Category: Singapore

Is Clause 258 really a reproduction of a section of the Evidence Act?

Clause 258 appears to be a reproduction of s.29 of the Evidence Act (SG). However, s.2(2) Evidence Act (SG) clearly provides that it is a “subordinate Act”. Legally, it means that when part of the provisions of the Evidence Act is inconsistent with other Acts of Parliament, the affected part would be deemed repealed for that purpose (or as far as the subject matter of the trial goes). The Criminal Procedure Code (CPC), which is a full Act, will therefore prevail against s.29 of the Evidence Act.

My lawyer friend wrote an interesting comment on my last blog post, in which I had questioned the introduction of Clause 258 in the new Criminal Procedure Code. The Clause allows for statements from an accused person to be admitted as evidence in court even if he was drunk or the recording officer did not fully comply with the rules governing the way statements are collected.

I have tried my best to translate the “legalise” into plain English:

——————-

I refer to the CNA online report dated 18 May 2010 and I quote, “the minister emphasised there was no change in the law but a reproduction of a section in the Evidence Act.”

First, there are balancing provisions in the Evidence Act i.e. s.24, s.25 and s.26.  The court can assess the facts in a way it deems appropriate for the situation. Enacting the same provision in the CPC will force the court to approach the evidence in only the manner which the CPC demands.

Secondly, clause 258 will tilt the Prosecution’s claims in their favour, suggesting more than before that if the statement was presented by the Prosecution, then it must be true. This puts into question whether it adheres to the foundational legal requirement to prove the guilt of the accused “beyond reasonable doubt”.

Thirdly, the proposed clause dehumanises the accused/suspect by allowing such statements to be admissible, regardless of the person’s mental capability at that time (e.g., being drunk).

Therefore, the proposed clause in the CPC is in conflict with the tradition and spirit of the common law system, and certainly defies the logic and soul of liberty and democracy.

[Note: Edited on 25 May at the request of the author.]

——————-

Criminal Procedure Code: Tilting the law in their own favour

Some of the proposed changes to the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) make me wonder just how far this government will go to tilt the playing field in their own favour, even when it means compromising on the fundamental rights that people in many other developed countries enjoy.

Some of the proposed changes to the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) make me wonder just how far this government will go to tilt the playing field in their own favour, even when it means compromising on the fundamental rights that people in many other developed countries enjoy. The CPC is the law which governs how the police should handle persons accused of crimes, among other things.

Clause 258 of the new CPC allows for statements from accused persons to be admitted as evidence in court even if the accused was not told that he was not obliged to make the statement, that the statements could be used against him, or if the recording officer did not fully comply with the rules governing the way statements are collected.

In the US, police officers are obliged to issue the Miranda warning when they arrest suspects and before they are interrogated. The Miranda warning will be familiar to many who watch a lot of American TV. It reads: “You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed to you…”

Clause 258 renders it completely unnecessary for our police to inform suspects of such rights. As far as the government is concerned, they only need to show that the statement from the accused was not made as the result of a threat, inducement or promise. However they have turned down proposals to videotape all interrogations, despite the ease of doing so with today’s digital technology.

It is amazing that the Ministry of Law (MinLaw) could baldly say that “there’s no incentive for police officers to practise deception”. How did they reach the conclusion that there wouldn’t be such an incentive, when everything is our system is skewed towards securing fast convictions? MinLaw’s argument is that we have “one of the most highly admired police forces in the world”! That is truly a non sequitur argument — it just doesn’t follow.

Continue reading “Criminal Procedure Code: Tilting the law in their own favour”

WP Forum Speech: We can make public housing affordable again

This is the speech I delivered at the Workers’ Party public forum, Youthquake, on 15 May 2010.

——————-

Youthquake speakers

The drastic increase in the cost of public housing over the past 20 years, and in particular the last two years, has caused a financial squeeze for many Singaporeans, particularly young couples who desire to own their own homes when they get married.

In just the last two years since 2007, the median price of resale flats has risen almost 44 per cent.[1] This has far outpaced inflation and wage increases. The resale flat cash-over-valuation (COV) has shot through the roof. In the fourth quarter of last year, the median COV was $24,000[2].

Continue reading “WP Forum Speech: We can make public housing affordable again”

Speaking at Workers’ Party forum this Saturday

I will be speaking at the WP forum YouthQuake this Saturday. I will present some proposals on ways to moderate the prices of HDB flats for the long-term good of Singapore. I would like to invite all my readers to come and participate in this forum. I look forward to meeting you there!

Details are below:

CAN YOUNG SINGAPOREANS AFFORD PUBLIC HOUSING IN SINGAPORE TODAY?
15 May 2010, Sat 2.30pm – 5.00pm
@ WP HQ, 216-G Syed Alwi Road, #02-03

The Workers’ Party Youth Wing (WPYW) invites you to attend this seventh installment of the YouthQuake series of forums. This forum will bring together three Singaporeans who will share with you their unique insights and experiences on the current public housing affordability and policies. It promises to be an engaging and enriching session for everyone!

Selecting and financing a HDB flat

By William Hooi, 37, Teacher at Clementi Town Secondary School

William will speak on his experience in getting his own HDB flat and share tips and budgeting techniques on selecting an ideal house.

Analysis of Facts and Figures

By Leong Sze Hian, an alumnus of Harvard University, he has authored 4 books, been quoted over 1000 times in the media , host of a radio show on money matters and a daily newspaper column, has been a Wharton Fellow and invited to speak more than 100 times in more than 20 countries on 5 continents. He has served as Honorary Consul of Jamaica, Chairman of the Institute of Administrative Management, the UNESCO Leadership Chair Council and founding advisor to the Financial Planning Associations of Indonesia and Brunei. He has 3 Masters degrees in Financial Planning & Financial Services, 2 Bachelors degrees in Economics & Insurance, and 13 professional qualifications.

Mr Leong will share with us on HDB issues that matter the most – statistics and affordability. He will present his analysis of the facts and figures to give us a better picture of the affordability of HDB flats for young Singaporeans.

Bringing affordable housing back to the public

By Gerald Giam, 33, Senior Consultant with a global technology consulting firm and a member of the Workers’ Party. Gerald will analyse the root causes of the current housing affordability crisis, and share his suggestions on how the system can be significantly improved to serve Singaporeans better. He will argue that there needs to be a fundamental shift in both policies and mindsets, in order to fulfil the core national objectives of providing truly affordable public housing for all citizens who need it.

To register your interest, please contact Bernard Chen at bernardchen [at] wp.sg

Workers’ Party Labour Day Message 2010

In the midst of a positive outlook and relative optimism, the Workers’ Party salutes the Singaporean Worker who has again braved the economic storm and weathered the dark clouds by responding to the challenges of a rapidly changing world. We should move forward together as a nation towards a brighter tomorrow.

The Workers’ Party is pleased to note that the sub-prime crisis affecting Singapore is behind us and the economy appears to be on track to a healthy recovery.

The Workers’ Party is of the view that it is time for employers to reward workers for the sacrifices made during the economic crisis in the past years. The National Wage Council should review the current wage structure and propose an upward wage revision. The reduced employers’ Central Provident Fund contribution rate should also be restored.

It is noted that the Ministry of Manpower statistics show the employment situation has improved and the outlook is promising. However, the widening income disparity and upgrading of lower income workers to improve their skills and wages remain a challenge.

Although the government has pledged to improve the income of workers through a productivity drive and training, the workers must see real improvements in their employment prospects and incomes rather than simply being put on a treadmill of attending course after course.

Creating value-added jobs which will pay workers better is a key outcome of a successful productivity and training effort. In the long term, the only sustainable way to create value-added jobs is not just about enhancing productivity, but that of supporting continuous innovation.

To this end, having innovation and business incubators to house fledgling firms and ply them with ideas and contacts with financiers has proven successful in other countries to grow new companies and create jobs. For instance in the USA, at the University of Texas, the non-profit Austin Technology Incubator’s 20-year record grew more than 150 companies and created thousands of jobs. As Singapore’s economy moves, continuous innovation through new businesses must be supported, and facilitated by the government.

The Workers’ Party also notes that the conscious effort by the government to modify its policy and slow down the inflow of foreign manpower has somewhat eased the anxiety amongst Singaporeans. It has also reduced the tension and resentment on the ground. However overpopulation is still a concern. This is because it causes stress on our infrastructure and social facilities. Furthermore overpopulation also leads to unfair competition for the Singaporean Worker. WP will continue to monitor these issues.

In the midst of a positive outlook and relative optimism, the Workers’ Party salutes the Singaporean Worker who has again braved the economic storm and weathered the dark clouds by responding to the challenges of a rapidly changing world. We should move forward together as a nation towards a brighter tomorrow.

The Workers’ Party wishes all a Happy Labour Day!

Eric Tan Heng Chong
Treasurer
The Workers’ Party

Training your rice bowl away

During weekly house visits with my Workers’ Party colleagues last week, a resident related to us a story which gave me a sinking feeling about the future of our workers in Singapore.

He told us that he conducts courses for many unemployed workers undergoing skills upgrading or conversion. He said he had a trainee who was a highly-skilled technician who could not find a job, likely because of his age and the state of the economy at that time. This technician was persuaded to undergo a course to be trained as a security guard. In the end, he completed the course and took up a security job at a fraction of his last drawn salary. A year later, when the economy started to recover, he tried going back to work as a technician again, but found to his dismay that his year “away” made it even more difficult for him to secure a technician job again. The trainer told me that this is a typical story for many workers who undergo so-called “skills conversion” certification courses.

Continue reading “Training your rice bowl away”

Tackling income inequality should be Govt’s top priority

Our national productivity drive needs to start from the top. We currently have three very senior ministers advising the PM, three ministers in the Prime Minister’s Office—two of them without any portfolio—nine ministers of state and six parliamentary secretaries, most of whom are drawing multi-million dollar salaries. Does the prime minister of such a small country really need so many advisers and ministers assisting him?

This is my response to the Finance Minister’s Budget 2010 speech.

—————–

Income inequality is one of the biggest challenges our nation faces. The median household income in 2009 was only 71 per cent of the average income, down from 74 per cent in 1999 [see note 1]. This means that the few very high income earners are pulling up the average, while the large number of lower income earners are pulling down the median. The share of wages in GDP has declined from 47 per cent in 2001 to 41 per cent in 2006 [see note 2]. The Gini coefficient–a measure of income inequality–rose from 0.436 in 1990 to 0.478 in 2009, indicating a widening income gap.

Increasing income inequality has been shown to coincide with higher divorce rates [see note 3] and crime rates [see note 4], particularly property crime. Singapore’s wealthy elites can no longer afford to simply turn a blind eye to the plight of the poor, thinking it will not affect them–because it will, eventually.

Reducing income inequality should be the top priority of the government. This government needs to pay more than just lip service to the goal of ensuring that all Singaporeans benefit from economic growth.

Continue reading “Tackling income inequality should be Govt’s top priority”

Low Thia Khiang: Don’t cut pay of workers who reach 60

This was a speech in Parliament on 11 March 2010 by MP for Hougang, Low Thia Khiang, during the Committee of Supply debate, on the budget for the Ministry of Manpower (MOM). Read other Workers’ Party speeches and statements at wp.sg.

————-

By 2012, the re-employment legislation will require employers to offer re-employment to workers reaching 62 years of age, up to age 65, and eventually to age 67. However, the Re-employment legislation will not replace the Retirement Act of 1999.
The Retirement Act allows an employer to reduce the wages of older employees up to 10% on or at any time after the employee attains 60 years of age.
The 10% pay cut at age 60 was recommended by the Tripartite Committee on the Extension of Retirement and the justification then was to address the problem of the seniority-based-wage system.
With the Government’s call to increase productivity and the progress made in wage restructuring from a seniority-based wage system to a performance-based wage system, I would like to call upon the Government to review the Retirement Act of 1999 by removing the wage reduction option given to employers.
A wage system that moves away from seniority elements and towards job worth and performance is more than adequate to ensure an older worker is paid based on the value of the job and his contribution instead of his seniority. Given that the performance-based wage system will improve the cost competitiveness and employability of older workers, we should remove the wage reduction anomaly from the Retirement Act as older workers would have been paid market rate in the run-up to age 62.
Moreover, the Tripartite Committee’s recommendation that employer’s CPF contribution rate for employees aged 60-65 years be reduced from 7.5% to 4% and from 5% to 4% for employees aged above 65 years is sufficient to make re-employment worthwhile for employers.
Sir, any provision in our labour laws to reduce the wages of older workers upon reaching re-employment age will dampen the zeal of an ageing society to continue working beyond retirement age.

By 2012, the re-employment legislation will require employers to offer re-employment to workers reaching 62 years of age, up to age 65, and eventually to age 67. However, the Re-employment legislation will not replace the Retirement Act of 1999.

The Retirement Act allows an employer to reduce the wages of older employees by up to 10 per cent on or at any time after the employee attains 60 years of age.

The 10 per cent pay cut at age 60 was recommended by the Tripartite Committee on the Extension of Retirement and the justification then was to address the problem of the seniority-based-wage system.

With the Government’s call to increase productivity and the progress made in wage restructuring from a seniority-based wage system to a performance-based wage system, I would like to call upon the Government to review the Retirement Act of 1999 by removing the wage reduction option given to employers.

Continue reading “Low Thia Khiang: Don’t cut pay of workers who reach 60”

Low Thia Khiang: Give part-time and contract workers have good training opportunities

This was a speech in Parliament on 11 March 2010 by MP for Hougang, Low Thia Khiang, during the Committee of Supply debate, on the budget for the Ministry of Manpower (MOM). Read other Workers’ Party speeches and statements at wp.sg.

——————–

As at June 2009, there were 87,400 resident employees on short term contracts of less than three months and 156,200 residents on part-time employment. About half of these employees are in the older age group and the majority of them have lower educational qualifications, with a gross monthly income of below $1,000.

I am of the view that the number in this category of employees would increase over time because companies want flexible manpower and to be able to respond faster to changing demand and cost variations as the business environment changes. Secondly, as our society matures with an increasing number of ageing employees, more people may prefer such a mode of employment, as seniors may not want to work full time.

Contract and part-time workers may not necessary be low wage and low productivity. Some studies have shown that part-time workers can be as productive as full-time workers and companies employing part timers do not necessary suffer low productivity. I understand that in the Netherlands, in which a relatively large share of the workforce works part-time, achieves high labour productivity. Hence, I believe that there is much room for improvement in productivity and income of our contract and part-time workers.

Continue reading “Low Thia Khiang: Give part-time and contract workers have good training opportunities”