By Leong Sze Hian

I went to Parliament this afternoon to listen to the proceedings on the haze and MDA regulations.

Greatest revelation of the debate:

The 9.5 million face masks in the stockpile were meant for healthcare workers, and not the general population.

We demonstrated great flexibility in crisis management by deciding to give 1 million masks free to 200,000 needy families and 3.15 million to the retailers to sell to the public – we decided to utilise the military for the distribution (mobilised the SAF) – we were lucky and grateful to the Peoples’ Association (PA) for getting the grassroots leaders to help to identify and distribute to the 200,000 needy families (decision to use PA was made on the spot).

So, does it mean that all the above were not planned?

Why did it take about 60 hours from the time the PSI hit 321 on 19 June 10 pm to the early morning of 22 June, to get sufficient stocks of masks to the retailers? No answer, but a clue perhaps – retailers encountered bottlenecks?

Most hilarious moment of the debate:

MP Lee Li Lian said something along the line of “Minister, I may have missed it, but I don’t think you have answered my second question – Why did it take 3 days after the PSI hit 321, for the Ministry of Health (MOH) to clarify to parents that the N95 masks were not suitable for children? Why was it not publicised earlier?”

Minister Gan Kim Yong replied by almost repeating what he had said earlier in answer to Lee Li Lian – That the best way to protect children was for them to stay at home, if they travel a very short distance and time like the school bus to school – they don’t really need to wear a mask, etc.

So, unless I missed it too – he never answered the question despite be asked a second time.

Most illogical part of the debate:

The decision to change to 24-hour PSI was based on the main consideration that we do not want to confuse Singaporeans (the primary consideration was that we publish accurate data – is the data giving enough advice to Singaporeans?). “No reason for us to give misleading data” “Need to be consistent”

So, the question may be – wasn’t changing to 24-hour at the peak of the crisis even more confusing to Singaporeans?

Most nonsensical part of the debate:

If the 24-hour PSI was the best practice in the world, like in the USA – Why did it take 19 years to decide all of a sudden to make the change at the hike of the crisis?

Most significant question ($64,000 question) that was not answered:

Was there or wasn’t there a national haze crisis plan (MP Chen Show Mao asked as to why the national haze crisis plan was not made public as it would have boosted public confidence?)

Inter-agency task force from 23 ministries and agencies first met on 29 May to prepare for the dry season?

Haze task force formed in 1994 is activated ahead of the dry season every year?

Have crisis management group since 1994?

Most unbelievable statistics of the debate:

Recent poll – 97 % said could find information on the haze?

80 % of residents polled were confident that we will get through the next haze threat, Government is doing its best?

Anti-climax of the debate:

The Speaker said that Parliament has a haze plan too – So does it mean that MPs don’t have to worry if the haze comes whilst they are in Parliament?

Best excuses of the debate:

Satellite pictures can’t see if have clouds, early warning is difficult, winds take a few hours to reach, PSI system in state of transition, needed to be updated, Government has been monitoring closely over many years and more closely last month, met Indonesians many times over the years, etc?

Best plan in the future:

By 2015, MEWR will have enhanced technologies for early warning – new satellite with greater resolution, greater spectral sensitivity, more wind sensors, more complicated computer model to predict how fast the haze will reach us, etc?

Most reassuring part of the debate:

MP Yen Jenn Jong asked the Minister to confirm that in 2006 – there was assurance that the Government had a haze action plan to protect and inform Singaporeans?

Best (or worse) advice of the debate:

Consumers who come across profiteering can report to CASE?

Funniest part of the debate:

Information and Communications Minister (in reply to MP Baey Yam Keng’s question as to whether the MDA regulations would affect Singapore’s reputation ) said that he was puzzled as to why the AIC (Asian Internet Coalition) and companies like Google and Facebook have expressed their concerns on the MDA regulation and we don’t think it will affect the reputation of Singapore – isn’t the fact that so many international organisations and companies have expressed their concerns already affected Singapore’s reputation?

Best “try” of the debate:

If they have problem with the $50,000 performance bond, we will be flexible – try to understand their circumstances, etc?

Best speech of the debate:

NCMP Mrs Lina Chiam who filed an adjournment motion on the MDA regulations (which allows her to speak for up to 20 minutes)

Selected extracts from her speech:

“More recently, five members of the Asia Internet Coalition – Facebook, Google, eBay, Yahoo and Salesforce – have called the new MDA rules “unwarranted and excessive”. These are the world’s major companies providing internet-related services. This issue is now affecting Singapore’s business-friendly image and reputation as a media hub.

The Government is trying to assure Singaporeans that they are not out to clamp down on internet freedom. The Acting Minister for Manpower, in speaking about these media regulations, said on television that Singaporeans can continue to air their views online. But what does that really mean? The Minister for Manpower also said that the regulations “do not encompass blogs” but may if “blogs evolve into news sites”. The definition of news sites under the regulations, as they stand, are so arbitrary, and can encompass any website posting at least one news-related article in a week.

This is not just about the ‘better communication’ of the new MDA rules, as the Minister for Communications and Information put it. There are legal issues that have not been addressed. Most of all, this issue had not even been put before this House for scrutiny and debate until today – a full 38 days after the regulations have already taken effect.

These assurances are vague and do not constitute a legal guarantee. Bloggers speak of the MDA regulations as the proverbial Sword of Damocles. It is the fear I strike in you if I hang an axe over your neck, even though I promise you I will never kill you.

In conclusion, we are reminded of what George Washington, the first President of the United States, said: “If freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter”.”

 

Reference: Order paper for the day’s Parliamentary session

You May Also Like

FinCEN files: MAS to study closely reports on Singapore banks involved in potentially suspicious transactions

The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) said on Monday (21 Sept) that…

Singapore High Commission in London helping to secure return flights for Singaporeans to return home

The Singapore High Commission (SHC) in London announced that it is assisting…

港特首公开道歉 惟未提撤回《逃犯条例》修法

香港特首林郑月娥在昨日下午四时,在港政府总部会见传媒,公开向“每一位香港市民真诚道歉”。 这是自周日香港民众“反送中”游行以来,林郑月娥首次公开露面。她重申,香港政府已暂缓(halt)《逃犯条例》修例,采取开放态度重新开始与社会各界沟通,如果未能解决社会矛盾,她不会重启修例工作。 她说,港府无意为修例工作设定最后期限,并承诺在决定下一步工作前,会向立法会保安事务委员会小组汇报。 她说她将会更加努力,重建市民对她个人和政府的信心。 她说,经过两个周日的大规模游行,市民透过和平理性方式,表达对修订《逃犯条例》的忧虑,以及对她和香港政府的不满。 她表示,民众因为不满香港政府对修订《逃犯条例》的处理工作不足,她个人必须负起很大责任,引起社会矛盾、纷争和焦虑,为此向每一位香港市民真诚道歉。 她说,对于那些在游行冲突中受伤的市民、警员和采访记者等,她感到难过。市民、年轻人和为了下一代的父母都站了出来表达意见,表示理解港人感受,她知道年青人希望有一个懂得聆听的特首,这次事件令她知道要“做得更好”,希望香港尽快修补社会裂痕。 林郑:“从未指所有集会人士为暴徒” 她在回答记者提问时则表示,她从来没有认为、说过大部分集会人士都是“暴徒”,而经过警务处处长卢伟聪在前日的解释,只要是和平参与集会、不涉及暴力,就不需担心触法。 在周一,香港警务处处长召开记者会,表示重市民理性、和平表达意见,对于6月12日下午,立法会示威区有人以砖头、铁枝及铁马等冲击警方,导致警方要驱散人群及平息暴乱,卢伟聪澄清以“暴动”形容当日情况,其实是指就某些人的“行为”涉嫌触犯暴动罪,并非形容整个活动为“暴动”,而是部分人士以暴动方式抗议。 在本月12日,香港群众为防堵“送中条例”修法在今日通过二读,聚集立法会外。但在下午约三时许警民爆发冲突,演变成流血骚乱。林郑月娥曾批评示威者破坏社会安宁、罔顾法纪,并指现场状况不是和平集会,而是公然、有组织地发动“暴动”。 而当天参与公众活动的其他示威人士,如没有参与任何暴力行为,则不用担心会触犯暴动罪。…

台前幕后都是慈祥爷爷 资深艺人白言逝世

本地资深艺人白言于今日(19日)凌晨3时与世长辞,享年百岁。 据了解,白言10天前因肺炎入院,不过今早凌晨安详离世,家人都在身边。 白言叔原名阎伯元,1920年出生于中国武汉,自小就热爱表演。16岁那年他念完了书就加入了上海歌舞团当杂工。之后开始了他的演艺事业 白言跟着歌舞团来新加坡,二战开始后认识了电影明星叶青。两人原本从属不同歌舞团,但后来组织了金星歌舞团。1944年,白言与叶青在槟城结婚。 五六十年代以表演魔术及杂技起家,融入歌舞,也擅于表演诙谐短剧。在团队里常身兼数职,无论编、导和表演都驾轻就熟。白言在2015年接受网络节目《阿财搅咖啡》(Ah Cai La Kopi)采访时,就坦言当时需符合观众需求,需要不断寻求突破。 1985年,虽然已年届65岁,白言受邀加入当年的新广(新传媒前身),参演第一部电视剧为《阳光蜜糖》,开启演艺生涯新舞台。 已故金牌故事人赵志坚1988年曾为白言量身定作环境剧《四代同堂》,让他当一家之主,白言后来跟《四》演员一直保持联系,像离开新加坡的女星方辉,每次回新都约见面。 1996年,白言荣获《红星大奖》终身成就奖后退休,11年间演出不少本地剧。 今年5月5日,演艺圈艺人还特别为白言办农历百岁寿宴。本地艺人大都崇敬他,指白言就像没有架子的慈祥长者。2014年赢得Torch…