Ok andy 🙄

SINGAPORE: In his concluding speech during the motion debate on support for Singapore’s hawkers in Parliament on 13 November, Non-Constituency Member of Parliament (NCMP) Leong Mun Wai raised concerns regarding the sustainability of hawker culture, particularly in the long term. The NCMP from the Progress Singapore Party (PSP) highlighted that if key issues were not addressed, they could threaten the livelihoods of hawkers and the future of hawker culture in Singapore. First, he questioned the effectiveness of the social enterprise model for hawker centres, expressing doubts about its actual contributions compared to the challenges it has introduced. Leong argued that the corporatised nature of the social enterprise model is incompatible with the free, sole-proprietorship spirit of individual hawkers. He also expressed concerns over potential conflicts of interest when private operators manage social enterprise hawker centres. In response, Leong suggested that experienced civil servants from a government-managed body, like a proposed new agency called “Hawker Singapore” proposed by PSP, might be better suited to manage and support hawker centres to ensure their success and sustainability. Leong acknowledged the advantages shared by Senior Minister of State for Sustainability and the Environment Dr Koh Poh Koon regarding the current tender system for hawker stall allocation. However, he questioned the rationale behind the system’s renewal process, where high tender bids are reduced to a lower “assessed market rent” after the initial three years. Earlier on 4 November, the National Environment Agency (NEA) annoucned that the rental renewal policy for successful hawker tenders will be revised to mitigate excessively high tender bids. Previously, tendered stall rentals were adjusted down to the assessed market rent immediately after the first tenancy term, which lasts three years. Under the revised scheme, for the second tenancy term, rentals will be adjusted downwards by 50 per cent of the difference between the tendered rent and the assessed market rent. For example, if a hawker successfully bids S$5,000 and the assessed market rent is S$1,000, they will pay S$3,000 in rent for the second term. From the seventh year, or their third tenancy term, the rent will revert to the assessed market rent of S$1,000. Leong suggested that it might be more effective to maintain the original bid amount or require a fresh round of bidding after three years. He expressed concern that the current tender system contributes to the escalating prices in HDB coffee shops and food courts, which in turn drives up the cost of cooked food in the long term. Leong argues that restricting hawkers from employing work permit holders puts them at a competitive disadvantage Thirdly, Leong raised a concern about the disparity between coffee shops and food courts being allowed to employ work permit holders, while individual hawkers are not permitted to do so. He argued that this puts individual hawkers at a competitive disadvantage, especially when compared to corporatized hawkers in food courts. Leong emphasised that to preserve the unique Singaporean character of hawker culture, it is crucial to ensure that individual hawkers can remain competitive. He argued that denying them the ability to employ work permit holders continues to place them at a disadvantage, ultimately making them the “underdogs” in the industry. He also criticised the imposition of budget meals and discounts on hawker food, noting that the burden of these initiatives falls on hawkers themselves. He believed that the government should find ways to meet its objectives without forcing hawkers to bear the cost. Leong Mun Wai warns that hawker culture is at risk due to rising costs, manpower shortages, and corporatisation Leong noted that two months ago, a bill was debated in Parliament to address the needs of platform workers, who are also essential to Singapore’s economy. Leong emphasised that hawkers should be regarded as another critical group of workers requiring attention and support. Leong shared that many of the pioneer hawkers in Chinatown started humbly, striving to earn enough to support their families. Despite facing modest profits, they worked tirelessly to provide affordable and quality food, which allowed Singaporeans to enjoy delicious hawker fare for generations. However, he expressed concern that today, hawkers are grappling with significant challenges, including high rents, a shortage of manpower, unfair competition, and the growing influence of corporatisation. At the same time, society’s expectation for hawkers to continue providing affordable meals has only increased. He warned that the current situation is unsustainable and that, if left unaddressed, Singapore’s traditional hawker culture—fueled by the dedication and entrepreneurial spirit of individual hawkers—will gradually fade. While corporatisation in the hawker industry is a natural evolution, Leong argued that it is crucial to ensure a level playing field so that individual hawkers can continue to thrive alongside corporatized businesses. Leong concluded by stating that the current failure of hawker culture is, at least in part, due to government policies, and it is now up to the government to act on these concerns and offer better support to safeguard the future of Singapore’s hawker scene. After a five-hour debate with participation from 11 MPs, along with clarifications from Parliamentary Secretary for Finance Shawn Huang, Senior Minister of State for National Development Sim Ann, and SMS Koh on the government’s stance towards supporting hawkers, Parliament passed an amended motion proposed by PAP MP Edward Chia, which was based on the original motion by PSP. Leong noted that PSP supports Chia’s amendments to the party’s proposed motion, as it reflects unanimous agreement among all MPs on the importance of safeguarding Singapore’s hawker culture, recognising it as a vital national institution and cultural heritage.   https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2024/11/14/leong-mun-wai-challenges-govts-defence-of-social-enterprise-model-says-its-incompatible-with-hawker-spirit/  

On 13 November 2024, Workers’ Party Member of Parliament for Sengkang GRC, Associate Professor Jamus Lim, raised questions in Parliament to Singapore’s Minister for Home Affairs, Mr K Shanmugam, following a Court of Appeal ruling that the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) and Singapore Prison Service (SPS) had unlawfully disclosed prisoners’ correspondence without their consent. Asst Prof Lim had asked: (a) how will prisoners’ correspondence be handled by SPS and AGC going forward; (b) how will attorney-client privilege for prisoners be ensured; (c) what actions are being taken against the officers and decision-makers responsible for the breaches; and (d) what remedies will be provided to affected prisoners or their families The Court of Appeal ruling, issued on 11 October 2024, found that AGC and SPS had breached prisoners’ rights to confidentiality by requesting and sharing personal correspondence, including privileged legal communications. Further, three of the 13 appellants were awarded nominal damages of S$10 each for copyright breaches, while other damages claims were dismissed. This appeal was initiated by 13 prisoners on death row who alleged their rights were violated when confidential documents were forwarded by SPS to AGC. Minister Shanmugam responded to Asst Prof Lim’s questions in a written explanation regarding these disclosures, which he attributed to an attempt by SPS to ensure legal oversight in scheduling executions. “SPS’s practice was to keep AGC informed of developments involving these Prisoners Awaiting Capital Punishment (PACPs) and to seek legal advice on whether there were any relevant pending proceedings, or issues which could give rise to such proceedings, that would require the capital sentence to be held in abeyance. This approach was adopted out of an abundance of caution,” Mr Shanmugam said, adding that officers believed they were acting within legal bounds. The Court of Appeal ruled that such correspondence could not be disclosed without either the prisoner’s consent or a court order. The judgment stated, “The SPS’s authority under reg 127A to read and copy letters does not extend to sharing such correspondence with third parties, including the AGC, without the prisoner’s consent or a court order.” He further added that the Court also noted that no breach of confidence arose from SPS officers opening or perusing any of the documents, because they were entitled to do so under the Prisons Regulations. “In addition, the Court of Appeal also accepted in an earlier decision which also dealt with the disclosure of prisoners’ correspondence1, that although there was oversight by AGC when it received correspondence from SPS, there was not an attempt to seek any advantage in court proceedings.” Mr Shanmugam wrote that the AGC and SPS have since May 2020 adhered to stricter protocols prohibiting the forwarding of prisoner correspondence without formal consent or a court order. “A prisoner’s correspondence will not be sent by Ministry of Home Affairs or SPS to AGC, unless the prisoner’s consent, or an order of the court, has been obtained,” he noted. He stated, however, that no disciplinary actions would be taken against the officers involved. “The officers were acting in good faith. AGC and SPS have reminded their officers of their obligations following the court’s decision. No further action will be taken against them as there is no basis to do so,” Mr Shanmugam said. In his remarks on attorney-client privilege, Mr Shanmugam said that Prisons Regulations provide a framework for confidentiality by preventing letters between prisoners and legal advisers from being copied or withheld, though he noted that prison security remains a primary SPS responsibility. “This privilege cannot be at the expense of ensuring security and good order of prisons,” he stated, pledging that SPS would carefully balance these priorities. Death row inmates’ case revealed SPS forwarded confidential letters, AGC downplayed extent of disclosures The Court of Appeal ruling stems from concerns raised as early as 2020 when Malaysian death row prisoner Datchinamurthy Kataiah alleged that his legal communications had been shared with AGC by SPS without his knowledge. Datchinamurthy ’s complaint was later supported by several other death row inmates, who alleged similar breaches. Evidence submitted to the court indicated that SPS had forwarded over 68 confidential documents, which included letters to and from prisoners’ lawyers, to AGC. The case brought renewed attention to another instance involving Singaporean death row prisoner Syed Suhail bin Syed Zin. In September 2020, Singapore-based human rights group Community Action Network (CAN) called for an independent inquiry following allegations that SPS forwarded privileged legal communications from Syed’s lawyer to AGC. “This matter only came to light in September 2020,” CAN stated, adding that transparency was essential to understanding the impact on affected prisoners. CAN’s statement highlighted the importance of public accountability, citing that disclosures of legal correspondence may undermine inmate rights and judicial impartiality. It urged the government to investigate whether similar disclosures had occurred with other inmates and to examine the extent to which legal confidences may have been compromised. In response to mounting concerns, AGC conducted an audit in 2021, which found that 13 of 22 reviewed cases involved confidential disclosures. Nevertheless, the audit’s findings provided only a partial view of the total number of correspondence disclosures, leaving the broader scope of such practices unaddressed. Human rights lawyer M Ravi raised concerns about transparency in AGC’s disclosures, highlighting that only a limited number of instances had been disclosed. His comments came in response to a 2021 High Court decision that denied pre-action discovery requests filed by 22 prisoners, where the court stated there is a risk of “potentially frivolous applications for discovery even before a prima facie case has been put forth” before the proceedings. Allowing their application for pre-action disclosures against the AG and SPS, said Justice See Kee Oon, could open the “floodgates” to more parties seeking pre-action disclosures against the Government, due to such an action possibly being easier than the conventional discovery processes associated with judicial review. These requests sought to uncover a broader pattern of correspondence disclosures between SPS and AGC. In his submission to the High Court, Mr Ravi noted that the Attorney General (AG) had failed to disclose during the proceedings of Gobi a/l Avedian vs Attorney-General [2020] that forwarding prisoners’ personal correspondence to public prosecutors was a frequent occurrence. He added that the AG had “misleadingly allowed the Court of Appeal to believe that the disclosures in those two cases were isolated incidents” and was therefore an ‘oversight’. Mr Ravi argued that the lack of discovery limited understanding of the issue’s scope, stating, “The true scale of the requests and disclosures in the cases of all prisoners is unknown.” Judgement where it states that the AGC impressed upon the case that only two instances of correspondences being forwarded by SPS to AGC   https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2024/11/14/no-further-action-to-be-taken-over-unlawful-disclosure-of-prisoners-confidential-letters-k-shanmugam/

With the National Heritage Board (NHB) reopening the case of 38 Oxley Road as a potential National Monument, significant questions have arisen about the relevance of the 2016 Ministerial Committee’s work—some say even its redundancy—particularly since that committee’s findings are seemingly set aside. In response to questions from Members of Parliament, Minister for Culture, Community and Youth Edwin Tong explained that the NHB has initiated a new assessment to evaluate the site’s eligibility for designation as a National Monument following an application for its demolition by Lee Hsien Yang, the youngest son of Lee Kuan Yew. This situation has led to public criticism and pointed questions: Is the NHB’s new study an unnecessary expenditure of public resources, and did the Ministerial Committee truly serve the public interest? The Ministerial Committee, formed in 2016 and led by then-Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean, was tasked with creating “drawer plans” for the property. This included exploring options ranging from preservation to demolition, without committing to a specific outcome. Over the span of nearly two years, the committee assessed 38 Oxley Road’s architectural, heritage, and historical value, collected perspectives from Lee Kuan Yew’s children, and compiled information to serve as a reference for future governments. This work culminated in a report issued in 2018, which outlined several options but deferred any specific recommendation, citing the “life interest” Lee Kuan Yew had left to his daughter, Dr Lee Wei Ling, who resided at the property. Yet, the lack of a decisive outcome, now compounded by NHB’s reassessment, has raised serious doubts about the effectiveness of the committee’s work. Tong clarified that while NHB research was included in the 2018 report, it was never formally presented to the Preservation of Sites and Monuments Advisory Board (PSMAB), the independent body overseeing national monument designations. The committee opted to keep “all options open,” avoiding any presentation to the PSMAB or decisive recommendation. With the NHB now conducting a near-duplicate review, many are questioning why the committee’s findings cannot be reused. If, as Minister Tong or the NHB might argue, these findings are considered outdated (setting aside the notion of a historical assessment becoming ‘outdated’), it raises the question: was the committee’s work effectively redundant, and if so, who is accountable for any wasted resources? Some wonder why the government didn’t simply wait for a formal demolition request or a significant change in circumstances, such as Dr Lee choosing to leave the house or her passing, before initiating a review of 38 Oxley Road’s status. Under Section 12 of the Preservation of Monuments Act 2009, a preservation order lapses if the government does not acquire the property within a year. This raises questions as to why a committee was convened before a formal demolition request or a significant change in circumstances, such as Dr Lee leaving the house or passing. The review involved prominent Cabinet members—Ministers Grace Fu, K Shanmugam, and Lawrence Wong—all of whom managed portfolios tied to culture, law, and urban development. Convening such a high-level committee with no clear directive to make recommendations or reach a decision, only to repeat the process years later after Lee Hsien Yang’s application, seems to many like an irresponsible use of public resources. With the NHB now conducting an assessment without the same level of ministerial involvement, the initial need for such senior officials seems questionable. A recent survey by Black Dot Research found that over half of Singaporeans polled support the demolition of 38 Oxley Road, aligning with Lee Kuan Yew’s stated wishes. Nonetheless, it is also public knowledge that the PAP Cabinet, during Lee Kuan Yew’s lifetime, expressed unanimous interest in preserving the property against his will. The ongoing saga has also surfaced issues beyond just the fate of a historical property. It underscores unresolved tensions within the Lee family, particularly in light of allegations of power abuse and preferential treatment by certain state actors, which contributed to Lee Hsien Yang and his family seeking refuge overseas due to alleged state persecution. Singaporeans are left wondering: did the Ministerial Committee—which Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee referred to as a “secret committee”—even serve a real purpose, or was it simply a way to pursue other aims?   https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2024/11/14/was-the-ministerial-committee-on-38-oxley-road-a-waste-of-public-resources/

$3.80 from breadtalk... kumgong then believe the fillings will be so full...    U want to spend at breadtalk and yet expect them to be cheap?