This is the 0902 issue of the Hammer newspaper published by the Workers' Party of Singapore.
16
MICA (P) 190/11/2008 Issue No: 0902 www.wp.sg $2.00 By Sylvia Lim On April 13, Parliament passed the Public Order Act (“POA”) which provides for increased security at international events staged in Singapore. That would have been fine, except that the POA also includes other provisions which will apply on a day-to-day basis concerning public assemblies and processions, new police move-on powers and filming of law enforcement activities. In the Workers’ Party view, these latter moves go too far to castrate law abiding citizens who simply wish to be active in exercising their Constitutional rights of freedom of expression and assembly. Such freedoms are enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution, in Part IV entitled Fundamental Liberties. Even though the Constitution allows Parliament to restrict such freedoms for the sake of public safety and order, the primary assumption is that these freedoms are fundamental rights of citizens, which should not be curtailed except for compelling reason and only to the extent absolutely necessary. For this reason, the Workers’ Party Members of Parliament opposed the POA, which nevertheless was passed due to the overwhelming majority of the ruling party in Parliament. This article explains how the new Public Order Act (POA) will affect you or others when moving around in public spaces, and summarises some of the key points arising from the Parliamentary debate on April 13. Public Assemblies and Processions The POA will now restrict groups of less than 5 people, and even one person acting alone, because it changes the meaning of “assembly” and “procession” to include even 1 person. Just think about it - an assembly consisting of 1 person – does that make sense linguistically? Even a ruling party MP noted that this does “violence to the word”. Now, 1 person who wants to commemorate the anniversary of a civic or political group will need a permit, when this was not needed before. Isn’t this asking Singaporeans to give up too much of their Constitutional right of freedom of expression? The POA will take over the role of the police permit regime previously under Section 5 of the Miscellaneous Offences Act (“MOA”). The POA now incorporates a procedure on how such permits may be applied for to the Commissioner of Police, and that he has the discretion to decide whether to grant a permit or not, and under what conditions and restrictions. He can refuse a permit for various reasons, including the possibility of public disorder resulting from the assembly or procession. Those of us who are activists and political parties would be very familiar with the previous police permit regime under the MOA. From the Workers’ Party experience, we would not be granted any permits to conduct outdoor activities (not counting Speakers’ Corner or perhaps stadiums), however benign those activities might be. For instance, the Party’s application to hold a cycling event for members and friends at East Coast Park in 2007 to commemorate our 50th Anniversary was dismissed, for the reason of “potential law and order problems”. Is there any change in position under the POA with regard to Singaporeans who wish to engage in cause-based activities e.g. political parties and civic society groups? When I asked the Second Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam in Parliament whether there would be more permits granted to local activists and political parties, he was non-committal and said it was difficult to answer such a question. Interestingly, however, during the debate on the POA, he alluded that during international summits, “we would need to allow space for different groups to protest but at the same time ensure that things do not get out of hand… We would allow protests to take place in designated places. But the protesters cannot demand the right to disrupt the meetings or hold the protests wherever and whenever they like.” (Parliamentary debates, April 13, 2009). Somehow, despite the law and order challenges posed by protestors in international meetings globally over the years, the Singapore government is prepared to give permits for such. How come? Well, you might recall that in 2006 when Singapore hosted the IMF and World Bank meetings, 27 foreign activists were blacklisted and 22 of them later de-listed due to pressure on the Singapore government from the meeting organisers. A badminton court was also designated as protest space, leading Non-Government Organisations to go to Batam to protest, making us a laughing stock internationally. The then World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz even issued a statement alleging that the Singapore government had reneged on earlier agreements to facilitate peaceful protests. The government clearly would not want another embarrassment like that. If it transpires that the government is prepared to facilitate outdoor protests at international events we must ask whether this is done despite potential law and order problems. Will there be a case of double standards, one for international groups and one for locals? Have “potential law and order problems” simply been an excuse to reject applications by local activists and political groups? Regarding indoor political activities, the government has said that these would continue to be allowed i.e. no permits are needed, so long as organised by and for Singaporeans. But this exemption is not written into the POA, but will apparently be included in some regulations. Regulations can be amended as and when the government likes. We are left at their mercy. Police “Move On” Powers The POA gives the police a new power to order you to leave a place for up to 24 hours. The rationale for this is supposed to be public safety, public order or to protect the rights and freedoms of others. Those who are directed to Move On need not have been committing any offence, so long as the police officer believes it is reasonably necessary for them to Move On in the interests of good order. Therefore, the police are issuing the direction to Move On based on a prediction of what might happen next. Disobeying such a direction itself becomes a criminal offence.
On April 13, Parliament passed the Public Order Act (“POA”) which provides for increased security at international events staged in Singapore. That would have been fine, except that the POA also includes other provisions which will apply on a day-to-day basis concerning public assemblies and processions, new police move-on powers and filming of law enforcement activities.
In the Workers’ Party view, these latter moves go too far to castrate law abiding citizens who simply wish to be active in exercising their Constitutional rights of freedom of expression and assembly. Such freedoms are enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution, in Part IV entitled Fundamental Liberties. Even though the Constitution allows Parliament to restrict such freedoms for the sake of public safety and order, the primary assumption is that these freedoms are fundamental rights of citizens, which should not be curtailed except for compelling reason and only to the extent absolutely necessary.
For this reason, the Workers’ Party Members of Parliament opposed the POA, which nevertheless was passed due to the overwhelming majority of the ruling party in Parliament.
This article explains how the new Public Order Act (POA) will affect you or others when moving around in public spaces, and summarises some of the key points arising from the Parliamentary debate on April 13.
Public Assemblies and ProcessionsThe POA will now restrict groups of less than 5 people, and even one person acting alone, because it changes the meaning of “assembly” and “procession” to include even 1 person. Just think about it - an
assembly consisting of 1 person – does that make sense linguistically? Even a ruling party MP noted that this does “violence to the word”. Now, 1 person who wants to commemorate the anniversary of a civic or political group will need a permit, when this was not needed before. Isn’t this asking Singaporeans to give up too much of their Constitutional right of freedom of expression?
The POA will take over the role of the police permit regime previously under Section 5 of the Miscellaneous Offences Act (“MOA”). The POA now incorporates a procedure on how such permits may be applied for to the Commissioner of Police, and that he has the discretion to decide whether to grant a permit or not, and under what conditions and restrictions. He can refuse a permit for various reasons, including the possibility of public disorder resulting from the assembly or procession.
Those of us who are activists and political parties would be very familiar with the previous police permit regime under the MOA. From the Workers’ Party experience, we would not be granted any permits to conduct outdoor activities (not counting Speakers’ Corner or perhaps stadiums), however benign those activities might be. For instance, the Party’s application to hold a cycling event for members and friends at East Coast Park in 2007 to commemorate our 50th Anniversary was dismissed, for the reason of “potential law and order problems”.
Is there any change in position under the POA with regard to Singaporeans who wish to engage in cause-based activities e.g. political parties and civic society groups? When I asked the Second Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam in Parliament whether there would be more permits granted to local activists and political parties, he was non-committal and said it was difficult to answer such a question. Interestingly, however, during the debate on the POA, he alluded that during international summits, “we would need to allow space for different groups to protest but at the same time ensure that things do not get out of hand… We would allow protests to take place in designated places. But the protesters cannot demand the right to disrupt the meetings or hold the protests wherever and whenever they like.” (Parliamentary debates, April 13, 2009). Somehow, despite the law and order challenges posed by protestors in international meetings globally over the years, the Singapore government is prepared to give permits for such. How come?
Well, you might recall that in 2006 when Singapore hosted the IMF and World Bank meetings, 27 foreign activists were blacklisted and 22 of them later de-listed due to pressure on the Singapore government from the meeting organisers. A badminton court was also designated as protest space, leading Non-Government Organisations to go to Batam to protest, making us a laughing stock internationally. The then World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz even issued a statement alleging that the Singapore government had reneged on earlier agreements to facilitate peaceful protests. The government clearly would not want another embarrassment like that.
If it transpires that the government is prepared to facilitate outdoor protests at international events we must ask whether this is done despite potential law and order problems. Will
there be a case of double standards, one for international groups and one for locals? Have “potential law and order problems” simply been an excuse to reject applications by local activists and political groups?
Regarding indoor political activities, the government has said that these would continue to be allowed i.e. no permits are needed, so long as organised by and for Singaporeans. But this exemption is not written into the POA, but will apparently be included in some regulations. Regulations can be amended as and when the government likes. We are left at their mercy.
Police “Move On” PowersThe POA gives the police a new power to order you to leave a place for up to 24 hours. The rationale for this is supposed to be public safety, public order or to protect the rights and freedoms of others.
Those who are directed to Move On need not have been committing any offence, so long as the police officer believes it is reasonably necessary for them to Move On in the interests of good order. Therefore, the police are issuing the direction to Move On based on a prediction of what might happen next. Disobeying such a direction itself becomes a criminal offence.
2
continued from pg 1
Using Thailand as a justification for the POA holds little water.
The problem in Thailand involves the legitimacy of governments since the 2006 military coup there. Both opposing camps have a similar message - to force existing governments to call for fresh elections to ensure its legitimacy.
If there is a lesson to be learnt from Thailand, it is about upholding democracy. It is not about the consequences of having weak public order laws because the Thai people felt cheated. Does the Singapore government think that slapping a 'move on' order on 100,000 Thais will work?
The Thais may be exercising their basic human rights to the extreme. On the other end, Singaporeans, who have done nothing remotely close to what the Thais are doing, are being penalised further for nothing. As long as this government respect and uphold democracy, the problem we are seeing now in Thailand will not happen here. But if the government wants to tinker with individual freedom and democracy to an oppressive level, it will actually become the source of public order problems.
Key assumption – police are good, people are bad!During the course of the Parliamentary debate, the Minister mentioned more than once that we should not assume that people would behave reasonably. On the other hand, he said that we should trust the police and not assume that they would misbehave and abuse their powers.
Such a double-assumption is a recipe for tyranny, and will further emasculate the Singapore citizen vis-à-vis the State. The Workers’ Party opposed the bill as we believe fundamentally in Power to the People, and the POA simply goes too far in the opposite direction!
Quick Poll
The new Public Order Act allows the police to direct the public to stop filming law enforcement activities and search any person whom the officer has reason to believe is in possession of such a film or picture without warrant and with assistance and by such force as is necessary. Do you agree?
Vote now at http://www.wp.sg/wordpress/?p=644
Is this new power needed by the police?
The Penal Code already allows police to charge people with criminal conspiracy for merely agreeing to commit an offence. Those who attempt offences, and were not able to complete them, can be charged even if the offence was not completed. The Criminal Procedure Code gives the police powers to prevent offences before they occur; an officer knowing of a design (intention or plan) to commit an offence may take action to prevent it. The Miscellaneous Offences Act already criminalises a lot of anti-social behaviour such as abusive language and disorderly behaviour.
Although the government claims that Move On powers would give police an intermediate option and allow people to avoid being arrested, the Australian experience has been that issuing Move On directions did not result in fewer arrests in public spaces and in fact resulted in more charges for public space offences. The Australian experience also suggests that Move On powers tended to be used against certain groups of people disproportionately e.g. youths and the homeless.
One big concern is the lack of public accountability of the police in exercising the new powers. In Queensland (Australia), which is where our POA draws its inspiration, there is a Crime and Misconduct Commission which has to monitor and review the exercise of Move On powers by the police, and submit its report to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Queensland for the State MPs to scrutinise. There is nothing of that sort in our POA. The Ministry of Home Affairs talks only of internal accountability, with the Minister saying that one safeguard was that such an order could only be issued by a Sergeant, which is basically an entry level rank for fresh recruits with A Levels or Diplomas.
Filming Of Law Enforcement ActivitiesThe POA allows police officers to stop a person from filming law enforcement activities. Although the Minister said that the provision was targeted at security operations and not ordinary law enforcement activities, his interpretation was not in line with what the POA actually states.
Under the POA, “law enforcement” includes activities carried on by law enforcement officers in exercise of any function, power or duty of such an officer in accordance with law. Therefore, the POA will allow a police officer to stop someone filming any law enforcement activity if he thinks it will prejudice the conduct of an ongoing law enforcement operation or investigation. Law enforcement operation or investigation could include crowd control, crime investigation or other routine matters. When I put this to the Minister, he conceded that the wording might need to be relooked.
With such wide wording, what is the potential cost of this to accountability for the exercise of State powers and protecting the fundamental rights of citizens?
A good illustration is the recent incident in London involving Ian Tomlinson which took place on April 1, the eve of the G-20 meeting. Tomlinson was apparently on his way home after work when he had to pass through an area where there were some protestors. Police were on duty, conducting law enforcement operations. He collapsed on the way home, and was initially thought to have died of a heart attack. As questions were being asked about why Tomlinson died, the police initially said there was no indication that he had had any altercation with the police prior to his death. However, this position became untenable when a video taken by a New Yorker in London on business showed the police violently pushing Tomlinson to the ground when he was doing nothing but walking away from the area peaceably. The revelation of this footage, together with other eye witness accounts, has now triggered an investigation by the Independent Police Complaints Commission into the circumstances of Tomlinson’s death. At the time of writing, it was determined that Tomlinson did not die of a heart attack as initially thought, but of internal injuries, with the officer who pushed him now facing manslaughter charges.
If the video taken by the New Yorker in London never came to light, the circumstances of Tomlinson’s death may have been covered up.
If the above case were to happen here, how will truth and justice to prevail without the presence of footage recorded by public-spirited citizens? The government may say it does not tolerate abuses by law enforcement officers but it cannot possibly believe that such abuses will never happen in Singapore.
The Minister mentioned concerns about safeguarding the identity of covert operatives. But even then, if you were to film intelligence officers beating up someone excessively, should you be silenced simply to protect their identities? What about the victim of excessive violence – where is his justice?
Citizen journalists have important roles to play to counterbalance the edited reports of the mainstream media. At long last, ordinary citizens can harness new technology to secure evidence against the all-powerful State, something impossible before. In Singapore, this is particularly valuable as we still do not have any Freedom of Information Act, and there are wide provisions under the Official Secrets Act and Evidence Act to prevent disclosure of information relating to government actions. We do not even have any independent watchdog body to monitor law enforcement agency actions.
Having such a wide, discretionary power to ban films of law enforcement activities will make the police less accountable to the public for its actions.
If we are to claim that our law enforcement agencies are world class, we should not tarnish the image of the agencies by disregarding the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution. We believe world class status should be achieved not by way of severely curtailing legitimate rights of individual citizens; public accountability must be in the equation as well.
Comparisons with ThailandDuring the Parliamentary debate, the Minister and some ruling party MPs who spoke referred to the situation in Thailand where the ASEAN Summit had to be cancelled due to anti-government protestors storming into the summit venue. They warned that we needed the POA as we did not want Singapore to face that kind of situation.
Source: by Steph & Adam (flickr.com)
3
In February's Budget, the government unveiled an audacious $4.5 billion plan, which it called the Jobs Credit Scheme (JCS), to give a payroll subsidy to all Singapore-registered companies. This money would be drawn from Singapore's past reserves, with the permission of the President. It was the first time since Singapore's independence that the government has drawn from our reserves.
JCS is given with almost no strings attached. Companies would each get thousands of dollars in cash each month just for keeping their employees on the payroll. There are no requirements to return the money to the government should the companies decide to retrench workers after receiving their payments.
Another no-strings-attached scheme was the 15% rental rebate given to master tenants of government landlords HDB, JTC and SLA. Many of these master tenants are themselves landlords who sublet to smaller businesses. Some not only pocketed the extra cash, but had the audacity to raise rentals on their sub-tenants, some by as much as 110%!
All these point to a fundamental flaw in the government's economic rescue package: much of the taxpayers’ money went to companies that didn't need it and were not using it to benefit their employees or tenants.
How could things have been done better?
Firstly, the government should not have taken the convenient way out by giving money to each and every company. It should have been more discerning about which company should receive the money. Many companies simply don't need it. Examples are government-linked companies (GLCs) that run virtual monopolies. Every dollar spent on a cash-rich corporation is a dollar less that can be spent on companies and individuals genuinely trying to stay afloat.
Secondly, any funds paid out should have been conditional upon the companies not retrenching their workers. If these companies receive the payroll subsidy from the government and subsequently retrench staff, they should be required to return the portion paid out for those retrenched staff.
Flawed from the beginningThe above two suggestions are based on the assumption that we agree with the concept of an unconditional payroll subsidy. However I feel that the approach is completely misguided, and has questionable efficacy, as WP leader, Mr Low Thia Khiang, had pointed out in Parliament.
$4.5 billion is a hefty price tag to pay to prevent job losses. Before JCS was announced, economists had estimated that up to 100,000 jobs could be lost in this downturn. Assuming that JCS will save all those jobs, and there are no new jobs created to offset the job losses, taxpayers are effectively paying $45,000 per job saved, as Nominated MP Siew Kum Hong had argued in Parliament. This is even more than what the average Singaporean earns each month!
In reality, even in the worse of downturns, there will still be some jobs created, which means that some of those
who lose their jobs may be able to find another one. More importantly, JCS will not save all 100,000 jobs; many of those jobs would have been lost anyway, even with the cash injection by the government, as companies can only afford to keep workers idle on the bench for a limited period of a few months. So effectively, the government is paying much more for each job saved.
It is time for a serious re-think of the approach to helping workers who are unemployed or at risk of being retrenched. The government's current approach is to pour money into funding training programmes which oftentimes benefit the training providers much more than the trainees. With JCS, the government has given a whole new meaning to "welfare for corporations".
Jobseekers' AllowanceInstead of dishing out JCS to all and sundry, the government should instead focus on helping Singaporeans who have lost their jobs – this is the group that would be suffering the brunt of the economic downturn. Those who still have their jobs generally do not need as much assistance from the government.
In her speech during the Budget debate on 4 February 2009, Non-Constituency MP and WP chairman Sylvia Lim proposed what she called a "Jobseekers' Allowance" to help retrenched workers tide over the difficult period while they look for their next job. This temporary assistance could be in the form of a monthly allowance of half the worker’s last drawn salary, subject to a cap of $500 per month for up to six months.
How much would this cost the government? If, say, 140,000 Singaporeans lose their jobs in this downturn, and each unemployed person is given $500 for six months, the Jobseekers' Allowance Scheme will cost the government $420 million, which is less than a tenth of the price tag of the JCS Scheme. The actual cost could even be much lower, since 140,000 job losses is a high estimate, and not every jobseeker would be unemployed for the full six months.
The Jobseekers' Allowance Scheme that Ms Lim has proposed will not cause Singaporeans to become ‘lazy’. Singaporeans value their self-reliance and would rather work for their living than receive a dole from the government. In any case, $500 is not a large amount, and the unemployed individuals know that the assistance will cease if they don't find a job within six months. This will give them every incentive to put in the effort to find a suitable job.
ConclusionThe details of the proposed Jobseekers' Allowance Scheme, including the quantum and forms of assistance, could be discussed further. But fundamentally, this is a clear departure from the PAP government's approach.
Instead of dishing out unconditional and untargeted welfare to companies, the WP's proposed scheme will provide targeted assistance to individual Singaporeans who need it the most, and this is done at a much lower cost to taxpayers than the government's JCS Scheme.
By Gerald Giam
I managed to catch up with my polytechnic mate at a nearby Starbucks same days ago. She told me that I was quite ‘famous’ among our friends for being in the Workers’ Party. She then asked me what I did in the party, and I told her that I engage in regular
activities like selling our newsletter, the “Hammer”, our YouthQuake series, and our neighbourhood visits.
When I asked her about her political inclinations, though, she said she’s not into politics, and we left it at that. It’s not the first time I’ve heard of this response, of course, but several questions refused to go away whenever someone says that.
What happens when their constituency happens to be contested in general elections? Do they vote according to the advice of their parents or their friends? Will they then start going to rallies?
Somehow I doubt. The idea of young people in their mid 20’s jostling at election rallies with the thousands of people, trying to listen to political messages when they don’t read the news is hard to imagine.
Will they then fall back to their parents for advice? Or will they stick to the same old principles of ‘If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it?’ or ‘Since I’m still living happily here, it doesn’t really matter who’s in charge’? Given our tendency to avoid all things boring and tedious after work, would many of us really care?
After all, the political scene in Singapore changes so quickly, so many issues can crop up in a single week and there can be so many ways of looking at it. Many youths today hardly bother to even keep up with the news, let alone being concerned about issues that affect their country.
I wonder what it will take before they do start to care. They need to know that ignorance by itself is a choice. Every vote means a vote of confidence for that political party and in the end gives that party the power to rule in a constituency, to manage the affairs of thousands in that area and to voice out their concerns in Parliament. Members of Parliament are the people we choose to be our representatives.
Perhaps it is time to start considering where we have gone wrong, and what we can do to improve it. Remember, you have a choice and it only comes once every 4 years. Vote wisely.
By Aaron Peng
4
Over the decades, the word ‘cancer’ never fails to strike fear in people. Breast cancer is the most common cancer among Singapore women today. Women
of all the 3 major ethnic groups (Chinese, Malay, and Indian) are equally affected.
According to a report from ‘Channel News Asia’ (http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/380260/1/.html), some 1,300 women in Singapore are diagnosed with breast cancer every year, and 313 women die from the disease each year. Early detection saves lives, but only 41 per cent of women go for screening.
The number of breast cancer cases has risen by 25% over the past decade, making it the top cancer-killer in Singapore today. While this rapid increase could be due to more early discoveries of the disease, the fact is, more women are also contacting breast cancer due to an increasingly affluent and sedentary lifestyle, dietary factors, later pregnancies, a longer life span, and ignorance about the disease. Today, a mammogram is the only proven and effective method of detecting breast cancer.
A nationwide government-subsidised breast screening programme, administered by the Health Promotion Board, was initiated in January 2002. It is targeted at women aged 50 to 69 years of age. Women who are eligible are invited by letter for the first mammographic screening, and recalled at two-yearly intervals. However, there is still a group of women who are not aware of breast cancer.
Currently, the subsidised cost of a mammogram at a Polyclinic is $50. This amount may seem affordable to many, but it could mean a lot to some as well.
The government should provide free mammogram screening for women aged 50–69. This is the age group for which mammogram has been proven to be most effective.
This free screening can be made available to women whose per capita household income is less than $1,000. This is because women in this income group are more likely to be illiterate or less educated. Hence, she is likely to be unable to afford a mammogram, or perhaps is not aware of it at all. The government should reach out to this group of people.
Another alternative is to allow the usage of Medisave to finance 50% of the cost of screenings. A survey (http://smj.sma.org.sg/4801/4801a5.pdf) done in 2007 revealed that women who found the subsidised cost of mammographic screening ($50) to be expensive, and most had indicated that $20–$30 would be a reasonable price. Hence if the price were reduced to $20-$30, it could increase the chances of women going for the screening.
The table below illustrates the contribution for employees aged 50 – 65 and above.
By Lee Lilian Let’s cite an example of a woman aged 55 with a monthly salary of $1,000. That is to say her monthly CPF contribution is 28.5% or $285. Out of this, $84.987 goes into her Medisave account. One year later, she would have accumulated $1,019.844 in her Medisave.
With a 4% return on her Medisave annually, $1,019.844 can reap $40.79 which is 80% of the cost of a mammogram. The government can cap the amount to be used for a mammogram at 50% (or $25), which means a woman pays just the remaining $25.
The same survey conducted on Singapore women also revealed that many women do not go for a mammogram due to lack of time, fear of pain, a disbelief that cancer would never happen to them, ignorance about mammogram services, and the high cost of a mammogram.
Among the reasons cited, I personally believe that cost is the main factor. The other factors can be easily overcome through outreach and education, but money is a strong practical hindrance. Hence, it is vital for the government to provide free mammographic screening for specific groups of women, and allow Medisave to be used to pay for it.
Across3. I do not know the bonuses of all my staff.4. The ballot is stronger than the bullet.5. Everybody can afford health care in Singapore, whether acute care or long-term care.10. Suppose you had 10, 15, 20 opposition members in Parliament. Instead of spending
my time thinking what is the right policy for Singapore, I'm going to spend all my time thinking what's the right way to fix them, to buy my supporters votes.
11. Amongst the things you can do, I suggest you study the annual accounts of the town council to ensure that the funds are properly used.
12. Please do not assume that you can change governments. Young people don't understand this.
13. Things do not change; we change.
Down1. We must become the change we want to see.2. It’s not the purpose of the government to make the people suffer more.3. Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government.4. Never do anything against conscience, even if the state demands it.6. I think if you cut through the insensitivity of the language, her basic point is reasonable,
that is, that a well-educated university graduate who works for a multinational company should not be bemoaning about the Government and get on with the challenges in life.
7. Save on one hairdo and use the money for breast screening.8. I think we should not begrudge the few people who get very high bonuses.9. We should accept that as a people our procreation talent is not our forte.
5
During the 2009 Budget Debate on 13 February, Non-Constituency Member of Parliament Ms Sylvia Lim asked the minister to review the Minimum Sum payout for elderly Singaporeans who do not have much savings in their CPF and who may not be covered by CPF Life.
A case in point: Mdm AMs Sylvia Lim quoted the real-life case of Mdm A, aged 69, a needy and elderly Hougang resident who had applied for welfare assistance from Hougang Constituency Committee (HGCC) in 2008.
Below is an excerpt of the interview we had with Mdm A:
HGCC Welfare (HW): Mdm A, are you staying by yourself?
Mdm A: Yes, I am staying alone. Although I have siblings, we have not been contacting each other as they have their own families.
HW: Mdm A, are you still working?
Mdm A: No, I am not. I retired early 26 years ago.
HW: Where does your income come from?
Mdm A: I receive $297 per month from my CPF but this is not been enough for me. Do you know I am currently getting less then those under the Public Assistance scheme? They are receiving $360 per month.
HW: Have you tried applying for the PA assistance scheme?
Mdm A: No, I have not. People who still have CPF savings to draw down are not eligible for PA assistance. As I do not have much in my CPF and this savings must last 20 years as required by law, I am given so little of my own money to survive on every month. The Government should allow people like us to withdraw more from our own CPF savings or to top up our minimum payout amount to match that of a PA recipient, which is $360 per month.
We did a brief calculation on her monthly expenditure based on her income of $297 a month from her CPF savings. After paying for rent, conservancy and utilities charges, she is left with about $130 per month or $4.40 per day for meals and other expenses.
Without factoring in medical expenses, this amount is hardly enough to subsist in Singapore. It saddens us to know that she has to skip her meals at times to save some money for emergency use.
People of this age group were once contributing to the growth of our country. Now that they are in their twilight years, they should be enjoying life rather than worrying everyday about how to make ends meet.
As suggested by NCMP Sylvia Lim, the PA allowance is a useful reference point to determine the floor payout of the Minimum Sum in our CPF since the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports states that this allowance is “calibrated to provide for the basic living needs of PA recipients”.
So if the Government thinks that $360 per month is what a PA recipient needs for basic subsistence, then how can someone like Mdm A survive on just $200?
NCMP Sylvia Lim’s speech in ParliamentHere is an extract of Sylvia’s parliamentary speech:
“I would like to ask the Minister to seriously consider allowing elderly Singaporeans who do not qualify for CPF Life and PA to draw down on their CPF savings an amount equivalent to the PA allowance every month. We should not make these people worry about how to make ends meet every day in their old age.
I am not asking the government to fund the basic living needs of these elderly Singaporeans. I am only asking the government to allow these people to draw down on their OWN CPF savings an amount that can sustain their basic living needs as determined by the PA allowance.
The government may worry that these elderly Singaporeans will exhaust their CPF savings in less than 20 years. Well, if these elderly Singaporeans outlive their CPF savings, they can join the PA scheme after that. After all, the PA scheme is designed for ‘Singaporeans who are unable to work owing to old age, illness or disability to get government support’.”
The government’s responseUnfortunately Mr Gan Kim Yong, Acting Minister for Manpower, rejected the call for the government to fine-tune the Minimum Sum payout for this group of needy elderly Singaporeans. He said:
“The Minimum Sum Scheme is designed to allow members to receive monthly payouts that will last for 20 years. Increasing the withdrawal amount must mean less for the member in future. That means their savings will not last 20 years; it will be much shorter. Already, many members currently receiving the floor payout of $297 a month would not have enough savings to last the intended 20 years. In fact, with longer life expectancy, we should stretch the payout period further. Raising the floor payout would be irresponsible as it would mean that their savings would run out even faster. By then, these members may be less able to work to support themselves even if they wanted to.
The Minimum Sum is also not the only asset that CPF members have. In fact, some of them have withdrawn a significant portion of their CPF savings when they reached 55 years old. Many would have substantial housing equity in their HDB flats as well and may be eligible for the Lease Buyback Scheme. They can also seek help from their family members, such as through the Minimum Sum Topping-Up Scheme which we have just liberalised further. Those who still face difficulties can approach the CDCs, which will assess their situation and see if they are eligible for financial and other assistance.”
ConclusionAs Mdm A’s case has shown, the CPF floor payout for elderly and needy Singaporeans needs to be raised to help needy Singaporeans.
Mdm A does not have substantial housing equity in her HDB flat as it is a rental flat. She cannot rely on her siblings either, as they have their own families to take care of. Ironically, Mdm A has sufficient money in her CPF to help her live decently in her twilight years. She has the means to be self-sufficient but the government is not giving her the opportunity to do so. In fact, the Government is making her life difficult by not allowing her to withdraw her own CPF money so that she can subsist at the same level as that of a PA recipient.
Mr Gan had said: “The CPF system is premised on self-provision and self-reliance.” Isn’t that what Mdm A is hoping to do with her own CPF savings?
By Ng Swee Bee
Norhidayat AliAge: 29
BackgroundNorhidayat Ali was born in 1979 to a blue-collar worker and a full-time housewife. He spent most of his youth in Bishan before moving to Pasir Ris in the early 1990’s, when his father had just returned to the workforce after being retrenched from his 27 year career. Norhidayat’s two elder siblings have since relocated to Australia. Norhidayat has two other younger siblings – a sister who is married and a brother who is currently a final year nursing student at Nanyang Polytechnic.
EducationNorhidayat did his primary school education at Ang Mo Kio Primary School and his GCE “O” Level at Guangyang Secondary School. He pursued his interest in the electrical trade at the Institute of Technology Education (ITE) Bedok campus and attained his National Trade Certificate Grade 2 (NTC-2) in Electrical Technology. Norhidayat is planning to further his studies at a local polytechnic soon.
CareerUpon completion of his National Service, Norhidayat aggressively looked for a job. Unfortunately, the world was then shaken by the 9/11 tragedy, and he had a tough time securing a job. An independent person, Norhidayat took up several part-time positions to tide him over, working as a stall helper, security guard and production operator. He also helped out in his relative’s catering business. Having worked in different positions, he has garnered a multitude of working experience.
In 2002, a local leading caterer offered him the position of technician. Norhidayat took up the challenge and he has faithfully stayed with the same company since. He was recently promoted to Technical Officer with a team of technicians under his wing.
Why he joined the WPHaving been to Australia, New Zealand, India, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Indonesia and Malaysia, Norhidayat has discovered a spectrum of governance which is not monopolised by a one-party. The people in these countries are generally more actively involved in their national issues compared to Singapore.
In 2006, he decided to get involved in the local political scene as the Polling Agent for the WP team for Aljunied GRC in the 2006 General Elections. Since then, his political vision is to make a difference in human interaction and decision making. He hopes that the political climate in Singapore can be more conducive to dissenting views.
Currently, he is serving his second year as a Youth Wing Exco and also helps the Worker’s Party Vice-Chairman, Mohamed Rahizan, in the Malay Group Committee.
PhilosophyNorhidayat believes that one should have a purpose in life and strive for what one wants. Working towards this objective, Norhidayat has formed a football team, FC Tora, which he now manages. Besides offering youths a platform to enjoy a healthy lifestyle, the football team also gives him an opportunity to learn and gain experience in guiding and managing people
At the community level, he hopes that through his role in the WP political wing, he would be able to offer fellow Singaporeans different perspectives of how the country can be improved.
6
In every general election, Singaporeans who are fortunate enough to vote in a contested constituency are faced with a decision which will decide our government for the next five years.
Some may make that decision out of blind faith, some may do so out of fear, and some may mark that cross out of spite. What about you?
This article outlines three points to help you in your decision which will determine the future for you and your loved ones.
PolicyEvery serious political party will present a set of policy ideas to Singaporeans. These policy ideas are framed in a document called a “Manifesto”. With this Manifesto, each political party sets out to persuade Singaporeans that its policy ideas will create a better life for everyone. When a political party wins the election and forms the government, it then has the mandate and duty to carry out the policy ideas in the Manifesto. Should a political party not win the majority of seats to form the government, but wins enough seats to form a sizeable opposition bloc in parliament, it can continue to persuade the government to adopt its alternative policy ideas on behalf of its constituents.
In the 2006 general election, the Workers’ Party presented its set of policy ideas to Singaporeans in its Manifesto entitled “You Have A Choice”. The Manifesto contains 180 policy ideas in 14 distinct sections with topics ranging from the economy to national security. Since the Workers’ Party won only one elected seat in Parliament in 2006, and was given one other Non-Constituency MP seat, do our policy ideas get a chance to be heard after the elections? Yes, they do. However, it will take time. The 1988 Manifesto of the Workers’ Party contained a proposal for every child to have a basic education up to the age of 15 or 16. The 1994 Manifesto contained a similar proposal for such basic education to be made compulsory. In 2000, a full 12 years after the 1988 Manifesto, the Compulsory Education Act was passed by Parliament. With your support and with more seats in Parliament, the Workers’ Party will be able to speed up the implementation of such policies that benefit Singaporeans.
PeopleWithout people, there can be no party. While a political party is made up of people who work hard on the ground and behind the scenes, the most visible are the candidates which a party fields during general elections. With the rise in educational levels of Singaporeans and the increasing complexity of the problems that our country faces, Singaporeans’ expectations of the quality of candidates have
By Nathaniel Koh
Is Singapore’s population too small for more than one dominant political party in the country? The PAP argues so. But their argument does not hold water.
“We should not really be surprised that the ruling party has such a large share of seats. Unlike other larger countries with rural and urban populations, poor and rich areas, and separate ethnic enclaves, we are small and have relatively similar constituencies… Singapore is, therefore, like one big constituency. Hence, in a first-past-the-post Westminster system of democracy, it must be that any party that wins, wins big.”
When Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong uttered the above words on 26 July 2008 at a pro-PAP grassroots-organised National Day dinner in the opposition Workers' Party ward of Hougang, it was not the first time that a PAP leader had tried to justify the dominance of one-party rule in Singapore by attributing it to our small physical size and small electorate. Nor would it be the last, as many expected.
On 15 November 2008, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong told a conference of PAP cadre members that:
“Change must take place within the PAP [because] while the US is a big country with a big pool from which to find political talent, there is no such guarantee in smaller countries... It's hard enough to find one team to look after the country. How can you find two? As a small country, we must have a first division team, an outstanding group of people who can make up for our many limitations.”
More recently, Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew said at an NUS Society forum on 20 March 2009:
“Can we arrange a two-party system so the alternative is as good as the PAP? We have to scour the whole country to find the quality we now have. We are drawing our talent from 3.2 million people. Every year, let's say we produce, out of our 30,000 babies born, 1,000 outstanding people. Are all of them going to make good?”
The senior Lee had also echoed the same perspective as then-Prime Minister on several occasions, including once in an interview with the local press when he said:
“If we were 30 million people and not three million... the number of people available to form a Cabinet would multiply by 10... It is still possible somebody outside there, some maverick, can get together a comparable group and can challenge you. But when you’re dealing with three million people and the talent pool is so small, I think really competent people to be in government... would not number more than 100. So where is the alternative?”
The PAP’s bottom line is clear - Singapore’s “unique” feature of one political party winning all – or nearly all – seats in Parliament is because of its small population. Hence, it would have to serve as its own check-and-balance and Singaporeans are assured that they do not need to have an opposition presence in parliament.
This is one of the most repetitive arguments against having a viable opposition in Singapore that has been used by the PAP, probably because the PAP clearly believes that the message, if repeated frequently enough, will stick to people’s minds and be accepted.
However, the reasoning offered by the PAP is flawed.
Firstly, Singapore did not start out as a one-party dominant state in its earlier days. Before the PAP, there was the Labour Front government, which won power in 1955 with only 40% out of 25 elected seats. When the PAP took over in 1959, at least 15% out of the 51 seats went to the opposition. And in 1963, upon a party split that cumulated the Barisan Sosialis, the latter won one-quarter of the seats.
In all three cases cited above, the electorate in Singapore was even smaller, and the number of Parliamentary seats was even fewer, than they are now.
Contrast this with the 3% opposition presence in Parliament that Singapore has today and one can immediately tell that the PAP’s argument does not hold water.
The PAP has been quick to dismiss these past opposition legislators as not being “talent”. But, using the PAP’s own reasoning, these opposition members would not have been elected into Parliament if they were not credible in the first place.
Secondly, PAP’s reasoning does not hold water as well on the international stage. We do not have to look further than over the causeway where Malaysia, our closest neighbour, was at one point one-party dominated but produced a strong alternative after its general elections in 2008, albeit with some teething problems. Never mind that Malaysia's population of 28 million is 7 times that of Singapore’s; it is still a relatively small country compared to the rest of the world.
For argument’s sake, however, let us discount the level of its Federal Parliament. Malaysia has a state assembly within each of its 11 states and apart from Selangor, the population sizes in the remaining states are all smaller than Singapore’s.
Yet in 5 out of the 11 states, the opposition holds between 7% and 18% of the seats in their state assemblies and in the other six states, the opposition occupies between 22% and 45% of the seats. This shows that there is no correlation between size and political plurality.
Again, compare these to the 3% of seats held by the opposition in Singapore’s Parliament.
So then what is so special about Singapore? New Zealand, Ireland and Norway are examples of countries with a decent economy, a healthy democracy and a strong opposition functioning all at the same time and whose population sizes are close to that of Singapore.
ConclusionIn conclusion, we have a one-party dominance in Singapore not because of our small land area, small population, nor the shortage of talent, but because of political constrains and a mindset that opposition is not good for Singapore. As a result, many capable people who disagree with the PAP are not stepping forward to join the opposition.
Among the 84 seats in Parliament today, the PAP can still form a stable government by holding, say, 55 seats, while the opposition holds the other 29 seats in order to provide a credible check-and-balance.
But this can only happen if Singaporeans want it and are prepared to have it. Singaporeans – not the PAP or the Workers’ Party – are the ones to decide.
By Melvin Tan
7
continued from pg 6
also soared. Political parties have found it increasingly difficult to find people who are willing and able to stand as candidates and, at the same time, meet the high expectations of Singaporeans.
In the 2006 general election, the Workers’ Party fielded a total of 20 candidates, its highest number of candidates since 1988. Most of these candidates were university graduates with professions such as teaching, and business. However, the quality of the Workers’ Party’s candidates should also be measured by important intrinsic values - the passion to serve, the ability to connect, the drive to succeed - which stem from the desire to make Singapore a better home for Singaporeans. The Workers’ Party continues to seek new people with both ability and passion so that Singaporeans can truly have a voice in parliament.
PresenceWhen was the last time your elected MP came up to you to say hello? “Walking the ground” is what elected and aspiring MPs must do to better understand the concerns of Singaporeans. No aspiring MP will gain the support of Singaporeans without “walking the ground,” and no elected MP should take Singaporeans’ support for granted once he or she is in office. For political parties to win an election, they must frequently bring themselves to Singaporeans, instead of waiting for Singaporeans to go to them.
In this respect, the Workers’ Party regularly presents itself to Singaporeans by going door to door visiting residents every week, and by conducting weekly walkabouts promoting its newsletter, “The Hammer,” at various housing estates around the country. At these walkabouts, the Workers’ Party listens to the concerns of Singaporeans from all walks of life. Those concerns are ingrained in the minds of the party members who propose alternative policies for the betterment of our country. With an increased presence both on the ground and in Parliament, these alternative policies can then be put forward and implemented for Singaporeans’ benefit.
In conclusion, the next time you have the chance to vote, think about which political party brings you the Policy, People, and Presence that can truly make a positive difference to you, your loved ones, and to the success of our country.
Pada 13hb April, Parlimen telah meluluskan Akta Ketenteraman Awam (“POA” Public Order Act) di mana diperuntukan keselamatan tambahan di majlis-majlis antarabangsa yang akan diadakan di Singapura. Ini adalah baik, akan tetapi POA juga meliputi peruntukan-peruntukan lain yang akan digunakan pada dasar sehari ke sehari berkenaan dengan perhimpunan awam politik dan perarakan, kuasa ‘bersurai’ polis baru dan penggambaran aktiviti-aktiviti penguatkuasaan undang-undang.
Pada pandangan Parti Pekerja, langkah-langkah baru ini sudah terlampau untuk memisahkan rakyat yang hanya ingin mengerjakan hak Perlembagaan mereka dalam hak kebebasan bersuara dan berhimpun. Kebebasan-kebebasan ini adalah termaktub di bawah Artikel 14 dalam Perlembagaan, Bahagian IV bertajuk ‘Kebebasan Hak Asasi’. Sungguhpun Perlembagaan membenarkan Parlimen menghadkan kebebasan-kebebasan seperti ini untuk keselamatan awam dan penguatkuasaan undang-undang, anggapan utama ialah bahawa kebebasan-kebebasan dan hak-hak asasi warganegera tidak boleh dikurangkan kecuali untuk sebab yang terpedaya dan itu pun, hanya jikalau sangat memerlukan.
Untuk sebab ini, Ahli Parlimen Parti Pekerja telah membantah POA yang mana pun telah diluluskan kerana majoriti besar parti pemerintah di Parlimen.
Artikel ini menghuraikan bagaimana Akta Ketenteraman Awam (POA) baru ini akan menjejaskan anda dan yang lain-lain apabila anda bergerak di tempat-tempat awam. Ia juga memaklumkan secara ringkas tanda-tanda kunci yang dibangkitkan dalam perdebatan Parlimen pada 13hb April.
Perhimpunan-Perhimpunan Awam dan PerarakanPOA sekarang akan menghadkan kumpulan-kumpulan seramai 5, dan walaupun satu orang sahaja yang bertindak sendiri, kerana ia menukarkan makna “perhimpunan” dan “perarakan”, termasuk walaupun 1 orang sahaja. Bayangkanlah – satu perhimpunan yang terdiri daripada 1 orang sahaja – adakah ini wajar secara percakapan? Seorang MP dari parti pemerintah pun mengatakan bahawa ini adalah “percanggahan kepada perkataan itu”. Seseorang yang ingin memperingati ulangtahun sesuatu kumpulan sivik atau kumpulan politik terpaksa mendapati permit, walhal dahulunya tidak perlu. Bukankah ini memanggil orang-orang Singapura menyerahkan terlalu banyak hak Perlembagaan mereka untuk kebebasan bersuara?
POA akan mengambilalih peranan regim permit polis, dahulunya di bawah Seksyen 5, Akta Kesalahan-Kesalahan Kecil (“MOA” Miscellaneous Offences Act). POA sekarang memasukkan satu prosedur bagaimana permit-permit ini boleh dipohon dari Pesuruhjaya Polis, dan dia yang mempunyai budi bicara untuk memutuskan sama ada memberi permit atau tidak, dan di bawah apa keadaan dan sekatan-sekatannya. Dia boleh menolak sesuatu permit untuk pelbagai sebab, termasuk kemungkinan tercetus kekacauan awam berikutan perhimpunan atau perarakan itu.
Di kalangan aktivis-aktivis dan parti-parti politik, kami sudah cukup kenal dengan bekas regim permit polis di
bawah MOA. Dari pengalaman Parti Pekerja, kami tidak akan diberi apa-apa permit untuk melaksanakan kegiatan-kegiatan luar (tidak termasuk Sudut Pidato (‘Speakers’ Corner) atau mungkin stadium-stadium), walaubagaimana pun selamat aktiviti-aktiviti ini. Satu contoh ialah permohonan Parti untuk mengadakan satu aktiviti berbasikal untuk ahli-ahli dan kawan-kawan at East Coast Park pada 2007 untuk memperingati Ulangtahun Ke-50, dimana ia ditolak atas sebab “kemungkinan masalah-masalah ketenteraman awam dan penguatkuasaan undang-undang”.
Adakah apa perubahan dalam pendirian di bawah POA berkenaan dengan orang-orang Singapura yang ingin mengambil bahagian dalam aktiviti-aktiviti berdasarkan sebab (caused-based) seperti parti-parti politik dan kumpulan-kumpulan masyarakat sivik? Apabila saya bertanya Menteri Dalam Negeri Ke-2, K.Shanmugam di Parlimen sama ada permit-permit tambahan akan diberi kepada aktivis-aktivis tempatan dan parti-parti politik, beliau menjawap secara tidak mendalam dan mengatakan soalan itu susah dijawab. Namun demikian, sungguh menarik semasa perdebatan atas POA, beliau merujuk bahawa semasa persidangan-persidangan kemuncak antarabangsa, “kita mesti memberi ruang kepada berbagai kumpulan untuk tunjuk perasaan, tetapi pada masa yang sama mengesyorkan bahawa keadaan tidak terbatas kawalan”...Kita akan membenarkan tunjuk-perasaan di tempat-tempat tertentu. Tetapi penunjuk-penunjuk perasaan tidak boleh mendakwa hak untuk membuat kacau di persidangan-persidangan atau mengadakan tunjuk-perasaan bila dan di mana mereka mahu”. (Perdebatan-perdebatan Parlimen, 13hb April, 2009). Sungguhpun terdapat cabaran-cabaran ketenteraman dan undang-undang yang disebabkan oleh penunjuk-penunjuk perasaan di seluruh dunia, Kerajaan Singapura masih bersedia untuk memberi permit-permit untuk ini. Mengapa?
Mungkin anda boleh ingat pada 2006 semasa Singapura telah menjadi tuan rumah kepada persidangan-persidangan IMF dan Bank Dunia. 27 aktivis luar negeri disenaraihitamkan dan kemudian 22 dikeluarkan senarai kerana tekanan keatas Kerajaan Singapura dari penganjur-penganjur persidangan. Satu gelanggang badminton juga telah ditentukan sebagai ruang tunjuk perasaan dan kumpulan-kumpulan Bukan Kerajaan terpaksa pergi ke Batam untuk melaksanakan tunjuk perasaan. Lucu betul apabila dipandang oleh masyarakat antarabangsa. Paul Wolfowitz, Presiden Bank Dunia semasa itu, juga telah mengeluarkan satu kenyataan mendakwa bahawa Kerajaan Singapura telah mungkir janji atas persetujuan awal untuk membenarkan tunjuk perasaan aman. Jelas kerajaan tidak mahu lagi kejadian yang memalukan seperti ini.
Jika kerajaan bersedia membenarkan tunjuk perasaan luar di majlis-majlis antarabangsa, kita mesti soal sama ada ini dibuat sungguhpun terdapat kemungkinan masalah-masalah ketenteraman dan penguatkuasaan undang-undang. Adakah ini kes bermuka-dua di mana satu adalah untuk
Oleh Sylvia Lim
8
seseorang daripada membuat penggambaran aktiviti-aktiviti penguatkuasaan undang-undang. Sungguhpun Menterinya menyatakan bahawa peruntukan ini hanya disasarkan pada operasi-operasi keselamatan dan bukannya untuk aktiviti-aktiviti penguatkuasaan undang-undang, penterjemahannya tidak selaras dengan apa yang dinyatakan dalam POA.
Di bawah POA, “penguatkuasaan undang-undang” termasuk aktiviti-aktiviti dijalankan oleh pegawai-pegawai kuasa undang-undang dalam perlaksanaan apa-apa fungsi, kuasa atau kewajipan seseorang pegawai mengikut undang-undang. Justeru itu, POA akan membenarkan seorang pegawai polis menghentikan seseorang daripada membuat penggambaran activiti penguatkuasaan undang-undang jika dia berpendapat ia akan prejudis perjalanan operasi penguatkuasaan undang-undang atau siasatan. Operasi penguatkuasaan undang-undang atau siasatan mungkin termasuk memantau orang ramai, siasatan jenayah atau lain-lain perkara biasa. Apabila saya bertanya Menteri tentang ini, beliau bersetuju bahawa perkataannya itu perlu dikaji semula.
Dengan makna luas perkataan seperti ini, apakah bakal kesan akauntibiliti untuk penguatkuasaan Kerajaan dan perlindungan hak asasi rakyat?
Satu contoh yang baik ialah kejadian di London baru-baru ini yang melibatkan Ian Tomlinson pada 1hb. April, sehari sebelum persidangan G-20. Tomlinson sedang dalam perjalanan balik ke rumah apabila dia terpaksa melalui satu kawasan di mana terdapat beberapa penunjuk perasaan. Pihak polis sedang bertugas menjaga ketenteraman. Dia pengsan dalam perjalanannya balik rumah dan mula-mulanya difikir telah mengalami serangan jantung. Apabila soalan-soalan dibangkitkan berkenaan sebab kematian Tomlinson, pihak polis berkata tidak terdapat apa rusuhan antaranya dan polis sebelum dia mati. Walaubagaimana pun ini tidak boleh diterima apabila satu video digambarkan oleh seorang dari New York yang sedang berada di London masa itu untuk tugas perniagaan, menunjukkan pihak polis menolak kuat Tomlinson ke atas tanah apabila beliau hanya secara aman berjalan menjauhi dari tempat itu. Apa yang dinampak dalam video, bersama beberapa laporan dari saksi-saksi, telah mencetuskan satu kajian oleh pihak Suruhanjaya Aduan Polis Berkecuali (“IPCC “ Independent Police Complaints Commission) ke dalam sebab-sebab kematian Tomlinson. Waktu ini ditulis, difahamkan bahawa Tomlinson mati bukan sebab serangan jantung sepertimana difikirkan pada mula-mulanya, tetapi kerana kecederaan dalaman. Pegawai polis yang menolaknya kini sedang menghadapi dakwaan membunuh.
Kalau penggambaran video orang New York itu tidak muncul, sebab-sebab kematian Tomlinson mungkin ditutup.
Kalau kes seperti di atas berlaku di sini, bagaimanakah kebenaran dan keadilan akan dilaksanakan tanpa penggambaran oleh insan prihatin-awam. Kerajaan mungkin cakap bahawa mereka tidak akan menerima penyalahgunaan kuasa oleh pegawai penguatkuasa undang-undang tetapi mereka pasti tidak boleh percaya bahawa ini tidak akan berlaku di Singapura.
Menteri menyatakan tentang kebimbangan melindungi pengenalan operasi rahsia. Sungguhpun begitu, jikalau anda menangkap gambaran pegawai-pegawai perisik tengah kuat membelasah seseorang itu, patutkah anda berdiam sahaja semata-mata untuk melindungi identiti
mereka? Macam mana dengan si mangsa yang kena pukul kuat itu – manakah keadilan untuk dia?
Wartawan rakyat boleh memainkan
peranan penting dalam mengesyorkan keseimbangan laporan-laporan yang telah disunting oleh media aliran utama. Akhirnya, orang ramai boleh menggunakan teknologi baru untuk memperolehi bukti terhadap Kerajaan yang berkuasa mutlak, dimana perkara sama dulunya langsung tidak boleh. Di Singapura ini adalah sangat penting sebab kami masih belum ada apa-apa Akta Kebebasan Infomasi. Juga terdapat peruntukan-peruntukan besar di bawah Akta Rahsia Rasmi dand Akta Bukti yang menegahkan makluman berkaitan dengan tindakan-tindakan Kerajaan. Kami tidak ada apa-apa badan berkecuali yang memantau tindakan-tindakan agensi-agensi penguatkuasaan undang-undang.
Dengan kuasa yang lebar dan berbudi-bicara atas tegahan membuat penggambaran terhadap aktiviti-aktiviti penguatkuasaan undang-undang akan membuat polis lagi kurang bertanggungjawab atas tindakan-tindakan mereka.
Kalau kami menuntut yang agensi-agensi penguatkuasaan undang-undang kami adalah setaraf dunia, kami tidak patut menjejas gambaran agensi-agensi dengan mengetepikan hak-hak asasi yang termaktub dalam Perlembagaan. Kami percaya taraf sedunia mesti dicapai bukan dengan terlalu mengurangkan hak-hak sah setiap warganegara tetapi tanggungjawab awam pun mesti seiras.
Bandingan Dengan ThailandSemasa perdebatan Parlimen, Menteri dan beberapa Ahli Parlimen dari parti pemerintah merujuk kepada situasi di Thailand di mana Sidang Kemuncak ASEAN terpaksa dibatalkan kerana penunjuk-penunjuk perasaan anti-kerajaan telah menceroboh masuk tempat persidangan. Mereka mengingati bahawa POA diperlukan supaya Singapura tidak menghadapi keadaan yang sama seperti ini.
Menggunakan Thailand sebagai justifikasi bukanlah sebab yang kukuh.
Masalah di Thailand melibatkan kesahihan kerajaan sejak rampasan kuasa tentera di sana pada tahun 2006. Kedua-dua pihakbertentangan mempunyai matlamat yang sama – untuk memaksa kerajaan-kerajaan sedia ada supaya mengadakan pihlihanraya baru untuk mengesahkan kerajaan yang sah.
Ikhtibar yang diperolehi dari Thailand ialah bahawa demokrasi mesti ditongakkan. Ia bukan berikutan undang-undang awam yang tidak kukuh sebab orang-orang Thai berasa bahawa mereka telah ditipu. Adakah Kerajaan Singapura ingat mengeluarkan perintah Bersurai kepada 100,000 orang Thai akan menyelesaikan masalahnya?
Orang-orang Thai mungkin mengerjakan hak asasi manusia mereka secara keterlaluan. Di sebaliknya di sini orang-orang Singapura yang langsung tidak melakukan secebis pun perkara yang sama, dihukum lebih lagi. Selagi Kerajaan ini terus menghormati dan menegakkan demokrasi, masalah yang berlaku di Thailand tidak akan berlaku di sini. Tetapi jika Kerajaan masih mahu mengusik hak individu dan demokrasi hingga ke tahap penindasan, ia sebenarnya akan menjadi punca masalah ketenteraman awam.
Tanggapan Penting – Polis baik, orang jahat!Semasa perdebatan di Parlimen, Menteri bercakap beberapa kali kita tidak boleh anggap bahawa orang akan berkelakuan sederhana. Pada masa yang sama dia juga menyatakan bahawa kita harus percayai polis dan jangan anggap mereka akan berkelakuan buruk dan menyalahgunakan kuasa-kuasa mereka.
Tanggapan muka-dua ini adalah ramuan untuk penindasan, dan akan melemahkan orang Singapura terhadap Kerajaan. Parti Pekerja menolak bil ini kerana kami percaya kepada dasar Kuasa Kepada Rakyat, tetapi POA adalah terlampau bertentangan!
kumpulan-kumpulan antarabangsa dan satu lagi untuk orang-orang tempatan? Adakah “kemungkinan masalah-masalah kententeraman dan undang-undang” sahaja satu alasan untuk menolak permohonan-permohonan oleh aktivis-aktivis tempatan dan kumpulan-kumpulan politik?
Mengenai aktiviti-aktiviti dalaman, kerajaan telah menyatakan bahawa ini dibenarkan bersambung iaitu permit-permit tidak diperlukan, selagi dianjur oleh dan untuk orang-orang Singapura. Akan tetapi pengecualian ini tidak ditulis ke dalam POA, tetapi kononnya akan dimasukkan ke dalam undang-undang lain. Undang-undang boleh dipinda bila dan bagaimana dikehendaki oleh Kerajaan. Kami berada digenggaman mereka.
Kuasa “Bersurai” PolisPOA memberi polis kuasa baru untuk mengarahkan anda keluar dari satu tempat untuk tempoh selama 24 jam. Kononnya untuk sebab-sebab keselamatan awam, ketenteraman awam atau melindungi hak-hak dan kebebasan-kebebasan orang lain.
Mereka yang diarah untuk Bersurai tidak semestinya melakukan apa-apa kesalahan, selagi pegawai polis percaya keadaan sewajarnya untuk mereka Bersurai, mereka mesti mematuhinya, demi kepentingan ketenteraman. Justeru itu, polis akan mengarahkan supaya Bersurai berdasarkan ramalan apa yang mungkin terjadi. Pelanggaran arahan ini adalah suatu kesalahan.
Adakah kuasa baru ini diperlukan oleh polis?
Kanun Seksa sudah membenarkan polis mendakwa orang yang berconspirasi membuat jenayah, sungguhpun mereka hanya bersetuju melakukan kesalahan. Mereka yang cuba melakukan kesalahan-kesalahan, dan tidak dapat menghabiskannya, juga boleh didakwa sungguhpun kesalahan ini tidak dapat disempurnakan. Kanun Prosedur Jenayah memberi kuasa kepada pihak polis untuk menghindar kesalahan-kesalahan sebelum mereka terjadi; seorang pegawai yang mengetahui tujuan (keinginan atau komplot) untuk melakukan kesalahan boleh mengambil tindakan untuk menghindarnya. Akta Kesalahan-Kesalahan Kecil (“MOA” Miscellaneous Offences Act) sudah menyalahkan banyak kelakuan anti-sosial seperti bahasa kasar dan kelakuan kacau-bilau.
Sungguhpun kerajaan mendakwa bahawa kuasa Bersurai akan memberi polis satu pilihan pertengahan dan membenarkan orang mengelakkan diri daripada ditangkap, pengalaman di Australia telah menunjukkan bahawa mengeluarkan arahan-arahan Bersurai tidak mengurangkan penangkapan-penangkapan di tempat-tempat awam, malah didapati bahawa lebih banyak dakwaan dalam kesalahan di tempat awam. Pengalaman Australia juga menunjukkan bahawa kuasa Bersurai bercenderung digunakan ke atas beberapa kumpulan orang tertentu misalnya orang-orang muda dan orang tak berumah.
Satu kebimbangan besar ialah kekurangan akauntibiliti awam oleh polis dalam melaksanakan kuasa baru. Di Queensland (Australia) di mana POA kami mengambil inspirasi dari, ada satu Suruhanjaya Jenayah dan Perlakuansalah yang akan memantau dan mengkaji penguatkuasaan Bersurai polis, dan akan memberi laporannya kepada Speaker Dewan Undangan Queensland untuk perhatian Ahli-ahli Parlimen Negeri. Tiada sebegini di dalam POA kami. Kementerian Dalam Negeri hanya menyatakan tentang akauntibiliti dalaman, dan Menterinya berkata bahawa salah satu perlindungan ialah sesuatu perintah itu hanya boleh dikeluarkan oleh seorang Sarjan, bermakna pangkat kemasukan awal rekrut baru yang berpelajaran ‘A-Level’ atau Diploma!
Penggambaran Aktiviti-Aktiviti Penguatkuasaan Undang-UndangPOA membenarkan pegawai-pegawai polis menghentikan
