.sg

This week, we seek your views on a recent call to consider a Freedom of Information Act for Singapore.

Do you agree with this call?

Do you think it would serve the public interest to have such a law? If so, how? If not, why not’

If such a law were passed, would you use it to request information from the Government? What kind of information would you ask for?

We look forward to hearing from you.

Ends.

Useful Links:

1. The Guardian: Mixed results since Blair’s “dangerous” Freedom of Information Act launched – http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/sep/20/mixed-results-blairs-dangerous-act

The most thought-provoking paragraph contained in the article above is as follows:

“But they concluded that while the act has achieved its core objectives of greater transparency and accountability, it has done nothing to achieve three of its four secondary objectives (improved decision-making and better public understanding and participation in government) and has hindered progress towards its fourth (increased trust).”

It is for this very reason that any government which seeks to implement an FOI act today cannot see this legislation in isolation. It must include other enabling legislation for a citizen to understand the value and importance of transparency and accountability and to give effect to a two-way system of trust between citizen and state. It is for this reason also, I called for not just a freedom of information regime, but also the establishment of an Ombudsman, periodic release of official documents and critically, a whistle-blowing law one of the reasons of which is to prevent anyone from destroying, hiding or manipulating government documents.

Singapore is a privileged position to enact such legislation especially because the government already ranks so highly on indicia collated by Transparency International, amongst others. The positive spin-offs and ramifications of FOI legislation are mind-boggling, even more so since we are relatively corruption-free already. For one, Singapore is in an eviable position to raise the bar on standards of governance and in doing so, to buttress the economic argument of doing business and living in Singapore, to say nothing of setting a marker for other countries on what it means to be transparent and accountable. In one fall swoop, the familiar contemptuous references of our country as a nanny state, ‘disneyland with a death penalty’ may well become anachronisms since these legislations proposed really reflect a new confidence all elected leaders have of voters.

Unlike the US and UK, which to some extent or another, introduced FOI legislation after being coerced by the voting public, Singapore can steal a march and institutionalise such trust-building legislation between citizen and state. With the advent of the online media which has taken alot of mindshare away from the government-managed mainstream media, a fresh approach of nurturing and building bonds of trust between the state and Singaporeans is in order. The FOI act , the office of the Ombudsman, the release of official information and whistleblower legislation can only be positive for Singaporeans. It is not a magic bullet or a panacea to all pressing issues of the day, but if the government can introduce an FOI act that suits our purposes, it would have succeeded unlocking the social capital that will nourish and nurture positive citizen-state relations in Singapore for the forseeable future.

2. Freedominfo.org: freedominfo.org is a one-stop portal that describes best practices, consolidates lessons learned, explains campaign strategies and tactics, and links the efforts of freedom of information advocates around the world. It contains crucial information on freedom of information laws and how they were drafted and implemented, including how various provisions have worked in practice. http://www.freedominfo.org/2011/10/opposition-parliamentarian-calls-for-foi-law-in-singapore/

3. New York Times: Right-to-Know Law gives India’s poor a lever – http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/29/world/asia/29india.html

4. Commonwealth recognition for Selangor’s FOI law – http://moonlightchest.com/selangor_times_2011/commonwealth_recognition_selangor.asp

5. Malaysiakini TV – http://malaysiakini.tv/video/22599/freedom-of-information—part-1.html

6. Useful wikipedia entries – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_information and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_information_legislation

Ends.

A 1999 Straits Steamship Prize winner, a 2003 Chevening Scholar, and a Juris Doctor candidate at the Singapore Management University, Member of Parliament Pritam Singh has an impressive list of accomplishments. However, these may well pale in comparison to his achievement in Singapore’s latest General Elections as a member of the Workers’ Party.  Apart from claiming enough votes for his team in the Aljunied Group Representation Constituency (GRC) to be voted into Parliament, many Singaporeans praised the fluent and natural delivery of his speeches in WP rallies leading up to election day.  We ask SMU’s very own postgraduate law student 10 questions about everything from school to politics.

What motivated you to enter politics?

The desire to play my part in changing the status quo for the better.

Who is the one person you admire most and take inspiration from? (and why)

That’s a tough one! I have always admired the courage of ordinary individuals to step up and speak out against injustice and tyranny. In the context of the Cold War, Lech Walesa and Vaclav Havel readily come to mind.

Closer to home, the one person who I really admire and take inspiration from is a relatively unknown man in today’s day and age. He was the second Prime Minister of India – Lal Bahadur Shastri, a man of impeccable integrity, amongst other traits. Quite early on, Lal Bahadur Shastri dropped his surname of Srivastava, as it indicated his caste and he was against the archaic caste system.

He was jailed for a total of 9 nine years over the course of the Indian struggle for Independence against British rule. On one occasion, while he was in prison, his daughter fell seriously ill. He was conditionally released for 15 days during this period, with the stipulation that he desist from taking part in the freedom movement. However, his daughter died before he could reach their home, and after performing funeral rites, he voluntarily returned to prison even before the expiration of his  15-day conditional release.

In 1956, as Minister of Railways he offered his resignation to his Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru after a railway accident that led to the death of more than 100 people. However, his resignation was rejected. A few months later, a second accident took place and this time, he offered his resignation again, accepting moral responsibility for the accident. Nehru accepted his resignation but informed parliament that this was only because Shastri’s resignation set an example for leadership and constitutional propriety, not because Shastri was in anyway personally responsible. When Shastri died unexpectedly on an overseas trip less than two years after he became Prime Minister in 1964, a part of India probably died with him – such was the stature of the man.

While I am sceptical about the long term viability of one-party dominant political systems, I have great admiration for Deng Xiaopeng and the reforms he set China on after 1979. His pragmatic and visionary leadership lifted an entire generation of Chinese out of poverty and set the stage for what is happening in China today.

Describe your typical day.

Hectic! But throughly fulfilling and rewarding. I would not swap it for anything.

What do you do in your free time?

As free time has taken on a new meaning in my life, I do spend whatever little time I have remaining to continually nuture the relationships I have with people that are close to me, my family and friends.

How do you manage your academic life, your role as a Member of Parliament and your personal commitments?

Well, this is not very easy to do, unless you work out a realistic time management plan and leave enough time for exercise too. I try my best to squeeze in a simple exercise routine whenever I can – even though this is proving to be more challenging than I expect!

Separately, a good diet is also critical. I am trying to control my intake of culinary vices – i.e. mutton mysore (slurp!). Keeping an eye out for these little things can really help you achieve a more balanced perspective in whatever endeavour you seek to fulfill. I think I also want to try tai chi or yoga at some point! All said, a clear mind is central to managing mutiple roles and responsibilities. A sense of realism helps too – one should just focus on the mountain he or she is seeking to climb, and worry less about those competing alongside. You can only do your best. Just make sure you are actually doing your best!

What was the last book you read?

Beyond the Blue Gate by Teo Soh Lung.

During the recent general elections, many people praised your eloquence and during public rallies. Did your time at SMU help in any way with your public speaking?

This may sound patronising but in all honesty, I think it helped me in more ways than I can imagine. I am not a natural public speaker. I actually fear speaking in public! What SMU gave me was practice, quite a lot of it, via class presentations. Unbeknowst to me, I think each presentation gave me a little more confidence and after a while, you just get better and better (and sometimes you regress, but that’s life, you have to learn from mistakes too). I am still a work in progress in this regard. I still get the occasional butterflies in my stomach, but I am all for lifelong learning and hope to continue learning how to become a better public speaker.

What is your personal philosophy?

You have one stab at life. Live a full life, an honest life so that on your deathbed, you can tell yourself that you did the best you could, in the circumstances that were presented to you.

Going forward, what are your plans for the next five years?

Well, as far as  political plans are concerned, the priority is singularly focussed on ensuring that the Workers’ Party team runs the Town Council well and serve our residents as they expect us to. Professionally, I see myself cutting my teeth as a lawyer and look forward to establishing a foundation in the legal profession.

Ends.

1. There is a sense that the younger generation in Singapore are less likely to be proud and loyal to the nation, despite them benefitting from the nation’s economic progress. As someone who belongs to the post independence generation, can you identify with this view and what do you think could be the reasons for this?

Honestly, I do not. I have met many young Singaporeans who are fiercely loyal and proud of Singapore. Many of these youth have no qualms taking their destiny in their hands and participating and even volunteering with the various opposition parties in Singapore. Such is the quality of their loyalty that they find no contradiction supporting an opposition party in Singapore, and Singapore the country. This is a very healthy development going forward. Indeed there is no contradiction supporting any political party in Singapore and remaining loyal to the country.

2. In the aftermath of the general elections, former MM Lee Kuan Yew had commented that young Singaporeans have forgotten the struggles of the nation’s past. Do you think the younger generation has taken the nation’s progress for granted? How has the nation’s history shaped your own personal view of the ‘Singapore Dream’?

Every generation takes ownership of its own unique problems. It is a non-starter to expect the current generation to remember every contour of our nation’s past. Rather than be encumbered by the past, our young are more concerned about the future, and rightly so. Contrary to the question, I feel our youth are not taking the nation’s future for granted, and it is for that reason they have more questions, proposals and suggestions for the politicians who represent them. This is yet another healthy development. The nation’s history and my personal view of the Singapore Dream are mutually exclusive. The Singapore Dream will not be delivered on our laps, we will all have to shape it and fight for it even.

3. The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) recently launched a ‘happiness index’ to better measure the quality of life. The new index marks a significant change for the OECD, which for half a century has been known for its orthodox approach to economics and its promotion of structural reforms to boost GDP growth. Beyond economic progress, what areas of progress do you think Singapore should work towards in the years ahead and what role do you see yourself playing in that process as a young politician?

One very important area is citizen participation. And one of the most important tools of citizen participation is information. If we want our people to rely less on the government and to take ownership of their lives, our people must be endowed with the necessary information to understand what the government is thinking – and how we can contribute as citizens to this process. For example, there has been alot of discussion of immigration into Singapore over the last 10 years. But we don’t hear much detailed government explanation on emigration out of Singapore – how many Singaporeans have decided to give up on the Singapore Dream and why? Shouldn’t we look into their reason/s to give up Singapore citizenship, especially since our national birth rates are already so low? Data of this nature allow us as Singaporeans to take a good honest look at ourselves, and drives at the indicators that are so critical in determining the future Singapore we will inherit. Beyond economic progress, the socio-cultural dynamics and prospects of Singapore society deserve closer scrutiny and debate. Without doubt, I plan to contribute to this debate. 

Ends.

Thursday 20 October 2011

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES

SINGAPORE

________

Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai (Moulmein-Kallang): Sir, may I seek a point of clarification from the Member of Aljunied. First, I am glad that the Member found some basis to agree with me, but what I was saying is that we should be building a social compact built on trust and I called for a greater sharing of information from the Government in relation to fulfilling the trust. But that is a far cry from saying that the Government is indirectly controlling the mainstream media which is replete with misinformation and lies. So, I like the Member to please clarify, first, is he saying that the mainstream media is replete with misinformation and lies, and if so, what is the basis.

Mr Pritam Singh: Mr Speaker, Sir, in response, I think the Member Mr Edwin Tong has completely misread my speech, I would be happy to give him a copy after this.

Ms Sim Ann: The hon. Member Mr Pritam Singh has quoted me as talking about the importance of participation of voters and rationality having the upper hand. I wish I could take credit for that statement but, in fact, I was quoting from Mr Goh Choon Kang, a former MP and commentator whom I respect very much. I think credit has to go where it is due. And having made such a passionate speech about combating misinformation, I am sure the Member will agree with me.

Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Sir, I am not sure the Member has answered the question.

Mr Pritam Singh: Mr Speaker, Sir, the main reason why I suggested to the Member that I will be happy to give him my speech is because when he reads my speech, he will understand that I am arguing, I am talking about perceptions. At no point did I say the mainstream media peddles lies so I think the Member should just see me later and take my speech.

3.40 pm

________

4.37 pm

Mr Pritam Singh: Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you very much. I refer to the hon. Member Ms Indranee Rajah’s request for me to clarify, I beg your pardon. It was not a clarification. She wanted to know my opinion about how I felt, whether the mainstream media was biased or not. Now, I wish the Member had stuck to some of the points that I made about the speech about my proposals for this Government to improve communication with Singaporeans, rather than ask me what my view as to whether the mainstream media biased or not, was. Now, be that as it may, let me just go through two points that I made in the speech again for the sake of clarification, nothing more.

I refer to the comments of the chief editor of The Straits’ Times last year again and this is what he said. “We are aware. People say we are Government mouthpiece or that we are biased.” First point. Second point. The remarks of former President Nathan in his memoirs, Page 459, “Privately, I was conscious that another outbreak of serious displeasure with The Straits’ Times could well result in demands for heads roll or a return to the old idea of putting in a Government team.”

Now, never mind what Pritam Singh thinks. What do we say about the comments made by the chief editor of The Straits’ Times and our former President? Now, the fact of the matter is, there are Singaporeans — and I am sure Members in their heart of hearts will know that — many Singaporeans are concerned that because issues are not addressed in the mainstream media across the political spectrum, you have popularity gaining online and the biggest loser in all of these is the Government, not Pritam Singh, not the Opposition but ordinary Singaporeans who actually want to hear diverse perspectives, diverse views.

So, I hope the Member, instead of asking me for my opinion on things, can suggest to the Government what it can do to improve communication between itself and ordinary Singaporeans. Thank you.

Ms Indranee Rajah: Sir, a point of clarification. The hon. Member for Aljunied had put forward a proposal. The proposal was to address a particular concern. The concern was that there is a perception, or he said there is a perception that the mainstream media is controlled. He has cited two examples, the chief editor of SPH, being aware that people say, meaning that is what is people think; President Nathan’s quote – that is what people think.

But the Member of Parliament is putting forward a proposal to have certain Acts which have extremely important provisions. So, all I was seeking was clarification whether that Member believes the reason for these Acts. In other words, do you believe that the mainstream media is controlled and is that why you are putting forward the proposal for these Acts?

Mr Pritam Singh: Mr Speaker, Sir, I think I have to repeat what the focus of my speech was when I made it just now —

Mr Speaker: I suggest you keep it short.

Mr Pritam Singh: Yes, Sir. I basically suggested ways in which the Government can foster an informed and engaged citizenry. And I divided the speech into two parts: I first assessed the mainstream media landscape which directly affects the online world. Now, that is my contention. Now, if the Member does not believe that what occurs in the mainstream media has no effect on the online media, then I am not sure how far I can take this argument.

Secondly, I very clearly informed this House that there are a number of legislation that the Government can consider to actually improve the situation insofar as lies and misinformation occurs and this is really a reflection of the President’s Address and MICA’s Addendum to that Address. They are not referring to the mainstream media. They are referring to the nexus — They are referring, I beg your pardon, to the online media. I am suggesting that there is a connection and the Government would do well to pay heed to that connection. This is not about Pritam Singh’s views on the mainstream media.

The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Law (Mr K Shanmugam): Sir, thank you for allowing me to seek a clarification. Mr Singh is putting forward a position about perceptions of mainstream media. There are many ways of avoiding an answer to the question and Mr Singh has tried a number of them. The question is a simple one. It is very important to know what Mr Singh thinks because a whole series of proposals are being put forward as to how the Government should deal with these perceptions. A Member of Parliament when asked a direct question as to what he believes in, should either say he is prepared to answer or should simply tell the truth which is that, “I am not prepared to answer the question”.

Mr Pritam Singh: I think the Law Minister would know better than I how to answer a question in Parliament because he has been around here longer than I have. But I can only answer a question with my hand on my heart. I am not here to score a political point. I am not here to suggest that the Government is doing something wrong. But what I am saying is that there is scope for this Government to reflect and more importantly, reflect on the words of the former Foreign Minister, the man who occupied this seat that this Member currently occupies. And he said that “the PAP needs to transform itself” and here you have, a backbencher who has stood up and suggested to the Government in all sincerity not to score political points but just to suggest to the Government that there is scope for improvement. And if they need any advice or any suggestions, anything of that sort, I am sure I am happy to provide them. But I am not here to score a political point or to teach someone how a question ought to be answered or not. This is not my intention. And if the Member thinks that answer is so important that it will have some effect on the real Singapore society then I think he is mistaken.

Mr K Shanmugam: Sir, the point is a very simple one and it is this. Does the Member believe that the mainstream media is controlled, purveys lies and dishonest opinions? Why is it important to know that? When Members speak here, their personal views and their integrity to speak their personal views and speak from the heart, there are no games that need to be played. The question is not about other people’s perceptions only. It is a very simple question capable of simple answer. What do you believe in? Then, we have a basis to move forward. Why is it important to say what you believe in? As an elected Member of Parliament, you come here and express your views, you got to put your hand on your heart and say, “This is what I believe in”. That does not require years of experience as a parliamentarian. That simply requires telling the truth.

Mr Speaker: Mr Singh, will you state your belief, otherwise we will move on.

Mr Pritam Singh: Mr Speaker, can I first make a clarification? Is the Minister suggesting I am lying?

Mr K Shanmugam: I am simply saying that Mr Singh does not want to answer the question.

Mr Pritam Singh: Well, I think I will be running over ground that I have already gone over. I essentially am saying that this Government can do better. Now, I am saying that with my hand on my heart.

Mr Speaker: Gentlemen, we will move on. Dr Ng Eng Hen.

________

Mr Pritam Singh: Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you very much. I make reference to Mr Desmond Lee’s comments about the Freedom of Information Legislation. I do not for one minute suggest any law that the Government passes, does not have a flipside to it. I think it was a proposal that was put forward. The Government is free to investigate whether this can actually be effective for Singapore. The Member spoke of an article in The Guardian. I will just show him that there are other cases where FOI Legislation has been seen as a great benefit to the country, and unlike the way he represented the situation, it is not a case of people walking into Ministries demanding information, harassing officials. That is not the image of a Freedom of Information Legislation and I wanted to clarify that.

In response to the article about The Guardian, I would advise him to have a read of The Parliamentarian. It is a magazine which is found on the book trolley in the Parliament library. This is the second – not the latest edition, it was an edition before that — and there are interesting articles on the Freedom of Information Act. Now, I am not going to go into them but he will very quickly realise that there could be more benefits than disbenefits.

6.22 pm

________

Mr Pritam Singh: Mr Speaker, I will be very brief. I like to address this clarification to the Minister and his capacity as the Minister for Information, Communication and the Arts. With regard to the Minister’s remark that he would like Singaporeans to come forward and co-create policies, I may have belabored the point. I think all Members would know what I am driving at now. It is really the freedom of information legislation. Can I request from the Minister whether his Ministry would consider at least looking at the both pros and cons of such legislation and to find out whether it is suitable for Singapore especially in this era where people want more transparency, more accountability from the Government.

Assoc Prof Dr Yaacob Ibrahim: Certainly, the Government will consider all necessary legislation either existing or new ones that we have to amend in order to achieve some of the desired outcomes. Let me share with the Member some information which I have obtained about the Freedom of Information Act about its practice in other countries. We know that while theoretically, the Act will allow individuals more access to government information, in practice there are typically also important exceptions to information access. In the UK for example, Sir, I have been informed that, the Government may refuse where the disclosure of classified information that may endanger certain public interests or if it is too costly to retrieve the information. So, this means that individuals are usually only able to acquire unclassified information. So, we have to bear that in mind.

In Singapore, Sir, unclassified information is already released on various platforms. And Mr Singh has mentioned, the effort by MICA to put data online progressively, and on the websites of public bodies and periodic press releases. This incremental value of freedom of information legislation may be limited but I agree with him that we need to study all possible formulations of the Act or other existing Acts that may help us to achieve the outcome that we want.

6.52 pm

________

1. APPLICATIONS FOR PERMANENT RESIDENCE

Mr Pritam Singh: To ask the Prime Minister (a) how many applications for permanent residence have been rejected on a yearly basis from 2000 to 2010; and (b) what are the specific criteria for approval of such applications.

Mr Teo Chee Hean:

The number of permanent residence (PR) applications which were rejected on a yearly basis from 2000 to 2010 is appended below.

      Source: ICA

Each PR application is evaluated holistically on a set of criteria which includes factors such as the individual’s economic contributions, qualifications, age and family profile to assess applicants’ ability to contribute and integrate well into society and commitment to sinking roots. It would not be appropriate to reveal the specific criteria for approval of PR applications as this could encourage individuals to attempt to circumvent or abuse the system. For this reason, most countries do not publicly disclose their detailed selection criteria for residency or citizenship.

2. JUDICIAL EXECUTIONS IN SINGAPORE

 Mr Pritam Singh: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs from 2004 to 2010, how many criminals have been hanged in Singapore and what is the breakdown in terms of foreigners, permanent residents and Singaporeans for each of these years.

Mr Teo Chee Hean:

The Singapore Prison Service publishes the number of judicial executions in its Prisons Annual Report. This is publicly available on its website.

From 2004 to 2010, there were a total of 26 Singaporeans and 12 foreigners who were executed in Singapore. There were no Permanent Residents executed during this period. The breakdown is provided in the table below.

Note: Singapore Prisons Service (SPS) began publishing data online from 2007. Available SPS data online is not categorised into local and foreigner executions. However, SPS data online reveals executions for offences, i.e. murder, drug trafficking, firearms.

3. EMPLOYMENT AT CASINOS

 Mr Pritam Singh: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Manpower what are the latest available employment figures for our two casinos and what is the percentage breakdown in terms of foreigners, permanent residents and Singaporeans employed.

Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam:

The government is unable to provide the firm-level statistics which the member has asked for as such statistics are protected under the Statistics Act.  Nonetheless, there is some publicly available information from the two Integrated Resorts (IRs). They have recently stated that they directly employ more than 22,000 workers, of which about 70% are locals.

MTI estimates that the IRs will add $2.7 billion (or approximately 0.8%) to Singapore’s annual GDP and generate between 50,000 and 60,000 direct and indirect jobs throughout the economy by 2015. Government agencies including MOM, MTI, WDA and STB will continue to provide strong support to their recruitment and training of Singaporeans for jobs within the IRs.

4. NATIONAL SERVICE DEFERMENT FOR ENLISTEES PURSUING QUALIFICATIONS IN MEDICINE

 Mr Pritam Singh: To ask the Minister for Defence (a) what is the Ministry’s current policy on National Service deferment for enlistees pursuing qualifications in medicine in local and overseas institutions across the educational spectrum from undergraduate to post-graduate and specialisation courses or training; (b) whether there have there been any changes to this policy since its inception; and (c) if exceptions have been made, under what circumstances have they been made.

Dr Ng Eng Hen:

In response to a separate parliamentary question on October 20^th 2011, the Minister for Defence has provided details to MINDEF’s policy of disruption for medical studies which address the queries in this question. Please refer to that reply. To summarise, since 1973, MINDEF has allowed full-time National Servicemen (NSFs) to disrupt for medical studies as we need military doctors to serve in the SAF.  From 1981 to 1992, disruption was extended to NSFs to obtain overseas medical degrees that were recognised by the Singapore Medical Council, as the number of local medical graduates was insufficient.  From 1992, disruption for overseas medical studies was no longer allowed, as there were enough local medical graduates to meet the SAF’s needs.

The length of disruption varied, based on the time required to obtain the medical degree. It took longer for those completing medical degrees in the United States, where medicine is a graduate program and required a pre-medical degree for entry.

All those disrupted for medical studies met eligibility criteria that were explicitly stated.

Ends.

Please allow me to congratulate you on your election as Speaker of this House.

In his speech to this House, the President noted, “we must find ways to use the new media constructively, to connect with the digital generation and sustain fruitful conversations on issues concerning us all.” MICA’s addendum noted that the Ministry seeks to find innovative ways to connect with citizens and it plays an important role in driving and coordinating whole-of-government efforts in fostering an informed and engaged citizenry.

Mr Speaker Sir, my speech today relates to suggesting ways in which the government can foster an informed and engaged citizenry. It is divided into two parts. First I assess Singapore’s mainstream media landscape, which directly affects the online world. Secondly, I seek to provide suggestions to the government on how it can sow the seeds for a media and information environment where Singaporeans are as far as possible, inoculated from lies and misinformation online, and biased reporting from other media outlets in general.

Sir, the new media does not exist in a vacuum. Some Singaporeans routinely wonder why alternative political commentary websites are so popular among Singaporeans – these include Singapore Recalcitrant, Singapore Daily, Singapore Notes and sites from across the centre-left of the political spectrum like Yawning Bread, The Online Citizen and even some articles from the discontinued Temasek Review. Could it be because for every ounce of misinformation, perceived or otherwise, these websites and blogs also ask serious questions pertaining to governance in Singapore – questions that are sidestepped, diluted or even ignored by the government and mainstream media?

The government has, over the last few years in particular, referred to the new media in largely pejorative terms – the Prime Minister has previously referred to it as the “wild west” and more recently, as a “cowboy town”. But the reality is this – the new media is here to stay, and it will continue to eat into the mindshare of the mainstream media, no matter what the government chooses to call it. Temasek Review may have gone offline, but it is not going to be too difficult or technically challenging to bring 10 new incarnations of Temasek Review online overnight.

Rather than fear or castigate the new media, members need to consider how far the explosive popularity of the new media is partly a function of the PAP government’s politics of indirect control, and the boundaries successive PAP governments have placed upon the mainstream media.

In 2010, former MICA Minister, Mr Liu Tuck Yew stated “we want to make sure that the Press is, and is seen as, independent of the influence of Government.”  This house would know, through conversations members must have had with their friends, that many self-respecting Singaporeans have well-founded doubts, perceptions though they may be, that the mainstream media operates with the long shadow of Government firmly cast upon it.

The perceptions of ordinary Singaporeans were somewhat confirmed when the Chief Editor of the Straits Times was quoted last year as saying, “We’re aware people say we are a government mouthpiece or that we are biased.” For me personally, this perception was somewhat crystallized when I recently read a chapter in former President SR Nathan’s memoirs titled “Entering the newspaper world”.

In page 459, he is quoted as saying (this is shortly after the corporate restructuring of SPH and the just prior to the launch of the New Paper), “privately, I was conscious that another outbreak of serious displeasure with the Straits Times could well result in demands for heads to roll and a return to the old idea of putting in a government team.”

Some members may feel that President Nathan’s views are nothing more than reflections from a bygone era. But in 2003 another episode occurred, euphemistically referred to as the Val Chua affair, this time with Today, the Mediacorp publication. The precise details of what happened, and why it happened are hazy, but what did happen is that the newspaper’s editor left his job shortly this episode.

Little wonder why some Singaporeans, particularly those in the post-65 generation have more faith and confidence in the new media, and why some may even tolerate misinformation or get taken in by disinformation to varying degrees online.

Mr Speaker Sir, this government is not in a position to change perceptions of the mainstream media unless there is a fundamental rethink about elements of the NPPA, and opening the mainstream media market to genuine competition – these are issues far beyond the scope of my speech.

But that should not stop the government from thinking about how it can prepare Singaporeans for a future – if it is not here already – where information will increasingly be at everyone’s fingertips, whether you are 9 or 90 years of age.

How do we make sure the overwhelming majority of our citizenry are readily able to seek reliable sources of information be it online or in the mainstream media? How do we convince our citizens that there can be various perspectives to an issue and to respect these various perspectives and narratives, even if we may disagree with them or if they differ from our own? Once more, the answers to these questions do not lie in the online world, but in the real world.

To improve communication with Singaporeans, this PAP government has to work hard to change the perception of its philosophy of indirect control of the mainstream media, and deliberately move towards a politics of empowerment when dealing with Singaporeans. The government should commit to share more information and in doing so, exorcise itself from its insecurity and paranoia, which makes less sense in view of the borderless nature of the internet and the speed at which information is exchanged and perceptions formed.

Mr Speaker Sir, I agree with Mr Lam Pin Min’s views that active citizenry in the real and virtual worlds are good for Singapore, and that good digital literacy and judgment is needed in future. I also support Mr Edwin Tong when he said government engagement with Singaporeans can build a new social compact and that what is required is trust and not blind faith. Ms Sim Ann alluded to the new normal and said that voters must be active participants so that rationality has the upper hand. Mr Baey Yam Keng spoke of an emphasis in research and the interpretation of information. Mr Cedric Foo arguably went the furthest when he highlighted the existence of information asymmetries in Singapore, suggesting that voters had no benefit of decisions made in the highest echelons of government. He also said that the government’s default mode should be to share more to secure greater buy-in from the public, so there is less room for the truth to be distorted.  And Mdm Fatimah Latiff noted that government communication had to be enhanced and it was one of the weakest aspects of this government.

Mr Speaker Sir, with these words from PAP backbenchers which I support, I will now move into the second section of my speech that envisages specific legislation – that can protect Singaporeans from lies, misinformation and open up new avenues for the new media and mainstream media to promote a more informed citizenry.

I make 4 proposals, all of which call for more than, the digital education suggested by Mr Lam.  Critically, my proposals seek to signpost the government to move beyond slogans such as the “new normal”, to substantive change with a view to promote active citizenry.

Firstly – a Freedom of Information legislation – an idea that has been repeated in the WP’s 2006 and 2011 manifestos. Mr Speaker Sir, a prospective freedom of information act will allow any Singaporean citizen to make enquiries with any public body for statistics and information, at a reasonable price. While I commend the government for the recently launched website data.gov.sg and the regular public release of information by the Department of Statistics, these examples amplify the fact that it is the government that decides what it wants to put out.

What a Freedom of Information Act would do is to allow ordinary citizens to pull information from public bodies that have not put the information sought in the public realm. A Freedom of Information legislation is not meant to oblige the government to release sensitive data such as defence deployments and procurement. Exceptions are routinely scheduled in Freedom of Information legislation elsewhere, which prohibit government release of sensitive information. It is useful to note that Freedom of Information legislation is very much the norm in countries, which host a diverse and plural polity.

And in case some members feel such open-government legislation only originates in Western countries and that we Asians do it differently, the multi-racial Malaysian states of Penang and Selangor have opened a dialogue on the induction of such legislation. India passed the Right to Information Act in 2005, a high-water mark of the previous UPA government.

Lets try to envisage a Freedom of Information Act in practice. In the event, some misinformation is being peddled about on the internet or mainstream media, ordinary citizens and journalists can walk into any ministry, go to the designated information officer and seek official statistics on the matter. With this information in hand, the peddler of misinformation either online or in the mainstream media, would be found out, and the webpage or newspaper which hosted the misinformation would lose credibility.

No Singaporean will be able to accuse the government of selectively putting out information it wants to, since ordinary Singaporeans will be empowered to seek the information they require.

A Freedom of Information Act hosts other benefits too. Only a few weeks ago MCYS launched “Be the Change”, an initiative, which invites “young Singaporeans to step forward, share their ideas, and take the lead in turning their ideas into reality.”  Such projects are likely to be far more successful, popular and broad-based if youth can make enquiries of government on data and statistics to ensure their ideas are workable and practical.

A second arrow in the politics of empowerment is an obligation by the government of the day to order the automatic release and disclosure of official information at fixed intervals of 30 years or so. In the United Kingdom, the Public Records Office manages this process. The disclosure of official documents, apart from introducing substantive accountability and transparency in government-decision making processes, will likely provide Singaporeans with valuable insights on why decisions were made the way they were by political leaders in the past. Such a repository of information is extremely helpful to ensure succeeding generations understand the circumstances behind the success of their predecessors while avoiding the very same mistakes and missteps.

Automating the periodic disclosure of official documents may necessitate a review of certain sections of the National Heritage Board Act. The government should not see such changes as an attempt to criticize and expose previous governments. But no politician should be beyond reproach and a commitment to open government files for historical scrutiny are important features of a politically mature society.

Thirdly, President Tony Tan, during his Presidential campaign revived interest in the office of the Ombudsman, a proposal first made to the PAP government by the 1966 Wee Chong Jin commission almost 50 years ago. The PAP government of the day rejected the Wee Commission’s proposal. The current Law Minister reiterated the call for an Ombudsman when he was backbencher less than 20 years ago in 1994. The office of the Ombudsman protects the interests of citizens aggrieved by official decisions. Currently, while the courts are available for this purpose, it is important to remember that judicial review, as far as Singapore law is concerned, only allows the court to adjudicate upon the process by which a government decision was made, not the decision itself.

The office of the Ombudsman reflected an important philosophy of government the 1966 Wee Commission recognised – that all political power has limits, and people have rights against government too, and the very individuals they voted into office.

More than just an institution, the office of the Ombudsman symbolizes a certain confidence and trust a government has in its people and vice versa. Establishing such a office today is likely to go some way to opening new channels of communication between citizen and state, regardless which government is in charge of Singapore.  And it is a proposal this government would do well to reconsider.

Finally Mr Speaker Sir, in 2005, a Business Times article reported that speaker after speaker at a local conference called for Singapore companies to encourage whistle-blowing, to help ensure good governance. These speakers included Hsieh Fu Hua, special adviser to Temasek Holdings, former SMS Ho Peng Kee and former PAP MP Davinder Singh. Unfortunately on 18 May 2011, a week or so after the 2011 General Elections, a government spokesman with the Ministry of Finance announced that the Ministry had considered and decided to not pursue a whistle blowing law to protect corporate whistleblowers. This was in spite of strong calls by Singaporeans for whistle-blower legislation, partly because of the banking disasters that came to light in 2008, but more because of Singapore’s acutely important role as a financial and economic hub.

Singapore remains a prime target for economic crimes as so much commerce passes through our shores. Whistleblower and whistleblower protection legislation makes ordinary Singaporeans part of good governance process, not just the government and law enforcement agencies. It also protects ordinary businesses from rogue directors and employees.

Australia for examples has included whistleblower provisions in their Corporations Act. In view of the comprehensive review of our Companies Act currently underway, which coincidentally is modelled on Australian legislation, it may be apposite for this government to re-consider including whistleblower provisions in our statute books.

In case members think such legislation would stymie the business and cause the wheels of commerce to cease, whistle-blower legislation makes allowance for the prosecution of whistleblowers should their complaints be found to be vexatious and without basis.

Mr Speaker Sir, there is a lot of scope for this government to take good governance to the next level and divert the focus from misinformation or disinformation online towards building institutions that promote communication, transparency and accountability between the state and all Singaporeans. Any sincere effort by the government is likely to have significant knock-on consequences online. Each of these proposals, a freedom of information act, public release of official information, the office of the Ombudsman and whistleblower protection are key nodes in a system of trust that would give Singaporeans the tools necessary to rely less on the government for solutions and play their part in active citizenship.

In the early 1990s, before the advent of the new normal, then Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong sought to usher participatory democracy in Singapore. This slogan did not last very long, and many Singaporeans do not remember the Goh Chok Tong era as opening to door to participatory democracy. In the course of this debate, close to 10 PAP members have called for the government to improve communication with ordinary Singaporeans. Without doubt, the time has come for the government to decisively move in this direction, not in words but in deeds.

Mr Speaker, I support the motion.

23 September 2011

The Straits Times (c) 2011 Singapore Press Holdings Limited

The practice of appointing PAP candidates as grassroots advisers in opposition wards has been in the news of late due to disputes in Workers’ Party-held Aljunied GRC and Hougang. Insight digs up the history of this controversial practice.

ON OCT 31, 1981, Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam won a by-election in Anson and became the first opposition Member of Parliament to be elected since 1963.

It was a historic win, for the then Workers’ Party chief had broken the 13-year monopoly of Parliament by the People’s Action Party (PAP).

A peculiar question arose in the aftermath of his victory: Who would be made adviser to Anson’s grassroots organisations?

Uncertainty in Anson

BETWEEN 1968 – the year the last Barisan Sosialis MPs walked out of the House – and 1981, Parliament was an all-PAP affair.

Every elected MP automatically became his ward’s grassroots adviser.

Shortly before the 1981 by-election, however, there was a rule change. The adviser no longer had to be the MP. Instead, he would be chosen by the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO).

Mr Jeyaretnam observed then that as these rules were not gazetted, one could not tell exactly when changes were made.

For almost two months after the by- election, whom Anson’s adviser would be remained a mystery – at least to the public.

Mr Lee Khoon Choy was then a senior minister of state in the PMO and deputy chairman of the People’s Association (PA), a post he held from 1977 to 1984.

Mr Lee tells Insight that even then, he thought the elected MP should be appointed grassroots adviser.

‘I was in favour of allowing all elected MPs to be active in the centres,’ Mr Lee says, referring to community centres and others that come under the PA’s grassroots network.

‘They should be allowed to do so – after all, they were elected,’ he adds.

But as chairman of the PA, then Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew objected to allowing opposition involvement, he says. A line had been drawn on the matter.

On Nov 8, 1981, Mr Goh Chok Tong, then Health Minister, Second Defence Minister and deputy chairman of the residents’ committee (RC) steering committee, said RCs came under the PMO and would ‘continue to report to the PMO’.

Asked how Anson RC members should respond to Mr Jeyaretnam’s requests for help, Mr Goh said: ‘If the requests coincide with the efforts of RC members, which comply with what the PMO would like them to do, then I think they are legitimate requests. And I think RC members will comply.’

In his first post-election press conference, on Nov 13, Mr Jeyaretnam said he was unsure if he would accept the advisory role even if it was offered to him.

But he later said he would have to give such an offer serious consideration as he did not want any confrontation with the authorities.

A civil servant as adviser

ON DEC 23, the PMO finally announced its decision. Then Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew had appointed PMO director Ong Kok Min as the adviser to Anson’s six grassroots organisations: three RCs, the citizens’ consultative committee (CCC), and two community centre management committees.

In response to the news, Mr Jeyaretnam told reporters that he intended to form his own grassroots committee.

‘I intend to get in a committee that will represent the residents and not the Prime Minister,’ he said.

Before the announcement, he had expressed his intention to make grassroots committees elected, rather than appointed by the Government.

In its statement, the PMO observed that since the PA’s formation in 1960, no opposition MP had been included in its committees and activities.

Advisers to grassroots organisations – which were government agencies under the PMO’s authority – were chosen for ‘their commitment to government policies’, said the PMO.

As an opposition MP, Mr Jeyaretnam was not expected to work for the success of the Government’s policies, it added.

The Government has not wavered from that line since. In PAP-held wards, it appoints MPs as grassroots advisers but in opposition-held wards, it gives PAP candidates that role.

Politics and the PA

IN PARLIAMENT in 1983, Mr Jeyaretnam disputed the neutrality of grassroots organisations – a topic which would recur in the House for the next three decades.

He claimed that the PA and its organisations had been put to use ‘in promoting the fortunes of a political party’ – namely, the PAP.

As an example, he noted that PAP candidates at election time were accompanied by officials of CCCs and RCs.

In contrast, he said, the RCs in his constituency had shunned him.

Then PM Lee Kuan Yew retorted that Mr Jeyaretnam had ‘disqualified himself’ from being made adviser by disdaining the unelected nature of RCs.

As for the PA, it was ‘an unusual association to meet an unusual set of circumstances’, he said.

When the PAP came to power in 1959, it wished to combat the communist threat, said Mr Lee. But one problem was that people preferred not to be involved in politics, out of fear of communist reprisal.

‘We therefore came out with this proposition which enabled community leaders not to identify themselves with a political party but to identify themselves with the Government of the day. There is a clear distinction,’ said Mr Lee.

That proposition was the PA, conceived as a non-partisan body.

Speaking to Insight this week, Mr Lee Khoon Choy regrets how the PA and its organisations came to be embroiled in political controversy.

‘The PA should concentrate not on politics, but on culture, and how to bring the people together,’ he says.

His views have not changed from 1981: ‘The PA is for everybody,’ he says. That includes the opposition, he adds later.

Opposition objections

GOVERNMENT explanations have failed to satisfy the opposition.

In the 16 years from 1981 to 1997, issues relating to the role of grassroots advisers were raised in Parliament no fewer than 10 times.

Mr Jeyaretnam raised them again in 1985, this time supported by Mr Chiam See Tong, who became MP for Potong Pasir in the 1984 General Election.

In an interview with Insight this week, Mr Chiam says his constituents were ‘very disappointed’ when he was not made adviser.

‘It was a slap in their faces. They elected me as their MP, and here came the PAP to take me away from them.’

Mr Chiam pursued the topic through the 1980s and 1990s. After the 1991 General Election saw more opposition MPs in Parliament, his complaints were joined by those of Mr Low Thia Khiang, then MP for Hougang, and Mr Cheo Chai Chen, then MP for Nee Soon Central.

The opposition MPs asked why they could not be made advisers to grassroots bodies; disputed the neutrality of the PA; complained about being denied the use of community facilities; and took issue with the process of applying for public funds.

The Government’s response remained the same through the years: grassroots advisers must help advance government policy, and opposition MPs cannot be expected to do so.

When Mr Chiam protested in 1987, then Minister for National Development S. Dhanabalan noted that any PAP MP who did not help to advance government policy would be removed as adviser.

If Mr Chiam could state that he was able to advance government policy, then the PA would be prepared to consider him as an adviser, he added.

Then PA deputy chairman Lee Yock Suan echoed that sentiment in 1989.

But opposition MPs said that stance painted too obstructionist a portrait of them.

In 1995, Mr Cheo said that opposition MPs like him support and promote government policies that are good.

‘But if the policy is no good, then we have a duty to point it out,’ he added.

Mr Chiam tells Insight this week: ‘We are all Singaporeans. If it’s good for Singapore, we will put our full backing behind government policy.’

Members of the public have recently made the same point.

In a letter to The Straits Times on Aug 31 this year, the PA noted that grassroots advisers have to ‘help promote government policies and programmes such as anti-dengue and active ageing’.

Opposition MPs could not be expected to play this role well, it added.

In response, a flurry of forum letters expressed scepticism that opposition MPs would not promote such policies.

And on its Facebook page, the Singapore People’s Party – of which Mr Chiam is secretary-general – posted photographs of Mr Chiam’s efforts in those exact two areas: serving senior citizens at a ‘durian party’, and holding an anti-dengue campaign when he was the MP for Potong Pasir.

Gaining a political edge?

ONE consequence of opposition MPs not being grassroots advisers is that their town councils’ access to public funds becomes more difficult.

Applications for Community Improvement Projects Committee (CIPC) funds must get the approval of the CCC.

In opposition constituencies, the CCC adviser is usually a PAP member – often the defeated candidate at the previous election, or the candidate intending to contest the next election.

Projects by opposition-held town councils are hence unlikely to be approved, Mr Chiam and Mr Low have said.

Both have called for the town council to be allowed to apply directly for funds.

In 1995, Mr Chiam noted in Parliament that before Mr Low was elected, the Hougang CCC had supported several recommendations for CIPC funds.

But this support was withdrawn after the PAP lost Hougang, said Mr Chiam.

The next year, noting that defeated PAP candidate Andy Gan was adviser to Potong Pasir CCC, he said: ‘How do you think the defeated candidate will advise the CCC? To give support to the opposition’s application?

Naturally not.’

He noted that his own town council’s applications had been rejected by the Potong Pasir CCC.

The defeated PAP candidate is elevated ‘to a higher status’ than the elected MP and ‘given all the facilities to win back the seat’, said Mr Chiam.

Meanwhile, Mr Low noted that potential PAP candidates were often brought into the constituency as second advisers to the grassroots organisations, allowing them to ‘work the ground in the constituency and gain political capital’.

Ill-fated advisers

EVEN if this was the PAP strategy, it does not seem to have paid off.

Before the 1984 General Election, Mr Ng Pock Too – then political secretary to the prime minister – was made adviser to the Anson CCC. He ran against Mr Jeyaretnam that year and lost.

The Anson seat disappeared after the electoral boundaries were redrawn ahead of the 1988 General Election.

In Potong Pasir, a string of PAP candidates became grassroots advisers – but electoral victory remained Mr Chiam’s.

Mr Mah Bow Tan became adviser to the Potong Pasir grassroots organisations after his defeat by Mr Chiam in 1984, but handed over the position to Mr Kenneth Chen in 1988.

Mr Chen ran in Potong Pasir that year, but was defeated. Two weeks before the polls in 1991, Mr Andy Gan became adviser. He ran and lost in 1991 and 1997.

In early 2001, Mr Sitoh Yih Pin took on the role. He ran and lost in 2001 and 2006, but finally won the seat this year, after Mr Chiam left to contest in Bishan- Toa Payoh GRC.

The story was similar in Hougang, where defeated PAP candidate Tang Guan Seng became a grassroots adviser after the 1981 polls.

He was followed by Mr Heng Chee How, who lost in the 1997 election; Mr Eric Low, who lost in 2001 and 2006; and Mr Desmond Choo, who lost this year.

Many of the defeated candidates later entered Parliament by contesting in other seats and GRCs.

Changing times?

MR CHIAM, in 1987, warned that excluding opposition MPs from grassroots bodies might divide the nation.

‘We cannot have two worlds in Singapore – one who is supportive of the ruling party and the other who appears not to be supportive,’ he said.

And if there are more opposition members in the future, ‘the difference will be greater’, he said.

Today, there are six opposition MPs in Parliament. An alternative grassroots body has been set up in Aljunied GRC, which is held by the Workers’ Party.

Some have suggested that this duplication is unnecessary, and a result of the exclusion of opposition MPs from grassroots bodies.

‘It’s unnecessary and a waste of energy,’ says Mr Lee Khoon Choy, who thinks the Workers’ Party MPs should be involved in the PA organisations. He adds that ‘our society needs more harmony’.

Others have turned the question around and asked: Why should PAP MPs themselves be grassroots advisers?

Having PAP members on the ground to explain the party’s policies was crucial in the volatile decade of the 1960s, when ideological battles were being waged.

But the justification for having a party member as grassroots adviser, rather than a grassroots leader with no political affiliation, may seem less strong today.

As members of the opposition – and of the public – continue asking these questions, the three-decade-old response might eventually have to be reconsidered.

janiceh@sph.com.sg

SAME WAVELENGTH

‘…the grassroots adviser has to be somebody who can work with the Government and help the Government achieve its goals on the ground. I think that’s necessary.’

PM Lee Hsien Loong (above). He was responding to media queries on the recent spat between the People’s Association and Workers’ Party MPs.

TIME TO CHANGE

‘A change is long overdue. If it doesn’t happen, it will be bad for the Government and bad for the PAP – the people can see the unfairness.’

Mr Chiam See Tong, former MP for Potong Pasir for 27 years, who thinks opposition MPs should be allowed to be grassroots advisers

Singapore Press Holdings Limited