I only have brief comments on this amendment bill.

I support this Bill which modernises the law in treating documents created electronically as primary documents. I can only wish that this amendment bill was put before us earlier, since the relevant reports from the Singapore Academy of Law were published back in the year 2004.

As for extending Legal Professional privilege to other Legal Counsel not acting as Advocates and Solicitors – this also modernises the law. Legal Counsel can now provide advice knowing that the advice is privileged.

Lastly, I commend the repeal of Section 157 (d), in which the sexual history of victims of sexual assault and rape may be used against them in court. This move is long overdue. Blaming a victim is not merely an outdated concept that only “chaste” women should be afforded legal protection, but it was simply bad law. A crime should be redressed simply because it is a crime.

Thank you.

Mrs Lina Chiam, NCMP

1. At first glance, the replacement of Section 15 of the Legal Profession Act seems like a U-turn after the years of the development of our own legal profession. In essence, we are now going to make it easier to admit persons outside Singapore before our courts – this will be the effect of removing the requirement of a case being of “sufficient difficulty and complexity”. If there are to be foreign admissions, then it seems reasonable for it to be shown that the expertise is really required in each individual case.
2. Nonetheless I am willing to accept the Minister’s proposal, but he should also go one step further. I am inviting this House to consider admitting Queen’s Counsels for cases of a political nature, such as defamation suits involving opposing politicians. I say this because of a number of high-profile defamation cases of complex nature, where these litigants were unable to hire Senior Counsel’s or their representatives. The ambit of the amended section should also include Queen’s Counsel’s with constitutional law expertise, given that the complex arena of constitutional cases, such as the mandatory death sentence legal challenge in Court in 2010, straddled on international law which local lawyers needed the expertise of a Queen’s Counsel. Edward Fitzgerald QC of London (an expert on human rights law) was present in court as part of the research team to lend his assistance on a pro-bono basis in a capital case before the Court of Appeal but did not argue the case as already the current requirement for ad hoc admission is already too stringent.
3. Mr Speaker, there are a number of Honourable Members in this House who are distinguished Senior Counsels. But would they be willing to take up such political or constitutional cases? Who else in Singapore can tackle such cases of a sufficiently difficult and complex nature, if our Senior Counsels decline to take them up? I therefore urge this House not to impose a significantly higher threshold for the admission of QC’s in areas of constitutional and criminal law which the Draft Bill seeks to impose at paragraph 6 of the said Bill. I’m making this plea before this House so that Singaporeans and the local lawyers are not denied of such eminent assistance on legal issues concerning fundamental liberties which should not be ranked in secondary importance to commercial matters.
4. This is precisely where I think the admission of a Queen’s Counsel is most necessary. But if these cases fall into the category of legal practice for which the courts will not admit foreign legal practitioners, then I question the fundamental rationale behind this Bill.
5. Could I therefore seek the Minister’s clarification and explanation on this issue?

Thank you.

Mrs Lina Chiam, NCMP

The six members of the CEC submitted their resignations to the party on 27 January, asking for that to take place with immediate effect. While we were reluctant, I eventually accepted their resignations in writing as they had made the resignations public.

The party can confirm that we have received legal advice to refute claims that the conduct of the Ordinary Party Conference (OPC) elections for new CEC members on 29 January was unconstitutional. Those claims were made by the ex-members who were not present at the OPC, and thus may not have been aware of the proceedings that day.

It has been levelled against me as Secretary-General of the SPP that I am not interested in leadership renewal and succession, or in being consultative. Nothing can be further from the truth.

I am aggressively building up the next batch of potential leaders, consistent with the public statement the party made recently. At this point of time, we can confirm that our talent pipeline is not affected. But the baton should only be passed when the right leaders are in place. To be sure of the capability and aptitude of the next leader, they have to work with our grassroots and volunteers. They have to show commitment to attending our walkabouts and other party activities. They have to showcase their policymaking capabilities through the policy working group.

I believe in the merits of a consultative, collective leadership. But the situation of a ‘lack of collective leadership’ which the party has been accused of was in fact a situation of ‘collective leadership’ exercised by those ex-CEC members in isolation from other CEC members. A key example of this was the setting up of their proposed community foundation under the banner of the SPP, which was privy only to them. The rest of the CEC was not consulted or involved in this setting up of this foundation.

We have been asked to respond to specific accusations over disagreements concerning signboards, book publications and event invitations. We see no point in doing so.

We reiterate that contrary to rumours, former presidential candidate Mr Tan Jee Say was not involved in the resignations. If he decides to join the SPP, we will welcome him fully.

The SPP is supportive of opposition unity and initiatives towards this end.

We have no ill intentions towards the ex-CEC members. They have indicated their intention to pursue other interests – we respect their decision and we sincerely wish them all the best in their future endeavours.

Chiam See Tong
Secretary-General
SPP

I wish to inform that members who resigned, did so for their own personal reasons.
My main priority is to concentrate on the upcoming Ministerial budget speech and budget debate and working with the rest of the new cec team

I have no intention of debating issues concerning the former members in public as this is a distraction from my role as NCMP.

Mrs Lina Chiam
1 Feb 2012

On 29 January 2012, the SPP conducted an Ordinary Party Conference (OPC) and elected a new Central Executive Committee (CEC). The appointments within this new CEC have not yet been decided – this will be subjected to a vote within 3 weeks of the OPC, and will be announced in due course.
The party received both resignations, which had been accepted as well as new applications for membership. This was an opportune time for the party to renew and strengthen the team.

We have 3 focuses now.

Internally we are focused on building a sustainable pipeline of talents. The party takes the leadership pipeline seriously. This includes taking a very careful stance in planning for succession. To be accountable to Singaporeans whom we serve, the SPP has to be sure of the capability and aptitude of the next leader, whether he or she can work well with all the bases of the party including our strong grassroots and volunteers bases, and must be proven over time. This guiding principle applies to our decision in the OPC. The leadership in SPP has been carefully building up the character of select young candidates with the passion to serve through different platforms such as the policy working group and the weekly MPS. These potential leaders will be given the chance to drive key projects within the SPP for the good of Singaporeans. This select group receives personal mentorship from senior members of the SPP directly.

A second focus is the continuity of our work. Besides the policy work group, the party’s other activities continue as usual. These include its financial counselling sessions led by volunteer Mr Leong Sze Hian, at Potong Pasir Block 108; its weekly and monthly Meet the People sessions (MPS), conducted by NCMP Mrs Lina Chiam at blk 108 Potong Pasir and Block 213 Lorong 8 Toa Payoh;

The party will also continue to hold its regular walkabouts of outreach together with door to door MPS at Bishan-Toa Payoh.

Currently the team is working on inputs to the parliamentary debate on the 2012 Singapore Budget.

Our 3 priorities for policy work comprises of social and healthcare, CPF, and economic growth.

Thirdly, the party sees Potong Pasir, Bishan-Toa Payoh and Hong Kah North constituencies as its priorities at the next general election due in 2016.

We welcome all Singaporeans to join us during the next open house and in any of our MPS sessions.

Singapore People’s Party - Official Statement 31 Jan 2012

Mr Speaker sir,

May I draw the attention of this House to the Bankruptcy Act, which Clause 13 of this bill seeks to amend. This clause makes changes to the adjournment of bankruptcy cases in court and to bankruptcy applications. I have two questions for the Minister: – Firstly, can the Minister provide us with the number of bankrupt individuals sent for debt restructuring schemes, against the number of those who are discharged, in the past year? What I would like to know is whether the numbers of bankrupt individuals are increasing or dropping, or if a majority of them are simply sent for debt restructuring schemes. Secondly, I am reminded of a recent case that was reported last month (December 2011), in which the bankruptcy orders for three former directors of the National Kidney Foundation – Richard Yong, Mathilda Chua, and the late Loo Say San – were annulled. This was not been sufficiently examined by the media.[1] Would the Minister give details of this case and an account of the annulment of the bankruptcy orders for these ex-directors of the NKF? I am sure Singaporeans would like to know more about bankruptcy laws in Singapore and how they have been applied to major cases like the NKF saga of 2006. Thank you.

[1] Note: it appears that only Lianhe Zaobao reported this annulment case, on 13 December 2011, but did not really explain the reasons behind the annulment.

2. Economic Expansion Incentives (Relief from Income Tax) (Amendment) Bill

Mr Speaker sir,

With Clause 3 in this amendment bill, there seems to be now more flexibility in the tax relief period that pioneer service companies can enjoy. I am not sure why the minimum requirement of 5 years of tax relief is being removed. Nonetheless my interest in this lies in whether our local enterprises are benefitting from this pioneer status scheme. Could I therefore ask the Minister about the historical record of the issuance of pioneer status – how many certificates have been given to local SMEs versus those given to foreign companies and MNCs? Thank you.

1.  My first point relates to the formula of pegging the ministers’ base pay to 60 per cent of the median income of the top 1,000 Singaporean income earners. Mathematically, it is not clear how the salaries will go from here. Yes, this is a huge cut now. But there is a possibility that the new formula may even result in a higher base pay than what the old formula could provide, on a long-term basis.

There are many ways that the median pay for the top 1,000 earners can rise substantially in the next 5 years. Wealthy foreign business people could be given Singapore citizenships en masse. It could even be that the median pay for this group will rise much faster than the median of the top 48 earners.

But for me to form a more accurate opinion, I would need to see how the old and the new formulas would apply to the period from the year 2000 to 2010, on a backdated basis.

To do so, the Government would have to provide us with these figures. More importantly are the figures for the ministers’ bonuses as paid out each year according to the old and new formulas.

If the Government and the review committee are truly serious about promoting a ‘clean wage’ approach for Singapore’s ministers, without additional perks and allowances, then they must follow through with the spirit of that approach -

All these data on salaries and the specific amount of bonuses paid out each year must be published and made transparent for public scrutiny. To date, I believe such data is never released.

In the UK, the Freedom of Information Act allowed for the release of details of MPs’ expenses claim for the British public in the year 2009. If we in Singapore want to talk about ‘clean wages’, let’s go all the way – publish the bonuses paid out every year.

Mr Speaker, if the Government does not wish to follow the practices of ministerial pay in other countries, may I remind the honourable Members of this House at least to show some respect to our friends and neighbours and how they have decided to remunerate their leaders in their own countries. Let’s show some humility. We should not be telling them how to run their countries. There is no need to jeopardize our relationship with them.

2.  My second point, in my opinion, is even more important for the good of Singapore.

Ministerial pay should be primarily driven according to KPIs that are specific to their ministerial portfolio. Each ministry should create a set of KPIs for their minister, and the minister’s pay is to be objectively decided by a formula that is ministry-specific. As a guide, the KPIs for the Permanent Secretary of the relevant ministry, as the most senior civil servant, should be taken into account.

Yes, I know that there is the Performance Bonus component, which is rewarded based on the individual performance of ministers. But it is not clear what the criteria are in attaining this Performance Bonus. The review committee’s report says that “The Performance Bonus quantum will be reduced substantially”. I am not sure whether the bonus formulas are well structured to drive ministers towards fulfilling their portfolio KPIs, and for the purpose of accountability.

The committee’s recommended formula for the National Bonus may be an improvement on the old GDP Bonus formula, but it is still too broad. Some cynics have even speculated that the recommendation for the old formula to be changed has come at a time when Singapore’s GDP growth will be slowing down.

For example, the Minister for Trade and Industry’s KPI for all his bonuses could be Singaporeans’ wage growth. The Minister for Transport’s KPI could be tied with the Minister for National Development’s KPI to control population growth and thereby, vehicle numbers.

Otherwise, the bonus structure gives me discomfort. For example, our transport system might be in disarray, or a major terrorist might escape from prison, but the ministers responsible for these incidents may still collect a full National Bonus, just because the economy has done well due to the good work of other ministers like the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Trade and Industry.

No, this cannot be good for Singapore.

And that brings me to an overarching point – if the Government’s decision is still to match ministerial pay to the top earners of the private sector, then their accountability measures and KPIs must also match the rigour of the private sector.

*  I turn the focus now to the junior minister’s new recommended starting salary of about $1.1 million per annum, bonuses included.

Mr Chiam See Tong once worked out what ministerial pay should be, in order that ministers would still be able to enjoy a comfortable lifestyle with hardly any “financial sacrifices”. He tabled the figure to be $50,000 per month, taking into account the mortgage and cost of a bungalow, the hiring of servants, two cars, annual holidays, and their children’s education. This was proposal was supported by then-NMP Professor Walter Woon.

To update that to today’s levels, the figure would be about $60,000 per month, or $720,000 per year. That amount, including bonuses, will be a good benchmark to prove their worth for a young minister with a young family. Moreover they still have their MP’s allowance of $192,500 to top it up.

This represents an approach that can be explained to people and be accepted by them.

For some of the new ministers, this new salary could be quite much more than their last drawn salary. Moreover there is no risk factor in the job like what stockbrokers face, for example.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew and the first generation of ministers had set up the government apparatus as it is today. Now our ministers inherit this system and continue with their jobs, and even enjoy the support of a credible and efficient civil service. Distinguished senior civil servants like Ngiam Tong Dow had also played a major role in building up our country.

When Mr Chiam See Tong entered politics and then was elected the MP for Potong Pasir back in 1984, people were afraid of associating themselves with him. His law firm began to suffer from a loss of business. He was ridiculed and mocked by various people for his involvement in politics. He was even at the receiving end of such comments from some judges when he was simply doing his work in the courts, defending clients.

But he never thought these as sacrifices throughout the years. He took it all in his stride. He saw it as part and parcel of his mission to fight for a democratic Singapore, a Singapore where no Singaporean is left behind.

I believe this is what being a servant leader entails. The spirit of public service is a calling, an honour and a privilege. It is something to be proud of.

Nevertheless I note that the Prime Minister’s mandate to Mr Gerard Ee’s committee was bound to comparing ministerial salaries to private sector salaries, through the terms of reference. So that conclusion was already set before the committee met, unfortunately. The Singapore People’s Party pushed for a stronger public service ethos to be emphasized in any review of ministerial pay, but this committee was just doing its mandated job.

The SPP wishes to thank Mr Ee and his committee.

Thank you Mr Speaker.

The first point is the recommendation for the ministers’ pay is to be pegged to the specific number of the top 1,000 earners. It intrigues us as to how this new peg will play itself out for the next 5 years, compared to the old formula.

The second point is on the performance indicators (or KPIs) for the ministers’ bonuses.  The main KPI for the Minister for Transport, for example, should be the quality of Singapore’s public transport system. His KPI should not be the general state of the economy, as is provided for in their new National Bonus.

If the Government’s decision is still to match ministerial pay to the top earners of the private sector, then their measures of accountability and KPIs must also match the rigour of the private sector. This is only for the good of Singapore.

Nevertheless we note that the Prime Minister’s mandate to Mr Gerard Ee’s committee was specifically limited to comparing ministerial salaries to private sector salaries. That conclusion was already set before the committee met, unfortunately. The Singapore People’s Party pushed for a stronger public service ethos to be emphasized in any review of ministerial pay, but this committee was just doing its mandated job.

Mrs Lina Chiam, NCMP

Singapore People’s Party

This photo-book charts out the development of the SPP, from Mr Chiam the lone fighter, to the appearance of many new faces, to the formation of the 7-man team, competing in three constituencies: Potong Pasir, Bishan-Toa Payoh, and Hong Kah North.

Order Now!

Visit SPP Store

Every year in February, the Minister for Finance will present the planned expenditure for the following year which begins on 1 April. All our livelihoods are directly affected because the budget dictates how government is going to allocate financial resources to various sectors like the military, education, economic development, community services, healthcare.

We have a chance to voice our needs through different forums. Government channels are one of them. As your NCMP, I will serve as one of your key channels for an alternative voice in Parliament.

We are calling for ideas and proposals on how to best utilise our national budget to build a better Singapore for all Singaporeans.

For a start, SPP propose the following key themes:

1. Invest in better public infrastructure for the aged;
2. Raising standards and leveling the cost of pre-school education;
3. Call for more social support for the underprivileged and disadvantaged;
4. Tighten the existing incentives for attracting foreign firms to Singapore, and to divert more attention and incentives to boosting Singaporean entrepreneurship;
5. The cost and capacity of healthcare, given the rapidly increasing population on our island.

You can elaborate on these themes, or propose others that affect you. Please send all your feedback to feedback@spp.org.sg

We are look forward to hearing from you. Your inputs will be tabled by us and I will find the opportunity to present them in Parliament.

In service,

Mrs Lina Chiam, NCMP

Singapore People’s Party