(Delivered in Parliament on 1 March 2018)
Public Understanding of Government Bills – Sylvia Lim
While Singaporeans elect the government and their MPs to make laws, there are benefits in consulting outside this Chamber and putting out the government’s intentions well before Bills come to Parliament. First, policy makers and law makers may not be able to foresee gaps and unintended consequences. Secondly, opportunities to the general public to participate and comment on draft laws will foster greater trust between the government, Parliament and citizens. It would build confidence that policies were not being rushed, and that citizens could participate meaningfully in policy-making.
To this end, I would like to ask if there is a guideline or SOP on how Ministries should approach law-making. I will divide my discussion into two parts – the pre-Parliament stage, and the Parliament stage.
First, the pre-Parliament stage. When is public consultation on a Bill a “must”, and when is public consultation deemed not needed? There are many positive examples of public consultations, where a Ministry will publicise a consultation and invite public comments on draft legislation, after which it publishes a summary of the comments received and the Ministry’s responses. Are there any guidelines about the consultation period? It goes without saying that the consultation period should give sufficient time for people to respond. The recent consultation on the Films Amendment Act illustrates the problem when the consultation period was too short, initially for a period of about 11 days in the month of December which is generally a month when persons may also travel. It was sensible then that the Ministry extended the consultation period after requests from the public.
In recent times, there were instances when laws seemed to be rushed. For instance, the Administration of Justice (Protection) Bill was only put up on the REACH portal AFTER it was already presented in Parliament for First Reading, and a Petition filed on this Bill was somehow not sent to the Public Petitions Committee. While a Ministry may certainly choose to adopt other methods of consultation e.g. closed door focus group or stakeholder discussions, I would say that these should not replace an open consultation on the actual Bill, if the government wants to have a bigger buy-in, especially in controversial matters.
I next move to the Parliament stage. There seems to me some scope for improvement too. Regarding the Explanatory Statement to Bills, sometimes we find Explanatory Statements that simply repeat the wording of the Bill, without explaining how the clauses will improve things. On the other hand, we do see some more helpful Explanatory Statements. A recent example is the recent Public Sector (Governance) Bill, where it was stated that a Clause setting out Ministers’ powers over public bodies was necessary due to inconsistencies in existing legislation and to avoid duplication; here, an attempt is made to give a reason for the new law.
One useful initiative is the ongoing pilot by the Attorney-General’s Chambers to show the changes made by Bills in tracked mode, but I believe this is currently only available to MPs. I hope this can be available to the public to facilitate greater understanding of changes made.
Finally, Ministers’ Statements to Parliament at the Second Reading of Bills should be as clear as possible. One recent example is the Protection from Harassment Act, when in a 2017 court case, the government tried to claim that it was a person entitled to seek relief under POHA. This was rejected by the Court of Appeal as invalid, because nowhere in the Second Reading speech of the Minister was Parliament told that the Act was intended to apply to persons who were not human beings and not vulnerable.
Whistle-blower Protection in the Civil Service – Leon Perera
Based on a Parliamentary exchange in 2012, other than the CPIB and Auditor-General, public service officers can direct whistle-blowing complaints to the PSC. I would like to ask what measures are in place to ensure that all civil and public servants know what are the channels available to each of them, inside and outside their organizations, to report perceived wrong-doings. I ask this because many whistle-blowers, in any organization, may hesitate to complain to a department within their organization, especially if the wrong-doing involves senior figures in that organization. Is it currently made clear to all civil and public servants that they can highlight problematic acts without fear for their careers, provided the reporting is in good faith? Also, is the PSC the whistle-blower reporting point for ethical lapses for the whole public service, including for lapses relating to the recent requirement that a Political office holder cannot instruct a civil servant to act with respect to a person or persons? And if so is the PSC properly resourced to handle such complaints?
Printing of Government Annual Reports – Leon Perera
Each year, government Ministries and statutory boards produce annual reports. In some cases, printed copies are sent to various stakeholders including the members of this House. I am not sure how many of these printed copies are retained by the recipients for long. I would like to suggest that in future annual reports be produced only as soft copy files. These can be posted on the website. Users can print these for their own use if they want to. Since they have to pay for the printing themselves, it is likely that they would only print the pages they need. This would save the government money and is Greener, with few implications for the wider public. Some other countries have formalised guidelines to minimise printing of government annual reports. For example, the NSW government in Australia goes so far as to say that government departments “may only externally print hard copies where express permission is granted by the relevant Minister following clear justification on need and demand.”
Voting Process and Polling Stations – Png Eng Huat
Sir, an e-registration plan for future elections was unveiled last May. The Elections Department (ELD) said it will pilot a system that will scan the barcode on a voter’s identity card to shorten the waiting time for voters at polling stations. As I understood from the news, the electronic system is only for registration. Voting will still be conducted using paper ballots with a pen.
Under Section 42 of the Parliamentary Elections Act, which describes the manner of voting, subsection (2A)(b) states that “the number, name and description of the voter, as stated in the copy of the register of electors, shall be called out;”. With the proposed e-registration, the need to call out the voter’s particulars would no longer be necessary.
This archaic practice of calling out the voter’s particulars, directed at polling agents, makes sense only if the integrity of the registers of electors is in doubt. After contesting in 3 elections, I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of the registers of electors to require a line by line checking by my polling agents on polling day.
The callout can also be heard clearly in some polling stations due to the acoustics. Anyone with a mobile phone can secretly record the particulars of the voters as the name and NRIC are enunciated slowly. Some PAP polling agents would echo the particulars in an even louder voice, which is neither necessary nor provided for under the election act.
Next, a new process to let registered voters to go to any counter in the polling station to get a ballot paper and to cast the vote into any available ballot box was also proposed last May. I welcome this change. The votes in ballot boxes will be mixed in the counting centres so it makes no sense to require a voter to go to a particular line and use a particular ballot box at the polling station.
It is also about time to replace the antiquated voting booth that was in use for many elections. The existing booth allows 4 voters to vote simultaneously but because of its A-frame design, it does not offer much privacy. It is also not very user friendly for persons with disabilities. With the proliferation of personal mobility aids of all shapes and sizes, the booth is certainly due for an overhaul.
In closing, I would like to ask PMO if Section 42 subsection (2A)(b) be repealed with the introduction of e-registration?
Improving anti-corruption measures and regulations for companies – Dennis Tan
Recently Keppel was given a combined total penalties of US$422 million in US, Brazil and Singapore arising from their acts of corruption in the Petrobras bribery scandal in Brazil.
Presently, anti-corruption policies seem to be something of an afterthought in Singapore Inc. Disclosure of the existence of an anti-corruption policy by public listed companies is startlingly low.
According to Associate Professor Lawrence Loh’s “Findings on the Singapore Governance & Transparency Index 2017”, it seems that out of the 606 listed companies surveyed who had released annual reports for their financial years ending 31 December 2016, only 8.7% of them had disclosed relevant policies and practices relating to anti-corruption. Does this reflect the general attitude of companies towards anti-corruption policies?
It is startling that the existence of bribery contracts and payments somehow seemed to have escaped the notice of Keppel’s senior management, board of directors, audit committees and external auditors for 14 years. Could this point to the weaknesses in our current company and auditing regime?
The Code of Corporate Governance, requires, among other things, audit committees to review the policy and arrangements by which persons may raise concerns about possible improprieties, and ensure that arrangements are in place for such concerns to be raised and independently investigated, and appropriate follow-up action to be taken. However, only listed companies are required to follow the Code of Corporate Governance. In any event, SGX rules only require listed companies to comply with the Code of Corporate Governance on a “comply or explain” basis.
It is timely for the Government to review and enhance existing company regulations. All listed companies should set out appropriate policy on anti-corruption measures and other improprieties. The Government should consider having inspections and subject any non-compliance to penalties on the shoulders of the companies, directors and audit committee members. The Government should also review and enhance the requirements for whistle blowing policies in companies.
The Government should also enhance the requirements of the independence of the board. Norwegian company law dictates that where a company has controlling shareholders, the independence of the board is principally intended to protect minority shareholders. This is a principle we should follow. So, for example, an independent director to our government linked companies should have no past or present political affiliation to the ruling party or occupational affiliation to the public service.
The Government should also review the Prevention of Corruption Act to consider if it is sufficiently adequate to fight modern forms of corporate corruption today. It is not easy to successfully prosecute corporations as opposed to individuals under the PCA, due to the way that the legislation is framed.
The OECD Anti Bribery Convention recommends the establishment of liability of legal persons for the bribery of foreign public officials. Should we not expressly include the offence of bribery of foreign public officials by both individuals and companies in the PCA?
Finally, the Government should consider adopting a ‘failure to prevent bribery’ offence similar to Section 7 of the UK Bribery Act 2010.
Such a measure would effectively impose a duty on businesses to enact adequate procedures to prevent persons associated with the business from committing bribery. Jurisdictions like Australia are also considering introducing Section 7 type offences into their own anti-corruption legislation.