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 there be a case of double standards, one for international
previously under Section 5 of the Miscellaneous Offences groups and one for locals? Have “potential law and order
Act (“MOA”). The POA now incorporates a procedure on problems” simply been an excuse to reject applications by
how such permits may be applied for to the Commissioner local activists and political groups?
of Police, and that he has the discretion to decide whether
to grant a permit or not, and under what conditions and Regarding indoor political activities, the government has
restrictions. He can refuse a permit for various reasons, said that these would continue to be allowed i.e. no permits
including the possibility of public disorder resulting from are needed, so long as organised by and for Singaporeans.
the assembly or procession. But this exemption is not written into the POA, but will
apparently be included in some regulations. Regulations
Those of us who are activists and political parties would be can be amended as and when the government likes. We are
very familiar with the previous police permit regime under left at their mercy.
the MOA. From the Workers’ Party experience, we would
not be granted any permits to conduct outdoor activities Police “Move On” Powers
(not counting Speakers’ Corner or perhaps stadiums), The POA gives the police a new power to order you to
however benign those activities might be. For instance, leave a place for up to 24 hours. The rationale for this is
the Party’s application to hold a cycling event for members supposed to be public safety, public order or to protect the
and friends at East Coast Park in 2007 to commemorate rights and freedoms of others.
our 50th Anniversary was dismissed, for the reason of
“potential law and order problems”. Those who are directed to Move On need not have been
committing any offence, so long as the police officer
Is there any change in position under the POA with regard believes it is reasonably necessary for them to Move On
to Singaporeans who wish to engage in cause-based in the interests of good order. Therefore, the police are
activities e.g. political parties and civic society groups? issuing the direction to Move On based on a prediction
When I asked the Second Home Affairs Minister K of what might happen next. Disobeying such a direction
Shanmugam in Parliament whether there would be more itself becomes a criminal offence.
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
 2
continued from pg 1
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 Activities
The 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 Source: by Steph & Adam (flickr.com)
New Yorker in London on business showed the police
Using Thailand as a justification for the POA holds little
violently pushing Tomlinson to the ground when he was
water.
doing nothing but walking away from the area peaceably.
The revelation of this footage, together with other eye
The problem in Thailand involves the legitimacy of
witness accounts, has now triggered an investigation by
governments since the 2006 military coup there. Both
the Independent Police Complaints Commission into the opposing camps have a similar message - to force existing
circumstances of Tomlinson’s death. At the time of writing, governments to call for fresh elections to ensure its
it was determined that Tomlinson did not die of a heart legitimacy.
attack as initially thought, but of internal injuries, with the
officer who pushed him now facing manslaughter charges. If there is a lesson to be learnt from Thailand, it is about
upholding democracy. It is not about the consequences of
If the video taken by the New Yorker in London never having weak public order laws because the Thai people
came to light, the circumstances of Tomlinson’s death may felt cheated. Does the Singapore government think that
have been covered up. slapping a 'move on' order on 100,000 Thais will work?
If the above case were to happen here, how will truth and The Thais may be exercising their basic human rights to
justice to prevail without the presence of footage recorded the extreme. On the other end, Singaporeans, who have
by public-spirited citizens? The government may say it done nothing remotely close to what the Thais are doing,
does not tolerate abuses by law enforcement officers but it are being penalised further for nothing. As long as this
cannot possibly believe that such abuses will never happen government respect and uphold democracy, the problem we
in Singapore. are seeing now in Thailand will not happen here. But if the
government wants to tinker with individual freedom and
The Minister mentioned concerns about safeguarding the democracy to an oppressive level, it will actually become
identity of covert operatives. But even then, if you were to the source of public order problems.
film intelligence officers beating up someone excessively,
should you be silenced simply to protect their identities? Key assumption – police are good, people are bad!
What about the victim of excessive violence – where is his During the course of the Parliamentary debate, the Minister
justice? mentioned more than once that we should not assume that
people would behave reasonably. On the other hand, he
Citizen journalists have important roles to play to said that we should trust the police and not assume that
counterbalance the edited reports of the mainstream they would misbehave and abuse their powers.
media. At long last, ordinary citizens can harness new
technology to secure evidence against the all-powerful Such a double-assumption is a recipe for tyranny, and
State, something impossible before. In Singapore, this is will further emasculate the Singapore citizen vis-à-vis the
particularly valuable as we still do not have any Freedom State. The Workers’ Party opposed the bill as we believe
of Information Act, and there are wide provisions under the fundamentally in Power to the People, and the POA simply
Official Secrets Act and Evidence Act to prevent disclosure goes too far in the opposite direction!
of information relating to government actions. We do not
even have any independent watchdog body to monitor law
enforcement agency actions. Quick Poll
Having such a wide, discretionary power to ban films The new Public Order Act allows the police to direct the
of law enforcement activities will make the police less public to stop filming law enforcement activities and
accountable to the public for its actions. search any person whom the officer has reason to believe
is in possession of such a film or picture without warrant
If we are to claim that our law enforcement agencies and with assistance and by such force as is necessary. Do
are world class, we should not tarnish the image of the you agree?
agencies by disregarding the fundamental rights enshrined
in the Constitution. We believe world class status should be Vote now at http://www.wp.sg/wordpress/?p=644
achieved not by way of severely curtailing legitimate rights
of individual citizens; public accountability must be in the
equation as well.
Comparisons with Thailand
During 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.

By Gerald Giam
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 beginning
The 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' Allowance
Instead 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.
Conclusion
The 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.
3
By Aaron Peng
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.
 4

By Lee Lilian Currently, the subsidised cost of a mammogram at a Let’s cite an example of a woman aged 55 with a
Polyclinic is $50. This amount may seem affordable to monthly salary of $1,000. That is to say her monthly CPF
Over the decades, the word many, but it could mean a lot to some as well. contribution is 28.5% or $285. Out of this, $84.987 goes
‘cancer’ never fails to strike fear into her Medisave account. One year later, she would have
in people. Breast cancer is the The government should provide free mammogram accumulated $1,019.844 in her Medisave.
most common cancer among screening for women aged 50–69. This is the age group for
which mammogram has been proven to be most effective. With a 4% return on her Medisave annually, $1,019.844
Singapore women today. Women
can reap $40.79 which is 80% of the cost of a mammogram.
of all the 3 major ethnic groups (Chinese, Malay, and
This free screening can be made available to women whose The government can cap the amount to be used for a
Indian) are equally affected.
per capita household income is less than $1,000. This is mammogram at 50% (or $25), which means a woman pays
According to a report from ‘Channel News Asia’ (http:// because women in this income group are more likely to be just the remaining $25.
www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/ 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 same survey conducted on Singapore women also
view/380260/1/.html), some 1,300 women in Singapore are
The government should reach out to this group of people. revealed that many women do not go for a mammogram
diagnosed with breast cancer every year, and 313 women
due to lack of time, fear of pain, a disbelief that cancer
die from the disease each year. Early detection saves lives,
Another alternative is to allow the usage of Medisave to would never happen to them, ignorance about mammogram
but only 41 per cent of women go for screening.
finance 50% of the cost of screenings. A survey (http://smj. services, and the high cost of a mammogram.
The number of breast cancer cases has risen by 25% over sma.org.sg/4801/4801a5.pdf) done in 2007 revealed that
women who found the subsidised cost of mammographic Among the reasons cited, I personally believe that cost is
the past decade, making it the top cancer-killer in Singapore
screening ($50) to be expensive, and most had indicated that the main factor. The other factors can be easily overcome
today. While this rapid increase could be due to more early
$20–$30 would be a reasonable price. Hence if the price through outreach and education, but money is a strong
discoveries of the disease, the fact is, more women are also
were reduced to $20-$30, it could increase the chances of practical hindrance. Hence, it is vital for the government to
contacting breast cancer due to an increasingly affluent
women going for the screening. provide free mammographic screening for specific groups
and sedentary lifestyle, dietary factors, later pregnancies,
of women, and allow Medisave to be used to pay for it.
a longer life span, and ignorance about the disease. Today,
a mammogram is the only proven and effective method of The table below illustrates the contribution for employees
detecting breast cancer. aged 50 – 65 and above.
Employee’s Contribution Contribution Total Credited into:
age by employer by employee contribution
A nationwide government-subsidised breast screening (% of wage) (% of wage) (% of wage)
OA SA Medisave
programme, administered by the Health Promotion Board,
was initiated in January 2002. It is targeted at women aged 50 - 55 10.5 18 28.5 0.4562 0.2456 0.2982
50 to 69 years of age. Women who are eligible are invited 55 - 60 7.5 12.5 20 0.575 0 0.425
by letter for the first mammographic screening, and recalled 60 - 65 5 7.5 12.5 0.28 0 0.72
at two-yearly intervals. However, there is still a group of Above 65 5 5 10 0.1 0 0.9
women who are not aware of breast cancer. (Source: www.cpf.gov.sg)

Across
3. 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.

Down
1. 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.

By Ng Swee Bee
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 A
Ms 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 Parliament
Here 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 response
Unfortunately 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.”
Conclusion
As 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?
5
Norhidayat Ali
Age: 29
Background
Norhidayat 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.
Education
Norhidayat 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.
Career
Upon 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 WP
Having 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.
Philosophy
Norhidayat 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
By Melvin Tan
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.
Conclusion
In 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 Nathaniel Koh
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.
Policy
Every 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.
People
Without 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

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.
Presence
When 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.
Oleh Sylvia Lim
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 Perarakan
POA 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
7
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
 8
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” Polis
POA 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-Undang
POA membenarkan pegawai-pegawai polis menghentikan
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 Thailand
Semasa 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!
9
10
 11

许俊荣
12

黄瑞美

陈家喜
13
14

日月谈 二牛

THE

•
 15

(文接自第16版)

？
 MICA (P) 190/11/2008 Issue No: 0902 www.wp.sg $2.00

(文接第15版)
Published by The Workers’ Party. Printed by Targa Lithography Services
0215