One thing that is clear from the proposed amendments to the Town Councils Act is that town councils are here to stay. But there is an alternative way in which they can be run properly.

And that is to get the Housing Board to manage them again, say experts – a reverse of the current model which started in 1989.

Then, town councils were formed to give MPs autonomy and latitude to govern their estates, and the proposed amendments to the law do not change this.

Corporate governance expert Mak Yuen Teen prefers reverting to the old system for several reasons.

The current model has MPs as town councillors responsible for town councils that are overseen by the Ministry of National Development (MND).

But the MND is also accountable to the same people, who are ministers or MPs.

Associate Professor Mak says: “I think this creates, at least, perception issues… that the system might be unfair or lenient to town councils because the PAP dominates the Government.”

He adds that if town councils are “depoliticised”, they can be run by the HDB or a committee of government-appointed professionals with expertise to oversee the estate, similar to a condominium’s MCST (Management Corporation Strata Title).

With such a move, MPs could “devote their time to national issues”, he says, pointing out that now many MPs, saddled with many duties, end up delegating key functions to their general managers.

But the Government has consistently ruled this out.

Then National Development Minister Khaw Boon Wan said in 2013 that Singapore should not revert to such a system “where HDB administers estates all over Singapore”. In such a situation, “MPs have no authority or responsibility over what is done or how well things work”, he said.

Former Nominated MP Zulkifli Baharudin says it is important for MPs to bear the ultimate responsibility of running estates. “This is political accountability – you choose the local leadership and they must be able to run the estate,” he says.

National University of Singapore real estate professor Yu Shi Ming notes that when the councils were set up, there were three main objectives.

The first was for MPs to take charge of governing their estates so they could be directly accountable to their constituents for their decisions.

The second was to encourage residents to have a say in their estate’s matters.

This, in turn, would allow each town to develop its own identity – the third objective.

dansonc@sph.com.sg

This article was first published on Feb 12, 2017.
Get a copy of The Straits Times or go to straitstimes.com for more stories.

Two bottles of 50-year-aged Moutai, sold at $36,000 each, were among the items listed in a $240,000 dining bill purportedly incurred by a group of 20 diners at Feng Shui Inn in Resorts World Sentosa.

A premium Chinese liquor made by the state-backed distillery Kweichow Moutai, Moutai (or Maotai) is distilled from fermented sorghum (a type of grain) and wheat.

The liquor is typically sold in 500ml bottles.

The value of Moutai, which is named after a village in Guizhou, China, varies according to its vintage.

Moutai vintages of up to 80 years old were previously put up for sale at 387,400 yuan (S$80,000) per bottle.

Read also: This reunion meal costs $240,000 – as much as a 3-room HDB flat

The strong liquor, with an average alcohol content of 53 per cent by volume, coupled with its cultural significance as China’s “national wine” since 1949, has attracted comparisons to vodka and scotch.

Overseas, Moutai first entered the spotlight in 1972 when it was poured for then-US President Richard Nixon at a historic state banquet in Beijing hosted by then-Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai.

It is regularly consumed at official banquets, though this practice has waned due to a campaign against corruption spearheaded by Chinese President Xi Jinping.

Moutai is perceived to be a symbol of excess, and its sales to the public sector dwindled with the beginning of the anti-graft drive in December 2012.

Read also: Were you fooled? Video showing ‘$240,000 reunion meal’ turns out to be fake

hytay@sph.com.sg

This article was first published on Feb 12, 2017.
Get a copy of The Straits Times or go to straitstimes.com for more stories.

Uncertainty reigns as Singapore travellers and travel agents turn an apprehensive eye towards the United States, after the inauguration of businessman Donald Trump as President.

Compared with the first three quarters of last year, travel search engine Kayak says the average daily number of searches from Singapore for destinations in the US had dropped by 31 per cent after Mr Trump’s election on Nov 9, a decline that lasted until the middle of last month.

Though searches bounced back after his inauguration on Jan 20, they dropped again after the announcement of his travel ban – this time by 10 per cent compared with the same period last year.

The ban, an executive order signed by Mr Trump on Jan 27, blocked the arrival of travellers from the predominantly Muslim nations of Iran, Iraq, Yemen, Syria, Libya, Somalia and Sudan for 90 days, and suspended US refugee resettlement for 120 days.

In the week that followed, the ban caused mass confusion and extensive delays at airports, where US residents, green-card holders and visa holders alike were detained or turned away by immigration officers.

These actions prompted mass demonstrations at international airports around the country, where thousands arrived to express their outrage at the alleged anti-Muslim bias and unconstitutional nature of the ban.

The protests were held just a week after millions of men and women marched in cities and towns across the country to demonstrate against the conservative and right-wing policies of the new President, a day after his inauguration.

Though the travel ban was suspended by a US federal judge on Feb 3, and the suspension unanimously upheld by a US Court of Appeals last Thursday, Mr Trump’s response to the court’s decision – an all-caps tweet which read: “See you in court, the security of our nation is at stake!” – suggests the issue will not be disappearing any time soon.

Already, the effects of the ban have impacted international travel to the US. On Feb 1, Bloomberg News reported that within two days, the ban had shaved US$4.9 billion (S$7 billion) off the market value of the country’s biggest airlines.

Last Thursday, global news agency Agence France-Presse reported that international travel bookings to the US had fallen by 6.5 per cent after the travel ban, compared with the same period last year, and that the ban had deterred travellers from beyond the affected countries from making a trip to the US.

Ms Alicia Seah, director of communications at travel agency Dynasty Travel, says the political uncertainties in the US and an escalating US dollar exchange rate – now at US$1 to S$1.40, compared with US$1 to S$1.38 before the election – are likely to affect bookings.

The agency anticipates a drop of 15 to 20 per cent in demand for trips to the US in the first half of this year.

Ms Seah says: “Leisure travellers want to travel with peace of mind and people planning their travel from next month onwards will put their US travel plans on hold at this juncture.”

She adds that travellers will likely turn their attention to destinations, such as Australia, New Zealand or places in Asia.

Other agencies, such as Chan Brothers Travel and Flight Centre, say that so far, interest in US destinations is holding steady as travellers wait to see what will come of Mr Trump’s policies and the unrest they have caused in the US.

Ms Suyin Lee, managing director for Flight Centre Travel Group Singapore, says: “While there is a lot of speculation, it is too early for us to form an opinion on the impact of the ban.”

But Mr Fazal Bahardeen, founder and chief executive of CrescentRating, a rating and accreditation service for Muslim-friendly travel, says the ban will dissuade many Muslims from going to the US for leisure and will impact business trips too.

“No one wants to go to a place where he might be subjected to ‘extreme vetting’ just because he is Muslim,” he says. “It’s not really about physical safety, it is more about being unwelcome.”

He advises Muslims travelling to the US to buy maximum travel insurance coverage and have all travel documents – from hotel reservations to flight tickets to invitations if travelling for business – printed and in order before the trip. Any hosts in the US should be informed of the travel plans and, if possible, wait for the travellers at the airport.

The ban is prompting local Muslim-oriented agencies to reconsider plans to initiate itineraries to the US.

Mr Aurang Zeb, manager, of Muhibbah Travel in Beach Road, says it had plans to launch packages to the US later this year, but will now wait and see how the ban and its ramifications develop.

It is too stressful a proposition for Mr Ayoob Angullia, managing director of Shahidah Travel in Victoria Street. He plans to remove a tab on his website indicating that tours to the US are “coming soon” and will not be considering any trips to the country in the near future.

In his 30 years in the industry, he says, he has never seen a ban like this.

“When you are going somewhere for a holiday, you are going so that you can relax. I don’t want to be harassed or detained at the airport… I want to have peace of mind when I move around,” he says.

Being detained at the airport is a primary concern for public servant Iskandar Reindio, 36. He wanted to cancel his trip to New York and Los Angeles, scheduled for next month, but was unable to get a refund for the United Airlines ticket he bought in November.

“I’m Muslim and I have Arabic features… The chances of me being held at the airport or deported back to Singapore seem high and make me worried.”

He has purchased extra travel insurance as a safeguard against any changes in travel plans and feels a little better now that the ban has been suspended, but otherwise says he can only hope for the best.

Though not a Muslim, Kiss92 radio DJ Joshua Simon, 26, was also worried that as a Singaporean of Indian descent, his brown skin might make him a target at immigration or of racial attacks.

Friends had advised him to cancel or reschedule his two-week trip to New York, but he left for the US on Feb 2 anyway and is now enjoying the snowfall and time with his friends in Brooklyn.

“I was worried about being treated with hostility, but now that I’m here, I see how diverse New York is, with so many nationalities, even more than in Singapore,” he says.

The trip is the fulfilment of a life- long dream to visit New York and he is happy he took the chance.

“I didn’t want fear to dictate my life,” he says.

This article was first published on Feb 12, 2017.
Get a copy of The Straits Times or go to straitstimes.com for more stories.

From demerit points to pay cuts and even chiding staff in public, employees claim some companies here are “unfair” towards workers who have to take medical leave.

Meanwhile, several companies The Sunday Times contacted said they do not punish such employees. Instead, they reward staff for staying healthy, dishing out bonuses and even restaurant vouchers.

The issue became a talking point after several Singapore Airlines (SIA) cabin crew members expressed unhappiness about the company’s medical leave system earlier this month.

Crew members alleged they risk losing incentive points when they submit medical certificates (MCs) for common ailments like cough and cold.

These points are taken into account in the staff’s annual appraisals, making up less than 5 per cent of the weighting.

Meanwhile, several crane operators at PSA Singapore told The Sunday Times about its alleged practice of giving them “demerit points” – which are recorded – when they chalk up about eight days of MCs from private doctors.

This results in a lower “incentive” payout in their payroll that month.

One crane operator who was slapped with demerit points said: “Most of us just accept it. We are afraid we will be ‘marked’ and don’t know who to go to for help.”

Staff are encouraged to go to PSA-approved clinics but he claimed they are open only during office hours, and are located far from where he lives.

In response, a PSA spokesman said “there are measures to prevent abuse of the medical leave system”, but did not elaborate.

The spokesman added: “As part of regular review, PSA assessed the measures in 2016 and has since been phasing out disciplinary action arising from poor attendance, choosing instead to encourage staff to adopt healthy lifestyles as part of our company culture.

“PSA also provides subsidies for visits to doctors, and we recognise MCs from all Singapore-registered doctors, including non-PSA-appointed doctors.”

Then there is “Amy”, a nurse at a private hospital, who claimed her manager would reprimand her in front of her colleagues whenever she mentioned she was feeling ill. As a result, she would sometimes go to work when she was feeling unwell. She declined to be named.

MANPOWER CONSTRAINTS

While some firms brandish the stick, others prefer to hand out carrots.

Restaurant Association of Singapore president Vincent Tan said many food and beverage establishments are already understaffed, and operations take a hit when an employee calls in sick.

“Bigger companies can move a server to another branch if it is busier and needs more help, or activate a part-timer.

“But for smaller ones, if a worker doesn’t turn up, they can’t do much,” said Mr Tan, who is also the managing director of restaurant operator Select Group.

Employees at the group, whose portfolio includes the Texas Chicken and Peach Garden chains, may have the number of days of medical leave taken factored into their performance appraisal, though these are handled on a case-by-case basis, said Mr Tan.

The medical leave rate among its 2,000 employees is low, he added.

Employees in Singapore take about four to five days of medical leave a year.

An owner of a restaurant chain with multiple outlets across Singapore, who declined to be named, said employees who do not take medical leave that month are given a $100 bonus.

He feels the current debate on the medical leave system has been rather one-sided.

“Some people really make sure they take all 14 days (of medical leave). They treat it like annual leave.

“What if they have (faked an illness)? I myself did it when I worked in an office,” he said.

“If we introduce a disciplinary act, they will look for work elsewhere. Is there an Employer’s Act to protect us from irresponsible staff?”

Mr Andrew Tjioe, executive chairman of the Tung Lok Group of restaurants, said employees who do not take any medical leave in a year are rewarded with $500 dining vouchers.

He said taking medical leave is not a factor when an employee’s performance is appraised.

Rather than imposing rules, the group focuses on educating its 700 staff across 27 outlets on values like respect and responsibility.

At Royal Plaza on Scotts, employees with perfect attendance are given $500 a year.

For every five consecutive years of perfect attendance, they get an extra five days of leave for one year.

The hotel’s general manager Patrick Fiat said when employees do have to take medical leave, they do not have to submit a medical certificate but just call in sick.

He added: “This demonstrates the level of trust and respect the organisation places in them. In turn, they feel empowered to be responsible for their own work.”

According to human resources agencies and union representatives, the practice of offering incentives appears to be more prevalent here, particularly in service sectors where the physical presence of workers is crucial – such as in security, food and beverage, and retail.

Singapore Human Resources Institute president Erman Tan said: “It’s about balancing the needs of employers, employees and co-workers… When you don’t have a certain level of discipline, you need to put more people on standby mode, leading to higher operational costs.”

Still, firms said they need to distinguish between those who are genuinely sick and those exploiting their medical leave entitlement. Reachfield Security & Safety Management’s operations manager Raymond Chin said: “Usually we try to ‘spot’ the frequency of the medical leave taken and also if there is a specific pattern to the MCs taken… for example, when the medical leave (always falls) on a Friday or one day after pay day.”

TIME FOR STOCK-TAKING

ManpowerGroup Singapore’s country manager Linda Teo said that a fair and well-designed performance appraisal should consider an employee’s work performance, contributions and attitude – not just his medical leave record.

Said Ms Teo: “The weightage on medical leave record during performance appraisal usually constitutes a very small percentage and it serves as brownie points for those individuals who take ownership to stay healthy.”

Mr Desmond Choo, director of the youth development unit at NTUC, said while companies which offer incentives might have good intentions, this could lead to problems such as people working when sick and infecting others.

In some cases, “employees are less motivated because they view the company as valuing work above their own welfare”.

Mr Choo, who is an MP for Tampines GRC, said: “Singaporean workers are by and large hardworking, with a deep and strong sense of duty. Many choose to work without medical leave, even if no disincentives are in place.”

MOM guidelines

The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) said employees with six or more months of service are entitled to up to 14 days of outpatient non-hospitalisation leave and 60 days of hospitalisation leave.

And he is entitled to his pay during that period, under the Employment Act.

Any employer who flouts the guidelines is guilty of an offence, and liable on conviction to a fine of up to $5,000; and for a second or subsequent offence, he is liable on conviction to a fine of up to $10,000 or to imprisonment for up to 12 months, or both.

An MOM spokesman added: “Employers should avoid penalising an employee solely based on his consumption of sick leave.

“Instead, in line with the Tripartite Guidelines on Fair Employment Practices, employers should adopt appraisal or performance management systems which are fair, objective and which take into consideration the employee’s ability, performance and contributions.”

Employees who feel they have been unfairly penalised for taking sick leave can approach the MOM for advice and assistance.

Help staff understand work-related benefits, say HR practitioners

From restaurant vouchers to extra pay, companies dangle a variety of incentives to motivate staff to stay healthy and cut down on medical leave.

However, when these incentives are cut or withdrawn, some employees complain. This is because they view the incentives as entitlements, human resource (HR) practitioners told The Sunday Times.

“Some employers use the cost savings to reward the employees, and there are those who use points during appraisals as incentives. The key is that the employers must be clear to position any health- related reward scheme as an incentive, and never as a penalty,” said Ms Linda Teo, country manager of ManpowerGroup Singapore.

The Ministry of Manpower urges all employers “to clearly communicate their employment and work-related terms and benefits to employees to avoid any misunderstanding”.

Singapore Human Resources Institute president Erman Tan said: “It is a matter of how employers communicate certain HR policies in a more palatable way, so employees can understand why they are put in place.”

•Additional reporting by Priscilla Goy, Adrian Lim, Linette Lai and Karamjit Kaur

This article was first published on Feb 12, 2017.
Get a copy of The Straits Times or go to straitstimes.com for more stories.

There has been lift upgrading and estate upgrading but one aspect affecting Singaporeans’ day-to-day lives that is only now set for wide-ranging “upgrading” is the Town Councils Act.

It has been 28 years since town councils were formed under the Act, creating a municipal sub-layer of entities distinct from the national operations of government, but with the vital public service role of being responsible for Housing Board estate management.

Tidy void decks, efficient lifts and clean estates are all down to the often unappreciated, yet much-pondered-upon decisions of the men and women on these town councils.

They comprise MPs from the constituencies making up a town, with one of them taking on the chairman role, and appointed town councillors. They mostly work with an external company – the managing agent – which does the routine work of running the town council, such as cleaning, maintenance and working with sub-contractors.

But recent incidents have shown up weaknesses in the decades-old set-up, such as lift failures that caused online anger among residents.

Then there are broader issues of governance – such as town councils needing the autonomy to operate effectively and quickly to address residents’ needs, yet requiring an accountable management regime. After all, it is public funds that are used in the council’s operations.

Improving the way town councils work has been on the Government’s agenda since 2013 when it announced a review of the Town Councils Act.

Last week, the Ministry of National Development (MND) introduced a Bill in Parliament to amend the Act. Once passed, it will require town councils to adhere to higher standards of transparency and governance.

The proposed changes will be debated in Parliament after the Budget debate this year.

Associate Professor Lan Luh Luh, deputy chair of the National University of Singapore’s (NUS) Centre for Law and Business, feels it is about time that the law was reviewed.

“The Act is not clear on how a town council is constituted, and the sort of codes and guidelines it’s supposed to follow,” says Prof Lan.

WHAT ARE THE PROPOSED CHANGES?

The proposals will give the Government more regulatory oversight, clarify the roles of Singapore’s 16 councils, improve governance and strengthen financial management.

The idea is that while town councils should remain autonomous, they should not be unfettered and left unchecked, says the MND.

Currently, the MND has no power to compel town councils to give information on their finances, and there are no penalties if a council refuses to do so.

But if the proposed changes are passed, the ministry will be able to appoint inspectors to investigate if town councils have flouted regulations and issue an order specifying remedial action to be taken.

Councils will also have to keep a registry of conflict of interest disclosures involving staff.

Furthermore, new proposals would prevent shareholders and executive decision-makers of the town council’s auditor and managing agent from holding key posts on the town council. These positions include chairman, vice-chairmen, town council secretary, general manager and finance manager.

Town councils will also have to be more transparent.

The proposed changes will compel them to notify the public and the MND within 30 days of changes to their officers. The council would also have to put up public notices around the estate and online.

Key appointments requiring such notice include chairman, vice-chairmen, town councillors, chairmen of key town council committees, town council secretary, general manager and finance manager.

Currently, town councils only have to publish a notice in the Government Gazette to announce such a change “as soon as it is practicable”.

As town councils manage large sums of public money, including millions of dollars in annual government grants, the proposed changes will help residents hold to account their MPs and those the MPs appoint to run the councils.

THE ISSUE OF DOUBLE-HATTING

The issue of managing agent staff holding key positions on the town council and the potential for conflict of interest that it holds, has been in the headlines of late. Reports dub it “double-hatting”.

At Ang Mo Kio Town Council (AMKTC), the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau is investigating the council’s general manager and secretary, Mr Victor Wong, for alleged corruption. Mr Wong is also an employee of CPG Facilities Management, which manages the town.

On a different and wider level are the woes at Aljunied-Hougang Town Council (AHTC), run by the Workers’ Party (WP). Independent auditors KPMG identified “systemic difficulties” when they reviewed the council’s books. One was conflict of interest in how some shareholders of the managing agent also held management roles in the town council.

This double-hatting phenomenon should change, say experts.

It creates a potential for conflicts of interest to arise, and the best safeguard is to totally separate the two sides, says corporate governance expert Mak Yuen Teen.

“How do you evaluate the performance of the managing agent if the general manager also sits on the council? Once you separate this, everything can be done on a more arm-length basis,” says Associate Professor Mak.

However, the proposed new laws only prevent double-hatting if the individual is a shareholder and executive decision-maker of the town council’s auditor and managing agent.

Mere employees of the town council’s auditor or managing agent would still be able to double-hat, as it is reasoned that only shareholders would stand to gain directly via decisions they make in the town councils.

AHTC has said that double-hatting was “not unusual”, according to a report in The Straits Times last November.

Indeed, it turns out that at most town councils here, the general manager – an employee of the managing agent, and the most senior executive of the town council – also double-hats and sits on the council as its secretary. The secretary serves as a link between the decision-making council and its operating staff.

Thirteen of the 16 town councils here are entirely managed and operated by managing agents.

The exceptions are Bishan-Toa Payoh and Aljunied-Hougang, which self-manage, and Jurong-Clementi, which this month embarked on a hybrid management model (see other report).

The overlapping of roles, it seems, is a product of how town councils have evolved.

The first councils started out already engaging the use of managing agents – back then, it was the HDB-owned subsidiary EM Services, formed with HDB staff, that had handled estate management, says NUS real estate professor Yu Shi Ming.

“This was the easiest thing to do. You already had people doing these things day in, day out – take them out and form a company with these people to offer services to town councils,” he says, adding that the main consideration was to ensure a seamless transition from one model of estate governance to the next.

This model has stuck because it affords town councils several advantages.

Dr Teo Ho Pin, coordinating chairman of town councils run by the People’s Action Party, says the use of managing agents to run estates is a common industry practice in the public and private sectors.

Dr Teo highlighted some advantages that managing agents offer, such as professional support in areas, including engineering, human resources and contracts.

For instance, managing agents would know the track record of companies tendering for town council contracts.

Says Prof Yu: “If you self-manage, how would you know these things?”

There could also potentially be a lack of job continuity for staff directly hired by town councils when political boundaries that constitute different towns are redrawn during general elections.

ENSURING TIMELY REPORTING

Under the proposed changes to the Act, town councils will have to submit audited financial reports within six months of the end of the financial year.

Doing otherwise may constitute an offence, with fines of up to $5,000.

This provides a firm deadline – and penalty – compared with the current requirement of submitting statements “as soon as practicable”.

Since the WP took over in 2011, AHTC has missed the deadline set by the MND four times, with the most recent being last year. For the 2014/2015 financial year, the town council submitted its statements on time.

Prof Mak says six months is a reasonable time to get the paperwork in order, in line with what is expected of companies.

“If there are any issues, it will come to attention sooner,” he says.

He laments the fact that a financial penalty would mean that constituents could end up bearing the costs, but notes: “That there is a reputational impact on the MPs running the town council may motivate them to avoid this.”

The MND may get more bite in other aspects, too. It could soon penalise town councils that do not cooperate with inspectors during compliance reviews or do not register conflict disclosures, among others.

In some cases, key appointment holders may also be held directly accountable.

DO THE CHANGES GO FAR ENOUGH?

The proposed amendments to the Act are the most wide-ranging since town councils were first set up 28 years ago, but some experts feel they do not go far enough.

For instance, they do not require town councils to have members that have specific knowledge or know-how in areas such as accounting or procurement.

At the moment, town councillors are grouped into committees that handle matters such as finances and estate management, and function much like the board of directors of a public-listed company.

Each town council chairman can appoint between six and 30 councillors, or up to 10 councillors per MP in a group representation constituency, whichever option is greater. Two-thirds of the appointed members must be residents, to ensure resident participation.

“What they really need is to identify and have people who are knowledgeable, with expertise to chair specific areas of work,” says Prof Yu.

This is done at some town councils, but it is not a mandatory requirement.

For instance, someone with banking experience could chair the finance committee.

Without this expert knowledge, committees would be less likely to question recommendations made to them by contractors or staff from the managing agent.

Another suggestion, which is not in the new Bill, comes from Prof Lan: Reduce the number of town councillors.

Some councils have grown complex and unwieldy. The first town councils had a maximum of 30 councillors, but this limit was revised upwards as GRCs expanded. Town councils now also manage bigger budgets and the needs of a far bigger population than when they first started.

Some councils can have over 60 members. AMKTC, for example – which oversees estates under Ang Mo Kio GRC and Sengkang West SMC – has seven MPs. This means that a maximum of 70 council members can be appointed.

But with so many councillors, there could be a “diffusion of responsibility”, where councillors would push the work they should be doing to others, says Prof Lan.

She adds that in comparison, the boards of most public-listed companies usually comprise about a dozen members.

In the end, there is no “perfect model or magic formula”, says Associate Professor Lawrence Loh, director of NUS Business School’s Centre for Governance, Institutions and Organisations.

What is important, he adds, is to have safeguards to ensure disclosure and transparency.

“Ultimately, it is not about the structure per se, but about having a framework with clear and robust processes to cater to the constituency’s needs,” he says.

• Additional reporting by Rachel Au-Yong

This article was first published on Feb 12, 2017.
Get a copy of The Straits Times or go to straitstimes.com for more stories.

In the past few weeks, Singaporean grandmother Irene Clennell has often cried herself to sleep in a Scottish detention facility, fearing her family in Britain will be torn apart.

The 52-year-old, who has been married to a British man for 27 years, faces the prospect of being deported as she had apparently flouted immigration rules.

“Here, I have my husband and my sons. But they want to send me back and I have nothing in Singapore,” said a determined Mrs Clennell, who has been fighting to be with her British family for years.

She was detained on Jan 20, after a routine appointment at an immigration reporting centre in Middlesbrough, England. Her plight was highlighted by British non-governmental organisation Migrant Voices recently, and reported by many news outlets, including the BBC.

Speaking to The Sunday Times from the Dungavel Immigration Removal Centre last week, Mrs Clennell said she has sought legal aid to fight her case. Also, her husband’s sister has started a Gofundme page titled “Bring Irene Home” to raise funds for her legal fees.

While Mrs Clennell said she is treated well by the officers at Dungavel, and has a proper bedroom, she is desperate not to be deported. “I’ve gone through so much over the years. I’ve done all I can and I don’t know what else I can do to remain by my husband’s side,” Mrs Clennell said.

The couple have two adult sons, aged 27 and 25, and a granddaughter, who is less than a year old.

Mrs Clennell, who is forbidden to seek employment in Britain, has been working at the detention facility’s laundromat.

Her case is a longstanding one stretching back more than two decades. She was first granted an Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR) – which is typically given to foreign spouses of British citizens – when she married Mr John Clennell in 1990, after they met in a London pub. An ILR allows a person to stay in Britain without time restrictions.

But in 1992, Mrs Clennell decided to move back to Singapore with her husband to live and work. Her ILR lapsed due to a clause that said she could not live outside Britain for more than two years.

Mr Clennell and their two sons returned to Britain in 1998, but she remained in Singapore until 1999.

Since then, her applications for another ILR have been rejected multiple times. The applications cost about £500 each time. Said Mrs Clennell: “My mother in Singapore was sick at the time, so I had no choice but to (remain) with her. She passed away in 1999.”

She said she did not expect that leaving Britain in 1992 would be the start of her woes. “At that time, I thought it would be easy to apply for another ILR.”

The couple lived apart for years until she was finally able to re-enter Britain in 2013, on the basis of making another application within the country. She stayed on even though her subsequent applications failed.

Their situation was made worse when Mr Clennell had health issues. A recent hernia operation and bypass surgery for his femoral artery left him with mobility issues.

Mr Clennell said he quit his job as a gas mains layer last year, and his wife was his sole caregiver.

“I’ve been speaking to her every day now over the phone and she is coping as best as she can. I feel like we are being deprived of a proper family life,” said Mr Clennell.

Britain’s Home Office, which is responsible for immigration, told The Sunday Times that Mrs Clennell has no legal basis to remain in the country and that her personal circumstances had been considered. A spokesman said: “As Mrs Clennell has spent the majority of her life, and her married life, living in Singapore, it is deemed she will not face reintegration issues upon her return.”

Migrant Voices director Nazek Ramadan said: “Irene Clennell’s case is… yet another example of how arbitrary policies tear apart families and ruin lives.”

The Clennells have rejected the suggestion that the family move to Singapore. Mrs Clennell, who sold her four-room flat in Yishun in 2008, said: “We don’t have much savings left to start another life. It will be hard to afford a home, John’s medical fees or find a job.”

Both her parents have passed away, and while she has three sisters in Singapore, she said they had problems of their own.

One of her sisters, financial consultant Lily Anthony, 54, said: “It is not so much about (Mrs Clennell’s) financial ability to survive in Singapore, but that her family – her husband, sons, granddaughter and in-laws – is based there. It is unfair to force her to move.”

Case in spotlight in British media

The British media has cast a spotlight on the case of Singaporean grandmother Irene Clennell and immigration issues in Britain, with British MPs weighing in on the matter.

Several publications had, in the past two weeks, run reports on how Mrs Clennell, 52, faces deportation for running afoul of immigration rules because she left Britain for many years, after marrying her British husband, to look after her elderly parents.

BuzzFeed UK reported on Feb 2 that Mrs Clennell was held in a Scottish detention centre “ahead of her forced removal to Singapore”. A day later, the BBC published an article on her case, with the headline: “Woman faces deportation after 27 years.”

“Border farce: Immigration officials prepare to throw nan out of the country after 27 years because she spent too long with dying parents”, read a headline by The Sun, while The Times went with: “Grandmother fights to halt deportation after decades.”

On Feb 8, BuzzFeed UK reported that British MPs were asking Britain’s Home Secretary Amber Rudd to not have Mrs Clennell deported.

Mrs Clennell’s MP, Mr Kevan Jones, wrote in to Ms Rudd about the matter, while Mr Alistair Carmichael, a spokesman for home affairs for the Liberal Democrats party, said Mrs Clennell’s case was a “deeply troubling one”.

“Britain is her home, and there can be no justification for forcing her to leave,” he told BuzzFeed UK.

This article was first published on Feb 12, 2017.
Get a copy of The Straits Times or go to straitstimes.com for more stories.

Can a Muslim man donate his sperm? Can cadavers of Muslims be used for medical research?

Can pig skin be used to treat a heart defect?

These are among the questions answered in a new book explaining the rationale behind 29 fatwas on science, medicine and health.

The first volume in Muis’ Fatwas Of Singapore series was launched by Deputy Prime Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam yesterday.

He said he hoped the book would be a source of education for Muslims and non-Muslims alike.

It is available in both Malay and English, with an e-book version of the English edition available for download from Muis’ website.

Since its inception in 1968, the Fatwa Committee has issued 577 fatwas.

As Muis turns 50 next year, Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs Yaacob Ibrahim said “it is timely to showcase how our fatwas have evolved, and take stock of the development of Islamic jurisprudence in our country”.

The series explains the socio-historical context behind some fatwas.

Dr Yaacob explained the importance of developing fatwas with society in mind, adding this is recognised in Singapore’s Administration of Muslim Law Act, which allows the Fatwa Committee to follow the tenets of various accepted schools of Muslim law.

And to safeguard public interest, the committee is allowed to re-examine rulings in new circumstances.

Dr Yaacob cited a 2007 fatwa that revised an earlier ruling excluding Muslims from the Human Organ Transplant Act.

The committee concluded that amending the Act to include Muslims would ultimately promote public interest and welfare.

Speakers at yesterday’s conference included Singapore Mufti Fatris Bakaram, who currently chairs the Fatwa Committee, and Professor Quraish Shihab, a prominent Islamic scholar from Indonesia.

As for the above questions, Singapore’s Fatwa Committee ruled that a Muslim man cannot donate his semen to a sperm bank, and its chairman in 1972 permitted the use of cadavers in certain cases.

And while pig skin can be used to treat life-threatening illnesses, there are certain conditions.

This article was first published on Feb 12, 2017.
Get a copy of The Straits Times or go to straitstimes.com for more stories.