True story.
WP's Pritam Singh made broad statement about the self-employed, the taxi drivers and hawkers. They traditionally under declare their income, he said in Parliament.
Pritam Singh also said that Smart nation and going cashless will render the prospect of them under declaring their income less probable.
This will result in higher revenue from taxes clawed back from taxi drivers, hawkers and self-employed, which can then go to meet increased expenditure.
The context of this is simply that WP opposes GST and there are other sources of revenue - including taxes from income under-declaring taxi drivers and hawkers.
Workers' Party MP Sylvia Lim's objection: She said that by defining the activities for which a person can be liable for detention, it increases the minister's power. And by expanding the scope to include organized crime activity, it makes the minister a global policeman with no equal. How does defining the scope of activities makes the minister all-powerful? 
🙄
🙄
Law and Home Affairs Minister Shanmugam's response:
"In the past, the Minister had to be satisfied that a detention was necessary in the interests of public safety, peace and good order within Singapore.
This is set out in the Act.
The amendments impose an ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT on the Minister.
Now the Minister can only order the detention if:-
(i) he is satisfied that it is necessary in the interests of public safety, peace and good order within Singapore – as was the position before; and
(ii) the activity is listed in the new Schedule to the Act.
This is something to be welcomed.
It sets out transparently the activities, and IMPOSES 2 REQUIREMENTS for detention INSTEAD OF THE ORIGINAL 1 REQUIREMENT." - Mr K Shanmugam on his facebook
"Ms Lim, again another rhetorical flourish, I will become a global policeman with the Bill. Makes a good soundbite, but it is useful for MPs to read the Bill before they make speeches, because we are dealing with serious matters involving the safety and security of Singaporeans." - Mr Shanmugam in Parliament
WP's Leon Perera apologised in Parliament for misrepresenting facts that Mediacorp edited a Parliament video.
He justified himself with 'failed memory' and continued to give a FALSE impression that the issue was 'resolved amicably' with Mediacorp.
There was nothing for Leon Perera to resolve with Mediscorp because even before he had sent his first email to Mediacorp, Mediacorp had already rectified the video.
When rectification was done even before he had raised the issue with Mediacorp, what was there to resolve?
More than 8 months after the debates in Parliament on the presidency in February 2017, WP's NCMP Leon Perera made a serious accusation on Nov 7.
He claimed that Mediacorp had put up the video with “certain bits removed”, and that the broadcaster made a rectification ONLY AFTER he communicated with them.
The TRUTH is that Mediacorp had in fact rectified the clip and put the full exchange online on Feb 18, two days BEFORE Mr Perera had emailed the company on Feb 20.
Mediacorp had explained to Mr Perera on the same day of his email that a technical issue had affected the recording, resulting in a truncated recording.
With this knowledge, he still went to Parliament and deliberately misrepresented the facts of the matter.
Parliamentarians enjoy a special privilege of immunity when they speak in Parliament. They should respect the sacredness of Parliament and the special privilege accorded to them and not belittle the importance of the Chamber in which they stand and speak.
On Tuesday’s Parliament Sitting (Nov 7), Mr Leon Perera alleged that Mediacorp had edited a video from the debate on the Presidential Elections (Amendment) Bill in Feb this year, with “certain bits removed”.
He claimed that after his intervention, #MediaCorp“made a rectification and put up a different clip”.
He was clearly implying that MediaCorp had edited Parliamentary footages in a partisan manner.
This was a serious accusation. But it was false, and unfair to MediaCorp who work very hard to prepare footages after every Parliament Sitting.
I raised this with Mr Perera in Parliament on Tuesday (http://www.channelnewsasia.com/…/chee-hong-tat-on-video-rec…).
Confronted, he was forced to acknowledge the following facts:
(a) On 20 Feb 2017, Mr Perera emailed MediaCorp to ask why a particular video clip had been truncated.
(b) MediaCorp replied to him on the same day, explaining that a technical glitch had affected the recording, and that it had been rectified and the full clip made available online on 18 Feb – TWO days before Mr Perera’s email query.
So Mr Perera had known this for several months. Yet when I asked him, he at first repeated the false claim. He said, “as a result of that exchange I had with MediaCorp, they removed the video with the truncations and then they uploaded a new video without the truncations”.
I had to reiterate the facts and remind him what actually happened, before he grudgingly conceded the point.
It is surprising that Mr Perera remembered the original ‘editing’ and that he had asked MediaCorp, but ‘forgot’ that MediaCorp told him it was an error which had already been rectified.
It is part of debate to criticize and present different views.
But it is unethical and wrong to tell untruths to score political points. This is not what Singaporeans want to see in Parliament.
- SMS Chee Hong Tat
https://www.facebook.com/hongtat.chee/posts/1101168040019616
In her adjournment motion speech in Parliament, Sylvia Lim quoted the advice of a “prominent” Queens Counsel filed by Dr Tan Cheng Bock in Court, that the Art was unconstitutional.
But she did not disclose that Tan Cheng Bock also withdrew the QC’s advice.
Clearly the advice had no merit or Tan Cheng Bock would not have withdrawn it.
By suppressing the fact that Tan Cheng Bock had withdrawn the QC's advice, Sylvia Lim intended to mislead Singaporeans.
In legal language, such behaviour is described as:
"suppressio veri suggestio falsi" - suppressing the truth to suggest something that is false.
In 2015, the High Court judge, Quentin Loh described one of Sylvia Lim’s Parliamentary speeches as an exercise of “suppresio veri, suggestio falsi”.
What Sylvia Lim has succeeded in her adjournment motion is to further discredit her credibility.
