The Clerk of Parliament: For the record, I have to inform hon Members that on 17 July 2023, Mr Tan Chuan-Jin resigned from his office as the Speaker of Parliament and from his seat in Parliament for the electoral division of Marine Parade.
Deputy Speaker Christopher de Souza acknowledged receipt of Mr Tan Chuan-Jin’s letter of resignation addressed to him and informed the Clerk at 11.56 am on 17 July 2023. Hon Members were notified of the resignation of Mr Tan Chuan-Jin by the Clerk of Parliament on the same day.
In accordance with Article 46(2)(c) of the Constitution, the seat of Mr Tan Chuan-Jin as a Member became vacant on 17 July 2023. In accordance with Article 40(4)(b), the office of the Speaker also became vacant on the same day. Hon Members shall now elect a person to fill that office.
Election of Speaker.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Election of Speaker","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) At 11.00 am, the Serjeant-at-Arms laid the Mace below the Table. (proc text)]
The Leader of the House (Ms Indranee Rajah) [(proc text) stood up, and addressing herself to the Clerk of Parliament said (proc text)]: Clerk of Parliament, I propose that Mr Seah Kian Peng do take the Chair of this Parliament as Speaker.
Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng (Jalan Besar): Clerk of Parliament, I support the proposal.
[(proc text) There being only one proposal, the Clerk then declared Mr Seah Kian Peng to have been duly elected as Speaker of this Parliament. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Mr Speaker went to the Chair and sat down. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Then, the Mace (which before laid below the Table) was placed on the Table. (proc text)]
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Election of Speaker","subTitle":"Tribute","sectionType":"OS","content":"The Leader of the House (Ms Indranee Rajah): Mr Speaker, Sir, on behalf of the House, may I extend warm congratulations to you on your election as the 11th Speaker of Parliament.
Sir, you bring a wealth of experience to the Chair. You have served as a Member of Parliament (MP) for Marine Parade Group Representation Constituency (GRC) since 2006, and since that time you have given voice to the aspirations and concerns of your residents and Singaporeans in this House. As a Labour MP, you have been a strong advocate for the Labour Movement. You have made many contributions in Parliament over the last 16 years, including:
(a) twice successfully moving a Private Member’s Bill to amend the Maintenance of Parents Act, the first time in 2010 and the second, just last month at the July Sitting. Both times, you led the review workgroup, and consulted extensively with members of the public and various stakeholders; and
(b)\tserving as Chairperson of two Government Parliamentary Committees (GPCs) – first for Community, Youth and Sports, and second, more recently, for Social and Family Development, though that ends today with your election as Speaker.
You have also served in various Committees of Parliament, including as Chair of the Estimates Committee, and as a member of the Committee of Privileges and the Standing Orders Committee.
More importantly, Sir, you are no stranger to the Speaker’s Chair, having previously served as Deputy Speaker from 2011 to 2016. This is especially pertinent because you are taking the Chair at a time when, having regard to recent events and the circumstances in which the Speaker’s seat became vacant, it is imperative to ensure that MPs and Singaporeans alike can continue to have trust and confidence in the office of the Speaker, and be assured that the duties and functions of the Speaker will be carried out firmly, fairly and impartially.
In this, I am encouraged by your response to the media at the time your nomination was announced, when you said that your intention was to know your role well and discharge your duties responsibly and fairly.
I understand that, for now, you will continue to work at NTUC Enterprise while serving as Speaker. However, I also understand that you are making plans to step down from your current job at NTUC Enterprise, which is expected to be within this year. In the meantime, you will be making the necessary adjustments to enable you to carry out your duties as Speaker properly and fully.
With the Speaker’s seat filled, we can once again focus our attention on the pressing issues that are at the top of people’s minds and push ahead with the Government’s agenda for the remainder of this term of Parliament.
Sir, before I conclude, may I also take this opportunity to welcome the new cohort of Nominated Members of Parliament (NMPs) to this House. Among them is Mr Raj Joshua Thomas, who is, of course, already known to us. This will be his second term as an NMP. The eight new NMPs are: Ms Usha Chandradas, Mr Keith Chua, Mr Mark Lee, Mr Ong Hua Han, Mr Neil Parekh Nimil Rajnikant, Assoc Prof Razwana Begum Abdul Rahim, Ms See Jinli Jean and Dr Syed Harun Alhabsyi.
To our NMPs, a warm welcome and we look forward to your participation in Parliament.
Mr Speaker, Sir, congratulations once again on your election and our best wishes as you take up the chairmanship of proceedings in this House.
Mr Speaker: Hon Members, I would like to thank the Leader of the House, Ms Indranee Rajah, and hon Member Ms Denise Phua for proposing and seconding my nomination as the Speaker of the House. I thank the Leader of the House for her kind words of support and encouragement.
I deeply appreciate the support of all Members here, for my election as the 11th Speaker of Parliament since our first Legislative Assembly. I am honoured by your trust and confidence, and it is a privilege that I take seriously.
I would like to thank members of the public, especially my residents, who showed their support when the announcement of my nomination was made almost 12 days ago. Your encouragement has bolstered my confidence and determination to carry out my duties as Speaker of Parliament effectively.
I know that some of my residents are concerned about my ability to raise issues affecting ordinary Singaporeans while serving as the Speaker. The paradox in Parliament is that the Speaker himself or herself often does not speak. But in this, as in so much of my public service over the past decades, action must do in place of words.
Although my role requires me to abstain from participating in debates, I want to assure my residents that I will continue to advocate their concerns and express my views on matters impacting the lives of Singaporeans and their family through alternative channels.
Allow me to say a few words about my predecessor, Mr Tan Chuan-Jin. I have known Chuan-Jin since 2011 when he joined the Marine Parade GRC team. He was a good colleague and had served his residents well.
During his time as Speaker, he made commendable efforts to demystify the work of parliamentary process and enhance public awareness of Parliament through social media engagement and dialogues with the younger generation, and in turn, fostering a better understanding of this important institution among Singaporeans.
Hon Members, I am fully aware of the weight of this responsibility, and I pledge to discharge my duties impartially, firmly and fairly, ensuring the orderly conduct of parliamentary business. We all share a common goal – that is to serve the people of Singapore, and I am committed to giving my best to achieve it.
In my first Parliamentary session in 2006, the Speaker then was Mr Abdullah Tarmugi, who was unanimously elected. Rising to speak on the occasion, Mr Low Thia Khiang reminded the Speaker of the need for fairness. He said: “Sir, you have been re-elected again and I believe that in your past years as Speaker of the House, your eyesight has been trained to be as sharp as a razor and to be swift as lightning and I think we can all expect that whoever wishes to speak will catch your eye.”
So, my first point is this: I wish to assure Members on both sides of the House that I intend for my eyes to be easily caught too!
Second, I want to recall what the then Leader of the House, Mr Wong Kan Seng, said in that 2006 session. He reminded MPs that our role comes with a great responsibility. And he said, I quote: “We are elected by the people to represent their interest and we must perform our duties with a high standard of honesty and integrity. We must never abuse the privileges accorded to us as Members and must be worthy of the House which we are elected to.”
In the performance of our duty, I want to place on record today, our thanks and best wishes to fellow Members Mr Liang Eng Hwa and Mr Faisal Manap, who are both on the road to recovery. This is a reminder to Members of our own mortality and fragility.
We are all too human – and as recent events have reminded us, our weaknesses are not only physical but also spiritual and moral. I say this not to join with the chorus of sanctimony but to reflect, first on the need for us all to be vigilant in our personal conduct and choices, vigilant with ourselves first of all, but also with our colleagues. To hold one another to account, not to fear to tell truth to power nor be slow to listen to hard truths.
I say this to point to the rules and codes of conduct which govern us all, as members of the highest rule making body in the land, and equally, as members of political parties.
This is a reminder that even though we, as individual humans, may fail, these rules and institutions – which apply without exception – do not.
And so, onto my last point. I started my speech by recalling the first Parliamentary session which I attended as an MP and what the Speaker at that time said. I must confess that I actually did not remember any of it – and had to look it up in the Hansard!
So, that is the last thing I wanted to remind Members – that you and I are here for a day, for a fleeting number of terms, but our words here, and our work here, live on far beyond us. We must therefore remember and bear the weight of our office with dignity and a constant sense of duty.
Today, we are seeing the latest batch of NMPs taking their oaths of allegiance; we have 85 Parliamentary Questions for Oral Answer; there is a Ministerial Statement, two Bills for Second Reading and one Motion to follow. Our work is certainly complicated as it is important. We need to do this work, knowing we are all too human; and therefore, we must self-exceed and surpass ourselves in order to meet the standards of a Parliamentarian.
It is this that I urge us all, Members of the House, to turn to our paramount duty – to serve the people of Singapore.
I look forward with cautious optimism that, even during spirited debates, you, the hon Members, will maintain the highest standards of decorum and conduct that are fitting for this esteemed House.
By all means, debate and speak with passion and conviction, but let us all ensure we keep to and uphold the rules that we had all signed up to when we became Parliamentarians in this House. This applies to elected MPs, Non-Constituency MPs (NCMPs) and NMPs. I ask all of you to also help me to help you and our Parliament achieve this.
On this note, I express my deepest gratitude to all of you for your trust and support. Thank you, hon Members. [Applause.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Nominated Members of Parliament","subTitle":"Announcement by Speaker","sectionType":"OS","content":"Mr Speaker: Order. Pursuant to the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, the Special Select Committee nominated the following nine persons to the President for appointment as Nominated Members of Parliament:
Ms Chandradas Usha Ranee
Mr Keith Chua Tiang Choon
Mr Mark Lee Kean Phi
Mr Ong Hua Han
Mr Parekh Nimil Rajnikant
Mr Raj Joshua Thomas
Assoc Prof Razwana Begum Bt Abdul Rahim
Ms See Jinli
Dr Syed Harun Bin Taha Alhabsyi
On 24 July 2023, President Halimah Yacob, by Instruments of Appointment dated on the same day, appointed the nine Members as Nominated Members for a term of two and a half years, with effect from 24 July 2023.
The Nominated Members are present today to take their seats. They will now take their oaths of allegiance and affirmations.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Administration of Oaths","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) The following Members took and subscribed the Oath of Allegiance, or made Affirmation of Allegiance, in the order below: (proc text)]
Ms Chandradas Usha Ranee
Mr Keith Chua Tiang Choon
Mr Mark Lee Kean Phi
Mr Ong Hua Han
Mr Parekh Nimil Rajnikant
Mr Raj Joshua Thomas
Assoc Prof Razwana Begum Bt Abdul Rahim
Ms See Jinli
Dr Syed Harun Bin Taha Alhabsyi
Mr Speaker: I welcome the Nominated Members and look forward to their participation in the proceedings of this House. [Applause.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Resignation of Members","subTitle":"Announcement by Speaker","sectionType":"OS","content":"Mr Speaker: Order. On 7 July 2023 at 6.40 pm, Deputy Speaker Jessica Tan acknowledged receipt of a letter from Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam, resigning his seat in Parliament. Members were informed of the resignation on the same day. In accordance with Article 46(2)(c) of the Constitution, the seat of Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam, as a Member of Parliament for the electoral division of Jurong became vacant with effect from 6.40 pm on 7 July 2023.
I also wish to place on record that Deputy Speaker Christopher de Souza had acknowledged receipt of Miss Cheng Li Hui's letter of resignation as a Member of Parliament for the electoral division of Tampines and informed the Clerk of Parliament at 12.15 pm on 17 July 2023. Members were informed of the resignation on the same day. In accordance with Article 46(2)(c) of the Constitution, the seat of Miss Cheng Li Hui as a Member became vacant with effect from 12.15 pm on 17 July 2023.
In addition, I also wish to place on record that Deputy Speaker Jessica Tan had acknowledged receipt of Mr Leon Perera's letter of resignation as a Member of Parliament for the electoral division of Aljunied and informed the Clerk of Parliament at 2.40 pm on 19 July 2023. Members were informed of the resignation on the same day. In accordance with Article 46(2)(c) of the Constitution, the seat of Mr Leon Perera as a Member became vacant with effect from 2.40 pm on 19 July 2023.
Order. Questions for Oral Answer. Dr Tan Wu Meng.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Processes Related to Investigations into Political Office Holders and Civil Servants, and Updates on Recent Cases","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"1 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Prime Minister (a) what is the timeline of the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau's (CPIB) uncovering of the matter relating to the investigation that Minister S Iswaran is assisting with; and (b) what are the reasons for commencing formal investigation on 11 July 2023 when the Prime Minister was briefed by the Director of CPIB on 5 July 2023 and gave his concurrence on 6 July 2023 to open a formal investigation.
2 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Prime Minister whether CPIB’s investigation which Minister S Iswaran is assisting with pertains to actions or decisions taken in the course of his official duties or to matters which he has had purview over in his official capacity.
3 Mr Don Wee asked the Prime Minister why has Minister S Iswaran been placed on a leave of absence while assisting CPIB with an investigation, whereas Minister K Shanmugam and Minister Vivian Balakrishnan continued with their duties while assisting with CPIB investigations regarding their rental of state properties at Ridout Road.
4 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Prime Minister (a) whether CPIB is obligated to seek the Prime Minister's concurrence to open formal investigations on potential offences that CPIB has uncovered; (b) if so, under what circumstances or cases will CPIB be obligated to seek such concurrence; (c) whether the Prime Minister's power to give or refuse concurrence to CPIB is circumscribed or open-ended; (d) whether there are occasions where the Prime Minister has declined permission for CPIB to investigate a matter and, if so, what are these circumstances.
5 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Prime Minister (a) whether all investigations by CPIB require the Prime Minister's concurrence; (b) if not, what type of investigations require the Prime Minister's concurrence; and (c) why the investigations under part (b) require the Prime Minister's concurrence.
6 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Prime Minister whether the arrest of Minister S Iswaran by CPIB was a matter that should have been immediately announced to the public as a matter of transparency.
7 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Prime Minister whether the Government adheres to a timeline for disclosing information about a political office holder if the information, which could include their arrest by the Police, would be likely to materially affect public confidence in the Government.
8 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Prime Minister what are the specific considerations that CPIB takes into account in deciding when to announce that individuals are involved in ongoing investigations and in deciding what is the appropriate level of disclosure required at a specific time.
9 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Prime Minister regarding CPIB's update to the media on 14 July 2023 that Minister S Iswaran had been arrested on 11 July 2023, what are the reasons for the earlier CPIB media release on 12 July 2023 describing Minister S Iswaran as assisting with an investigation without mention of him having been arrested the day before.
10 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider implementing transparent guidelines for mandatory disclosures or announcements when a Minister or political office holder is personally implicated in any formal investigation by the authorities, to minimise any time lag issues and prevent unnecessary speculation by the public.
11 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Prime Minister (a) what are the avenues available in Ministries for whistleblowing on possible corruption cases; (b) how many cases has CPIB investigated through such whistleblowing channels in the past three years; and (c) what proportion of cases investigated by CPIB is surfaced through such avenues in the past three years.
12 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Prime Minister in light of CPIB's investigation which Minister S Iswaran is assisting with, whether there will be further clarifications to, or a review of, the Code of Conduct for Ministers last re-issued in 2005, regardless of the outcome of the investigation.
13 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Prime Minister what are the measures currently in place to protect civil servants who choose not to follow (i) inappropriate or (ii) non-official instructions or requests from political office holders.
14 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Prime Minister (a) whether political office holders and civil servants are required to declare meals received from individuals or organisations, be it local or foreign; (b) what is the threshold value for which they are required to make such declarations; (c) under what conditions will they be required to make payment; and (d) how many of such declarations was made in the past year, and what was the total value of such payments.
15 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Prime Minister (a) to date, how many individuals have been arrested by CPIB in relation to the investigation into Mr S Iswaran; and (b) why is the arrest of Mr S Iswaran on 11 July 2023 not disclosed until 14 July 2023.
16 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Prime Minister (a) whether Mr S Iswaran’s leave of absence from his duties from 7 to 9 July 2023, as notified in the Government Gazette No 2017 on 14 July 2023, is related to the investigation of CPIB; and (b) if so, whether he has discharged any official duties or attended any official meetings during that period of leave of absence.
17 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Prime Minister why CPIB did not disclose their current investigation of the Minister for Transport S Iswaran before 12 July 2023.
18 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Prime Minister whether he can provide an update on the current guidelines for whistle-blowing for all civil servants and public servants in respect of wrongdoings by civil and public servants as well as political office holders including but not limited to criminal or graft offences, misconduct, wrongful practices or behaviour, or other irregularities.
\tThe Minister for Education (Mr Chan Chun Sing) (for the Prime Minister): Mr Speaker, Sir, may I have your permission to answer Oral Question Nos 1 to 18 in the Ministerial Statements to be delivered later at today's Sitting?
\tMr Speaker: I concur.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Progress on Consultation for Transporting Migrant Workers by Buses or Other Modes of Transport","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"19 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Transport (a) what are the specific sectors that LTA is engaging with in its study on transporting workers by buses or other modes of transport; (b) how many companies in these sectors have been open to shifting to buses or other modes of transportation; (c) what are the specific pain points identified; and (d) what follow up steps will LTA be taking to address the pain points and scaling up the adoption of using buses and other modes of transportation.
20 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Transport what is the rationale for the ban under section 126 of the Road Traffic Act 1961 on carrying any person in or allowing any person to ride in goods vehicles.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Transport (Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan) (for the Minister for Transport): Mr Speaker, Sir, may I have your permission to reply to Question Nos 19 and 20 together?
\tMr Speaker: Please proceed.
\tDr Amy Khor Lean Suan: Thank you. We had on 5 July 2023 responded to the Member’s Adjournment Motion on the issue of transportation of workers on lorries and covered some of the points that he raised in the two Parliamentary Questions.
As stated in our previous response, the Government shares the objective of enhancing safety for every worker, regardless of nationality. We have worked closely with stakeholders and introduced a suite of additional safety measures.
For example, we have mandated that the front passenger cabin be fully occupied before the rear deck can be used to carry workers, required lorries transporting workers to be fitted with canopies and higher side railings, raised requirements for S Pass and Work Permit holders to obtain a Singapore Class 3 licence that will allow them to drive light goods vehicles and imposed higher penalties for non-compliance.
These measures have helped to enhance safety and reduce the risk for workers. The average number of fatalities from road traffic accidents involving persons onboard lorries has halved, from around six per year from 2013 to 2017, to around three per year from 2018 to 2022. The average number of injured persons on board lorries has also gone down by about a third.
Our efforts will focus on improving safety for all road users. We will also continue to roll out measures that address a multitude of factors behind accidents, such as driving behaviours and vehicle speed.
The Government recognises that it is not ideal for workers to be transported on lorries, but we also understand the genuine concerns from employers. In a joint statement issued yesterday by more than 20 industry associations, including the Singapore Contractors Association (SCAL), Association of Singapore Marine Industries (ASMI), Association of Process Industry (ASPRI) and the Singapore National Employers' Federation (SNEF), the employers stated that if the Government imposes a ban, many companies, especially small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), will not be able to continue operating their business.
If the companies close down, there will be knock-on effects on society, including delays affecting new housing projects, polyclinics and Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) lines, as well as higher costs all around for Singaporeans. Their employees – both Singaporean and migrant workers – would also risk losing their jobs.
We want to safeguard both the safety and livelihood of our workers. My Ministry has been working closely with relevant Government agencies, including the Ministry of Manpower (MOM), the Ministry of National Development (MND), the Building and Construction Authority (BCA), the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), Traffic Police, the Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) and Enterprise Singapore, as well as industry associations to progressively implement a suite of additional measures to improve safety for our workers.
For instance, we introduced minimum rest time requirements for dual-role drivers, and we announced plans to require all lorries to be fitted with speed management devices, details of which will be announced by MHA later this year. The Traffic Police will also continue enforcement to ensure compliance with existing traffic regulations.
We are committed to improving safety for all road users and working with stakeholders, including the non-governmental organisations (NGOs), to develop practical solutions that are in the best interests of our workers, to protect their safety and their livelihoods.
On the Member’s other question, section 126 of the Road Traffic Act 1961, which regulates the carriage of persons in goods vehicles, is a legacy provision. It has been in the Act since it was first passed in 1961. From legislative records, it is also found in the predecessor to the Act, the Road Traffic Ordinance, dating back to before 1950. We do not have records to definitively confirm what was the rationale back then.
However, we surmise from contemporaneous reports that the likely intent was to prevent lorries from being used to provide commercial taxi-like services and this remains relevant today.
Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.
\tMr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, I thank the Senior Minister of State for the reply. In my Adjournment Motion, I had asked to consider a timeline for a ban on the transportation of workers on the back of lorries.
I understand the reply is no, but could I take one step back and ask whether MOT will consider, at least, setting up a new work group comprising companies, including the SMEs and NGOs with the point of discussing whether we should have this timeline towards a ban on the transportation of workers? I should add that the Senior Minister of State had shared the steps. But just a week after my Adjournment Motion, there were another two accidents involving lorries carrying these workers and another 37 workers were injured.
And as President Halimah has said in this House 14 years ago, when she was a Member of Parliament here: \"We are talking about the lives and limbs of workers\". Fourteen years later, we are still discussing how to resolve this problem. Deputy Speaker Christopher de Souza had then, 14 years ago, also asked whether we would legislate to mandate that employers transport workers on buses. So, I really hope that we can have a greater sense of urgency; not an immediate ban but bearing in mind that we have talked about this for 14 years now.
My second clarification is whether MOT can consider providing some funding or subsidies towards this transition towards safer modes of transport. I understand the constraints that SMEs face and I think the Government can provide a helping hand to them and also help the workers at the same time.
\tDr Amy Khor Lean Suan: I thank the Member for his supplementary questions and comments. First, let me say that his two supplementary questions were also covered in my reply to his Adjournment Motion last month. But let me also reiterate that we have said that it is not ideal to transport workers on lorries. Having said that, we understand the concerns of the industry and, as Members have seen, they have laid it out in detail in a joint statement that they sent yesterday.
There are real, practical and operational constraints for them to transit. Hence, over the years, as I have said, we have been working very closely with the industry as well as with all stakeholders, the unions, for instance, and industry experts, to look at additional measures that we can put in place in order to improve safety for these workers.
I want to thank the Member for stating his concern for the workers' safety and also the NGOs who have submitted petitions expressing their concerns for these workers. In fact, we are all on the same page. The industry associations – more than 20 of them – have also stated their commitment to improve and ensure the safety and welfare of the workers.
And so has the Government. Our commitment is to ensure the safety of all road users, including all our workers. Therefore, the way forward is for us to continue to work closely together in order to look at practical solutions. Solutions which are implementable, workable at the ground, and in the best interests of the workers to protect their safety as well as their livelihoods. And as I have said, we have been doing this. We have also recently introduced a slate of measures.
The statistics themselves show that there has been impact and there has been improvement in terms of the number of injuries and fatalities of workers being transported on board lorries. In fact, we have also said in our statement that was issued by the various agencies that, over the past five years, for instance, to put in context, the proportion of persons on board lorries who have suffered injuries from traffic accidents, on average, is about 4%.
Amongst all vehicle types, the highest proportion of injuries of people involved in road traffic accidents are motorcycles, at around 50% over the same period. We will continue to work. This is really a work-in-progress. It will remain our priority – the safety of all road users, including workers who are transported on lorries – and we will have to work closely with the industry to see how we can address some of these challenges and issues, encourage more to transit and also, at the same time, look at other measures that we can put in place, where feasible and effective, to enhance safety for the workers.
With regard to the Member's question about timeline, I think I have already answered that before. There are challenges, practical constraints and difficulties and, therefore, it is really not meaningful to talk about a timeline. The other issue about working together, we have already said that we want to work together with everyone, including the NGOs.
Mr Speaker: Mr Melvin Yong.
\tMr Melvin Yong Yik Chye (Radin Mas): Sir, I thank the Senior Minister of State for her answers. In fact, the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC) is equally concerned with the risk of ferrying workers on the back of lorries. I have mentioned this a few times inside and outside of this House. I am glad that the Government also shares the same concern.
I echo Member Louis Ng's suggestion to have a work group and NTUC would be very happy to be a part of the work group to look into both immediate solutions as well as longer-term solutions.
I have one suggestion. Perhaps, the Ministry can consider, first, as an interim measure, prohibiting equipment, especially heavy equipment, and passengers on board the lorries at the same time because this causes a higher risk of injuries and fatalities in the event of an accident. It is something worth the Ministry's consideration as an interim measure to avoid serious injuries or even fatalities.
\tDr Amy Khor Lean Suan: I thank the Member for his suggestions. Indeed, we do have an interagency work group that is working on this and, indeed, we will work closely with the unions as well as take into account the feedback from the NGOs.
As regard to further measures that we could put in place, for instance, the Member's suggestion about prohibiting the transport of equipment as well as passengers, there are actually difficulties and operational constraints for this, particularly for those, say, in the specialist trade. But we will continue to look at this and other suggestions.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.
\tMr Louis Ng Kok Kwang: Sir, I thank the Senior Minister of State for mentioning that we do have an interagency work group. But the call now is for a new work group that will comprise the agencies, together with the companies, SMEs and NGOs, and perhaps NTUC as well. Looking at this with new \"lens\" might enable us to come up with different solutions.
\tDr Amy Khor Lean Suan: Let me thank the Member for his suggestion. This is something that we can look into. But let me say that the group that is working on this – the interagency – is not called a \"work group\", but there is a group that is working on this that already consults many of these representatives.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Strategic Importance of Submarines to Singapore's Ability to Protect Territorial Waters and Contribute to Regional Security","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"21 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Minister for Defence what is the strategic importance of submarines, especially the Invincible-class, to Singapore's ability to protect our territorial waters and contribute to regional security.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Defence (Mr Heng Chee How) (for the Minister for Defence): Mr Speaker, Sir, as a maritime nation, Singapore is highly reliant on the free and unimpeded movement of goods and materials across our Sea Lines of Communication. Within our Navy, which is tasked with the crucial mission of keeping these lines open, submarines are a strategic asset. With their stealth, submarines complement our surface fleet in countering surface and sub-surface threats and serve as a deterrence to potential aggressors.
Our second-hand Challenger-class and Archer-class submarines, which are more than 60 years and 40 years old respectively, will be retired soon. They will be replaced by four Invincible-class submarines that are the Republic of Singapore Navy's (RSN) first new-built submarines designed for our needs and operational requirements.
Equipped with an advanced rudder drive system, the new submarines can better conduct manoeuvres in our shallow and busy tropical waters. They are designed to stay submerged for 50% longer than the Archer-class submarines and are equipped with better sensors and combat systems. Human factors have also been factored into the design and engineering to make work onboard safer and more effective, and living conditions improved and more sustainable.
Overall, the new submarines will significantly enhance the Navy's capabilities to protect Singapore's interests at sea.
Mr Speaker: Mr Desmond Choo.
\tMr Desmond Choo (Tampines): I thank the Senior Minister of State for his reply. I have two supplementary questions. First, with the shrinking population that we have, how have the automation features within the new class of submarines be able to cater for the diminishing number of servicemen that we will have?
Second, how are we enhancing the interoperability of our Navy, especially the submarines, with regional navies to enhance regional security?
\tMr Heng Chee How: Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for his two supplementary questions. The first one is really on labour productivity; in other words, how you could man a naval asset with fewer people and yet maintain or enhance its fighting power. I would say that this applies not only to submarines or, indeed, not only to naval assets, but to all our military assets.
As the Member would know, over the years, the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) and the Ministry of Defence (MINDEF) have worked tirelessly to continuously improve on the use of technology and different processes in the design of our equipment and in the improvements in the midlife upgrades of our equipment so that we can actually achieve more fighting power with less manpower being used to drive it.
So, this is something that you can see progressively across all classes of our assets, whether they be land, air or sea. This would also apply to our naval assets and, indeed, also in the design of our submarines. So, I just wanted to give the Member and all Members of this House this assurance that MINDEF and SAF are acutely aware of the manpower constraint, and this is one of the top priorities as we make best use of this manpower and, at the same time, design, buy and equip our forces with equipment and assets that will serve our operational purpose.
The second question is with regard to how the SAF – not only the Navy but across our different forces – will be able to interoperate with regional navies in order to better protect our interests. Here, I would like to point to the many exercises that the SAF – across land, sea and air – has been conducting with our neighbours and, indeed, friendly forces further afield all these years. And the very purpose of having these exercises is, indeed, to better understand one another's operating procedures and also to learn from one another. The overall objective is to build friendly relations, better understanding and, at the same time, to be able to hone our ability to be effective in our operations.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures to Mitigate against Concert Ticket Scams","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"
22 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Minister for Home Affairs how is the Ministry enhancing measures to mitigate against scams on the purchase and reselling of concert tickets.
\tThe Minister of State for Home Affairs (Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim) (for the Minister for Home Affairs): Mr Speaker, the Singapore Police Force (SPF) has observed an increase in e-commerce scams involving concert tickets. In this scam variant, victims would come across advertisements for concert tickets on e-commerce websites or social media platforms, such as Carousell, Facebook, Telegram and Twitter. When victims approach the scammers to purchase the concert tickets, scammers would often claim that the tickets are selling fast to pressure victims into making payment quickly.
Once the payment is received, scammers would claim to be unable to transfer the tickets to the victim and, thereafter, become uncontactable. In some cases, victims may receive their tickets via email or WhatsApp, only to realise that the tickets are invalid on the actual day of the concert.
To combat this scam variant and scams in general, no single measure alone is adequate. Instead, we require a multi-faceted approach, including blocking scam content, enhancing the safeguards on digital platforms and public education. The SPF worked closely with social media and e-commerce platforms to take down scam advertisements for concert tickets, as well as accounts involved in such scams as soon as they were detected. The SPF also worked with the platforms to prevent such scams from happening, such as through pre-emptive detection and blocking of scam accounts.
\tTo raise awareness of concert ticket scams, SPF partnered ticket retailers, concert organisers and online platforms to issue advisories to the public. For example, SingPost displayed these advisories on digital screens within their outlets for members of the public who were queuing to purchase concert tickets. Ticketmaster placed similar advisories on their website.
To tackle e-commerce scams upstream, the Inter-Ministry Committee on Scams launched the E-commerce Marketplace Transaction Safety Ratings (TSR) in May 2022. The TSR informs consumers on the anti-scam measures that major e-commerce marketplaces have in place, such as user verification and secure payment options. We encourage consumers to transact only with the marketplaces with better ratings. For example, Facebook Marketplace is rated the worst in the TSR. They have not implemented the safeguards we recommended, despite repeated engagements with them. Shopee and Carousell, on the other hand, have stepped up their measures and we are glad also for the sake of their customers.
In July 2023, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) passed the Online Criminal Harms Act, which will allow the Government to issue Directions to online platforms to disable online criminal content and activities, including scam-related ones. The Government can also require providers of designated online services to introduce upstream measures, such as user verification, to prevent scams from occurring in the first place.
Ultimately, the best defence against scams is a discerning public. We urge the public to adopt precautionary measures through the three simple steps of \"Add\", \"Check\", and \"Tell\".
First, \"Add\" the ScamShield App, anti-virus software and other security features, such as multifactor authentication for digital accounts and transaction limits for Internet banking. When transacting online, use secure payment options and never take transactions or payments off-platform.
Second, \"Check\" the reviews of the seller and look out for potential red flags when making online purchases. For concert tickets, only purchase from authorised sellers and legitimate resellers such as Ticketmaster. Where possible, arrange for a physical meet-up with the seller to verify the authenticity of the tickets before making payment.
Third, \"Tell\" your family and friends about scam encounters and report fraudulent advertisements to social media and e-commerce platforms, as well as to the authorities.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Desmond Choo.
\tMr Desmond Choo (Tampines): I thank the Minister of State for his reply. I have two supplementary questions. Because of acts like Taylor Swift, Singapore is fast becoming an international hub or at least a regional hub for entertainment. It is important that we safeguard the trust factor of Singapore being a place for such entertainment.
To this extent, how can the concert operators and concert promoters do more to safeguard, especially in the transfer of tickets and verification of authenticity, including to a certain extent, non-transferability of certain tickets, so that it is tagged to a particular person, making it, of course, harder to resell? I know that it affects business. But if you want to grow this as a hub, I think it is worthwhile considering. Will the Ministry consider that? Secondly, could the Minister of State share the estimated total amount lost due to such scam concert tickets over the last five years?
\tAssoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: Sir, I thank the Member for the supplementary questions. Indeed, today, we are seeing many popular performers, such as Taylor Swift and Coldplay. They have chosen to perform in Singapore after the easing of the COVID-19 restrictions. We realised that the scammers took advantage of these ticket sales to these concerts to perpetrate scams. As such, as I have shared, we continue to work and take the multifaceted approach where we work with the platform operators as well as the organisers of concerts, in this case, not only to make sure that we, as far as possible, close the gap, but at the same time, would also go upstream and share with the public on what they should look out for and always go to the authorised ticket sellers, even the resellers. This is an ongoing process. We will continue to work with them closely and see how we can improve the protection.
For the breakdown of the estimated total amount lost in concert ticket scams, in 2018, the amount was $84,000; in 2019, it was $66,000; in 2020, $9,000; in 2021, $3,000; in 2022, $175,000; and for 2023 up till 10 July, it was $518,000.
\t
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Implications of Strong Singapore Dollar on Monetary Authority of Singapore's Losses, Exposure to Investment Risks and Moves to Encourage Higher Level of Savings","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"23 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Prime Minister what were the benefits of a strong Singapore dollar policy that recorded S$30.8 billion in losses last year by the Monetary Authority of Singapore.
24 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Prime Minister how much of the reported losses by MAS for FY 2022/2023 are attributable to (i) losses from currency interventions, (ii) changes in valuation, (iii) investment exposures and (iv) other sources.
25 Mr Don Wee asked the Prime Minister in order to maintain a strong Singapore dollar policy and to curb losses, whether MAS has plans to increase the interest yields and payments of its Treasury Bills and bonds so as to encourage a higher level of savings.
\tThe Minister of State for Trade and Industry (Mr Alvin Tan) (for the Prime Minister): Mr Speaker, Sir, may I have your permission to take Question Nos 23, 24 and 25 in today's Order Paper together, please?
\tMr Speaker: Please proceed.
\tMr Alvin Tan: Mr Speaker, my response will cover the questions raised by Ms Hazel Poa, Assoc Prof Jamus Lim and Mr Don Wee in today's Order Paper, as well as Mr Yip Hon Weng's question filed for tomorrow's Sitting. If Mr Yip is satisfied with the response, he may wish to withdraw his question after this session.
Assoc Prof Jamus Lim asked about the components of the net loss, including from the Monetary Authority of Singapore's (MAS) currency intervention. MAS had explained in detail the constituents of its reported financial loss at its annual press conference in July, which I will reiterate here.
About 70% of the net loss was due to the negative currency translation effects of a stronger Singapore dollar. This is not due to currency intervention. The negative currency translation effects arise because the Official Foreign Reserves (OFR) are held in foreign currencies but reported in Singapore dollars. Therefore, a stronger Singapore dollar will result in a lower value for the OFR when expressed in Singapore dollar terms. This currency translation effect does not have any bearing on the external purchasing power of the OFR or on MAS' ability to conduct monetary policy.
The remaining 30% of the net loss was due to net interest expenses from MAS' money market operations to mop up excess liquidity in the banking system. The net interest expense incurred on MAS' money market operations to mop up this excess liquidity in the banking system was unusually large in the last FY due to two factors: one, the large volume of operations; and two, higher interest rates.
The high volume of money market operations was necessitated by MAS' interventions in the foreign exchange market to moderate the appreciation of the Singapore dollar. As MAS explained earlier, had it not done this, the Singapore dollar would have been too strong and therefore hurt the economy. While this currency intervention added substantially to our OFR, it created excess Singapore dollar liquidity in our domestic banking system which MAS had to remove and, therefore, incur an interest expense in the process.
Mr Don Wee asked if MAS plans to increase the interest yields and payments of Treasury Bills and bonds to curb losses and encourage a higher level of savings. Such instruments are issued by the Government and not by MAS. The interest rates payable on such instruments are not determined by MAS but are market-determined via auctions. As the interest rates of such instruments have increased in tandem with the rise in global interest rates, we have already seen a healthy pick-up in demand by the public.
Mr Yip Hon Weng asked whether there are plans to broaden the basket of currencies in which the OFR is held. The OFR is already held in a diverse range of currencies. As long as the Singapore dollar appreciates against these currencies, there will be negative currency translation effects. In the last FY, the Singapore dollar appreciated against every major currency. As MAS explained earlier, the effects of a stronger Singapore dollar cannot be hedged or diversified away.
Let me now respond to the Members' broader questions on monetary policy.
Ms Hazel Poa asked about the benefits of a stronger Singapore dollar in view of the financial losses recorded by MAS. The appreciation of the Singapore dollar last year reflected the outcome of MAS' tighter monetary policy to dampen inflation. This policy has been successful in curbing imported inflationary pressures. Let me explain how. Between May 2022 and June 2023, Singapore's import price index had fallen by some 14%. This decline in import prices has, in turn, contributed to lower domestic inflation. On a month-on-month seasonally adjusted annualised basis, MAS' Core Inflation fell from its peak of 9.1% in June 2022 to 2.2% in June 2023.
Mr Yip Hon Weng asked how MAS strikes a balance between managing inflation and incurring losses and whether these losses are anticipated. MAS' monetary policy is focused purely on keeping inflation low and ensuring medium-term price stability. It does not take into account any potential impact on MAS' profits because to do so would undermine its mission. This is similar to how other major central banks conduct monetary policy. Many of them have also reported losses arising from their monetary policy operations. MAS' financial performance is a necessary consequence of its conduct of monetary policy.
The OFR is key in enabling MAS to conduct effective monetary policy. As a central bank, MAS adopts a conservative approach in its investments, with a significant proportion of its portfolio invested in liquid financial market instruments. Through a well-diversified portfolio and careful risk management, MAS expects to earn good long-term returns that are commensurate with its risk profile.
Finally, let me turn to Mr Yip's question about the impact of MAS' net loss on the Government's budget position. MAS contributes to the Government's budget in two ways.
First, under the Net Investment Returns (NIR) framework, the Government can spend up to 50% of the expected long-term real return on the assets invested by MAS, GIC and Temasek. NIR is based on the long-term expected returns of these entities and, hence, is not affected by their short-term performance. Accordingly, MAS' reported net loss in the last FY has no impact on the NIR that is available to the Government.
Second, similar to other Statutory Boards, MAS makes contributions to the Government's Consolidated Fund in lieu of corporate income tax. This is based on 17% of the net profit for the year, after offsetting cumulative losses from previous financial years. The Government recognises that MAS contributions will vary considerably from year to year and has therefore smoothened the revenue volatility by requiring the annual contributions made by MAS to be paid in equal proportions over a period of three years.
Given the net loss in FY2022/2023, MAS will not accrue a contribution to the Government's Consolidated Fund for that financial year. Nonetheless, MAS will still make a contribution of S$0.4 billion to the Government's Consolidated Fund in the current financial year, based on past profits. This smoothening formula has thus helped to mitigate the impact of MAS' net loss on the Government's budget.
\t
In sum, MAS’ overarching mandate is to ensure macroeconomic stability. As Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong stated in this House on 1 August 2022, the Government does not expect MAS to deviate from its mandate to maximise its contributions to the Budget. MAS’ monetary policy has helped to deliver broad macroeconomic stability for over 40 years as the basis for sustained economic growth and increases in real incomes for Singaporeans.
\tMr Speaker: Ms Hazel Poa.
Ms Hazel Poa (Non-Constituency Member): I thank the Minister of State for his answer. I have a supplementary question. The Minister of State has said that the benefit of the strong dollar policy is to dampen inflation. Given that domestic consumption is $192 billion and this recorded loss of $30.8 billion is a big sum of money, equivalent to about 16% of domestic consumption, how much has it dampened inflation and compared to the $30.8 billion, what is the official cost-benefit analysis and the assessment on the efficacy of this policy?
\tMr Alvin Tan: Sir, I thank the Member for her supplementary question. As I mentioned earlier in my reply, the loss is attributed to 70% in net currency translation losses and a 30% in interventions and money market operations. These are the normal functionings of how central banks conduct monetary policy and with its goal to dampen inflation and to have medium-term price stability – so that is to put that into context.
On its impact on price stability and its impact on inflation, I had mentioned that in my Parliamentary Question reply. But let me also explain that if MAS had not tightened monetary policy, quarterly core inflation would have reached 7.2% year-on-year at its peak – 1.9 percentage points higher than the actual peak of 5.4% year-on-year in the first quarter of 2023. So, inflation would have stayed higher for much longer and brought about much more significant increases in the cost of living for households.
Therefore, MAS' conduct of monetary policy has made an impact. We are still seeing the impact over the course of the different quarters, having tightened monetary policy five times since October 2021.
\tMr Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.
\tAssoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): Thank you, Speaker. One motivation behind my request for a breakdown in the numbers was because MAS had previously explained that it would strategically strengthen the Singapore dollar for the purposes of addressing imported inflation. This was a move that I supported, and, in fact, Minister of State Tan has reiterated this MAS position that the Singapore dollar has, indeed, appreciated against every major currency.
That said, based on my understanding of the data, between January and July 2023, the movements of the Singapore dollar were essentially the converse of the US dollar. In particular, when there is a strengthening of the US dollar, the Singapore dollar would weaken and when the US dollar weakened, the Singapore dollar would strengthen.
In particular, for the US dollar's two most recent peaks at the beginning of June and July, this broadly corresponded to troughs in the Singapore dollar-US dollar rates. This actually suggests to me that MAS was not really leaning that much against the wind; or if it did, it was not doing so with sufficient interventions that would have altered the overall US dollar trends. And, therefore, attributing losses, the 30% that the Minister of State Tan mentioned, to sufficient interventions does not strike me as credible.
So, my follow-up question then is whether the MAS actually views this earlier strong dollar policy as successful and, if so, why in March it announced a decision to ease the Singapore dollar policy?
\tMr Alvin Tan: Sir, I thank Assoc Prof for his supplementary question. I think it is really important to note that the Singapore dollar is trade-weighted against a basket of currencies, not just the US dollar. Therefore, you need to look at it as a whole basket of currencies. We look at it from very much over the long term.
First, on currency translation effects, I have explained that technically. The second is on currency intervention and as well as money market operations. Because the Singapore dollar was already on an appreciating trend and in addition to high savings rates as well as large volume of capital inflows, MAS also intervened by selling Singapore dollars and, therefore, moderating the appreciation rate. Had it not done so, then you could worsen inflation.
But when you sell Singapore dollars into the domestic banking system, you will then have to undertake money market operations. This is the normal conduct of central banking policy.
What the MAS then does is to sell repurchase agreements (repos) or MAS bills, of which it then has to pay interest payments on. And these interests, in line with global interest rates, have risen. And, therefore, when we issue an MAS bill, for example, we would have to pay a higher interest rate. That adds to that 30% account of the loss that we are talking about today.
So, just explaining the technicalities of how this works; trade-weighted as well as why we need to conduct money market operations to moderate the appreciation of the Singapore dollar.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Don Wee.
\t \tMr Don Wee (Chua Chu Kang): Thank you, Speaker. Can I confirm with the Minister of State the loss is a result of currency translation as well as money market operations, so as to help Singaporeans, especially the SMEs to cope with the rising business costs as well as the rising cost of living?
\tMr Alvin Tan: I thank Mr Don Wee for his question. In fact, that is the whole purpose of MAS' monetary policy – it is to manage price stability as well as to manage inflation, and we have done so. I explained in my reply to Parliamentary Questions and the supplementary question by Ms Hazel Poa.
Let me just reiterate a few points on how the policy has been successful in curbing imported inflationary pressures. Again, I said that between May 2022 and June 2023, our import price index had fallen by some 14%. So, in concert, this has dampened. Had we not done so, I think the cost of living would be higher, imported inflation would be also higher.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Yip Hon Weng.
Mr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister of State for his response. I have one supplementary question. I wish to ask how have MAS' investments been thus far and its impact on our official foreign reserves.
\tMr Alvin Tan: Sir, just to take a step back and just to also state to the House that the relevant measure of MAS' financial performance is not currency translation effects or interest expense, but how well its investments have done.
MAS made a small gain of $0.6 billion on its investment portfolio amidst a depressed market environment. And last year, as Members would know, was an unusual year for financial markets, where bond markets and equity markets performed very badly. In this case, MAS' investment performance had to be viewed from a longer-term perspective.
Since the 2008 Global Financial Crisis, MAS' investment portfolio had benefited from an unusual period of low inflation as well as low interest rates. Including this latest year, MAS recorded an annual average investment gain of S$11.7 billion in the last 15 years.
MAS seeks to preserve the external purchasing power of the OFR over the long term to support monetary policy implementation. So, over a 20-year period, MAS' average annual investment gain was 3.7%.
Notwithstanding the financial loss that we had been discussing, MAS' OFR position remains strong and it re-transferred S$191 billion of excess OFR to the Government.
\tMr Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.
\tAssoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim: If I may just quickly clarify my earlier supplementary question? I appreciate what Minister of State Tan shared about how the Singapore dollar is measured against a basket of currencies. But, in particular, could I confirm with him that MAS did, indeed, reverse its strong dollar policy in March of this year? And, if so, what were the factors that led to its decision to subsequently make that reversal after making a case for strengthening the Singapore dollar?
\tMr Alvin Tan: As I mentioned to the Member earlier on, it is measured against a trade-weighted basket of currencies. We have tightened monetary policy five times since 2021, and there was no such announcement.
\t
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Families Denied Financial Assistance Due to Per Capital Household Income Requirement ","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"26 Mr Ang Wei Neng asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) how many households are deprived of financial assistance in the last two years because their per capita household income (PCHI) is more than $650 but less than $800; (b) whether the Ministry will consider reaching out to these households; and (c) whether the Ministry will work with other Government agencies to raise their respective PCHI benchmarks in tandem with what the Ministry has done.
27 Ms Mariam Jaafar asked the Minister for Social and Family Development whether the Ministry will consider proactively reaching out to families who are denied financial assistance in the past year and whose per capital income is between $650 and $800 to assess if they can now receive assistance.
28 Mr Kwek Hian Chuan Henry asked the Minister for Social and Family Development whether the Ministry can revise the monthly ComCare Long Term Assistance or the Public Assistance Scheme payouts, as well as support for other major assistance programmes, to assist vulnerable Singaporeans in the face of rising costs of living.
29 Mr Sharael Taha asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) for the past year, how many families have received ComCare support based on the previous criteria of per capita household income (PCHI) benchmark of $650 and below; (b) with the increase in the PCHI benchmark to $800 and below, what is the projected number of families that will be eligible for ComCare support; and (c) whether the Ministry can consider reaching out to the families that have missed the previous criteria but are now eligible for assistance based on the new criteria.
30 Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling asked the Minister for Social and Family Development with the rise in inflation (a) whether there has been an increase in the number of financial assistance requests received from 2020 to 2023; (b) whether the number of requests that do not qualify for financial assistance are due to the per capita household income (PCHI) criteria; and (c) if not, what are the other reasons for not qualifying for financial assistance.
\tThe Minister for Social and Family Development (Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M): Mr Speaker, may I take Question Nos 26 to 30 together, please.
\tMr Speaker: Yes, go ahead.
\tMr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Thank you. Mr Ang Wei Neng, Ms Mariam Jafaar, Miss Cheryl Chan, Mr Henry Kwek and Mr Sharael Taha have asked about the recent revision to the ComCare Short-to-Medium-Term Assistance (SMTA) income benchmark, its impact on past and future ComCare applicants, and whether more assistance can be provided. My response will also cover the related Parliamentary Question filed by Mr Sharael Taha for the next Sitting, which he may consider withdrawing if this has been responded to.
Mr Speaker, ComCare SMTA provides temporary assistance to lower-income households that need financial support to meet basic living expenses. Last month, the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) raised the SMTA per capita household income (PCHI) benchmark from $650 and below, to $800 and below.
The PCHI benchmark is not a criterion that once met would automatically qualify a household for SMTA. Eligibility for SMTA is based on a holistic assessment by the Social Service Offices (SSOs), taking into account factors such as household income, savings and availability of family support.
Households with PCHI above the benchmark, therefore, may also qualify for SMTA if their basic living expenses exceed their income. This is why we emphasise that the income benchmark for ComCare SMTA is not a hard threshold to qualify for assistance. Such households would therefore not have been deprived of ComCare assistance if they sought help at an SSO. For example, one of our ComCare households was a single mother and child with PCHI above $650. The SSO provided them with around $100 per month in SMTA cash assistance, in addition to support for their medical bills, utility bills, and services and conservancy charges.
Given that the income benchmark is not used to determine SMTA eligibility, we do not use it to project the number of future recipients or assistance amounts.
The number of SMTA applicants rose from around 61,000 in 2019, to around 80,000 in 2020 and 82,000 in 2021 at the height of COVID-19, before dropping to around 75,000 in 2022. The number of SMTA applications from January to June this year is slightly lower than that during the same period last year.
The most common reason for unsuccessful ComCare applications in the past three years is that applicants had sufficient income or financial support for their basic living expenses. Other reasons include clients withdrawing their applications to apply for other assistance schemes, such as the COVID-19 Recovery Grant, and clients not submitting supporting documents for ComCare eligibility assessment despite repeated requests from the SSO.
The revision in the PCHI benchmark is the latest in a number of enhancements that MSF has made to ComCare policies and processes in the past year. In August 2022, we increased the quantum of assistance for households on ComCare SMTA and Long-Term Assistance (LTA). This is to adjust for increases in the cost of living and projected inflation. These complement other Government measures which address cost of living concerns, such as the cost-of-living special payments under the Assurance Package in 2022 and 2023. We also made it easier to apply for ComCare by introducing an additional channel for online SMTA applications in May last year, besides applying in person at SSOs.
We will continue to regularly review the scope and coverage of ComCare schemes.
\t
MSF will also continue to reach out to low-income households, including through our partners, so that those who need assistance are aware of the social support that is available to them. Our partners include members of our SG Cares Community Networks, other Government agencies, social service agencies, grassroots organisations and leaders, and volunteers. We also encourage individuals who need support to call the ComCare hotline at 1800-222-0000 or approach the nearest SSO or Family Service Centre for assistance.
On whether the income benchmarks of other Government schemes would be raised in tandem, various social assistance schemes meet different needs and have different target groups. Agencies incorporate data and information from multiple sources when formulating social assistance, including the income benchmarks of other Government schemes, to tailor each scheme’s eligibility criteria to meet its intent.
MSF is also leading a whole-of-Government effort to ensure that support for ComCare clients is comprehensive, convenient and coordinated. For instance, ComCare Scheme Bundles enable ComCare clients to automatically qualify or be considered for relevant assistance schemes, such as MOE’s Financial Assistance Scheme (FAS) and MOH’s Community Health Assistance Scheme (CHAS). We are expanding this arrangement progressively to cover more schemes and agencies.
MSF will continually review and improve ComCare, to ensure that social assistance is provided to those who need it.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Ang Wei Neng.
Mr Ang Wei Neng (West Coast): Thank you, Speaker, and I thank the Minister for the comprehensive reply. Can I ask three supplementary questions?
The first one is, we noted that 75,000 Singaporean households receive ComCare assistance in 2022. And of the 75,000, how many households have income that is less than $650 per capita, and how many are above?
The second supplementary question is, we are, of course, very glad that MSF has increased the PCHI benchmark. In April this year, I had suggested to incorporate an inflation component in determining the amount of assistance to be provided to the needy residents as well as the benchmark. So, would the Minister consider that component and so review it annually, and not two to three years at one go?
And my last supplementary question is, as what the Minister has said, we need to have a whole-of-Government effort to help needy residents. So, I have two other supplementary questions similarly about the PCHI benchmark for CHAS as well as rental flats. Apparently, both would not be answered today, and does it mean that the Ministries are not really coordinating to this effort?
\t
\tMr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: On the first question, I do not have the data. If the Member is interested to know the numbers, please file a Parliamentary Question (PQ). The Member asked how many of the 75,000 were below PCHI or above PCHI and still receiving the income. I do not have such data because it was not asked.
On the second question on inflation component – was it incorporated? Yes, indeed it was. The changes that we made are to the income benchmark, and this is that one in two to three years, and that takes into account data from the Department of Statistics on basic living expenses, and of course, after consulting our professionals, the social service professionals on the ground. That is why it takes two to three years to get the income benchmark reviewed.
But like I mentioned just now, this income benchmark is not the criterion. It is not a hard threshold. But it is also a way for families to know whether they should or can come for assistance, and then the SSOs will make a holistic assessment to give or not to give them, or to point them to other forms of assistance.
For the cash assistance itself, we do make reviews regularly, particularly when there are peculiar instances, like these last two years of increasing inflation. But we do take into account, first, the packages available from the Government, such as at Budget 2023 when Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong announced a set of additional one-off support measures to Singaporeans to address immediate cost of living, and this included the 2023 cost-of-living special payment of up to $400 in cash to provide for this relief.
And then on top of that, MSF also announced from 4 April to 30 September 2022, SSOs provided a minimum of six months of support. So, it was without them being reviewed. A minimum of three months of additional support to existing SMTA recipients who renewed their assistance and more cash assistance with more flexible guidelines to cope with the increase in basic living expenses. Thus, on the fly too, we do that, particularly for adjusting the amount or the quantum that we provide for each family.
The one that we make less frequently, is the income benchmark – not the assistance given to our clients.
\tMr Speaker: Miss Cheryl Chan.
Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling (East Coast): Speaker, I want to thank the Minister for his reply. And in actual fact, I want to also commend them because I think the SSOs have been extending a lot of help to those who were in need.
In particular, I just want to raise one supplementary question on two cases. First and foremost, if any help can be given, for example, for seniors, whom we know while they have got family members and their support, well, deemed support, because we always feel that family should be the first line of support. But unfortunately, not everyone is blessed to have families who really want to support them. So, I think for these kinds of seniors, because of their age as well, do we need them to go on that quarterly basis – every three months – to go for interviews to ask and repeat their cases and situation again. While I understand it is about public funds and it needs good governance, can we do more to help the seniors? That is the first question.
The second group of individuals are those who while they may not be senior in age, but we believe they have some level of mental condition, and it is very unlikely that they will find long-term employment. Can more be done by the SSOs?
\t
\tMr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Like I mentioned, when we shape up the financial assistance for all the archetypes, we take into consideration the available support already given to them.
And two considerations we do not want to lose, particularly for the younger families, is agency. We trust that they want the dignity to take care of themselves, do better, and therefore, as much as you want to give them the fish, support is also given for them to learn to fish. We know many have actually succeeded.
For the more senior ones, there are many support schemes given to them, particularly if they are in the Pioneer Generation or Medaka Generation, which already alleviate a lot of the financial outlay that they would have made, given the circumstances they are in.
I would urge Members to not dismiss the importance of families and not make it, I would say, too easy because we do not want families to not come forward to support the seniors. I think it is our duty as children to first be providing them the needs, as much as our parents have sacrificed for us when we were growing up and so, we too have that duty to provide for them in their old age.
Therefore, in that spirit too is why SSOs want to make sure that children can and do try to support their seniors and we will not take too long to decide that we cannot wait for this to happen to support the seniors. But some subjectivity will occur in such assessments.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Temasek Holdings' Investment Performance","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"31 Ms Foo Mee Har asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance whether the Government has data on (i) how Temasek Holdings’ total shareholder returns compare to other market benchmarks over the years (ii) how its portfolio of assets has shifted and is positioned for the future and (iii) how its portfolio of unlisted assets has performed and contributed to its overall performance to date.
32 Ms Mariam Jaafar asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance in light of the drop in Temasek's 10-year Total Shareholder Returns to 6%, how does Temasek's long-term returns vary across the portfolio and how does each segment compare to benchmarks such as the MSCI World Index and Private Equity index.
33 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) what are the main reasons for Temasek Holdings’ worst reported returns since 2016, where the net value of its portfolio shrunk by $21 billion from 2022 to 2023; and (b) how do Temasek Holdings’ recent results compare against other sovereign wealth funds such as Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Finance (Mr Chee Hong Tat) (for the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance): Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to take Question Nos 31 to 33 together?
\tMr Speaker: Yes, please.
\tMr Chee Hong Tat: Thank you. Sir, Temasek publishes its portfolio's performance relative to various market indices like the MSCI All Country World Index (ACWI) over different horizons. The data requested by Members are generally available on Temasek's website and annual reports.
Broadly speaking, Temasek has outperformed these market indices over the long term. But it is important to recognise that Temasek is not a portfolio fund manager and the MSCI indices are not direct benchmarks for Temasek's performance.
As a bottom-up investor, Temasek invests directly in companies. Temasek started with the Singapore companies it owned and subsequently expanded to take stakes in companies in Asia. Temasek has only recently invested more actively in North America and Europe. Therefore, its portfolio for now is still Asia-centric, with about two-thirds exposure in Asia.
On the other hand, the composition of indices varies significantly from Temasek's portfolio. For instance, MSCI World Index and ACWI have larger weightages to the US stock market, which has done very well over the last 10 years compared to Asian stock markets. This is why there will be occasions when Temasek's returns are higher than the MSCI World Index and ACWI, and other occasions when the returns are not as high as these indices.
As for returns on Temasek's unlisted assets, these have registered an Internal Rate of Return (IRR) of 14.4% in the past 20 years, compared to 8% for its listed assets. Over the last decade, Temasek's unlisted portfolio has also generated IRR of over 10% per annum, higher than its listed portfolio.
On comparisons with other sovereign wealth funds, we have previously explained that it is not straightforward to make such comparisons because the funds have different mandates, investment approaches and risk profiles. There are also funds, like Saudi Arabia's Public Investment Fund, that do not report their performance on the same basis as Temasek.
With regard to Temasek's performance for the latest Financial Year ending 31 March 2023, this was largely driven by mark-to-market losses as global investments saw a reversal of gains from the high valuations in the last two years.
To position its portfolio for the future, Temasek has stated that it is focused on building a resilient portfolio that can withstand exogenous shocks while capturing growth opportunities. As shareholder, the Government's role is to ensure that Temasek has a competent board to oversee its management and ensure that its mandate is met. The Government will continue to hold Temasek accountable for delivering good long-term returns on the overall investment portfolio.
\tMr Speaker: Ms Foo Mee Har.
Ms Foo Mee Har (West Coast): Thank you, Speaker. I have two supplementary questions for the Senior Minister of State. The first one is about Temasek's unlisted assets, comprising 53% of the portfolio as at 31 March 2023. Temasek had shared – and I think, the Senior Minister of State has also touched on that – if the unlisted portfolio was marked to market, it would provide $18 billion of value uplift.
So, my question is, given the dominance of unlisted assets in its portfolio, what are the plans for Temasek to reflect the underlying value of this portfolio in reporting shareholder returns going forward; and also, the impact of this unlisted assets' performance in its contributions to its Net Investment Returns Contribution (NIRC) for Singapore's Budget?
\t
\t
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Mr Speaker, Temasek's valuation methodology for its unlisted assets is defined on its website and specifically, the unlisted assets are valued at book value less any impairments that are required to be taken and it only recognises any value uplift for these investments upon listing or sale.
Ms Foo also asked about the impact on NIRC. Sir, NIRC is calculated based on the overall expected long-term returns of our investment entities and not the actual year-on-year returns. What this means is that the annual fluctuations to our entities' returns do not directly impact the NIRC at all.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Saktiandi Supaat.
\tMr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have two supplementary questions for Senior Minister of State Chee.
The first is with regards to the losses mentioned in my Parliamentary Question. I mentioned that the net value of the portfolio shrunk by $21 billion. I think the Senior Minister of State mentioned it somewhat just now, but can he reassure the House that Temasek's losses or gains in terms of threshold of returns historically, will there be ways where the Senior Minister of State can highlight that, given the worst-case scenario going forward, what thresholds should we be comfortable with in term of dollars in million or billion amounts every year?
The second question I have is, the Senior Minister of State mentioned just now that the focus on Asia is about two-thirds, if I am not mistaken. Can the Senior Minister of State share, given the investment climate, Temasek's assessment or the Ministry of Finance's (MOF) assessment going forward? To what extent will be Temasek's investment domestically versus overseas going forward, given circumstances if things require domestic investments, that is, investments needed in Singapore?
\tMr Chee Hong Tat: Mr Speaker, I think the portfolio and the investment decisions are what we will leave to the board and the management of Temasek to decide on independently. As I mentioned in my reply, what the Government will do is to look at the overall portfolio returns for Temasek over the longer term.
Sir, Mr Saktiandi also asked about whether there will be certain thresholds. Sir, I think we have to bear in mind that we should look at the returns over a longer time period and on a portfolio basis. I think the board will set certain benchmarks to measure the performance of management. As the Government, we will certainly hold Temasek accountable for the overall long-term returns.
\tMr Speaker: Ms Mariam Jaafar.
\tMs Mariam Jaafar (Sembawang): I thank the Senior Minister of State. Can I just clarify if the unlisted investments here would be comparable to private equity investments, which I think have had long-term returns north of 12% to 15%? So, if you are saying 10% for Temasek, is this the right comparison?
My second supplementary question is, could you also share the returns by geography, in particular, Singapore, China and then something that is more comparable to the MSCI?
\tMr Chee Hong Tat: Mr Speaker, unlisted assets cover a diverse range of asset classes. They include private equity, but they also include infrastructure and real estate.
I think Ms Mariam asked about the benchmarks and comparisons. I shared in my main reply, and let me just refer to that again, that if we look at the rate of return, the IRR, for Temasek's unlisted assets, these have registered an IRR of 14.4% in the past 20 years. If you look at it, the unlisted portfolio has also generated an IRR of over 10% per annum over the last decade.
The comparisons are not one-to-one with some of the other fund managers that Ms Mariam may be referring to. I do not have the data in front of me right now, but as I had also explained, Temasek is not a portfolio fund manager.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Leong Mun Wai.
\tMr Leong Mun Wai (Non-Constituency Member): Thank you, Speaker. Can I ask the Senior Minister of State one clarification? I am confused because Temasek reported a loss of $7.3 billion and you said the portfolio shrunk by $21 billion. How do you reconcile the two figures? If the portfolio shrunk by $21 billion, then rightfully, that should be reported as a loss as well.
\tMr Chee Hong Tat: Sir, I think Temasek has explained its position clearly in its report. I refer the Member to those reports.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Leong Mun Wai.
\tMr Leong Mun Wai: Speaker, can I ask the Senior Minister of State again? Sorry, I did not get that explanation in Temasek's report. Can you please explain again?
\tMr Chee Hong Tat: Mr Speaker, I will invite Mr Leong to have a look at what Temasek has put out previously in its annual report. The numbers that he referred to, the numbers that he wanted to clarify, I believe these are already explained by Temasek in their annual report.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Plans to Extract Geothermal Energy in Sembawang and Other Potential Sites","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"34 Ms Poh Li San asked the Minister for Trade and Industry in view of the recent report released by NTU on possible geothermal energy sources in Singapore (a) whether there are plans to extract geothermal energy in Sembawang and, if so, how will Sembawang residents and businesses near the vicinity of the geothermal source be affected; and (b) whether there are plans to explore other potential sites in Singapore such as Pulau Tekong.
\tThe Second Minister for Trade and Industry (Dr Tan See Leng) (for the Minister for Trade and Industry): Mr Speaker, my response will address Ms Poh's question and will also address a question filed by Mr Sharael Taha due for the Sitting on or after 3 August on the same topic.
Singapore does not have sufficient near-surface underground heat resources such as underground hot water or steam to deploy conventional geothermal systems. However, with the newer developments in geothermal technology, there is potential to harness heat that is deep underground for power generation.
This exploratory study that is led by researchers from the Nanyang Technological University (NTU) found that in Admiralty, the heat at a depth of four to five kilometres could be sufficient for electricity generation. However, these new geothermal technologies that can harness heat at such great depths have yet to be commercially deployed.
There are therefore no immediate plans for geothermal energy production in Singapore. To holistically assess Singapore's geothermal potential, the Energy Market Authority (EMA) will be launching a tender later this year to conduct a geophysical survey across Singapore. That survey will take a few years to complete. It will provide additional data to help in the assessment of geothermal energy as a potential source of renewable energy in Singapore.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Practice of Grassroots Organisations Transferring Sums of Money to Personal Bank Accounts for Official Operational Needs and Actions Taken","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"35 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) over the last five years, what is the number of Grassroots Organisations (GROs) that have engaged in the practice of transferring sums of money to personal bank accounts for official operational needs and their respective amounts transferred; (b) in the case of the two GROs uncovered during the AGO's test checks, who are the responsible persons who authorised such transfers; and (c) what forms of disciplinary actions are taken against the relevant authorised persons.
36 Mr Sharael Taha asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth with regard to the Auditor-General's report that found inappropriate money management practices for welfare assistance schemes and in particular, the use of personal bank accounts to disburse cash for welfare and voucher assistance (a) what are the lessons learnt by the entities involved; and (b) whether systems will be put in place by those entities to prevent such occurrences in the future.
37 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) what is the standard procedure to distribute monies to beneficiaries for programmes that are not yet covered by the Government's electronic voucher system; and (b) how will the People's Association ensure that this procedure will be adhered to.
38 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth in light of the test checks in the latest Auditor-General's Office report finding that two grassroots organisations (GROs) had transferred significant sums of money to the personal bank accounts of staff (a) whether there are further checks and tests being carried out to identify if more such practices have occurred; and (b) what action is the People's Association taking across all its entities to ensure GRO monies are not co-mingled with staff's personal monies given the significant risk of loss or misappropriation.
\tThe Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai): Mr Speaker, with your permission, I will address Question Nos 35 to 38 from today's Order Paper relating to People's Association's audit findings from the Auditor-General's Office (AGO) for the Financial Year (FY) 2022/2023 together.
\tMr Speaker: Please proceed.
\tMr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Thank you, Sir. Sir, this reply will also address Parliamentary Questions filed for subsequent Sittings by Dr Tan Wu Meng, Mr Saktiandi Supaat1, Mr Leong Mun Wai and Ms Joan Pereira.
Sir, let me start by setting out some background to the nature of the transactions audited by the AGO.
Grassroots Organisations (GROs) have always played an important role in enabling the Government's efforts to support residents by raising awareness of and, in some cases, directly administering national schemes, such as the Community Development Council (CDC) Vouchers Scheme, on the ground.
Each year, GROs help to administer about three to four national schemes across all constituencies. Many GROs would be activated to support the administration of these schemes, which typically involves processing at least 260,000 such applications each year.
Over the years, GROs have also initiated their own local welfare assistance schemes to provide assistance to their residents having regard to the specific needs of their local demographic, which these GROs assess. These local schemes complement the national schemes, often helping those who fall through the cracks. In total, these local schemes benefit at least 400,000 residents annually across Singapore.
The assistance and support from the Government, GROs and community partners have had a real impact on the livelihood of our population. For instance, the cash distributions initiated by GROs and community partners help low-income households alleviate the increased expenses during festive seasons as they prepare for celebrations with their families.
Heartland hawkers and merchants were able to obtain relief from the pandemic and rising costs of living with the CDC Vouchers Scheme. They could not have done so without the prompt reimbursement of the voucher claims facilitated by the GROs.
Sir, there are about 2,000 GROs across Singapore assisting to operationalise both national and local schemes that I have outlined. They do so by raising awareness and identifying eligible households and assessing applications, including from those who might marginally miss the criteria of these schemes or require some form of additional assistance.
People's Association (PA) staff and volunteers are then mobilised to extend the last-mile support under these schemes by directly administering the distribution of welfare assistance or vouchers from the Government or community partners. In doing so, PA staff and volunteers have developed a good understanding of the ground needs and often had to be flexible as well to render timely assistance to the residents.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked about the proportion of GROs that were audited by the AGO. As I said, there are about 2,000 GROs across Singapore. Each year, the AGO decides on which organisation it wishes to audit – this includes the GROs – and how many it wishes to audit. The AGO also retains discretion to determine the areas to be covered in its audit and the approach to take.
For the FY2022/2023 audit of PA, the AGO chose to audit welfare assistance schemes for the period of 1 April 2019 to 31 May 2022, a large part of which coincided with the COVID-19 pandemic. In its audit, two GROs were identified to have adopted inappropriate practices in the management of monies. I will explain to Members now the facts of these two cases.
The first case concerned the management of monies for welfare distribution at festive events by one GRO.
Welfare distributions to low-income residents at festive events are a form of local welfare assistance scheme initiated by the GROs, often in collaboration with community partners. This, as I said, complements the national schemes in rendering support to the vulnerable. Such schemes are not uncommon and most GROs would have their local schemes to address the specific local needs of each constituency.
In auditing the disbursement procedure of this scheme, the AGO found that a crossed cheque was issued to a staff member. When the cheque was brought to the bank by the staff member, it would be processed and the amount would be deposited into the staff member's bank account. The staff member would then withdraw the deposited amount in cash over the bank counter, accompanied by one other staff member. Verification of the cash withdrawn would be performed by a third staff member not involved in the cash withdrawal.
Throughout this process, the deposit and withdrawal would be tagged to the individual responsible in PA's Financial Accounting System that is used by all GROs to account for receipts and payments. The monies withdrawn were then distributed to the scheme recipients, with proper record and accounting of the amounts given out.
Mr Yip Hon Weng asked what the standard procedure would otherwise have been. Sir, the standard procedure would have been to do all of the above, except one step, which is for the cheque to be an uncrossed one, made out to the staff member, with the words \"or bearer\" crossed out. When the uncrossed cheque is brought to the bank, the cash would be withdrawn immediately over the counter and retained by the staff concerned and then applied to the scheme for disbursement. That would have been the usual step.
There are a few notable points from this case. First, whilst this was not the correct procedure, the staff concerned explained that it was thought that the additional step in using the crossed cheque was taken to better account for the money. And that was why that step was taken. Second, the monies withdrawn were duly checked and verified through the process by multiple and different staff members. Third, all the amounts deposited, withdrawn and distributed were properly recorded and accounted for. The AGO has reviewed the records and found no evidence of loss or misappropriation of monies in this case. The practice ceased once the AGO noted this observation in the course of its audit.
\t
The second case concerned the reimbursement of monies to the hawkers and merchants under the CDC Voucher scheme at one GRO. The CDC Voucher scheme was launched by the PA in 2020 to help lower-income households defray their cost of living and, at the same time, support hawkers and heartland merchants who were affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. At that time, GROs helped to administer the scheme by distributing the physical vouchers to the low-income households, as well as thereafter, facilitating the reimbursement of voucher claims from the hawkers and merchants. The period in question coincided with the time when cashflow of hawkers and merchants were seriously affected by the COVID-19 pandemic and various other measures, including safe management measures.
The GRO in question thus saw a need to set up a system which could facilitate a prompt claims process for the hawkers and merchants under the scheme. For this case, the AGO found that the process took place as follows: staff collected the used physical vouchers from the hawkers and merchants, and tabulated the amount to be reimbursed to each of them on a weekly basis. The transaction volume was high, with most of the claims of small amounts at around $20 to $30. Members would recall that this first iteration of the CDC Voucher schemes was entirely physical; physical vouchers were used.
To facilitate these reimbursements, a crossed cheque would be issued by the GRO to the relevant staff member's name, who would withdraw cash and then reimburse the hawkers and merchants using this cash withdrawn. When the hawkers and merchants received the monies from the staff, they would indicate their receipt of the cash by signing against the listings prepared by the staff member.
Similar to the first case, the process deviated from the standard procedure in that a crossed cheque was issued instead of an uncrossed cheque and the monies went through the staff member's personal bank account briefly. This was not the correct procedure. However, there were proper records and accounting of all the claims and the disbursement of monies. The AGO has reviewed the records and found no evidence of loss or misappropriation of funds, as in the first case. This arrangement ceased with the changes to the CDC Voucher scheme in December 2021 when electronic vouchers were introduced in place of physical ones.
Sir, to address Ms He Ting Ru, Mr Louis Chua and Ms Joan Pereira's questions, subsequent to the AGO's audit, PA has been undertaking checks similar in scope to the AGO audit and in respect of the same period. Thus far, we have identified three other cases in which similar inappropriate practice of money management for welfare assistance schemes was adopted. In all of these cases, there was also no loss of funds nor any mala fides in staff conduct. These practices have also since stopped.
Nonetheless, we do not take this for granted, and to Mr Saktiandi Supaat and Dr Tan Wu Meng's questions, PA has taken note of the areas and observations by the AGO and has counselled its staff and volunteers involved of the need to adhere strictly to governance processes. PA has also implemented and will continue to work on strengthening its internal governance and oversight of key processes.
I would add that given the scale and volume of such transactions, which I have outlined to Members earlier, PA recognises that staff and volunteers do face challenges when administering welfare assistance schemes and other Government programmes and, at the same time, managing administrative matters, such as contracts and claims processes.
PA will continue to identify ways to improve its structures, systems as well as processes to mitigate such reoccurrence, but at the same time allow the GROs and its volunteers to do what it does best on the ground by delivering last-mile services direct to residents, helping them in times of need and making sure – as Members saw in the case of the welfare schemes during COVID-19 – that cash flow, which was vital during COVID-19, was not affected.
Mr Sharael Taha, Ms He Ting Ru, Mr Saktiandi Supaat, Mr Yip Hon Weng and Mr Leong Mun Wai asked about PA's plans to strengthen compliance and prevent future occurrence.
In recent years, PA has embarked on major structural changes and implemented measures to strengthen its key governance processes. These were to address risks that were observed through past AGO audit findings as well as picked up through PA's regular internal audits and reviews.
Going forward, PA will implement all of AGO's recommendations in the FY2022 and FY2023 reports. It has put in place a systematic plan that includes accelerating the full implementation of measures we had embarked on in recent years. Digitalising manual processes to minimise the need for cash handling, refining financial procurement rules and bolstering capabilities of staff and GROs and their volunteers in these areas.
PA will also address the lapses identified and strengthen the monitoring and compliance to procedures and processes. In this respect, PA has also set up an independent review committee to review the latest AGO findings – independent from the existing staff and the internal audit team – to review the latest AGO findings and to ensure measures are put in to strengthen the system.
The review committee will regularly report the progress of the implementation to the PA board as well as to MCCY. PA will update the public on its progress from time to time.
PA takes the findings of the AGO very seriously and will continue on taking the steps outlined above to address the gaps in the processes.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Louis Chua.
\tMr Chua Kheng Wee Louis (Sengkang): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Just two supplementary questions for the Minister.
Firstly, beyond the finance staff who actually authorised the transactions and the withdrawal, to what extent was this practice authorised by the management team of the PA or even the grassroots organisations?
If we look at the second part of my original Parliamentary Question, it is really in terms of whether there was any form of disciplinary actions that are taken on the staff who were involved in the transfer and even the management team, and whether there was any censure of the board as well.
\t
\tMr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: The relevant authorisations were all disclosed and properly recorded in the systems maintained by the GRO and that, as I mentioned earlier, was precisely the reason why AGO was able to check and verify, based on these records, that no money was missing at all.
In relation to the Member's question about follow-up steps for the staff and the volunteers, I have set them out in my response. We have underscored the importance of adhering to this and counselled the relevant parties concerned to ensure that this does not occur again.
\tMr Speaker: We are approaching the end of Question Time. I will allow for a few more clarifications. So, keep it short and keep the answer short as well. Ms Joan Pereira.
\tMs Joan Pereira (Tanjong Pagar): Thank you, Speaker. May I ask the Minister, with the move towards digital payments for disbursements to reduce cash handling, what would be the impact on the elderly who may not own or have use of mobile devices? Second question: are there simpler ways to allow the use of PA or grassroots bank accounts for fund disbursement purposes and disallow the use of PA staff personal bank accounts for such purposes?
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Thank you, Ms Pereira. The first question is a valid one. As we move towards ensuring that we undertake transactions digitally, there will be a constituency of persons, usually the elderly, who are not able to keep up and process the transactions in the same way. So, what we do at PA is we always go with the mantra that we say it is digital first, but not digital only. So, those of our seniors or other residents who come and need assistance because they are unable to process or handle the transactions digitally, we will assist them in person and, in some cases, if necessary, we will help them to print the hard copies so that they will be able to administer.
But, at the same time, in our drive to ensure that we move towards digital transactions, our staff is also trained to counsel such people to help them and try and get them on board the digital framework so that, for future transactions, they will be more equipped and more assured to be able to handle those transactions.
To the Member's second question, the proper process, as Members have heard me outline, is indeed to avoid co-mingling with the staff's bank account. In this case, what happened was that the cheque was crossed and, as a result, had to be deposited in the staff's account. The usual process is for the cheques to be uncrossed and for cash to be handled across the counter without entering the staff's bank account.
\tMr Speaker: Ms He Ting Ru.
\tMs He Ting Ru (Sengkang): Thank you, Speaker. Two supplementary questions from me.
First, I understand from the Minister's reply that there is undertaking to be done to make certain checks that are similar in scope. Can the Minister share about the timeline for when this is expected to be completed and also a bit more details about the scope in which these additional checks are going to be carried out?
Secondly, on the details of the independent committee, would the Ministry commit to eventually publishing a full report about its findings? Can I also ask about the composition of this committee? Who sits on the committee? Are they external to the PA or are they appointed from external sources?
\tMr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: The committee has got one board member and other senior grassroots members who are not on the board and otherwise not connected to PA's senior management.
In relation to the Member's point about whether we will make the findings public and publish a report, I will have a word with the review committee. The scope of its work is essentially to look at its current processes, give a view and to really have a second pair of eyes. In most of these cases, it is not that the process is not set out. The process has been set out, there are standard operating procedures (SOPs), and in fact, that is why the AGO was able to audit it and make these findings of inconsistency relative to what the SOP ought to be. But I will convey the point and discuss it with the review committee.
The Member's first question is on the scope of the checks. The scope of the checks, as I said, would be similar to what the AGO has done in terms of timing as well as the scope – \"scope\" meaning the kind of transactions as well as having regard to the nature of the problems picked up. Obviously, as we do this, even as we focus on those transactions, the lessons learnt can be adopted on a broader scale, such as co-mingling is not just prohibited in the context of welfare assistance schemes, but also across the board. So, those are lessons that we will pick up from this review but applied across a broader variety of different transactions.
Mr Speaker: Order. End of Question Time. Leader of the House.
[Pursuant to Standing Order No 22(3), written answers to questions not reached by the end of Question Time are reproduced in the Appendix, unless Members had asked for questions standing in their names to be postponed to a later Sitting day or withdrawn.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Question subsequently withdrawn: To ask the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) how many Grassroots Organisations (GROs) are there under the People’s Association (PA) umbrella across Singapore; (b) what proportion of GROs is audited by the Auditor-General when lapses in contracts and money management are identified in the Report of the Auditor-General for FY 2022/2023; and (c) given that GROs are mainly run by community volunteers, whether the PA intends to provide more centralised help and resources such as standard operating procedures and template contracts."],"footNoteQuestions":["35","36","37","38"],"questionNo":"35-38"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Points of Order Relating to PSP’s Video and Facebook Post, and Unparliamentary Language Used by Former Speaker","subTitle":"Statement by Leader of the House","sectionType":"OS","content":"The Leader of the House (Ms Indranee Rajah): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like, if I may, to raise a Point of Order to update Parliament on a matter which arose at the last Sitting, that is, the edited video and Facebook post put up by the Progress Singapore Party (PSP). I also wish to address the comment made by the former Speaker, Mr Tan Chuan-Jin, in what is commonly referred to as the “hot mic” incident.
Mr Speaker: Please proceed.
Ms Indranee Rajah: Thank you, Sir.
On the first matter, Members will recall that at the last Sitting on 6 July 2023, I had requested PSP to take down an edited video and Facebook post which gave a misleading impression of proceedings in Parliament, and to extend an apology in terms acceptable to Parliament by 10.00 pm that evening.
I wish to update the House that PSP did remove the edited video and Facebook post, and also made an apology in the terms requested, within the stipulated time.
That being the case, I do not see a need to take further action on this matter and I respectfully seek Mr Speaker’s concurrence on this.
Mr Speaker: I have no objections to the opinion of the Leader of the House that she will not take further action on this matter.
Ms Indranee Rajah: Thank you, Mr Speaker. That concludes the first Point of Order.
Let me now address the second Point of Order.
On or around 11 July 2023, a video circulated on the Internet which captured the former Speaker, Mr Tan Chuan-Jin, reacting to a speech by Workers’ Party (WP) Member of Parliament (MP), Assoc Prof Jamus Lim, in which Mr Tan was heard using an expletive followed by the word “populist”. This remark was not fully audible on the normal livestream, save for a slight burble of sound at the end and, as far as I am aware, it was not audible to Members in the Chamber at the time the words were uttered. However, that burble of sound on the livestream was obviously noticed. It was amplified and circulated some three months later, which then brought the incident to the attention of Members and the public.
Responding on 11 July, Mr Tan put up a Facebook post explaining that what he had said were his private thoughts, but acknowledging that he should not have said them. He apologised, both publicly and also personally to Assoc Prof Jamus Lim, who graciously accepted his apology.
Subsequently, arising from other events, Mr Tan Chuan-Jin tendered his resignation as Speaker of Parliament and as a Member of Parliament on 17 July 2023. In his resignation letter to the Prime Minister, he admitted his mistake in uttering words which were rude and unparliamentary, and acknowledged that it was wrong.
Mr Speaker, Sir, this is a very regrettable incident. As Members of Parliament (MPs), it is incumbent upon us to uphold proper standards of conduct, and especially so the Speaker who chairs the proceedings in this House and has the duty of ruling on the conduct of other Members. Rude and unparliamentary language, and expletives, in particular, certainly do not meet the standards expected of all Members and lower the dignity and decorum of the House.
The question is how this should be dealt with. There are precedents on how unparliamentary language in Parliament is dealt with, which on the one hand provide us with a reference point on how to deal with such matters, but on the other hand, show that such incidents happen more often than they should.
There have been several prior incidents of unparliamentary language in this House, but it suffices to highlight two.
First, on 3 November 1995, then-MP Mr Ling How Doong was recorded using certain unparliamentary words in Parliament. When called to order by the Speaker and told to resume his seat, Mr Ling remained standing, asserting “When he is unparliamentary, why should I be parliamentary to him?” He did not apologise during that Sitting.
A formal complaint was filed against Mr Ling. The complaint alleged that Mr Ling had described the speech made by another MP in vulgar terms, called the other MP a word questioning the legitimacy of his birth and referred to him using an anatomical term. Mr Ling, in response, admitted to using certain words but said he could not recall the rest. The then-Speaker called Mr Ling for a meeting in his chambers and informed him that no matter what the provocation, he had no excuse to use unparliamentary language in the House.
Mr Ling agreed unreservedly to withdraw his unparliamentary remarks and to apologise to the House, and did do so at a subsequent Sitting. He also apologised for disregarding the authority of the Chair when asked to resume his seat. With his apology, that was the end of the matter.
Some 10 years later, in March 2005, a Nominated Member of Parliament, Assoc Prof Ong Soh Khim, uttered certain unparliamentary words during a sitting. The words were not captured on Hansard, so we have no official record of what they were. She also interrupted the Chair while Deputy Speaker was speaking. Several complaints were filed against her. The then-Speaker spoke to her at a subsequent Sitting and informed her that she had no excuse to use unparliamentary language in the House. She agreed unreservedly to apologise to the House for her use of unparliamentary language and did do so. That was the end of the matter.
Other Parliaments have also had such incidents. In December 2022, the then-Prime Minister of New Zealand, Ms Jacinda Ardern, after responding in Parliament to a question from a political opponent, Mr David Seymour, resumed her seat and referred to him using a term commonly understood to refer to a male body part, not realising the microphone was still on. Mr Seymour petitioned the Speaker for a withdrawal of the remark and an apology. The New Zealand Speaker declined because by then, the Prime Minister had left the House and he had not seen if the remark was caught on Hansard. However, Ms Ardern later apologised directly to Mr Seymour, and her apology was accepted by him.
Western Australian Premier Mr Mark McGowan too was caught in a hot mic incident earlier this year when in Parliament, he described certain issues as a “storm in an [expletive] teacup”. He later apologised in Parliament for his language.
Mr Speaker, having regard to these and other examples, the usual approach regarding the use of unparliamentary language in the Chamber is to require a withdrawal of the offending remarks and an apology in order to put the matter right. In my view, that should be the approach also in this case, even though it was the Speaker who uttered the offending words in the Chair.
I have read Mr Tan’s Facebook post and his letter of resignation, and I note that Mr Tan Chuan-Jin had apologised generally to the public at large and directly to Assoc Prof Jamus Lim. However, as the incident took place in Parliament, I am of the view that a formal apology and withdrawal of the comment by Mr Tan to this House is necessary, over and above the apologies he has already made. I have communicated this to Mr Tan, who has readily agreed to do so. As he is no longer a Member of this House, he has asked me to read the following apology to Members on his behalf:
\"I unreservedly withdraw the comment directed at Assoc Prof Jamus Lim and sincerely apologise to the House for the unparliamentary language that I used, and for not respecting the dignity and decorum of the House.\"
Mr Speaker, Sir, as Mr Tan has acknowledged his lapse and apologised three times – to the public, to Assoc Prof Jamus Lim and now to this House – the necessary steps have been taken to redress this incident. As such, my view is that the specific matter of Mr Tan’s use of unparliamentary language does not require any further action and this regrettable incident can be brought to a close.
I wish to conclude with a reminder to all Members, on the need to maintain proper decorum and to behave in a courteous manner in this House, even as we engage in robust debates on issues of public significance. Not all of us may share the same views on the matters debated, but we can agree to disagree and to do so in a manner that meets the standards of decorum and propriety required of a legislative chamber that is the representative of the people.
Mr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.
Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): I thank the Leader for the statement. I just have a question on the remarks the Leader made about the video that was circulated on or around – I think it was 7 July, she mentioned, and that it was somewhat modified audibly to hear the expletive former Speaker Tan Chuan-Jin uttered. Would the Leader be minded to refer that matter to the Police to investigate and to inquire who released that video? Because as the Leader said, I do not believe anybody in this House picked up that language.
Ms Indranee Rajah: Thank you, Mr Speaker. With regard to the question by the Leader of the Opposition, I think he was asking if I am minded to refer to the Police. One refers to the Police matters which are offences because the Police, obviously, investigates offences. I have not considered, but I am not entirely sure that making something louder is an offence. Because if the words were said, which I believe Mr Tan has admitted, the only difference is that on the livestream, it could not be heard. But if the words were actually said, and what the person has done is to make it louder, then you cannot deny that the words were said. I am not sure that amplification per se is an offence, because if that were the case, then, many videos that are put out by many people would be an offence.
So, I have to say, it had not occurred to me, because I was not sure that an offence has been disclosed.
Mr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.
Mr Pritam Singh: I note the Leader's comment on the matter. I think the question here is the duration of time that it took for that video to become public. I am not sure whether the Leader considers that something to be suspicious. There is also the matter of what we came to know later of a long-running affair between Speaker and another MP – whether in total, there are circumstances which the authorities should actually look into.
Ms Indranee Rajah: As I have said, one refers matters which are offences. So, coming back to the first one on this particular hot mic video, again, if something is released subsequently, I do not know that releasing something subsequently, which really did happen, constitutes an offence. I mean, if somebody considers that it does, there is nothing to prevent that person from referring it to the Police.
But at the moment, as matters stand, it is not immediately apparent to me which offence has been disclosed. Perhaps Mr Singh could clarify what offence he has in mind?
Mr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.
Mr Pritam Singh: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I was not referring to the offence. In my second clarification, I believe I referred to the total circumstances of the timing of this video coming out. It is not the offence per se. I mean, the Police investigates a number of matters before it can even conclude, sometimes, an offence is disclosed.
I am just asking, in the case of the personality involved, the Speaker of the House, a very senior member of Government, whether there would be some thought placed on the circumstances of how that video came to be circulated in public.
I was not speaking of specific disclosure of an offence but the total circumstances of that query, whether there could be something more to it. I have had some individuals come up to me questioning whether there is a false flag in this; all sorts of issues have come up insofar as the public is concerned. So, it is a matter I am raising to the Leader for her consideration.
Ms Indranee Rajah: I think Mr Singh is aware that one only refers matters for investigation by the Police if an offence has been committed. The Police do not generally investigate things which are not offences. So, I still struggle with what exactly one is to ask them to investigate. Because the release of a video at a later stage is not, per se, an offence.
So, maybe I can just close this matter or the answer to this question by saying that if an offence is disclosed, if there is credible material on which to refer the matter to the Police, then, of course, one should do so. At the moment, it is not apparent to me that there is an offence. But should something further come up which indicates that an offence may have occurred, then the matter can be reconsidered at that time.
Mr Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim.
Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Thank you, Speaker. I have a clarification for the Leader on what she explained to us earlier. She said that she communicated with the former Speaker Mr Tan on her view that whatever he expressed that was caught on the hot mic deserved a formal apology in the House and he has duly given it.
I would like her to clarify whether in doing so, she was purporting to exercise any authority on the matter as the Leader, because he was the Speaker of the House at the time and we do understand that the Speaker is the master of the Chamber, he has the power to punish us, but it is a question mark as to who has the power to punish him, if there is any unparliamentary conduct.
From the brief research that I have done in other countries, if such a thing was to happen, it is backbenchers filing a Motion of regret that is the usual thing done. So, I would like to ask the Leader if her communication with Mr Tan to extract that apology, is she purporting to exercise authority over him or is it using her power of persuasion?
Ms Indranee Rajah: I thank the Member for her question. The answer is no, I was not exercising any authority over him. What I wanted to do was to indicate to him that, in my view, as Leader, at the very minimum, withdrawal of the comment and an apology should be required. Which is why I was at some pains, earlier on in my statement, to say that it was my view that the specific matter did not require further action, but I am not saying that I have the power to conclude it.
If any Member thinks otherwise or wishes to do otherwise, it is open to another Member to do so. And I was not, in fact, seeking a ruling either. So, it was a statement that this was my view.
Mr Speaker: Mr Leong Mun Wai.
Mr Leong Mun Wai (Non-Constituency Member): Sir, I would like to ask the Leader, in the case between Minister Vivian Balakrishnan and myself on the hot mic, why did the Leader think it was not necessary to ask him to make a formal apology in this House?
Ms Indranee Rajah: Mr Speaker, I thank Mr Leong Mun Wai for his question. In the normal case, it is the Speaker who has conduct of such matters and makes the ruling. And also, in the normal case, it would be the person who has the right to complain who would raise this.
So, in all the cases which I had referred to earlier, in the case of Mr Ling and Assoc Prof Ong, you will notice that the Speaker acted when a complaint was made. So, actually, in this particular instance that Mr Leong has referred to, if a formal apology was required, it would have been incumbent on Mr Leong to raise the matter as the complainant.
I have raised it here simply because it was the former Speaker who had uttered the words and other Members can raise a complaint if they wish, but I felt that was appropriate that as Leader, I should address it. And of course, he is no longer here in Parliament to deal with it, so somebody has to raise it.
Mr Speaker: Mr Leong Mun Wai.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Sir, so, can I clarify with the Leader? She mentioned two things: one is that it is incumbent on the person affected to make a complaint, but in the case of Speaker Tan's comments, as far as I know, Assoc Prof Jamus Lim did not make a formal complaint. But, of course, Leader can say that: \"Well, I am doing this because Speaker Tan is not in the Parliament anymore\". So, this one point I want to clarify, Assoc Prof Jamus Lee did not make a former complaint.
Secondly, are you implying that for my case, the Speaker at the time, Mr Tan, should have demanded that Minister Vivian Balakrishnan make a formal apology? So, if he had not, then it was a mistake on the part of the Speaker at a time?
Ms Indranee Rajah: With respect to the second question, whether I think that there was a mistake at that time, that is not something which is really before this House. I do not intend to revisit previous matters that were or were not decided upon. As far as I am aware, it was not brought to the Speaker. He did not have to make a ruling.
In this particular instance, it is not just a rude remark per se. It involved an expletive. It had to do with the decorum and propriety of this House. And that is why I felt it was necessary to address it.
And in the case of the remark by Minister Vivian Balakrishnan, I noticed that Mr Leong had accepted the apology; just as in this case, Assoc Prof Lim has accepted the apology. And if Mr Leong wishes to take that matter further, it would be up to him, except that I am not sure whether he still is within the time for his matter, but I am sure he will take the appropriate advice on the regulations and the rules and do what is necessary.
Mr Speaker: Ministerial Statement. Prime Minister.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"CPIB Investigation Involving Minister S Iswaran and the Resignations of Former Speaker and a PAP MP","subTitle":"Statements by Prime Minister and Minister for Education","sectionType":"OS","content":"The Prime Minister (Mr Lee Hsien Loong): Mr Speaker, Sir, recently, we witnessed a series of high-profile public cases involving political office holders. Members have asked several questions regarding these cases. Let me give the House an account of how these issues have been dealt with, and why. After that, Minister Chan Chun Sing will address the more detailed questions in his Statement.
On the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) investigation involving Minister Iswaran, briefly, the facts of the case are these: while investigating a separate matter, the CPIB came across some information concerning Minister Iswaran that merited investigation. CPIB alerted me on 29 May and pursued this lead further on their own volition.
On 5 July, the Director of CPIB briefed me on the findings he had at that point. He told me that CPIB would need to interview Minister Iswaran to take the investigation further and he sought my concurrence to open a formal investigation. I gave my concurrence the next day, on 6 July.
On 11 July, Minister Iswaran was brought in by CPIB and subsequently, released on bail. I instructed him to take leave of absence until the investigations were completed. Subsequently, I interdicted Minister Iswaran from duty with a reduced pay of $8,500 per month, until further notice.
Such incidents involving Ministers are rare and there is no rule or precedent on how to effect an interdiction on a political office holder. Hence, I used the current Civil Service practice as a reference point. The specific details in Minister Iswaran's case follow generally how the Civil Service would deal with a senior officer in a similar situation. But this was my decision as Prime Minister, because the political contexts for a Minister and a civil servant being investigated and interdicted are different.
I should point out that CPIB investigations are still ongoing. I am unable to provide more details on the case so as not to prejudice the investigations in any way. I ask Members of this House and the public to refrain from speculation and conjecture. We must allow CPIB to do its work, to investigate the matter fully, thoroughly and independently. When the investigation is completed, CPIB will submit its findings to the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC), which will decide what to do with them. Whichever way the facts come out, the case will be taken to its logical conclusion. That has always been our way.
Next, on the resignations of former Speaker Tan Chuan-Jin and former Member of Parliament (MP) Cheng Li Hui. Let me recap some basic facts that are mostly already public: I first learnt of their relationship sometime after the 2020 General Election (GE), in fact, in November 2020. They were both spoken to and counselled, separately. They both said they would stop the affair. But as it turned out, they did not.
Most recently in February 2023, I spoke to them again, separately. Mr Tan admitted that what he did was wrong. He offered to resign. I accepted but I told him that before he actually resigned, I had first to make sure residents in Kembangan-Chai Chee, his ward, and Marine Parade, his Group Representation Constituency (GRC) were taken care of. Meanwhile, his relationship with Miss Cheng had to stop. A few weeks ago, I came across information that strongly suggested that the affair had continued. I decided that Mr Tan had to go forthwith. Miss Cheng had to resign too because she had not broken off the affair even after being told to stop.
I have been asked – why did I take so long, more than two years, to act? It is a fair question. In retrospect, and certainly now, knowing how things eventually turned out, I agree. I should have forced the issue sooner. But let me explain my general approach as well as my thinking at that point in time.
These sorts of relationships happen from time to time. They have happened in the past and no doubt will happen again in the future. In such cases, what we do depends on many factors: the circumstances, how inappropriate or scandalous the behaviour was, the family situations. We also have to be conscious of the impact on innocent parties, particularly the spouses and children. I had explained this at my press conference on 20 July and so did Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong last week in a BBC interview. This is not a new position; it reflects the PAP's long-standing practice, since the days of Mr Lee Kuan Yew.
There is no single template that applies to all extramarital affairs. But there can be at least three situations.
The first situation is where the individuals involved will be talked to, and if they stop, the matter ends there. No further action need be taken.
The second situation is where immediate action has to be taken. For example, when one party has supervisory power over the other party, and we have in the past taken immediate action, in a few cases.
The third situation, where the relationship raises some questions of propriety, beyond it being an extramarital affair per se. The parties will be talked to, but the matter cannot end there. Even if the affair stops, some action has to follow. But what that action is and when it is taken, depends on the nature of the facts and the boundaries that have been transgressed.
The present situation falls into the third category. It is wrong. Mr Tan and Miss Cheng had to stop their affair. I told them to stop. In deciding what more should be done, consider this: would we object to having the Speaker being married to a Member of Parliament (MP)? Would we object to having the Speaker being married to an MP? I think the answer is no – that would be perfectly alright. There is no direct reporting line between the Speaker and an MP. Thus, an open, legitimate relationship between the Speaker and an MP is not in itself objectionable. Hence, this situation of the Speaker having an affair with an MP does not fall into the category where immediate action has to be taken.
However, the Speaker has some official capacity vis-à-vis MPs. An extramarital affair between him and an MP is therefore problematic. It puts other MPs and staff in an awkward position, and it is just not proper. After I spoke to Mr Tan in November 2020, he told me that the relationship would end. I took it to be so. I, therefore, felt there was some leeway to take some time to decide what further steps to take.
In this context, the possible actions that could have followed were on the basis that the extramarital affair had stopped, I would have asked Mr Tan to step down as Speaker some time before the end of the term, but in a way which would reduce the public embarrassment to him and his family. As to whether one or both should also resign as Members – I had not decided at that time, but quite likely, both would have had to leave at some point. By giving the matter some time, I had hoped to give them a softer exit, and save them and their families the pain and embarrassment that they are suffering now. I placed much weight on protecting their families; perhaps too much.
Regrettably, in the end, Mr Tan and Miss Cheng did not stop the affair, and both had to go. On reflection, as I said, I should have forced the issue earlier, certainly before mid-term.
Let me add a personal plea at this point – while there is no doubt the two persons behaved improperly, there are also innocent family members involved. Likewise, for the case involving a former Member across the aisle, in the Workers' Party (WP). All their families are suffering. I hope that MPs and the public can empathise and have compassion for the families and give them the privacy and space they need to heal.
Mr Speaker, Sir, there has been a great deal of public interest over the recent series of incidents – CPIB arresting and investigating a Minister, MPs resigning and before that, the allegations about the Ridout Road rentals.
The way we have handled these incidents shows how seriously the PAP takes our responsibility of governing Singapore and being accountable to Parliament and to Singaporeans.
Let me assure Members – when such issues come up, we will deal with them properly and transparently, as we have done. With the Ridout Road rentals, when allegations of preferential treatment surfaced, the two Ministers involved were thoroughly investigated, including by CPIB, and eventually fully exonerated. The investigation reports were tabled in Parliament, and we had a long session answering MPs’ questions in this House.
When CPIB discovered, on its own, that it had reason to arrest and interview a Minister, it opened a formal investigation. Nobody tipped them off. There had been no public scandal. CPIB came across something that needed investigating and proceeded to do their job.
When the Speaker of Parliament and a Government MP fell short of the standards of propriety and personal conduct expected of them, they were asked to resign. We took some time to sort it out, probably longer than we should have, but we did what we needed to do and put the situation right.
The two CPIB investigations, and the response to the personal misconduct case, show two aspects of how this PAP Government works. One, when there is a suspicion or allegation of wrongdoing in the discharge of official duties, especially possible corruption, there is zero tolerance. Two, when people slip in their personal lives, the PAP will look at the facts of each case carefully and deal with the matter as humanely and sensitively as possible, according to the principles that the party has established.
Systems are composed of human beings. In any system, however comprehensive the safeguards, sometimes something will still go wrong. The PAP Government does our utmost to minimise that possibility. We work hard to identify the right people to bring into politics and appoint into responsible positions. We vet them carefully, test and stretch them, before entrusting them with heavier responsibilities. Often, they measure up, but sometimes they fall short. Occasionally, they transgress the norms of conduct, or commit wrongdoing.
Singapore has seen corruption cases involving political office holders in the past: Mr Tan Kia Gan in 1966, he was then Minister for National Development; Mr Wee Toon Boon in 1975, he was then a Minister of State, I think in the Ministry of Defence [Please refer to a clarification by the Prime Minister later in the debate.]; Mr Teh Cheang Wan in 1986, he was Minister for National Development; and earlier in 1979, Mr Phey Yew Kok, then President of NTUC and also an MP.
All these cases were handled by Mr Lee Kuan Yew who was then Prime Minister – thoroughly, transparently, and applying the full force of the law. That is still how the PAP Government deals with such cases. It has not changed under my charge; and it would not under my successor either.
Mr Speaker, Sir, with your permission, may I say a few words in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, Sir, the People’s Action Party (PAP) has always maintained an honest and clean Government.
A clean Government and good governance are critical to our democracy. Therefore, we have strict laws in place to check on corruption. On values and personal integrity, we expect Ministers and Members of Parliament (MPs) to meet social norms.
In Singapore, while corruption cases involving political leaders are rare, it has still happened before. This is because even the most comprehensive safeguards can still go wrong. Recent cases show this. But they also reflect our determination to stand for honesty and against corruption.
We firmly believe that to maintain an honest political system and for the people to continue to trust the PAP, we must deal with issues transparently. Therefore, when anyone, including Ministers or MPs, are involved in corruption or illegal behaviour, there is zero tolerance, and we will investigate fully.
If the investigation finds that there was no wrongdoing or conflict of interest, the matter would be closed and those involved exonerated. If the investigation shows that there is misconduct, they would be dealt with the full force of the law.
In terms of personal conduct, the PAP expects the Ministers and MPs to hold themselves to the highest standards and to be self-disciplined. However, when people slip up in their personal lives, circumstances differ and we have to look at the facts case by case, and deal with each of them individually.
For example, the extramarital affair between the former Speaker and former MP should not have happened. Then, I had hoped they would end their affair because their families would suffer the most if the affair was exposed. Indeed, my most important consideration throughout was how this would affect their families. If they had ended the affair, they need not have left politics under these embarrassing circumstances and hurt their families. Regrettably, they did not deal with it properly.
Looking back, if I could do it again, I would have forced the issue earlier.
In any extramarital affair, the families are affected and hurt greatly. Whether it is a case involving the PAP or the WP, I hope everyone would give the families time and privacy to heal.
We cannot guarantee that this sort of incident would never happen again. If it does, we will continue to deal with it in accordance with the PAP’s principles. My team and I are very clear about the importance of keeping our politics clean. This is critical to our democratic system. As we have always done, we will continue to exercise self-discipline and uphold the principles of integrity. This is the promise of the PAP Government.
(In English): Mr Speaker, Sir, let me assure Singaporeans that we will protect the integrity of our system of Government. For the good of our country, we will carry through what needs to be done in accordance with the law, even if it may be politically embarrassing and painful to the party. I will not flinch or hesitate to do my duty, to keep our system robust and clean. This is how the PAP Government can continue to deserve the trust that Singaporeans have placed in us.
I have spoken often about how precious trust is and how crucial it is for our democracy to work well. The founding generation built up Singapore and entrusted it to our generation in good shape. It is incumbent on us to protect and uphold this system, to keep it incorruptible and clean, and maintain high standards of propriety.
With the investigation into Minister Iswaran, and the resignations of the Speaker and an MP, the PAP has taken a hit, but we will show Singaporeans that we will uphold standards and do the right thing, so that trust is maintained, and the Singapore system continues to work well.
This is my approach, and I am confident it will be my successor’s approach too, and this is how we will keep Singapore safe, strong and prosperous for many years to come. [Applause.]
Mr Speaker: Minister Chan Chun Sing will be making a related Ministerial Statement. I will allow clarifications to be raised on both Statements after the Statement by Minister Chan. Minister Chan.
The Minister for Education (Mr Chan Chun Sing): Mr Speaker, Sir, I will take the Parliamentary Questions (PQs) relating to the CPIB case and the Public Service’s Code of Conduct together.
Several Members – Dr Tan Wu Meng, Ms Joan Pereira, Mr Leong Mun Wai, Mr Gerald Giam and Mr Dennis Tan – have posed questions relating to timelines and circumstances surrounding the CPIB investigations involving Minister Iswaran, and on the information put out in the initial statements by the Government. I must emphasise that what information to put out on ongoing investigations are operational judgement calls that law enforcement agencies take. Other parties, including Ministers, defer to the judgement of these agencies, and do not and should not independently release such information.
Those familiar with how law enforcement agencies operate, including CPIB, will know how they usually make their announcements. The standard practice is that agencies do not disclose the names of persons who are being investigated or arrested.
And there are good reasons for this. Say someone has been picked up, arrested, and investigations are ongoing. If it is immediately announced that the person has been arrested and is being investigated, it may prejudice the person. The impression that he has done wrong will be there, even if subsequent investigations do not result in any charges being brought against him. Thus, to be fair to the persons involved, law enforcement agencies generally refrain from immediately naming the persons being investigated.
There are situations where agencies will depart from this norm and mention names. In Minister Iswaran’s case, given that it involved a Minister, CPIB decided to disclose on 12 July that Minister Iswaran was assisting CPIB with investigations into a case uncovered by CPIB. At that point, CPIB did not state that Minister Iswaran had been arrested, as it had wanted to first establish more facts of the case, including hearing his side of the story.
These are decisions for CPIB to make. What law enforcement agencies, including CPIB, reveal at any point in time takes into account their operational considerations in the cases they deal with – including preserving the integrity of evidence, protecting the confidentiality of ongoing investigations and avoiding impact on other related parties.
This is why the Prime Minister’s initial statement and Deputy Prime Minister’s doorstop interview on 12 July took reference from CPIB’s press release on the same day. This was the proper thing to do because Ministers, including the Prime Minister, should not reveal more than what the law enforcement agencies are prepared to disclose. While Ministers do have the final decision-making power, they will usually take the advice of the law enforcement agencies.
Two days later, on 14 July, Hotel Properties Limited (HPL) issued a statement saying that Mr Ong Beng Seng had been \"given a notice of arrest\" by CPIB. The media asked CPIB about this. By then, investigations had been ongoing for three days and CPIB had obtained more facts. CPIB made the operational judgement call that it would be appropriate at that point in time to confirm that both Mr Ong and Minister Iswaran had been arrested.
Some Members – Mr Saktiandi Supaat, Mr Gerald Giam and Ms He Ting Ru – have asked about the considerations for timely and mandatory disclosure of information about a political office holder who is under investigation. The primary considerations are what I have just outlined.
Singaporeans are understandably concerned about this matter. In due course, further details of the investigations will be made public. But I hope we can all recognise that we must give CPIB the time and space they need to do their work. This was a case that CPIB had uncovered by themselves. We can rely on CPIB to conduct its investigations thoroughly and independently, and to see this case to its logical conclusion – as it has with every other case it has investigated over 70 years.
May I caution Members that the CPIB investigations are still ongoing. Minister Iswaran has not been charged, much less convicted. Members should, therefore, avoid speculating on or prejudicing the outcome of the investigations.
Mr Leong Mun Wai and Mr Louis Chua asked whether all CPIB investigations require the Prime Minister's concurrence and if CPIB is obliged to seek the Prime Minister's concurrence to open formal investigations of potential offences that CPIB has uncovered.
While CPIB reports directly to the Prime Minister, it is functionally independent. CPIB does not require the Prime Minister's concurrence to conduct its investigations. In this case, it kept the Prime Minister informed and sought his concurrence to initiate formal investigations of Minister Iswaran because the investigations concerned a Cabinet Minister. The Prime Minister concurred within a day of receiving the Director of CPIB's report.
Under Article 22G of the Constitution, in the event the Prime Minister refuses to give his consent to a CPIB investigation, the Director of CPIB can go directly to the elected President for his or her concurrence to proceed with the investigation. In reality, we have never had a Prime Minister who has impeded CPIB's work. I should also remind Members there are Constitutional safeguards for the appointment or removal of the Director of CPIB, which require the concurrence of the President.
There were also several queries by Dr Tan Wu Meng and Mr Leong Mun Wai seeking more details on CPIB's investigation findings.
Members must remember that this is an ongoing investigation. Therefore, I am unable to disclose further details at this juncture. This is to ensure that the investigations are not jeopardised and affected individuals or entities are not prejudiced.
Mr Don Wee asked why Minister Shanmugam and Minister Vivian continued with their duties while being investigated by CPIB on the Ridout Road bungalow issue.
There is a crucial difference between that earlier CPIB investigation into Ministers Shanmugam and Vivian, and CPIB's ongoing investigation involving Minister Iswaran.
For the Ridout Road bungalows matter, the two Ministers had asked the Prime Minister for an independent investigation into their rental of the Singapore Land Authority (SLA) black and white bungalows and the Prime Minister had tasked CPIB to do the investigation. The Prime Minister had no reason to believe that the Ministers had committed any wrongdoing then and, therefore, saw no need to put them on leave of absence during the investigation.
The CPIB investigation subsequently cleared both Ministers. The Prime Minister could have asked the Ministers to take leave of absence should evidence have surfaced during the investigations that warranted it.
For the case involving Minister Iswaran, CPIB came across some information concerning him while investigating a separate matter. It then decided it should look further into the matter. In these circumstances, the Prime Minister's assessment was that it was necessary to suspend Minister Iswaran from his official duties while the investigation took place.
Mr Leong Mun Wai asked whether Minister Iswaran's gazetted leave of absence from his duties from 7 July to 9 July was related to the CPIB investigation.
For the record, Minister Iswaran took leave of absence from 7 July to 9 July for personal matters. Senior Minister of State Chee Hong Tat covered his duties during that period. The leave of absence arising from the CPIB investigation was effected only on 12 July.
Next, on the Code of Conduct for Ministers. Mr Zhulkarnain asked if there will be a review of the Code. The Code of Conduct for Ministers has been in place since 1954 and was last updated in 2005. The Code sets out the principles and rules on how Ministers should act and conduct their personal affairs. The general principles remain valid.
We will continue to review and update the Code of Conduct for Ministers regularly, taking into account evolving circumstances and needs. For example, the Government recently announced that going forward, officers with access to privileged information that can influence the outcomes of decisions related to state-owned properties must make a declaration before they can rent Government properties managed by their agencies. The same would apply to political office holders.
Let me now address the questions raised by Mr Yip Hon Weng, Ms Hazel Poa, Mr Dennis Tan and Mr Gerald Giam relating to the Public Service Code of Conduct and avenues for public officers to report wrongdoing and protection of whistle-blowers.
The Public Service Code of Conduct sets out the principles and rules that public officers must abide by. It is periodically refreshed to ensure that the integrity and high standards of the Public Service are upheld.
In the course of their work, public officers may come across different requests, be it from colleagues, friends, members of the public or political office holders. When handling these requests, officers are expected to maintain a high level of professionalism and safeguard the confidentiality of official information as well as the political impartiality of the Public Service.
Should an officer be unsure of a request because it seems inappropriate or unrelated to official work, he should consult and seek guidance from his supervisor.
If the request comes from his supervisor or a more senior officer, the officer can escalate the matter appropriately through the chain of command, including directly to his Permanent Secretary, the Head of Agency, the Head of Civil Service or the Minister-in-charge of the Public Service.
The Code of Conduct is reinforced through various channels, such as annual quizzes, declarations, induction programmes for new entrants, milestone programmes and regular Service-wide reminders.
There is an established Internal Disclosure Policy framework within the Civil Service where officers can report any wrongful practices that they have observed in their Ministries to their Permanent Secretaries. Statutory Boards have their own equivalent processes.
All reports are treated with utmost confidentiality and every effort is made to protect the officer's identity. There is a non-retaliation clause to further protect the interests of the officer who made the report. If a report is made in good faith, no action will be taken against the reporting officer even if the investigation finds no wrongful practice.
Between 2020 and 2022, no report which surfaced through this channel was referred to the CPIB for investigation.
In addition, there is a Public Service Protocol for the Reporting of Corruption. Under this protocol, public officers are expected to directly report to the Police or the CPIB at the earliest opportunity when they learn of any act of corruption or have reason to believe that such an act may have been committed in their Ministries. The identity of the person making the report will be kept confidential. This is provided for under the Prevention of Corruption Act. CPIB also accepts anonymous reports.
CPIB treats all reports received seriously, whether the complainant is named or anonymous. Of the 83 cases registered for investigation in 2022, 13 cases – or about 16% – were from anonymous sources. Public sector cases form a small portion of the cases CPIB investigates each year. In 2022, four public sector officers were prosecuted in Court for offences investigated by CPIB.
Mr Gerald Giam asked about the rules for declaring meal invitations and the threshold values for doing so.
The rules for the Civil Service on accepting gifts and hospitality are designed to maintain incorruptibility and to prevent officers from becoming beholden to any person or organisation.
Civil servants must declare to their Permanent Secretaries any gifts they receive from external stakeholders on account of their official position or work. Officers may be allowed to retain gifts that are valued below $50 if doing so does not affect the integrity of the Civil Service. If officers wish to retain gifts valued above $50, they must pay the assessed market value of the gift to the Government.
In the course of their work, officers may be invited to meals by local or foreign stakeholders. They may accept when there are legitimate work-related reasons or when it is impractical or impolite to reject the meal.
Unlike gifts, it is more difficult to ascertain the value of a meal. In such instances, civil servants should declare and seek approval from their Permanent Secretaries if they receive any meal invitation either before the meal or, if that is not possible, immediately after. This is especially if they assess that the value of the meal or hospitality is incongruent with the professional nature of the meeting and may give rise to perceptions of influence peddling and conflict of interest, real or perceived.
I should share with this House that civil servants are sensitised on these matters that even when they receive gifts of fruits or sweets – as is customary on many of our festive occasions – such gifts are usually distributed in the agency or to a community organisation. We do not keep them.
Political office holders adopt a similar spirit and principles in their official activities. There are specific rules spelt out in the Annex of the Code of Conduct for Ministers on the acceptance of gifts and services.
In general, all gifts should be refused and returned to the donor without delay. If the return of the gift is impractical, the gift must be handed over to the political office holder's Ministry to be dealt with in accordance with official guidelines. If political office holders want to retain a gift, they will have to pay the Government for it at the valuation price. Otherwise, the gifts have to be surrendered to the Government.
Mr Speaker, Sir, I have come to the end of my responses. May I suggest that the House seek clarifications in three segments: the first segment is on our principles of governance and Ministers' conduct; the second segment can be to address the technical issues relating to the CPIB investigation; and the third segment can address questions relating to the Public Service.
Should the queries be sufficiently addressed, it may not be necessary for Members to pose identical Parliamentary Questions for future Sittings.
Mr Speaker: Prime Minister.
Mr Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to make two quick factual corrections to what I said just now?
Firstly, Mr Tan Kia Gan, by 1966, was a former Minister; no longer a Minister because he had lost in the previous 1963 General Elections.
Secondly, Mr Wee Toon Boon was the Minister of State in the Ministry of Environment and not in MINDEF.
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker: Leader of the Opposition, Mr Pritam Singh.
Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have two buckets of clarification – first, with regard to the standards of the PAP that the Prime Minister spoke of; and second, with regard to the circumstances involving the departure of the former Speaker Tan Chuan-Jin and former MP Cheng Li Hui.
Sir, there has been much public disquiet about the transmission of information surrounding Minister Iswaran's arrest by the CPIB and, separately, on the affair between former Speaker Tan Chuan-Jin and MP Cheng Li Hui. This is particularly with regard to what the Prime Minister knew and what the Prime Minister did about it over a period of almost three years before coming clean on the matter.
Sir, in this term of government, the Government has either been slow to clear the air or been less than upfront and forthright with Singaporeans when it had to deal with potentially embarrassing issues.
I will give three examples that capture this point, and my clarifications will be contained therein.
Firstly, in May this year, the public was not informed forthwith that CPIB had been instructed to look into the Ridout Road rentals by two Ministers. On 23 May, the Prime Minister released the statement stating Senior Minister Teo Chee Hean had been appointed to establish whether there had been any wrongdoing in the Ridout Road rentals in order to maintain the highest standards of integrity in Government.
What the Prime Minister did not tell the public but was made known by way of a statement from the Prime Minister's Office written in the third person on 28 June was that the Prime Minister had directed the CPIB to investigate the Ridout Road matter on 17 May – a full six days before his 23 May statement that omitted to mention that he had ordered a CPIB investigation into two of his Ministers. The public came to know about the CPIB investigation more than a month later when investigations were completed, with CPIB confirming no criminal offence was disclosed.
Second, there is considerable public disquiet about the CPIB releasing a statement on 12 July, which stated that Minister Iswaran was assisting with investigations while omitting to disclose the fact that Minister Iswaran had been arrested a day before.
In a parallel universe, Sir, there is a perception that if a Singaporean or Singaporean company took such a cavalier and breezy approach with critical facts under today's PAP, they can expect to receive a Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation (POFMA) direction from a PAP Minister for perpetuating false statements of fact.
Has the Prime Minister inquired with the CPIB why it undertook such a course of action that brought unnecessary attention to the CPIB's processes and, by extension, even its impartiality, involving the release of statements in the public interest? If he did not, would he consider to do so?
Thirdly, during COVID-19, the public was belatedly informed by a Minister in this House, that his senior Cabinet colleagues were aware by October 2020 that previous Government assurances on TraceTogether being solely used for contact tracing were effectively false statements of fact. Misrepresentations had hitherto been made by various Government Ministers and possibly in this House even, before October 2020, and they stood uncorrected for months. The PAP Government took almost nine months before it disclosed to Singaporeans that the Singapore Police Force (SPF) sought to collect TraceTogether data for an investigation in May 2020, even as the PAP continued to assert right through the rest of the year that TraceTogether was only to be used for contact tracing.
Unlike as represented by the Prime Minister, these are not events that I quote, \"are clustered together\", all coming at one go. Instead, they reveal a pattern of behaviour over a period of time of the PAP engaging in half-truths on matters of significant public interest. And this behaviour goes a long way to explain why there is real disquiet among Singaporeans today when the PAP invokes the memory of Pioneer Generation PAP leaders and talks about trust.
Sir, last month the Prime Minister informed this House that he has to set the standards of what is ethical and what is proper, and that the PAP Government does not need an ethics advisor. Can I invite the Prime Minister to reconsider his position in view of the PAP's pattern of behaviour in this term of Government, especially when a potentially embarrassing issue comes up? I would like to suggest to the Prime Minister, in view of the complexity of government and governance today, it would not be embarrassing for the Government to consider the appointment of an ethics advisor.
Sir, my clarifications on the former MP Cheng Li Hui and Speaker Tan Chuan-Jin matter are as follows: the Prime Minister said, in comparing the hot mic issue with the inappropriate relationship, I quote, \"in comparison, the relationship was the more serious matter as he was the Speaker and she was an MP, and there should not be a relationship\".
My question is if the Prime Minister knew of the affair in 2020, why were Speaker Tan and Cheng Li Hui allowed to be on the same Standing Select Committee of Parliament, namely the House Committee, after GE 2020, when the Prime Minister was already aware of the affair? Would not their being on the same Committee have resulted in more interactions between them than necessary or given official reasons to be together? To this end, has the Prime Minister checked, since he knew of the affair in 2020, how many foreign trips have both Speaker Tan Chuan-Jin and Cheng Li Hui have been on – at the taxpayers' expense – and was he not aware of them?
My next question: the Prime Minister stated at the press conference in response to a reporter's question that, I quote, \"as for comparison with Michael Palmer, I think it depends on the situation of the case and I said you've got to look at the circumstances, spouses, the family's condition and how you manage this as sensitively as you can and yet do your duty, and it depends on the person's response as well as the specifics, so I don't think it's possible to make direct comparisons\".
I note the Prime Minister's reference to such sensitivity, an eminently reasonable approach to take with delicate matters. However, the PAP selectively applies these standards, expecting Singaporeans to give the PAP the full benefit of doubt when its MPs foul up, while screaming blue murder when the Opposition seek to make the same point.
When former MP Raeesah Khan revealed to the WP leaders that she was a rape victim, sensitivity was not even considered by the Committee of Privileges in accounting for the delay in addressing Raeesah's lies to Parliament. And the Prime Minister did not bat an eyelid in giving the Leader of the Opposition a sermon on Confucian ethics, morality and shame, even though at the material time, he would have been aware of the affair between Speaker Tan Chuan-Jin and Member of Parliament Cheng Li Hui.
Can the Prime Minister please elaborate how the Tan Chuan-Jin affair with an MP was different from the circumstances and conditions of former PAP Speaker Michael Palmer's affair with a People's Association (PA) member, which Senior Minister Teo Chee Hean then had said, had to be dealt with, I quote, \"decisively\".
Finally, why was there a need for so much time to plan for the care of Marine Parade, and specifically Kembangan-Chai Chee residents? In other cases of resignations of PAP MPs, such as Michael Palmer, President Halimah, David Ong and Senior Minister Tharman, nothing close to that length of time was required. Could the Prime Minister detail for us what exact steps were taken between February and July 2023 to arrange for the care of Marine Parade residents? If that was the crux of the issue, then even if the planning for the care of Marine Parade residents was a proper justification for Tan Chuan-Jin to remain a Marine Parade MP for five months, why was he not asked to step down as Speaker first and a new Speaker elected? If he had stepped down as Speaker, could he still not have continued as a Marine Parade MP until the arrangements were made?
And before I round off, Mr Speaker, just one additional question. How were Tan Chuan-Jin and Cheng Li Hui counselled immediately after Prime Minister was informed about the affair in 2020? Did he personally counsel them and how often did he check in on the status of the relationship thereafter?
Mr Speaker: Before I ask Prime Minister to respond, I have given Leader of the Opposition some leeway. At this stage, we should be asking clarifications and not make speeches. I request Members, going forward, to remember that. Prime Minister.
Mr Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, let me deal first with the question of transmission of information. The Leader of the Opposition raises three issues, one of which has been extensively debated, in fact, in 2020, during COVID-19; and I do not need to go back there again, which is the TraceTogether and whether we should have announced earlier when we discovered that the Police were using it for their purposes. I think that has been completely explained, closed; that matter is done.
As for CPIB statements, the CPIB does not investigate somebody unless there is a very serious reason to do so. And the CPIB does not reveal that investigation generally until it has reason to believe that this investigation has to carry on, that it has to go somewhere.
Therefore, in general, CPIB investigations are not, in the first instance, announced at all. If you had listened to Minister Chan Chun Sing, you would have heard that explained very clearly why, in general, the CPIB does not announce any investigations at all. And when I asked the CPIB to investigate, it is my prerogative, I do not have to tell anybody. What is important is that I did conduct an investigation and these investigation results were published. That is what matters.
In the case of the 12 July statement, the reason why the CPIB said exactly what they said, if you listen carefully to Minister Chan Chun Sing, that explanation has been given – which was that they had to say what they felt justified in saying at that point for operational reasons and to be fair to the persons involved, and the Ministers, unless we have strong reason to do otherwise, we will go along and we will not go beyond what the CPIB needs and is able to say.
So, I think in terms of the transmission of information, we are pursuing a red herring. We could equally well ask, for example, when did the Leader of Opposition know about problems in his party and what did he do about them? But those are matters which the WP will have to decide and will have to account for to Singaporeans, and the PAP, we establish our own standards and we establish our own practices.
As for the relationship between Tan Chuan-Jin and Cheng Li Hui and the questions on the House Committee and foreign trips, I think I will leave that to Leader to answer subsequently.
On the difference between this case and the case of Michael Palmer and the PA staff, I think there are two differences. One, in Michael Palmer's case, it involved a PA staff who worked in a team which supported Michael Palmer and other GRA advisors in Pasir Ris-Punggol GRC, subsequently Pasir Ris-Punggol GRC and Punggol East Single Member Constituency (SMC). And there is a reporting relationship there.
Secondly, I think the specifics of the extramarital affair matter, as I explained just now – we have to look at how the families respond, what the other circumstances are, and that differs in every case. I do not wish to go into specifics of how the extramarital affairs are different, but suffice to say, they were different.
As for Raeesah Khan, that raises many issues and those issues have been exhaustively debated in the Committee of Privileges. The matter, further problems were recorded and reported by the Committee of Privileges and the matter has been referred to the Police for investigations. So, I would leave that to the Police to pursue the matter and take it where it may.
As for the time, why I took so long, I counselled Tan Chuan-Jin at the beginning. I saw to it that Cheng Li Hui was also counselled at the beginning. They both agreed to stop. It did not happen. I do not wish to go beyond that and to delve into the ins and outs of how it happened but suffice to say, eventually it came to a break point and did not stop, and they had to go.
I could have done it sooner. I should have done it sooner. I have explained that. Marine Parade was a consideration, but all things considered, I should have moved earlier. But the important thing is we moved. And we brought it out and we are open about it. And when I was asked, I said, yes, I knew sometime after GE 2020 – which is November 2020. I was open about it. If I had not said that, nobody would know that. And therefore, we clear the matter and I think we account to Singaporeans.
Mr Speaker: Leader of the House.
The Leader of the House (Ms Indranee Rajah): Mr Speaker, Sir, let me address the clarification which the Leader of the Opposition posed on Parliamentary trips or official trips.
Since the last General Election, former Speaker Mr Tan Chuan-Jin, had gone on five official overseas trips and three working trips. Working trips would be, for example, for the Olympic Games and so on. Of the five official overseas trips, only one was where Miss Cheng Li Hui was present as well. That was the ASEAN Inter-Parliamentary Assembly (AIPA) General Assembly trip to Cambodia in 2022. There were 15 MP delegates in total for this trip.
I understand that the Parliament Secretariat had, since 2020, organised 18 overseas Parliamentary trips, including the AIPA General Assembly one in August, the upcoming one in 2023; and 60 MPs have participated in these visits across the years since 2020. Of the 18 visits, Miss Cheng Li Hui only participated in one overseas trip and that is the AIPA General Assembly one held in Cambodia in 2022, but she did not attend more overseas trips than other MPs. With regard to her selection for that trip, I understand that the name was put up by the staffing officer and approved. [Please refer to \"Clarification by Leader of the House\", Official Report, 2 August 2023, Vol 95, Issue 109, Correction By Written Statement section.]
With respect to the House Committee, there are several Standing Select Committees. The names for the composition of the Committees are put forward, in the case of the PAP representation, by myself. After the last General Election, I had sought Leader of the Opposition's nominations for the Opposition MPs, because the rules provide that for Standing Select Committees, the proportion of the ratio of majority MPs and Opposition MPs should be roughly the proportion that they are represented in this House.
Mr Speaker: Leader of the Opposition, Mr Pritam Singh.
Mr Pritam Singh: Thank you, Speaker. The first point is a point of order. I respect what Speaker mentioned about not making extended speeches, but I was merely doing exactly what had transpired about one month ago when PAP MPs made extended speeches, specifically the Prime Minister, in the course of a Ministerial Statement in response to a question, I believe from backbencher Ms Denise Phua. So, I do seek your indulgence, Speaker, I was not going anything beyond what was already carried out by a PAP MP in the course of a Ministerial Statement last month. I understand what Standing Order 23 says, I understand that a debate is not to ensue and they cannot be more than clarifications, but nothing special was undertaken by me in the course of me asking questions just now. I just want to put that on record.
In terms of the Prime Minister's replies, I think some of them still do not go into the details of matters that Singaporeans are actually quite concerned about, but I will address some responses which the Prime Minister gave.
First, on TraceTogether, that this has been extensively debated and so forth. Not particularly so. There are matters for which questions still arise. I think the Prime Minister made a Statement well after the TraceTogether issue was debated in Parliament, I think this was in March 2021, where he apologised and said, let me quote, I have to be very clear about this matter. This was in a The Straits Times article on 14 March, well after we had discussed TraceTogether. The Prime Minister came out to say, \"I think we made a mistake. The app was made for contact tracing, but under the law, the Police have powers to ask for information for criminal investigations. We should have said so upfront; we did not, and we came out and said so.\"
I must say this statement came after the storm of TraceTogether had passed; and that just reinforces the earlier point that I spoke of.
The Prime Minister spoke about the Leader of the Opposition – what I did, what I knew. I think I had handled this in the course of my press conference where I took 12 questions: when did the affair start; what information I had secured from the parties concerned. And I believe I answered those fully. If the Prime Minister has specific questions for me, I will try and address them here.
On the point of Raeesah Khan, again, I was quite careful not to say anything which would get into the investigation per se, which is still ongoing. But the matter here is about the point the Prime Minister raised about sensitivity. The Prime Minister believes that it is appropriate to respond sensitively, given the circumstances at hand. And the point I was making was we were dealing here with someone who said she had been raped, and I did not sense that sensitivity coming from the PAP at that time. And that is the point I was trying to make.
On other matters, I think there will be further questions from WP MPs. I may come in and follow up with more questions in due course. Thank you, Speaker.
Mr Speaker: Leader of the House.
Ms Indranee Rajah: Mr Speaker, Sir, just a quick point of order. When the Leader of the Opposition spoke just now on a point of order, he said, or he claimed he was doing no more than the PAP MPs in making extended speeches with respect to the previous matter, which I think was the Ridout Road matter. I was present for that debate, and I recall quite distinctly the PAP MPs, when seeking clarifications, did not make long speeches. They asked their clarifications.
The Leader of the Opposition referred to Ms Denise Phua. I recall that too. Ms Denise Phua asked a clarification, and it was directed obviously to the Prime Minister's Office. The Ministerial Statement was made by Senior Minister Teo. But because it is under Prime Minister's Office, the Prime Minister responded to that. When he responded, he was giving a response to the clarification and he can, therefore, give a longer answer. He was not making a long speech on a clarification. Just a point of order and I wanted to clarify that.
Mr Speaker: Minister for Law, Mr Shanmugam.
The Minister for Home Affairs and Law (Mr K Shanmugam): For a clarification on what he meant, because I am sure he does not mean it, but his statements are misleading on Ms Raeesah Khan.
My recollection was that the facts are as follows – and we need to be very clear on what the facts are when we speak in this House.
There was a Committee of Privileges (COP). Mr Singh gave evidence. My recollection, and he will correct me if I am wrong and there are others here who were in that Committee, was that the Committee was very sensitive about not describing what exactly happened to Ms Khan. But it was Mr Singh who insisted that the word \"rape\" ought to be mentioned. I hope he can clarify and confirm that. Otherwise, we can check the record.
So, when someone stands up here and says, \"We want to be sensitive\", I think we need to look back at what each one did. The word \"rape\" – my recollection was that it was insisted upon by Mr Singh. So, so much for sensitivity.
Second, what was the point in relation to Ms Khan? It was that in August, Mr Singh, Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Faisal Manap were told by her that she had lied in Parliament. This is not about rape. This is not about sexual assault. This is about her lying in Parliament. She says Mr Singh told her to take it to her grave. It was a serious matter – lying in Parliament – serious enough for her to be out of Parliament.
September came, October came, she repeated the lie in front of Mr Singh and no correction. That was the issue.
Thereafter, what happened? Mr Singh, Ms Lim and Mr Faisal Manap sat on a disciplinary panel to decide why Ms Khan did not tell the truth and sacked her. But if she was telling the truth that she had told them, and they admit they had been told, well, the public can judge for themselves. But I think we should be very careful about putting out the facts.
I believe when the Prime Minister said – and he will speak for himself – about sensitivity, it is about how it affects everyone. And I think if we had applied the same degree of sensitivity, no one would have insisted on recording that Ms Khan was raped.
Mr Speaker: Leader of the Opposition, Mr Pritam Singh.
Mr Pritam Singh: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Let me address the Minister for Law's point, which frankly does not really add much to this debate. But what I would say, and this is what I said in my first comment to the Prime Minister was, it is about the selective standard that is applied. It is normal for the PAP to say, \"Look, be sensitive when a matter of this natures comes up.\"
In referencing the word \"rape\", my point was this was how serious the matter was for us, as leaders to think about. And I believe I was asked at the COP, \"Why didn't you respond earlier? Why didn't you react earlier?\" And I said I should have reacted earlier but because I have an MP who had made such a serious point something of a personal nature, I also needed to make sure that she had addressed the matter with her parents. Because, in the words of the Prime Minister, you have to look at the circumstances and the spouses' and the families' conditions.
So, I think the Minister for Law is missing the point here. It was not an insistence because of a lack of sensitivity vis-à-vis the word \"rape\". That was not it. It was the circumstances we were in to make a decision in double quick time on what to do going forward. I hope that clarifies the matter.
I am not sure what the second clarification was from the Law Minister. If he can repeat it, I will deal with it.
Mr K Shanmugam: I will repeat both.
On the first, I think the Leader has missed the point. I believe the Committee suggested that we do not need to expressly talk about rape and Mr Singh insisted on talking about rape. Not only that, he insisted on bringing in her mental condition. I think most observers felt a considerable degree of disquiet at this – attacking a young lady on the basis of her mental condition and also insisting on putting on record that she had been raped. I think everyone could see why that was done.
The second point was this. The serious issue was lying in Parliament and then lying again, and that had nothing to do with her sexual assault. She could have come up and said, \"I didn't tell the truth\" and her seniors in the party could have advised her. That is a matter that the COP had gone into extensively and it is a matter, some of it, that is now the subject of investigations. That is the point I am making.
Mr Speaker: Members, I just want to remind everyone that today's Ministerial Statement concerns Minister Iswaran and the resignations of former Speaker and a PAP MP. Again, let me just read out Standing Order 23 for everyone's benefit: \"A statement may be made by a Minister in Parliament on the matter of public importance. Members may seek clarification on the statement but no debate. No debate shall be allowed thereon.\"
Leader of the Opposition, Mr Pritam Singh.
Mr Pritam Singh: Thank you, Speaker. A timely intervention, I must say.
I think on the first point, I have stated the difference of opinion I have with the Minister for Law with regard to the use of the word and the reason why the word was important in the context of what the COP were investigating.
On the second point about mental illness, this is a question of fact. This was communicated to us. We recorded it in our notes when she shared her condition and I felt that it was an important point for the COP to consider. It was not a case of putting someone with such an issue out to dry, as the Minister is very enthusiastic to portray.
The second clarification about lying in Parliament, I think I dealt with this. It was really a question of why I did not stand up when she repeated the lie. I had no confirmation as to whether she had dealt with the matter of her rape with her parents. And I was not going to stand up and call her out and say, \"No, these are the reasons why that lie had to be said.\" I think I made that apparent to the COP.
Mr Speaker: Dr Vivian Balakrishan, you wanted to make a clarification?
The Minister for Foreign Affairs (Dr Vivian Balakrishnan): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I just wanted to address Mr Pritam Singh's suggestion that we had somehow been tardy or reticent with information with respect to TraceTogether.
I do not want this to become a whole repeat of an extended discussion which we had on this matter. Mr Singh would remember this. We had this extended discussion in early 2021.
But just to refresh your memory, TraceTogether is a system that temporarily collected Bluetooth proximity data without GPS coordinates, without movement data and the data is expunged after 25 days.
When I first was involved with the design of the system, it was purely for the purposes of contact tracing, dealing with the clear and present danger that COVID-19 presented to our population.
I made a statement – I think it was in June 2020 – which omitted four important words. The four missing words which I said before was \"subject to prevailing legislation\". What I had not known when I made the assurance that the data would not be available to law enforcement agencies was that section 20 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) in fact applied to TraceTogether data, as it does, to all other information which a person may have access to, which the Police may need for the purposes of investigation.
Anyway, I made that statement in ignorance of the prevailing legislation, and I omitted those four words in June 2020.
Round about, I believe, near the end of October 2020, a member of the public wrote to me and said, \"Are you sure? Please check.\" So, I said thank you and I did get my staff to check. So, that was already into November.
When my staff in the Smart Nation Office then told me actually, section 20 of the CPC may be relevant. That is when you will recall I said in this House, right from this stand, I had many sleepless nights deciding what we do about this. Do we make legislative changes? Or do we instruct the Police, or could we even instruct the Police, to proscribe their access to this data, although legally speaking, they have?
So, there were sleepless nights on my part; intense discussions internally between multiple agencies on part of the Government in November 2020. And my staff will also recall I told them, whatever it is, when we finish this internal review, we will come back here, and we will come clean in my usual fashion and explain the situation.
We did not have a Sitting in December, but I believe it was Mr Christopher de Souza who filed a question. I think it was in December 2020. And on 4 January 2021, the question was answered, I believe, by the Minister of State of Home Affairs, Mr Desmond Tan. On 5 January 2021, I added further clarifications and I also indicated, I think a few days after that, that we will come back to Parliament in February 2021 with legislative changes to circumscribe the access by law enforcement agencies into TraceTogether data.
I have taken some pains and I am sorry to take up the time, but I hope Mr Singh will realise that I have never deliberately engaged in any obfuscation, prevarication or delay. I have at all times acted in good faith. I have tried to make sure that in design, in execution and in coordination of a complex matter in an emergency, I have been transparent and forthright with the people and I object to your characterisation and use of an old debate which was settled in Parliament to suggest that there is a pattern of delay, prevarication and obfuscation. I object to that characterisation.
Mr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.
Mr Pritam Singh: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I note Minister Vivian's objection. Let me just share some details about what happened in January and February in this House, in the course of that debate.
Non-Constituency Member of Parliament Leong Mun Wai had asked the Minister, \"When did you discover that your statement was going to be affected by the CPC?\" Minister did not answer that question. This was in January. The point here is there were Ministers who were in this House who knew that actually they were already in receipt of knowledge in October 2020 about the fact that TraceTogether applied to the CPC. The Minister admitted that.
But that was a month later in February, if I recall correctly, February 2021, where the Minister said – let me pull out the Hansard – I may just have a bit of it here when it was checked: \"At the end of October...\" – these are Minister Vivian's words – \"...when I was asked basically what did I spend November doing? As I said, double checking the legislation and then having, among sleepless nights and conversations, asking: 'Do we carve it out? How do we do it?' So, that occupied us in November.\"
That is what you said. I am not disputing that. What I am saying is that there is a significant delay in time before answers are given by the Government. Was Minister Vivian the only one looking at TraceTogether and the applicability of TraceTogether in May of 2020? I think Minister Shanmugam had a discussion with the Mayor of New York, I believe, talking about privacy concerns, TraceTogether concerns, and my point is, did no one in the Government consider the applicability of section 20 to the CPC? We do not know that. But what we do know is that the Prime Minister then apologised, not in January, not in February, not in October, November or December, but in March, after we had dealt with the issue and that is my point. That is a significant delay.
Mr Speaker: Minister Vivian Balakrishnan.
Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: Mr Singh, is there really a delay? Look at the timeline which I have said, and you have just repeated. First of all, I take responsibility. I am in charge. I was in charge of the programme. I became aware end of — no, I was asked the question by a member of the public, not even in this House, end of October.
I spend November double checking the facts, coordinating, examining the policy options, discussing with my colleagues. And I also told my staff we will clear all these, whichever way it falls. A question was asked by Mr Christopher de Souza in December. Unfortunately, we did not sit in December. Early January, we answered it. I have added further clarifications. I then embarked on a process. In fact, we had to get a Certificate of Urgency for legislative changes. In February, we had this debate. I do not think I delayed or obfuscated and, at all times, I have always been upfront and clean.
Mr Leong knows that as well. I mean, I have been here long enough. People know the way I operate. So, that is why I am objecting to your insinuation that there was any undue delay or any attempt at obfuscation or lack of transparency. That is not the way we do it.
Mr Speaker: Minister Shanmugam, you have a clarification?
Mr K Shanmugam: I pulled up what the Committee said since Mr Singh has made reference to it. I think we should have on record what exactly happened.
This is the Committee of Privileges (COP) record. I think it is 7294. This is Mr Singh saying, \"This is where I think circumstances, in my judgement, were of such a nature that I was prepared to give the Member time, in view of her\" – again, I respect what you said earlier, I used the word \"rape\", but the Committee, in its record, changed it to \"sexual assault\" and put it in square brackets – \"...earlier because this was the word Ms Raeesah Khan used when she described herself, but if Chair and the Committee would want me to use 'sexual assault', I am happy to use that word. I just used that word...\" – meaning \"rape\" – \"... because that was the word Raeesah Khan used.\"
Mr Edwin Tong says, \"Yes, and I would prefer not; that we don't go into any other details unless they are strictly necessary.\" Mr Singh says, \"I don't really know the details.\" Chairman says, \"I am quite happy if you can just use 'sexual assault'.\" Mr Singh then said, \"Okay, I will use 'sexual assault'. Just remember that, on record, that was what Ms Khan told us, that she was raped when she was 18.\"
Then, on the other point on mental health, this is what the COP report says: \"In the course of their testimony before the Committee, Mr Singh, Ms Lim and Mr Faisal made some assertions about Ms Khan's mental condition. Mr Singh in particular emphasised this. He said that Ms Khan might be suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder and disassociation. Mr Singh said that on 4 October when he met Ms Khan in the Leader of Opposition's (LO) office, she was in a dazed state, suggesting that she was somewhat disoriented. Ms Lim also gave the evidence that at the DP hearing on 29 November, Ms Khan explained that the anecdote was not in the first draft because she was disassociated and did not know what she was doing. Ms Lim also said that she was worried because as far as she and senior Workers' Party (WP) leaders could understand, Ms Khan was doing things without thinking.\"
\"Mr Singh also said that the statement in Ms Khan's 8 August WhatsApp message – 'they've agreed that the best thing to do is to take the information to the grave' – was a lie. When Mr Singh was asked why Ms Khan would lie about this, Mr Singh said that Ms Khan had told the DP on 29 November that she suffered from disassociation. He said that Ms Khan may have a problem. His position was that Ms Khan could be predisposed to lying because she had mental health issues. Mr Singh asked the Committee to consider asking Ms Khan to go for psychological assessment.\"
\"When Mr Singh was asked to explain his earlier evidence that there was nothing unusual about Ms Khan's performance as a Member of Parliament between August and September which was in contrast to his evidence that she could be suffering from disassociation, Mr Singh confirmed again that there was nothing out of the ordinary about Ms Khan's performance as a Member of Parliament at the material time.\"
\"Ms Khan was given an opportunity to respond to the assertions made by the three senior Workers' Party leaders regarding her mental health. Ms Khan said that it was extremely out of line for Mr Singh and Ms Lim to have used mental illness as a means to discredit her. Mr Singh had tried to paint a picture of her as someone who was mentally unstable when she was of sound mind.\"
\"In addition, Ms Khan had told the DP on 29 November that whilst her therapist had said that she might have symptoms of PTSD, she clarified that this was not something she was going through. Mental health issues had to be approached with sensitivity. She expressed concern that using a person's mental health to discredit them, as Mr Singh and Ms Lim had done, would set back the movement to progress mental health awareness and support. Attributing such labels on people would discourage them from seeking help when they needed it.\"
And, Sir, on the record is also expert testimony that Ms Khan did not have those issues.
The third point is, Mr Singh, the Leader of Opposition, suggesting that I knew – because let us not make innuendos – that I knew of Mr Vivian Balakrishnan's statement and deliberately kept quiet?
Mr Speaker: Before I call on the Leader of the Opposition, I want to again remind Members of today's Ministerial Statement and there are 12 Members who had filed PQs on this matter. I would like to give all these 12 Members, if they wish to seek clarifications, the opportunity to do so. Leader of the Opposition.
Mr Pritam Singh: Thank you, Mr Speaker.
First, on the point that Minister Shanmugam raised on item 7294, that is my direct testimony and it does not contradict anything that I have said here today or make the point that the Minister is trying to suggest. That is the first issue.
Second issue, on the mental health point. He is referring not to my words or my testimony in the Committee, but how the COP characterised in its report, its interpretation of what had happened vis-à-vis what Ms Khan had said. But would the COP not want to know all the facts of the matter? In fact, in the documents that I submitted to the COP, it was clearly stated in my notes that this is what Raeesah Khan told us. And so, I was merely relaying that to the Committee. To then – as he is doing now – make an inductive leap and characterise that this is now an attack on all people who are suffering from mental health issues and that we are going for the jugular here, I think that is really, really not proper. I do not think you have any basis to say that.
The final point about innuendo and suggestions, my question to the Minister is this. Did the Minister or anybody in the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) ring the bell in Government to say, actually, section 20 of the CPC applies for TraceTogether well before October 2020?
Mr Speaker: I will now request Members who have filed PQs earlier on this matter, if they have clarifications, to raise them. Dr Tan Wu Meng.
Dr Tan Wu Meng (Jurong): I thank Mr Speaker. I seek a bit of brief indulgence from Speaker. I filed all three of my Oral Questions on the CPIB case and I hope Speaker will allow me to just ask three clarifications to the Prime Minister.
Sir, it has been said that there are decades where nothing happens, and then there are weeks where decades happen. May I ask the Prime Minister three clarifications?
Firstly, on the timeline of CPIB's disclosures, in hindsight, would it have been foreseeable that HPL would make a disclosure publicly that their Managing Director had been subject to a notice of arrest and asked to provide information on his interactions with Minister Iswaran? And in hindsight, would that have possibly shaped CPIB's assessment of whether to disclose upfront that the Minister had himself been arrested, rather than stating in the initial press release that he was assisting with investigations? That is my first clarification.
My second clarification, without prejudging the issues, pertains to the Public Service Division (PSD). In the event that CPIB makes adverse findings against a particular public officer in the Public Service, will that public officer's previous official decisions be subject to retrospective review to ensure that there has not been any inappropriate influence swaying the decision?
Thirdly, some may call recent events the reputational crisis of a generation for Singapore. Can the Prime Minister and Government assure us and our residents that every effort will be made to repair the damage to Singapore's reputation so that people, businesses and others around the world will know that Singapore is going to settle the matter and put things right, because if we become just another ordinary country, Singapore will be finished.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you. I will answer on behalf of the Prime Minister as this relates to the CPIB technical issues, which I thought we will address in the second bucket of questions. The short answers to Dr Tan Wu Meng's questions are as follows: one, would CPIB have revealed more information earlier than what it has done? As I have explained, what CPIB revealed from 12 July to the subsequent days, is all dependent on its operational considerations – to preserve the integrity of evidence, the confidentiality of the investigations and also not to adversely affect the progress of the investigation. So, what CPIB revealed at any point in time would be CPIB's operational decisions and that has nothing to do with HPL's declaration or otherwise.
Second, will CPIB or, for that matter, any law enforcement agencies take a retrospective review of all decisions made by any officers being investigated? That is a decision entirely dependent on the investigations required by the respective law enforcement agencies, including CPIB.
Third, on Dr Tan Wu Meng's characterisation that this is a reputational crisis, as the Prime Minister said, \"Yes, we have taken a hit\", but I have always believed this – circumstances do not define us. Our responses to circumstances define us and how we respond to circumstances will define us and we have every determination that the way we handle this must restore confidence, by the Singaporean public and our international partners.
Mr Speaker: Mr Leong Mun Wai.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Sir, I think the debate on the – not debate, sorry – the clarification on the Minister Iswaran case, a lot depends on what is the exact date of arrest. There is some confusion, and I think the public will also like to know. We did read somewhere, from some mainstream media, that it was on 11 July. But from what Minister Chan said just now, he seems to give the impression that the formal arrest was not taken until after 12 July. Can I clarify the point first?
Mr Chan Chun Sing: Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish not to repeat what I have said in the Statement. On 12 July, Minister Iswaran was asked to assist in investigations and — sorry, it was on 11 July, Mr Iswaran was asked to assist in the investigation. And as the investigation progressed, CPIB made the relevant operational judgements on what to reveal.
Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Chua.
Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis (Sengkang): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Just two clarifications. Firstly, can I confirm that even though the CPIB has functional independence in its operations, which I think Minister Chan said, it is obligated to seek the Prime Minister's concurrence to initiate formal investigations into Ministers? And if this is the case, which are the classes of people or public officers where the Prime Minister's concurrence is required, and under which section of the Prevention of Corruption Act is this specified?
And secondly, in relation to that, based on the provisions in the current statutes, should the Prime Minister and President both refuse to give concurrence to the CPIB, does it mean that the CPIB cannot commence formal investigations into certain classes of people?
Mr Chan Chun Sing: Mr Speaker, Sir, as I have mentioned, CPIB seeks the Prime Minister's concurrence to open up investigation because it involves a standing Cabinet Minister.
Has the Prime Minister ever denied CPIB permission to conduct any investigation throughout its history? The answer is no.
And the second answer to Mr Louis Chua's question is that: what if the Prime Minister and the President do not concur? CPIB has the right to proceed with its investigation.
Mr Speaker: Ms He Ting Ru.
Ms He Ting Ru (Sengkang): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Two clarifications from me. First, to follow up on the point about the Prime Minister's concurrence being sought. I was just wondering, in the event of an active investigation into a Minister, for example, if the CPIB then decides to pass it on to the public prosecutor, who then decides to proceed, that is, to charge the individual being investigated, would the Primie Minister's concurrence then also be required?
I know this is not currently required under the Prevention of Corruption Act, but I am just wondering, given that we have a slightly different approach with the commencement of investigations. So, I am just wondering whether this will also be the case.
And then secondly, I wanted to know if CPIB apprised the Prime Minister or other political office holders, Cabinet Ministers, about the facts relating to the active investigation into Minister Iswaran? And whether or not any information about evidence was given and whether this was used in deciding whether or not to place Minister Iswaran on interdiction?
Mr Chan Chun Sing: Mr Speaker, Sir, let me clarify just one thing. Just now, what I said may not be entirely accurate; I will check that and I will get back to the House, as to the hypothetical situation which has not happened, whereby the Prime Minister and the President had not given permission for CPIB to proceed. I withdraw that. I will check that and I will get back to the House.
On Ms He Ting Ru's question, the question is, once the investigation has started, CPIB will submit its report to the AGC and it will be taken to its logical conclusion. There is no requirement for subsequent approval.
Mr Speaker: Mr Saktiandi Supaat.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have two supplementary questions. First is on the matter of principle in my Parliamentary Question. I asked about the transparent guidelines for mandatory disclosures or announcements when a Minister is personally implicated. I am concerned first as a matter of principle, because a political office holder is involved and also in the context and environment that we are possibly open to leaks and the social media age that we are in, what does that mean in that sort of context? Does it really mean that we actually have to have a different set of rules or transparent guidelines when a political office holder or Minister is involved?
My second supplementary question, Speaker, is in regards to the Prime Minister's point just now about Mr Iswaran's interdiction from duty, and yet, the Prime Minister mentioned that he would still be getting $8,500 per month. Can the Prime Minister explain the reasoning behind the $8,500? In normal circumstances, we would expect someone with interdiction from duty and no role or duties that would be undertaken for the month, would be taking an absence of leave from duty rather than possibly getting the $8,500? I hope the Prime Minister can help answer the question.
Mr Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, guidelines on disclosures involving Ministers, basically, we have to judge the situation. In this case, CPIB judged and I supported them, that they are going to be interviewing a Minister. They are going to be interviewing other people, word would go around town. It is untenable for us to say we have no comment. And therefore, they put out the statement that they are interviewing a Minister.
There have been, and it is not the previous precedent; those of you who are old enough to remember, I do not think there is anybody else in the House except me who was here when Mr Teh Cheang Wan was investigated. None of that was announced. Because you do not know at first, when you interview him, whether or not there is something there. And if you interview him, if you announce that he is being interviewed, Minister for National Development, and then it turns out there is nothing there, and you come out three days later and say, \"the Minister for National Development is innocent\", I think you are going to cause great consternation and, at the end of that, his reputation will be damaged undeservedly.
But if you investigate him first, if it turns out there is something there, at some point, you cross a threshold and it is necessary to make an announcement.
In this case, CPIB judged that the threshold to say that they are talking to Mr Iswaran was there right from the beginning, because they were going to call in other people, including Mr Ong Beng Seng, HPL. Therefore, it was not possible for this thing to be kept quiet and it had to be stated upfront.
But would they know where the investigation will lead? At that point, no.
Three days later, after interviewing different people and establishing various facts, they make a fresh assessment. At that point, they are comfortable to say that the Minister was arrested and bailed, because the situation is different.
So, these are operational judgements which our law enforcement agencies have got to make. All the law enforcement agencies, whether it is Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB), whether it is the Police, whether it is CPIB. And they do this all the time.
In this case, CPIB did it. Did they know that three days later, HPL would issue such a statement? I think they expected that HPL would have to issue such a statement because there is a regulatory requirement by the Singapore Exchange (SGX). I do not think they would know what Mr Ong Beng Seng would say and it would depend on what had transpired during the three days before Mr Ong put out that statement.
So, I think, we are reading a lot into very little. First of all, nobody knew that Mr Iswaran might or might not have been doing something wrong. CPIB found out. Nobody tipped them off. Nobody blew a whistle. Nobody raised a public scandal, no Parliamentary Questions in Parliament, not even from the WP. But CPIB found out and they told me, and they decided to investigate the matter. They proceeded. It reached the point where they needed to interview the Minister. And then, they came to tell me and say, \"Can I have your concurrence?\" Because CPIB reports to somebody. It has to report to somebody! It cannot report to God!
So, who does it report to? That is a very interesting question. Once upon a time, we had an SAF officer who went overseas on a course. He went to a Commonwealth country. And the course mate asked him: \"How do you keep your system clean, in Singapore, of corruption?\" This is a country which grapples with this problem. And he explained how we do it, we have the CPIB, it was zealous, it has a fearsome reputation, you go and \"lim kopi\", you know what will happen.
And his course mate asked him, \"Whom does the CPIB report to?\" So, he thought this was an organisational question. So, he said, \"Well, it is independent, it has got its own chain of command, it reports to the Prime Minister.\" And his course mate looked at him again and says, \"Who does the CPIB report to?\"
Why did he ask that question? Because the question, at the root of it, is the age-old problem – who is to judge the people who judge the people who judge the judges? Who is in charge? Somebody has to be in charge. And in Singapore, the Prime Minister is in charge and if he is corrupt, you are sunk.
But beyond that, we decided to put in an extra safeguard; and that is, if the Prime Minister directs the CPIB \"you do not do that\", CPIB can go to the President and say that \"Prime Minister has refused me consent, do you concur?\" And if the President says yes, then the Director of CPIB can proceed. If the President agrees with the Prime Minister that the Director of CPIB does not have a case or has gone rogue, or is doing something ill-founded and says no, well, that is how two keys work. And, therefore, the matter stops there.
Is it guaranteed? No, because the Prime Minister may be corrupt, the President may be mistaken. But it is as best, it is possible to contrive a system with human beings, which will work, provided you put honest people in charge. That is how the system is supposed to work in Singapore.
As for the interdiction and why it is $8,500 per month, we considered this carefully. We are not the first. It is unusual for a Prime Minister to have to do this to a Minister, but we are not the first organisation to confront this problem of a person under suspicion being investigated. And what do you do with him while he is being investigated, before he is either cleared or charged and convicted?
You have to have some arrangement. Can you leave him at work? Well, that depends.
In the case of the Ridout Road bungalows, I had no doubt I could leave the Ministers at work. I did not believe that they were guilty, neither did any evidence come up during the process of investigation that they were. In fact, the investigation cleared them. If the investigation had surfaced something which looked questionable, I would have been told and I would have made the decision on whether they needed to be interdicted and put on leave of absence.
In the case of Mr Iswaran, by the time formal investigations began on 11 July, the CPIB had been working on this case since at least May. So, they had some basis to come to some conclusion and I had to decide what to do with a Minister who is being investigated for what could be quite a serious matter, which is a possible corruption offence. That is why CPIB is investigating it.
And what do I do? Because I do not have a precedent, I do not have a norm, I look at what the Civil Service does as a guideline. Their situation is different.
But here, you have an officer who is under suspicion, who is under investigation, he has not been convicted. A presumption of innocence applies. He is innocent until proven guilty.
So, I could technically have said, \"Well, presumed innocent and he goes on leave, full pay, until the matter is cleared.\" I could also have said, \"There is a cloud. I straightaway do not want anybody with a cloud. You are out.\"
I think that would have been unjust because he has not been charged. If there is a case, the case has not been heard, he has not been found guilty or acquitted or whatever. I cannot prejudge a case based on an incomplete investigation – started recently, or a partial investigation, just entered into the formal phase.
So, what is a fair thing to do?
And the Civil Service, their practice is, in such situations, you get interdicted, you are put on half pay, subject to a ceiling and a floor, but you are there until the matter is disposed of. If you are, at the end of it, innocent, and nothing is there, your back pay is reinstated to you and made good. If later on, in fact, you are found guilty, well, at that point, your pay will stop completely and other consequences will follow.
I think that is a reasonable model to follow and that is the basis on which I decided that Mr Iswaran will be interdicted and that he will be paid $8,500 per month instead of his normal salary. He was told, acknowledged and that was done.
I think that is the proper way to do things.
Mr Speaker: Mr Gerald Giam.
Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, the Prime Minister said just now that CPIB informed him on 29 May 2023 that they came across information concerning Minister Iswaran that merited investigation. After the receipt of this information, did the Prime Minister allow Minister Iswaran to continue his normal duties as Minister for Transport and MP for West Coast GRC?
It appears that the investigation on this case involving Minister Iswaran started some time before July, when the formal investigation was started. This formal investigation was started in July. Can I ask what is the difference between an investigation and a formal investigation by CPIB and when is this threshold crossed?
Concerning the vacation of the seat of the former Speaker, can I ask the Prime Minister, did the Parliamentary seat of the former Speaker become vacant in February 2023 when he offered his resignation to the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister accepted his resignation?
Lastly, the Speaker of Parliament is supposed to be impartial towards all MPs. Can I ask the Prime Minister did a conflict of interest occur due to the extramarital affair between the former Speaker and an MP when this information was not revealed to the House earlier on?
Lastly, sorry, I think Minister Chan did not answer part (d) of my Question No 14, which was how many declarations of meals were made in the past year and what was the total value of these declarations?
Mr Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, after 29 May, when CPIB informed me that they were looking into Mr Iswaran's matter, he continued his duties but I was aware of the issue.
I alerted his Ministers, particularly, in MTI, and we had in mind that this matter was in the background, so that if any issues came up which needed to be decided involving Iswaran, we would know that there was this complication which we would have to think about. But I did not have a basis yet to suspend him.
What is the difference between an informal, quiet investigation and a formal investigation?
In a quiet investigation, the CPIB does not exercise all of its powers. For example, it does not arrest people and formally interview them. It makes inquiries, it asks for information, but it has not formally exercised its powers to arrest a person and to compel him to answer their questions under the Prevention of Corruption Act, because under the Prevention of Corruption Act, if you answer the CPIB and give the CPIB a false answer, that is a crime. It is like being on oath.
So, when you go into a formal investigation, a transition point is passed. The reason they needed to go into a formal investigation is because they had reached a point where they had to interview the principal parties who were involved, namely, Mr Iswaran. They also had to interview several other people, including Mr Ong Beng Seng. Therefore, they needed to launch a formal process at that point.
As for Mr Tan Chuan-Jin's seat in February, no, it did not become vacant in February. He offered to resign. I accepted. That was my decision. Taken strategically, the actual implementation was to come at a time convenient to me. In the formal process to resign, he would have had to write to the Deputy Speaker and that is legally done. That was done when eventually, he did resign, I think, on 17 July.
Thirdly, on the Speaker being impartial and whether there was a conflict of interest, I addressed this in my main Ministerial Statement just now and explained why this is a situation where it was improper – a Speaker having an affair with an MP.
Therefore, it is not a matter where you can stop having the affair and carry on as if nothing happened. But neither is it a situation where the Speaker is in a position of command or supervisory responsibility over the MP. The Speaker presides, yes, but the Speaker is not the MPs' boss. The Speaker does not decide the MPs' bonus. The Speaker does not decide the MP's postings, does not assign work to the MPs. So, therefore, you are in a situation where it is awkward, but it is not something which must be stopped immediately.
That is why I asked you to think, have a thought experiment. Would it have been okay if the Speaker is married to a MP? It can easily happen. We have had a Minister married to a MP, both serving simultaneously in the House. Nothing wrong.
The Speaker and an MP serving in the House – is there anything wrong? I do not think so. Everybody will know it. The Speaker will have to be extra careful and make sure that he will bend over backwards not to be seen to be favouring his wife or her husband.
But if it is an extramarital affair, I think that is different. It puts everybody else on edge, in an awkward position – MPs as well as staff. In Singapore's context, people look at it and say, this will not pass muster. Therefore, that is a situation we are in.
It is not a question of my making a conflict of interest decision where I am making a decision which financially benefits me. But it is a situation where a personal relationship crosses with a public relationship. In this case, it is an extramarital personal relationship and that makes it difficult.
Mr Speaker: Ms Joan Pereira.
Ms Joan Pereira (Tanjong Pagar): Thank you, Sir —
Mr Speaker: Sorry, let Minister Chan make his response first.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: Mr Speaker, Sir, the simple answer to Mr Gerald Giam's fourth question is that we do not track such declarations and add them up, but if there is a declaration that warrants attention by the Permanent Secretary or the Head of Agency, they will take the actions necessary.
Mr Speaker: Ms Joan Pereira.
Ms Joan Pereira: Thank you, Speaker. I would like to ask, given the current speculation among the public regarding the nature of the CPIB investigations into Minister Iswaran and HPL, whether there is currently any uncertainty or lack of clarity in the existing Code of Conduct that should be addressed to avoid causing our public servants and even our political office holders to become overly fearful and potentially impeding the discharge of their normal duties?
Mr Chan Chun Sing: Mr Speaker, Sir, I think I will reiterate two points.
First, the Code of Conduct. Any code of conduct will lay out the broad principles and the guidelines for people to follow, but they must be complemented by good people who must abide by the spirit of the rules and not just the letter of the rules. And this is how we run our system.
Three things: we need good rules, we need good people, and if any of these things fail, we must have the third limb, which is that we must have a system to make sure that we put things right.
So, in setting out any rules or code of conduct, we are mindful that the rules must be clear, yet, at the same time, not so prescriptive until it becomes paralysing for the system to work. But that is only the first step.
The second step – it is very important. It is to have good people with good values who can interpret the rules, abide by the rules and the spirit of the rules, and, if something goes wrong, we must have the system to put it right.
Mr Speaker: Mr Yip Hon Weng.
Mr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Thank you, Mr Speaker. My question is to Minister Chan, and it pertains to my Question No 11.
How does the Public Service intend to strengthen its whistle-blowing policies and promote better awareness of these policies so that civil servants are protected by non-retaliation policies that are in place?
Mr Chan Chun Sing: Mr Speaker, Sir, in my answer, I have laid out the current rules that the Public Service adopts in terms of whistle-blowing and also the non-retaliation policy, so, I will not repeat that.
I will just add that the Public Service will continue to make sure that our rules are relevant and current to the circumstances and needs of the time. We will continue to do this regularly to make sure that our rules are updated, that our people are kept updated and that they have the confidence to do what is right.
Mr Speaker: Ms Hazel Poa.
Ms Hazel Poa: I have two clarifications.
First, to revisit the question about why Minister Iswaran's leave of absence is not no-pay leave. The Prime Minister mentioned that in the Civil Service, the practice is to put them on half pay. I can understand the rationale for that in the case of low-wage earners who may need a regular monthly income in order to survive. But I think that hardly applies in the case of a Minister. For $8,500 a month, that might be small change to some, but many Singaporeans have to work very hard for much less than that.
Secondly, about protection for civil servants. Although the Minister said that there is a non-retaliation clause, can the Minister elaborate on what that non-retaliation clause comprises or, if not, to let me know where I can find further information on that?
Mr Chan Chun Sing: Mr Speaker, Sir, on the second question, I have explained the protection of the civil servants in terms of the non-retaliation laws, which basically say this: if anybody thinks that they have a case, they report it in good faith, and even if subsequently the so called \"accused\" or alleged accused is found to be innocent, there will be no retaliation against the person who made the initial report. That is the spirit of the non-retaliation law and it is in our Public Service rules.
Mr Speaker: Ms Hany Soh. Oh, Prime Minister.
Mr Lee Hsien Loong: Sorry, Mr Speaker, to respond to Ms Poa on why not no pay leave. It is my judgement to make. The Civil Service works in one way; their basis is if you have been convicted, then you are on zero pay and other consequences will follow. Here, I have to be fair to the Minister involved as well as do the right thing by the Government and the taxpayer. He is under investigation, it is not a minor matter. He has not been convicted. He has not even been charged. Is it fair for me to say, \"Your pay goes to zero\"? I think it is not.
What is fair? Well, I looked at the Civil Service. The Civil Service says half pay, subject to a minimum and ceiling. Their ceiling is about here too. So, I decided on this number, $8,500, because much less than half pay. So, I think we have to go on principles, rather than whatever we do, anything you can do, I can do stronger. I think that would not be a wise approach to take.
Mr Speaker: Ms Hany Soh.
Ms Hany Soh (Marsiling-Yew Tee): Thank you, Mr Speaker. This question is in relation to Minister Chan's earlier comment in relation to CPIB being functionally independent. My clarification is, what oversight is exercised over the CPIB and whether the CPIB's investigation methods are being audited on a regular basis to ensure impartiality and parity of treatments, regardless of the identity of the subject of their investigations?
Mr Chan Chun Sing: Mr Speaker, Sir, on the second point on the quality of CPIB's investigations, all our law enforcement agencies learn from one another. They also learn from best practices from other parts of the world to make sure that our systems are up to mark. But the most significant test of whether our investigations are up to mark is really this – that when CPIB or any of our law enforcement agencies submit their case to the AGC and it goes to the Courts, are our investigation methods up to the mark? Because if they are not up to the mark, they will be rejected by the AGC and the Courts.
So, the final arbiter, if you like, of the quality of the work that our law enforcement agencies do is actually our Courts.
Mr Speaker: Mr Dennis Tan.
Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Hougang): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to seek some clarifications from the Prime Minister. Earlier, the Prime Minister said that sometime after 29 May, the Prime Minister had informed someone in MTI. May I know what is the purpose of this communication, who in MTI was informed of this and what was the purpose of this communication, for example, whether any precautionary measures were carried out?
My second clarification for the Prime Minister is, the Prime Minister mentioned about the interdiction and how he arrived at the pay of $8,500. Just a quick clarification – is this in lieu of both Minister's pay and MP's allowance?
Finally, Mr Speaker, I believe that Minister Chan has not answered the second question of my colleague, the hon Ms He Ting Ru.
Mr Lee Hsien Loong: Speaker, Sir, I do not think it was a very difficult question to figure out, that when I spoke to MTI, I spoke to the Minister, because Mr Gan Kim Yong is the Minister for Trade and Industry. Mr Iswaran has a role in MTI, he is overseeing various matters to do with trade as well as projects like the Formula One (F1) and I thought it was important that the Minister for MTI knows that there is an investigation going on concerning Mr Iswaran, so that he knows how to deal with the issue until the investigation has reached a point and the matter is public. It is necessary. So, that is quite clear.
On the MP's allowance, it has not been interdicted. The MP's allowance is different from the pay, it is not at the discretion of the Prime Minister. If you want to do that, Parliament has to move a Motion to interdict the MP as an MP and Parliament has not done that. And neither in previous cases, has Parliament done that. What has happened is that the MP has been on a leave of absence, and eventually when the case is settled one way or the other, well, then, consequences follow.
Mr Speaker: Minister Chan.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: Mr Speaker, Sir, just to put on record. An MP's allowance will be withheld once the MP is suspended from the service of Parliament, as provided by section 29(3) read with section 19 of the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act 1962. A Motion would have to be moved in Parliament to suspend the Member from the service of Parliament. His or her allowance would be withheld thereafter.
On Ms He Ting Ru's second question, can you repeat your second question, or the second part of your question?
Mr Speaker: Ms He Ting Ru.
Ms He Ting Ru: Yes, thank you, Mr Speaker. I think the question that I asked was, did CPIB apprise the Prime Minister or any other Cabinet Minister about the facts relating to the investigation to Minister Iswaran and including information about evidence that became available?
Mr Chan Chun Sing: The Director of CPIB only apprised the Prime Minister.
Mr Speaker: Ms He Ting Ru, I assume you had raised your hand earlier, was that the clarification wanted? Thank you. Mr Don Wee.
Mr Don Wee (Chua Chu Kang): Thank you, Speaker. A supplementary question to Minister Chan. In the event that a Permanent Secretary or a director or a chief executive of a Statutory Board is being invited to assist with any investigation, will he or she be asked to take a leave of absence?
Mr Chan Chun Sing: Mr Speaker, Sir, the answer to Mr Don Wee's question is, it depends on the circumstances. The PSD together with the head of Civil Service and if need be, the Minister in charge of the Public Service will have to make a decision in context.
Mr Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim.
Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Thank you, Speaker. Two clarifications for the Prime Minister, please.
I do not think Prime Minister has answered the question as to why it took so long to make arrangements to hand over the residents of Kembangan-Chai Chee to others in Marine Parade GRC, from February to July. He has not answered why it takes so long.
The second clarification is that I wonder whether he will agree with me that the period from February to July actually was quite momentous, many things happened in Parliament. We had Budget debate, Committee of Supply, Parliament was prorogued, Parliament reopened. There were Sittings in April and May, and some of us even went with the former Speaker on official trips overseas. So, does he not think that this inordinate delay to settle the matter is really highly regrettable, because it gives a false impression to all of us here, to the general public and even to the outside world?
Mr Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, as I have said, if I could play it again, I would have acted earlier.
Mr Speaker: Ms Carrie Tan.
Ms Carrie Tan (Nee Soon): Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak. I would like to address, on a different tone, some matters of the heart, pertaining to the issues that the Prime Minister has addressed today. I have three clarifications, two of them pertain to the practicality and sustainability of ensuring that there can always be good talent in our politics and the last question pertains to the threats to the trust and the social compact between our citizens and the Government.
As I need to give some context to these questions, may I beg your indulgence for a little time?
Mr Speaker: Do not test it too much though.
Ms Carrie Tan: Okay, alright. Mr Speaker, I think younger people, when they received the news of what happened, specifically the extramarital affairs, in their idealism, they may struggle to reconcile their expectations towards their political leaders with them as human beings, who have lives, who have complicated feelings, relationships and personal lives. And the reality of an MP's life is that we often disappoint our spouses or children who may be waiting at home on the weekends, or at night when we get held back at work, at events, at contingencies in the constituency. And some couples and families —
Mr Speaker: Ms Tan, I would appreciate if you would go straight to your clarification.
Ms Carrie Tan: Yes. Some families withstand this better than others. So my question is, how can we make political representation more sustainable and family-friendly in Singapore?
And two, sharing a little bit of personal context, I personally would not have decided to enter politics in 2020 if I had not by then found a partner that I planned to settle down with. So, for any political candidate who is still single and have not yet found a life partner upon entering politics, the fact of life is, it is really hard to date or to find potential partners. So, is it possible that we can allow politicians some space for their personal lives away from public scrutiny, just for the sake of ensuring that there will always be willing and capable candidates, albeit single, willing to serve as politicians without being in reality, doomed to singlehood pretty much, until they are past their prime?
The third point is, the Internet is rife with a lot of false information and opportunistic narratives, and the way algorithms on social media platforms push info onto our feeds also perpetuate personal bias and social polarisation. As much as there are many young people who are quite discerning about this, there are a vast majority who are rather passive consumers of certain narratives and information. So, what can we do to better protect our young citizens from being confounded by social media consumption that has the power to cause disillusionment or apathy towards the system? Again, this is a point that I would like us to consider and seek leadership guidance on the prevention of cynicism and apathy from setting into Singapore society towards our political system.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: Mr Speaker, I thank Ms Carrie Tan for her exposition. I think we can understand where the Member is coming from. We have clear rules of propriety and probity. They do not conflict with the aspirations for our personal and family lives. We know the public's expectations for public figures are high. We aspire to live up to them. Where we fall short, we seek to improve. Where we have done well, we must remain vigilant and not complacent.
There will be personal sacrifices. Ultimately, the will to answer the call to serve is deeply personal. And I agree, we can all do our part to encourage a positive political environment and engender a more constructive political culture so that we do not deter good people from stepping forth to serve.
Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.
Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister mentioned earlier that there were two keys for the CPIB: the Prime Minister; and failing which, one could go to the President. I am wondering if the Prime Minister's Office (PMO) has considered potentially extending this institutional reporting line beyond just essentially one branch of Government, which is the Executive Branch, given that there is also a Judiciary? I believe in Brazil, for example, the so-called Car Wash investigations actually reported to judges, as well as possibly a legislature. In Australia, the National Anti-Corruption Commission is overseen by a joint Select Committee.
Mr Lee Hsien Loong: I am very happy to note that Assoc Prof Jamus Lim appreciates the second key and is seeking a third. And I hope that it portends a change in your attitude towards the Elected President and his custodial powers.
But I think the Brazil example is a very interesting one. You have safeguards; you have got judges involved; but if you have heard of Lava Jato, \"Car Wash\", it is one of the, what do they call it, the \"mother of all corruption scandals\"?
So, the solution is not to be found in more and more and more and more layers of checks and balances. The solution is to be found in honest people with integrity, conviction and courage to make the system work with a reasonable degree of redundancy, so I do not have a single point of failure. And that is what we have done.
Mr Speaker: Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim.
Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim (Chua Chu Kang): Thank you, Mr Speaker. My question is for Minister Chan. Thank you for answering the question on Ministerial Code of Conduct.
In the UK, the code of conduct is always revised at the start of every new administration, and there is a setting out of the possible sanctions as well. Would the Code of Conduct for Ministers be similarly reviewed more consistently, and perhaps, the sanctions available to be expressly stated for any breaches?
Mr Speaker: Minister Chan.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: Mr Speaker, Sir, I will make three points in response to Mr Zhulkarnain's suggestion. Today, the Code of Conduct is gazetted, but the sanctions are not spelled out. So, it is gazetted.
The second point is that we take the point. We will continue to regularly review the Ministerial Code of Conduct and all the other regulations that safeguard our system. We will do that.
The third point follows on from what the Prime Minister has said, and I think I have also shared this. We need to have good rules. But ultimately, the rules, by themselves, cannot be sufficient. We need good people – good people that will abide by the spirit of the rules; good people that will interpret the rules; and not people that will try to go around the rules.
And what is the ultimate sanction? In my mind, I think in our political culture, the ultimate sanction is not whether someone has committed a mistake and pays a certain fine or others. The ultimate sanction is what will the public think of us as legislators, as part of the leadership team of this country. And we must do what we can to uphold the standards whether the sanctions are codified or not codified.
Mr Speaker: Any last clarifications? Mr Leong Mun Wai.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Thank you, Speaker. First of all, one technical issue. Can I ask Minister Chan, Minister Iswaran was put on leave of absence since 6 July, if I am right. Oh, no, no; that was his personal leave of absence. Yes, okay, that was his personal leave of absence.
But on 5 July, the Prime Minister and the Government already knew that CPIB had requested to investigate him. In fact, the Prime Minister knows that the CPIB has been investigating him informally since May, but the formal investigation would start after getting concurrence from the Prime Minister, on 5 April. That is what I understand. But he was on personal leave of absence.
And then, during the period of personal leave of absence, he represented Singapore to meet the Chief Minister of Johor.
These kind of practices — you know, I fully support what the Leader of Opposition said just now about the standards of Government, about delays, about indecisions and all that. But this is another example, right? If you already knew the Minister has been under investigation for so many months, why did you still let him go and represent Singapore to meet up with the Chief Minister of Johor?
Mr Chan Chun Sing: Mr Speaker, Sir, I think both the Prime Minister and myself have set out the process of investigation. When we use the word \"investigations\", I think the Prime Minister and myself have gone through the different stages of investigations and what are the associated actions that we may take in accordance with the needs of that stage of investigation. It does not mean that just because somebody is under investigation, all things will follow immediately. I hope we have made that clear in our presentation. That is the context of how the Prime Minister has judged what duties Minister Iswaran can undertake at different stages of the investigation process.
Mr Speaker: Mr Leong Mun Wai, a short clarification, please.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Speaker, Sir, with due respect, sorry, I still have quite a number of questions. So, I will ask one more question first, okay? Yes.
I noted Minister Chan's reply. But by having all these delays in taking the decisive actions, do you not think that this is not in line with the Government's stance of zero tolerance towards corruption? The moment a Minister is investigated, even informally, I think more decisive action should be taken.
Mr Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, I think we should have a sense of reality. Information comes up, a Minister is quietly being investigated. CPIB tells me as the Prime Minister. Should I straightaway tell the Minister, \"By the way, CPIB is quietly investigating you, please have a care\"? It is ridiculous.
Supposing I say: \"You go on leave of absence\". Why? What reason do I give?
He is working. He is being investigated. It is my duty to make sure that while he is working and, knowing that there is a cloud, he does not make any steps which are going to dig the hole further or cause a problem. And if something like that threatens to come up, I will have to find some way to head it off.
Why does CPIB need time to get ready for a formal investigation? Because they must have all the facts and evidence enough to start interviewing the principal person. Otherwise, if you go in and the principal person turns up and you have announced that you have arrested him and then it turns out that there is nothing in the case, I think you have been derelict in your duty. So, you must make sure, as much as possible, that the case is there before you go to the Minister.
And when do you go to the Minister? That depends on CPIB's operational considerations. Who is in town? How do they want to mount this? What else do they want to do at the same time? I defer to them on these operational judgements. They know exactly what they are doing. They have a good track record and a formidable reputation. I rely on them.
They asked for permission on 5 July; I gave it on 6 July. I said the timing is entirely up to you. They said they needed a few days. They acted on 11 July. And that is all there is to it.
The reason this is here at all is because this Government decided to act – \"ownself check ownself\". Otherwise, it would not even be here.
At some point it may have come out and then we would have a bigger problem. But it did not get worse, and we have started this very serious investigation because our system worked, and we picked up that something was wrong.
That is how the system is meant to work and that depends on the leadership, on the Government, on the whole ethos of our society, to frown on corruption, to have no tolerance for somebody who falls short of the standards we expect. And when something needs to be done, painful or not, we do it. No ifs, no buts. If it has to be done, it has to be done.
Do you think I was pleased when CPIB told me that one of my Ministers needed to be investigated? I was disappointed. I was saddened. But the Director knew. I knew. I said, \"You do your duty; I will back you and I will enable you to do your duty.\"
And I think that is what we, as this Parliament, ought to adopt as our attitude. Rely on them. They will do their job and, in due course, everything will be settled. And I think that is the way we keep Singapore working for a long time to come.
Mr Speaker: Mr Leong Mun Wai. I would also suggest if you have a few questions, ask all of them at one go. Thank you.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Thank you, Speaker. I respect what the Prime Minister said just now with regard to the stance of the current Government, but I would also like to make a point that if our current system is not \"ownself check ownself\", but there are more checks and balances, perhaps, there will not be delays in all these things. Of course, it is conjecture.
Okay, I will ask two more questions to the Prime Minister which are important for our Motion debate afterwards.
Can I confirm with the Prime Minister that, with regard to Speaker Tan's case, what the Prime Minister is saying now is that in February this year, he did not actually accept the resignation. Basically, he is saying that the resignation is put on hold and you carry on doing what you need to do. Can I have that confirmation? Because if you have accepted the resignation and then you allowed Speaker Tan to continue to perform certain duties, I do not know, the legal colleagues and Members in this Chamber may have other questions that can be raised pertaining to this issue. So, this one point I would like to confirm so that I can say the right thing during the debate on the Motion afterwards.
The second point, can the Prime Minister confirm that he would not have asked Speaker Tan to resign, even after the revelation of those offensive comments that he had made in Parliament, if Speaker Tan had not been in an inappropriate relationship with an MP?
Mr Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, first, Mr Leong is quibbling over words. In February, Mr Tan Chuan-Jin told me, \"I offer to resign\". I said, \"Yes, sort out your constituency first\". In other words, decision taken. The moment to execute it, I will decide. So, it is quite clear. Legally, he has not resigned. In terms of the decision made – I have decided, he has decided.
Would I have asked him to resign if it was just a matter of the hot mic? The answer is no. It was wrong for him to say that. It was bad that it was picked up. It lowers the tone of the Chamber. No Member should say that in the House. Dare I say no Member should say that even outside of the House. But I hazard to guess that maybe not all of us abstain completely all the time. But we do expect standards of behaviour in this House and especially in the Chair. What he said was wrong, but I would not have considered that alone a basis to ask him to resign.
Mr Speaker: Mr Leong Mun Wai. It is not new, and it is a further clarification, I assume?
Mr Leong Mun Wai: No, Speaker, one more question.
Mr Speaker: Okay, I would really appreciate it if you would ask all your questions, because there are still a few more hands, and I just want to give everyone an opportunity.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Okay, this is the last question, Speaker. Thank you.
May I ask the Home Affairs Minister, through you, Speaker, whether anyone applied for a permit to conduct surveillance on the two Workers' Party politicians under the Private Security Industry Act? And if not, will the Police conduct any investigation to determine if any laws were broken?
Mr K Shanmugam: I suppose the question, I think, is directed indirectly to me. Sir, can I ask, through you, which provision of the Private Security Industry Act is Mr Leong referring to? I just want to understand the provision so that we can be clearer, then I can answer the question. I just tried to pull it up as he was speaking.
Mr Speaker: Mr Leong Mun Wai.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Speaker, in reply to the Minister, actually I do not have the specific section of the Private Security Act, with regard to private investigation and all that. But as a layman, I am just concerned that anyone of us in the public space can be secretly taken, you know, and it is —
Mr K Shanmugam: I want to know which provision. If I can have that, then I can proceed to answer.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Okay, Speaker, then I would say that I do not have the provision. But can I ask for a general opinion from the Home Affairs Minister, whether such an act of secretly taking the video of other citizens, how is it covered under our law because it is an intrusion into the privacy of the individual?
Mr K Shanmugam: I would say, Sir, through you, that if Mr Leong and the PSP believes that there should be no videos taken of anyone, as a matter of procedure and law, perhaps he can table a Private Member's Bill. Because, as far as I am aware today, there is no legislation.
Last Saturday, PSP came to my constituency, as is usual, they sat in a corner and had their coffee. Many people were there, welcomed them. Then, I did my usual walkabout and PSP sent someone to video me. Obviously, they did not think that they were breaking any laws and I have a photograph of that if Mr Leong wishes.
So, certainly, your party does not think that there is anything wrong in constantly videoing us. So, if you believe that — I think if my recollection serves me right – Mr David Ong was an MP here and was subject to a private investigator's video by the husband of the lady involved.
So, I think on the reference to Private Security Industry Act, I would just say this, Sir, through you, which I have said before. If a question is to be asked, we as Ministers have a duty to answer. But I think, equally, MPs have a duty to do some basic checks before they throw questions. I mean, if you referred to a legislation, then tell us which provision you are referring to. I mean, something must have gone through your mind that the Private Security Industry Act is relevant.
I did a quick check. I do not see anything there that is relevant. So, maybe, I thought you knew something that I did not know. But it appears that, perhaps, you know even less even though you ask the question.
So, I think it would be a waste of very important Parliamentary time if MPs do not do some basic research. That is all I have to say, Sir. I do not believe any section of the Private Security Industry Act applies.
Mr Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim.
Ms Sylvia Lim: Thank you, Speaker, for letting me ask another clarification. To the Prime Minister and, perhaps, to Mr Chan as well, I think the issue of whether the Prime Minister's concurrence is required for any CPIB investigation is an important question. I have tried to search for the legal basis for that, but I cannot find any section which actually says that the Director of CPIB has to get the Prime Minister's concurrence. The Prevention of Corruption Act talks about seeking concurrence from the Public Prosecutor, but the Prime Minister is actually not mentioned in the legal provisions, as far as I can find.
So, may I get clarification as to whether it is just customary because CPIB comes under the Prime Minister's Office, that is, CPIB would inform the Prime Minister of such? Minister Chan did say he is going to make a clarification on this point. So, I would like to know when that will happen.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: Mr Speaker, indeed, thank you for the chance for me to make this clarification. I would say the following things in response to both Ms Lim's comment and, I think, Ms He's question on whether we need permission.
So, first, if CPIB seeks the Prime Minister's permission and if the Prime Minister denies that, our rule says that the Director of CPIB can go to the President. And if the President gives his or her approval, CPIB can proceed. So, that is the first point.
The second point is that in our record, over the last many decades, the Director of CPIB has never been denied by the Prime Minister – this Prime Minister or a previous Prime Minister – to continue and proceed with his investigation. So, that is the second point I will make.
The third point and I have confirmed with the Director of CPIB – when the Prime Minister says no, they can proceed with the investigations and make the case to the President. So, as the Prime Minister enunciated just now, there are two keys: one, is the Prime Minister, whether he agrees; and then after that, the President.
Then, the question posed is, what if the Prime Minister and the President, both do not agree with the Director of CPIB, and I think the Prime Minister has made that clear. So, I just want to make these points on record.
Mr Speaker: Mr Raj Joshua Thomas.
Mr Raj Joshua Thomas (Nominated Member): Sir, if I may just seek clarification on Mr Leong's question on private investigators?
Mr Speaker: Well, technically, it is out of order. Actually, I was going to rule it. You want to ask a clarification to Mr Leong's comment about —
Mr Raj Joshua Thomas: Yes, Sir, and also, to clarify what Minister Shanmugam had said about the Private Security Industry Act.
Mr Speaker: Okay, I will make an exception. I will allow this.
Mr Raj Joshua Thomas: Yes, Sir. I am asking the question because I am the President of the Security Association Singapore, which also represents private investigators.
So, the clarification that I wanted to make was whether Mr Leong was conflating the use of private investigators and the general taking of videos in public. The Private Security Industry Act does provide that in a security assignment or private investigation assignment involving a political figure which is defined as the President, the Prime Minister, a Minister or a Minister of State, then there is a requirement to get the approval from the licensing officer. But in other cases, which is what Minister Shanmugam mentioned, where there were people who took a video of him in public, there is really no need for that and the Private Security Industry Act would not apply.
Mr Speaker: Thank you for the clarification. Any last questions? Mr Vikram Nair.
Mr Vikram Nair (Sembawang): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have a clarification for the Leader of the Opposition, arising from his earlier invitation, where he said he is prepared to answer any question about his party's handling of the indiscretion between his two party members.
There is evidence in public of a video by Mr Perera's driver who said he had told Mr Singh as well as other MPs, including Ms Sylvia Lim and Assoc Prof Jamus Lim, about the indiscretions Mr Perera was engaging in, including going to hotels, going to restaurants and so on. Could Mr Singh please tell this House why nothing was done at the material time?
The second clarification is: were any steps taken to protect the identity of the driver as the informant?
Mr Pritam Singh: The first one, can I ask the Member in return, has he perused the entire press conference that was given by the WP on this matter, where the question was answered?
Mr Vikram Nair: I have listened to the press conference. But I have not heard any explanation as to why the driver was not called up for an interview after those details were given. Nor was there anything in the press conference that addressed the issue of whether steps were taken to protect the driver's identity as an informant.
Mr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.
Mr Pritam Singh: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Firstly, the invitation to ask the question about any matter involving what had happened in the WP between Mr Perera and Ms Nicole Seah was put to the Prime Minister, but I will answer the question that the Member has put forward.
We made an assessment of the circumstances in which the driver came forward with the information. There was certain information that I had received after the fact that he had secured the phone numbers of many WP members and circulated this allegation to many members, significant number of members across the board.
We approached Mr Perera; I approached Mr Perera with the information that was given to me by the driver. I had explained in my press conference what was said by Mr Perera to me and our assessment at the time was, this was what had transpired.
But if the Member had listened to the press conference carefully, and I do not think he did, other facts came to bear, such as corroboratory evidence. I think a Stomp article suggested that this video was the video that came out on the same day that the Prime Minister was announcing the resignation of the Speaker and Cheng Li Hui. Stomp reported that the video had been going around since 2021. I can confirm because I asked the Central Executive Committee (CEC) the question, my CEC, had anybody seen the video. Nobody had seen the video. Maybe the Member had seen the video. Perhaps, he can tell me if he had.
What had transpired in terms of what was shared – there was no corroboratory information for us to work with and there was no other source. If either of these two criteria came into play, then I think something different would have happened. We would have to look into the matter more carefully, beyond what Mr Perera had shared with us.
In terms of protecting the identity of the source, I did not reveal the identity of the source, but I had to check with Mr Perera, \"This is the information I received. Can you confirm?\"
Mr Speaker: Mr Vikram Nair.
Mr Vikram Nair: I can confirm that I did not see the video before it was all over the public domain, but I have a few further clarifications.
Do you not think that if you received credible evidence from someone who is close to an indiscretion – I mean a whistle-blower, this is how issues normally come up – that you should actually take efforts to interview the person to get more information? Was that done?
The second is this: you mentioned that you did not tell Mr Perera or you did not reveal the source of information. How did you tell Mr Perera you came to know about this indiscretion? Did you say the driver told you?
Mr Pritam Singh: Mr Speaker, I do not recall exactly the whole circumstances of my conversations with Mr Perera, which happened some time ago now. But on the first point – can you just repeat the first point, the first question?
Mr Vikram Nair: Okay. The first question was, if you receive information from a credible source who is close to the wrongdoing that something has happened, normally, in a proper organisation, that would be treated as a whistle-blower report. Steps would be taken to protect that person and that person would be called up for further interviews. Was this driver called up for a further interview?
Mr Pritam Singh: As I mentioned in my first reply, we had to deal with the information that was shared by the driver, we made an assessment of the total circumstances with which the information was provided to us. And as we found out – after the fact of course – this person was a former police officer with more than I think 10 years' experience, I think this was in the papers. I would have expected somebody close to Mr Perera, very close to Mr Perera to have corroboratory evidence at hand. I would have expected that, especially being a driver.
Mr Speaker: Okay, Mr Nair, last clarification.
Mr Vikram Nair: I think Mr Singh has not answered my question which was, did he call him up for an interview? Was it conveyed to him that he needed to collate further corroboratory evidence?
Mr Pritam Singh: Easy answer. The answer is no.
Mr Speaker: Mr Lim Biow Chuan, you have a clarification.
Mr Lim Biow Chuan (Mountbatten): Sir, if I can just ask Mr Leong Mun Wai? Earlier, he had said something about if an MP is under investigation, he expected the Government to do something about it. So, can I ask Mr Leong to clarify, is it his position that if any MP is under police investigation, we should then suspend the MP or dock his salary?
Mr Speaker: Mr Leong Mun Wai.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Mr Speaker, Sir, my answer is, just now, I mentioned \"Minister\", but I think it should also extend to all political office holders and politicians.
What I said was that when a Minister is under investigation and – in this case, it is not just an ordinary investigation – even if it is an informal investigation, for the CPIB to undertake and keep the Prime Minister informed, it is something quite serious. I would expect our Government's stance on zero tolerance to include what I said just now. That means once the Minister is under investigation, he should be relieved of his duties. That is, of course, my opinion.
Mr Speaker: Mr Lim Biow Chuan.
Mr Lim Biow Chuan: Let me ask Mr Leong again because I recall that Parliament referred the Leader of the Opposition to be investigated by the Public Prosecutor. Nothing has come out of that yet. But is it Mr Leong's position that the Leader of the Opposition cannot receive pay or carry out his duties because he is an MP? [Interruption.] No, I am not saying that.
I am asking Mr Leong. Because, to me, surely, you must be convicted before something can happen. Is Mr Leong saying that the minute a person is referred to the Police for investigation, the MP must be suspended, or he must receive a salary cut? Is that Mr Leong's point?
And I just want to assure the Leader of the Opposition, that is not my position.
Mr Speaker: Mr Leong Mun Wai.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Mr Speaker, maybe I will clarify that I am saying this pertaining to investigations by CPIB.
Mr Speaker: Minister Shanmugam.
Mr K Shanmugam: Sir, as I was listening to the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Singh, I thought we better have it clear on record, because Mr Singh said here, on the record, that he did not reveal the identity of the source to Mr Leon Perera.
At the same time, he also has said, \"Leon also shared with me that he was in an ongoing dispute with his driver and was about to terminate his services and had sought legal advice on the allegations of his driver\", and a few other statements.
So, I think, just to be clear, Mr Singh's position is that he did not reveal the identity of the source – that is what he just told us – to Mr Perera. Thank you, Sir, for the clarification through you.
Mr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.
Mr Pritam Singh: Sir, as I mentioned earlier, the driver had been circulating this message in his name to multiple members of the WP. I do not think he was interested in protecting his identity. But insofar as the question directed to me, like I said, the conversation with Mr Perera, Mr Perera would have known who that individual was when I asked him. But I did not actively go and seek to do something nefarious.
Mr Speaker: Mr Patrick Tay, I hope your clarification is related to the Ministerial Statement.
Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan (Pioneer): This is a question for the Minister-in-charge of the Public Service. I think the recent spate of events has affected the morale of the Public Service officers and I want to hear from him what response he has as the Minister-in-charge of the Public Service.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank Mr Patrick Tay for the question, and his support and concern for our colleagues in the Public Service. It is an important point. I am acutely aware that these recent developments that we discussed at length in the House today may have caused uncertainty and dented overall confidence in our Public Service and also among some Singaporeans.
Indeed, I have received similar feedback from our Public Service officers. Some wonder if the recent incidents had impacted confidence in our Government and, at the same time, created doubts in the work of our Public Service officers. Others have asked me if they can still do their jobs well and without fear, especially amidst greater scrutiny.
As the Minister-in-charge of the Public Service, I have assured all our Public Service officers that they do not need to fear, as long as they continue to do their jobs conscientiously, professionally and faithfully.
I said this during Public Service Week, \"Maintain our conviction, uphold our integrity and aspire to the highest standards for Singaporeans and Singapore.\" So long as they do the right thing, they need not fear, because if they fear or if they start fearing, then this will be the end of the Public Service as we know it today.
I strongly believe – and I share this with my colleagues in the Public Service – that our work in the Public Service is not measured by the here and now, but over the long term. Our commitment to all Singaporeans is that this Public Service of ours will do right, not just for the short term but also for the long haul.
We will also acknowledge like anyone else that we are not perfect. But if there are things that we need to improve on or work on, we will do so and not hide behind excuses. We will continue to do what is right and right what is wrong, because the interests of Singapore and Singaporeans must be at the forefront of everything that we do.
I thank everyone for your support for our Public Service in these difficult moments. You can have my assurance that the Public Service will continue to learn from the recent episodes, apply the lessons and strive to do even better for Singapore and Singaporeans.
Mr Speaker: Order. End of Ministerial Statements. Introduction of Government Bills, Minister for Home Affairs.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Immigration (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"to amend the Immigration Act 1959, to repeal the Banishment Act 1959 and to make consequential and related amendments to certain other Acts.'\", (proc text)]
[(proc text) presented by The Second Minister for Home Affairs (Mrs Josephine Teo) read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting on or after 18 September 2023, and to be printed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Child Development Co-Savings (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"to amend the Child Development Co-Savings Act 2001\", (proc text)]
[(proc text) recommendation of President signified; presented by the Minister for Social and Family Development (Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment No 2) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Law (Ms Rahayu Mahzam) (for the Minister for Law): Mr Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for Law, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time\".
Sir, this Constitution (Amendment) Bill is linked to the next Bill on the Order Paper, the Oaths, Declarations and Notarisations (Remote Methods) Bill.
May I therefore propose, with your permission, that the substantive debate on both Bills takes place now? Members are welcome to raise questions or express their views on both Bills during the debate. We will still have the formal Second Reading of the Oaths, Declarations and Notarisations (Remote Methods) Bill to ensure that the procedural requirements are satisfied.
Mr Speaker: I give my consent.
Ms Rahayu Mahzam: Thank you, Sir.
Sir, this Constitution (Amendment) Bill and the Oaths, Declarations and Notarisations (Remote Methods) Bill concern the way in which a statutory declaration, oath and affirmation, or notarial act is to be made or done in Singapore.
Let me first briefly explain what a statutory declaration, oath and affirmation, and notarial act is before I take Members through the key aspects of these Bills.
In brief, a statutory declaration is a written statement that a person signs and solemnly declares to be true. Making a false statutory declaration is a serious criminal offence. For example, producing a false statutory declaration to a Court can result in a jail term of up to seven years.
Apart from use in Court proceedings, statutory declarations may also be taken for a myriad of commercial or regulatory purposes, such as registering a ship, declaring that a company is solvent, transferring a bill of sale or affirming that contractual obligations have been complied with.
Some public agencies may also require certain applications to be supported by a statutory declaration. For instance, applications to the Registrar of Titles for a replacement Certificate of Title must be accompanied by a statutory declaration setting out the circumstances leading to the loss of the original Certificate.
Given the weight that can be placed on facts set out in a sworn statutory declaration and the serious consequences associated with making a false statutory declaration, the law today requires a statutory declaration to be made in a specific form and manner.
Therefore, a statutory declaration must take the form that is set out in the Oaths and Declarations Act. And it must also be made before an authorised person, such as a Commissioner for Oaths, or CFO for short, who will check the identity of the declarant and ensure that the declarant is aware of what he is doing and aware of the consequences of making a false declaration.
Next, an oath or affirmation is a solemn declaration by which a person swears or affirms that what he says is the truth or that he will do as he has promised to do. There is a wide range of circumstances in which a person may be required to take an oath, but most oaths fall within two broad categories.
First, a person, such as a witness, may be required to take an oath before giving evidence, for example, to a Court or tribunal.
Second, a person may also be required to take an oath if he or she is appointed to an office, such as that of a Judge. For example, before assuming office, Supreme Court Judges are required under the Constitution to solemnly swear to faithfully discharge their judicial duties and do right without fear or favour.
Last, I come to notarial functions that are performed by a Notary Public in Singapore, or NP for short. From time to time, individuals or businesses may need to obtain a notarial act from a NP. For example, an individual may need a certified true copy of an original document such as his identity card or academic certificate to apply to a foreign educational institution for further studies; or a business may need a NP to witness the due execution of a document that is meant for use overseas.
The process of obtaining a notarial act is a stringent one. Notaries must keep a full and accurate record of the whole procedure. Further, each notarial certificate issued by the NP is serialised and must be presented to the Singapore Academy of Law for authentication. This mitigates the risk of forgery, safeguards the integrity of the process and provides foreign recipients with the assurance that they need in order to rely on documents that are notarised by a NP in Singapore.
As Members will have gathered from the brief explanation that I have given, historically, and today, the process for making a statutory declaration; taking an oath or affirmation; or obtaining a notarial act, is stringent and subject to several requirements, including the need to, generally, appear in-person before an authorised service provider, such as a Commissioner for Oaths or a Notary Public. Further, the process is often paper-based, involving the use of wet ink signatures. These requirements all help to ensure the integrity of the process – for the reasons I have outlined earlier.
Technology has improved drastically over the years. It is now possible with the touch of a button to see and hear, through video-conferencing software, a person who is on the other end of Singapore – something unthinkable when these requirements were first formulated centuries ago. Society is also increasingly comfortable with relying on digital processes.
Where possible, it is important that the law does not hinder, but instead supports innovation and digitalisation of business processes whilst ensuring that necessary safeguards are maintained or strengthened.
These Bills, therefore, seek to put in place a framework that will enable statutory declarations, oaths and affirmations, and notarisations to be done through electronic means, whilst ensuring the integrity of these processes and maintaining a high degree of security against fraud.
This is in line with the Government’s ongoing efforts to facilitate electronic transactions, by progressively reviewing and updating the relevant legal frameworks in place. Just to give a few recent examples, in 2021, this House enacted: (a) the Courts (Civil and Criminal Justice) Reform Act which empowered the Courts to conduct hearings remotely; (b) the Electronic Transactions (Amendment) Act, which enabled the creation and use of electronic bills of lading; and (c) the Mental Capacity (Amendment) Act, which enabled the creation and registration of electronic lasting powers of attorney.
Let me now highlight two key aspects of the framework for Members.
The first aspect is that of electronic meetings with authorised service providers. Where a client is currently required by law and practice to appear before an authorised service provider to make a statutory declaration, take an oath, or obtain a notarial act, the framework under the Oaths, Declarations and Notarisations (Remote Methods) Bill will make it clear that the client and authorised service provider are allowed to meet using stipulated electronic means of communication.
The Bill sets out certain minimum requirements relating to the quality of such electronic means of communication. And we also intend to prescribe further procedural requirements or safeguards that parties must comply with, in subsidiary legislation.
The Board of Commissioners for Oaths and Notaries Public under the Singapore Academy of Law also intends to issue refreshed guidelines that will assist CFOs and NPs in carrying out their functions under this framework. We understand that these guidelines will include guidance on the circumstances in which it may be inappropriate for a CFO or NP to provide their services remotely.
In some cases, such as oaths of office that are taken by officeholders under the Constitution or other Acts, the Bills will make clarificatory amendments so as to provide for greater legal certainty.
The second aspect is that of electronic signing. For statutory declarations, the Oaths, Declarations and Notarisations (Remote Methods) Bill will provide clearly that these instruments can be signed using an electronic signature. There are various types of electronic signatures. As a safeguard for statutory declarations, it will be necessary to only use the type of electronic signature that will be prescribed in subsidiary legislation. In deciding the type of electronic signature to prescribe in subsidiary legislation, we will consider factors, such as performance standards, security, reliability and ease of access for Singaporeans. For notarial acts or oaths that must be subscribed with a signature – such as oaths administered in the course of judicial proceedings, or oaths taken by officeholders under the Constitution – the Constitution (Amendment) Bill, and the Oaths, Declarations and Notarisations (Remote Methods) Bill do not change the position in relation to how these should be signed.
Notarial acts or oaths arise in a variety of situations, with different needs and circumstances. We will, therefore, leave the precise signing requirements to be determined by the relevant sectorial agency.
Before I conclude, Mr Speaker, let me touch on a couple of points.
The first point is that the framework is enabling and not prescriptive. It provides individuals, businesses and service providers with an electronic option, for the various legal processes that I have spoken of. The framework does not require or mandate the use of such electronic options. This means that the public can continue with their existing in-person and/or paper-based processes if they wish.
It follows that the legislative framework does not oblige Government agencies, a Commissioner for Oath or a Notary Public to provide or adopt an electronic option. For example, public agencies administer or require the taking of statutory declarations or oaths in a wide variety of circumstances. There may be important, or simply practical, reasons for physical processes to continue.
It may be that certain oaths of office or other Constitutional oaths continue to be taken in person as a general rule because of the gravity and solemnity associated with such oaths. In other cases, it may be that the agency in question has some specific policy or practical reason to require a person’s physical presence when taking a statutory declaration or oath.
The second point relates to statutory declarations and notarial acts that have already been made in a process that involved remote witnessing. For example, this may have been done during the COVID-19 pandemic when movement restrictions were in place.
Given the lack of clarity in the current law on whether these processes can be conducted remotely, the Oaths, Declarations and Notarisations (Remote Methods) Bill will make it clear that no statutory declaration or notarial act made or carried out prior to these amendments will be invalidated solely because video conferencing was used. This should address concerns around the validity of statutory declarations or notarial acts made in a process involving remote witnessing before this Bill.
The validation clauses under the Oaths, Declarations and Notarisations (Remote Methods) Bill apply only to those statutory declarations and notarial acts that were done using a live video or live television link. So, for example, a statutory declaration or notarial act that was done only by telephone will not be validated.
The validation clauses also do not affect a person’s right to challenge the validity of a statutory declaration or notarial act on the basis that some other requirement, apart from the in-person witnessing requirement, was not met.
The framework I have just outlined is crafted to strike a balance between convenience and efficiency on the one hand and safeguarding the integrity of the process on the other hand. The Bills have also been designed to be as technology neutral as possible, with details devolved to subsidiary legislation, so that the framework and its associated safeguards can be updated from time to time to keep pace with technological developments. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Mr Yip Hon Weng.
Mr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, Sir, with the advancement of technology, it is useful that the Government is considering using such initiatives to allow certain oaths to be taken through live video or television link, instead of in person. This would enhance convenience, efficiency and accessibility for the oath takers and the oath administrators. However, I seek a few clarifications in two broad areas: authentication and contingencies.
First, Mr Speaker, Sir, on authentication. With the advent and advancements of artificial intelligence (AI) how do we prevent deep fakes or impersonations from compromising the integrity and validity of the oaths? In particular, will there be other means of verifying their identity and authenticity?
Second, Mr Speaker, Sir, on contingencies. What happens if there is a power failure, a network disruption or a technical glitch for these live links? How do we ensure that the feed is adequately fast, clear and secure for the oaths to be taken smoothly? How do we build in contingencies in such situations? And associated with this, will we allow overseas live links to take place and, if so, under what conditions and safeguards?
In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, I believe that this Bill is a positive step towards leveraging technology for public service delivery. Notwithstanding, we must be mindful of the potential challenges and risks involved, given the increasing sophistication of deep fake AI technology. I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 4.45 pm.
Sitting accordingly suspended
at 4.24 pm until 4.45 pm.
Sitting resumed at 4.45 pm.
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]
[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Mr Dennis Tan.
Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Hougang): Mr Speaker, the Workers' Party (WP) supports the proposed amendments in our Constitutional Amendment Bill today, to allow oaths under the specified Articles to be taken via a live video link or live television link created using a remote communication technology that allows the person administering the oath to maintain visual contact and communicate with the person making an oath, confirm the identity of the person taking oath and if the oath is to be subscribed, verify by inspection, the oath to be subscribed.
Mr Speaker, I declare that I am a practicing Notary Public. I have also spoken to fellow legal practitioners who are currently notaries and commissioners for oaths in the course of preparing for my speech.
Mr Speaker, the proposed amendments include allowing our notaries to exercise their power or function through electronic means of communication and specifically, this is in the function of the notaries when persons appear before them to make an oath or declaration or when executing documents before the notaries or when documents are required to be certified correct copies by notaries.
The new sections 4A and 4B provide for the new requirements and criteria when notaries are signing or sealing notarial acts via electronic means of communication, such as live video link. Section 4A provides that such electronic means of communication should allow the notaries to (a) communicate with the person who is executing the documents or making an oath or affirmation, as well as any witness or interpreter present; (b) confirm the identity of the relevant person and any witness or interpreter; and (c) verify by inspection any document to be signed or sworn. The new section 4A(3) also allows notaries to rely on any electronic means of communication created by remote communication technology as allowed under this Bill in the course of issuing a notarial certificate of the nature and the authenticity of a particular document.
Mr Speaker, COVID-19 taught us many things, including having many online options to settle what we used to have to perform face-to-face. Work meetings are one. In fact, the rules for Commissioner for Oaths were pragmatically altered to allow Commissioners for Oath to do the commissioning of affidavits via video conferencing. During such online commissioning, Commissioners for Oaths are required to verify through visual inspection, via video conference of the deponent and his or her identity document, and that the deponent is who he or she said she is. The rules also require, among other things, the Commissioner to maintain visual contact with the deponent during the commissioning or executing process, and in effect, confirm that the deponent has signed the same document.
For good order, may I clarify with the Senior Parliamentary Secretary, whether the proposed amendments in section 11, for the affirmation of statutory declaration by remote communications means such as video links, will apply to Commissioners for Oaths administering statutory declarations or whether there is an intention to add a similar clause to the current rules governing Commissioners for Oaths, allowing for the commissioning of affidavits via video conferencing?
Mr Speaker, it is noteworthy that unlike for the commissioning of affidavits by Commissioners for Oaths during COVID-19, the Government did not, at that point in time, deem that it was necessary to allow notarisation by live video link or any type of remote electronic means of communication. I recall that it was challenging for many notaries to perform notarial work during COVID-19, especially in the early days of COVID-19, even though there was still demand for such work. Notarisations were still required, especially for documents to be used abroad for a variety of reasons, notwithstanding COVID-19. A variety of business, legal and even personal transactions still had to be performed, requiring notaries to assist with the execution of documents.
During the circuit breaker days, not all notaries were officially allowed – at least initially – to do their work in their offices. Staff had to stay at home. Arranging notarial appointments can be physically challenging, even when the work was legitimate and necessary. The proposed changes in this Bill would have provided good options for notaries, even as the proposed changes still have some inherent challenges which I will discuss briefly below.
Mr Speaker, an important issue is the verification of the identity of the person executing a document before a notary, especially if such a person is not known to notary or may not be recognised by the notary from previous encounters. I will call this other person who is executing a document, \"the relevant person\", for the remaining part of my speech.
The notary will need to look at the original identification documents of such a person, often keeping a copy of such documents for records purposes. However, for foreigners who come with their foreign passports as proof of identity, especially coming to see the notaries for the first time or on a one-off basis, notaries often have no choice but to give the benefit of doubt that the passports are genuine, even if they have no idea what the passport should even look like or if it is authentic.
Similarly, when clients come in with what they claim to be original documents for notaries to certify copies of such documents, notaries will not always be in a position to ascertain on the spot whether such documents are genuine or fake. They have to take the word of the client that they are genuine and notarise a certified true copy of it.
The above are already the common experiences of notaries prior to the proposed amendments, which we are looking at today. I think the new amendments allowing notaries to notarise via a live video link may in some cases make it even more difficult for a notary to verify the relevant person's identity, when executing documents before a notary via video link, or to verify the authenticity of documents. This is especially as the notary is not familiar with the relevant person, and it is not easy to cite and verify the identification document or the documents which are the subject of notarial acts by just looking at the screen. The notary does not even get to touch or flip the documents.
Some practitioners also shared with me that for online commissioning of affidavits, they may have the added reassurance that the clients or deponents were introduced by their own lawyers who helped to prepare the affidavits and these lawyers may be personally known to the Commissioners for Oaths or have regularly brought their clients to the same Commissioner for Oaths for affirmation of oaths. This may not be the case for much of the notarial work.
Further, a notary is only able to exercise his or her jurisdiction as a notary when a notary and the relevant person signing a document before the notary are both in Singapore. It is not necessarily easy to determine whether a relevant person is in Singapore or not when a notarial transaction is being performed online. It will certainly be easier to require physical meeting with a client. In short, it will not be easy for the notary to always avoid any fraudulent attempts on the part of the relevant person in some of the aspects that I have discussed above.
Some practitioners may understandably be concerned, that as a matter of professional liability, their conclusions regarding the identity, the whereabouts of the relevant person or even regarding the authenticity of the documents in question are later contradicted by subsequent evidence coming to light after that.
But the relatively low fees they are supposed to charge as required by the authorities as compared to the fees of notaries in civil law countries, or to even the usual hourly charges lawyers may charge for other types of work. It may not be fair for notaries to bear the risk of having to ascertain certain facts when it would not be cost-effective or even fully plausible for them to do so.
It is interesting to note that the COVID-19 guidance on remote notarisation document in the United Kingdom (UK) provide some useful protection for the notary in the areas we have discussed. For example, it provides, among other things, that \"the remotely located individual must demonstrate that he or she is physically in England or Wales\" and \"the notary should not be considered and should not describe himself or herself as an attesting witness to the document certified by him\".
Such provisions, by way of example, will give fair protection to notaries. I hope that the authorities can incorporate similar guidelines in any subsidiary legislation or rules for notaries.
A possible alternative solution will be to have a special jurat or prescribed wording on the document to be executed by the signing client before the notary for the relevant person to declare and confirm his or her own identity and the location he or she was in. Additionally, such declaratory wording by the relevant persons can even be subject to penalties for false declarations and acknowledgment of being subject to such penalties in the event of false declarations. Of course, such penalties will require further changes to the law.
Mr Speaker, some of the challenges or situations I have described above may also apply to the other non-notary parties administering an oath or statutory declarations under the proposed amendments if the relevant persons are not known to the persons administering the oath or statutory declaration in advance of the oath-taking.
Mr Speaker, in summary, some of the issues I have raised are already encountered during current face-to-face notarisations, but arguably, the risk may be further enhanced when notaries perform notarial acts by remote means such as by live video link as I have explained above. I hope that the authorities will take cognisance of the risk and issues raised and will not accord an impractically high standard of care on notaries in expecting them to be professionally liable, should the identity of the relevant persons or the location of the relevant persons or even the authenticity of the original documents provided be subject to a deliberate misrepresentation of fraudulent conduct on a part of the relevant person themselves.
Finally, I would like to ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary whether the proposed changes in the Parliamentary Elections Act 1954 and the Presidential Elections Act 1991 for oaths to be administered through electronic means of communication created by remote communication technology will also allow such oaths to be administered by Commissioners for Oaths to deponents en masse, as opposed to being administered singly? Assuming of course that the verifications of identity are done appropriately, and the administration is properly done online with unblocked line of sight, allowing such commissioning en mass online may truly capitalise the capability of e-communication means to reach many deponents all at once.
Mr Speaker, in closing, I hope the authorities will study the risks and suggestions I have raised and to provide appropriate guidance to practitioners to navigate the new provisions and to help them avoid the possible risks and pitfalls which may arise. I hope that the authorities will not impose an impractically high and onerous standard of care expected of practitioners in complying with the new provisions. I do take note that the Senior Parliamentary Secretary has highlighted that this will not be prescriptive.
Mr Speaker, notwithstanding the concerns I have raised, I support the Oaths, Declarations and Notarisations (Remote Methods) Bill. I also support the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment No 2) Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Lim Biow Chuan.
Mr Lim Biow Chuan (Mountbatten): Sir, I declare my interest in speaking on this topic as a practicing lawyer. I am also a Commissioner of Oath and a Notary Public.
The role of a Commissioner of Oath is set up in section 68 of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969. Broadly speaking, a Commissioner for Oath administers oaths for any affidavit or affirmation, swear executors and administrators, and take and receive statutory declarations.
The role of a Notary Public is set up in a Notaries Public Act 1959. Members of the public will usually associate a notary public as a senior lawyer who is called upon to certify documents for use overseas or to administer any oath or affirmation in connection with any affidavit or statutory declaration which is used in any court or place outside Singapore.
Statutory declarations and affidavits are required by law for a number of legal and business matters. Under various regulations in Singapore, an applicant may be required to make certain statutory declarations and affidavits for the purposes of their business or tax-related matters.
For correlated matters, deponents are required to swear or affirm affidavits for use in Court. As making false oath in Court proceedings and making false statutory declarations is an offence, the deponent would usually have to appear before a Commissioner for Oaths to enable the commissioner to verify the deponent's identity and to ensure that the deponent understands the contents of the document that they are signing. In a case where the affidavit or declaration is for use in an overseas court, the notary public performs a similar function.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, the Ministry of Health (MOH) had introduced various measures like the circuit breaker, heightened alert, social distancing and work-from-home so as to break the chain of viral transmission. However, despite the COVID-19 pandemic, businesses need to continue to operate. Life has to go on for many people.
This has affected the legal processes because businesses still need their staff to swear or affirm affidavits for Court proceedings. Companies still need their senior management to sign documents before a Notary Public for use overseas; sometimes for incorporation of businesses overseas, sometimes, to sign reports for the purposes of reporting to regulatory authorities overseas.
As a Commissioner for Oaths and a Notary Public, I had received many queries from deponents to ask whether they are allowed to affirm and sign affidavits, statutory declarations or other documents without physically being present before me. Deponents and applicants point to the fact that they are having meetings and discussions via electronic modes of communications like Microsoft Teams and via Zoom.
There were also regulations which encouraged listed and unlisted companies to conduct their general meetings via electronic means. This is to keep physical interactions and COVID-19 transmission risk to a minimum, which remain important in the long term even as safe distancing regulations have now been eased.
In April 2021, the Rules of Court were amended to allow for affidavits to be affirmed by a deponent appearing before a Commissioner for Oaths through a video link or live television link. The rules specify that the Commissioner for Oaths should be able to confirm that the person who signs the document is the person that he claims to be and that the document that he signs, together with all the exhibits attached thereto, is the same document containing the same exhibits that the Commissioner himself will later sign.
These rules, however, do not apply to oaths or other documents signed before a Notary Public.
Sir, modern video technology has made great advances over the past years. It is no longer the same as 20 years ago, when you can only rely on expensive telephone calls to keep in touch with overseas relatives or friends. I know of many parents who video call their children studying overseas on a regular basis to chat with them.
In the past, businessmen would rely on Skype or FaceTime video calls to carry out their meetings. Today, we have WhatsApp, WeChat, Teams and Zoom video conferencing platforms, just to mention a few.
Sir, we should not shy from adopting technology to allow deponents to affirm or swear their documents using modern technology as long as the Commissioner for Oaths or the Notary Public is able to clearly ascertain the identity of the deponent and to verify his signature on the documents. We should allow documents to be signed virtually so that in the event of future crises, where we are required to stay away from the office, we would still be able to function effectively using video technology.
I just wish to seek two clarifications from the Senior Parliamentary Secretary. May I ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary whether oaths and affirmations administered by Consular Officers are also allowed to be done virtually? Secondly, would it be more efficient if we were to allow such changes to be effected through subsidiary legislation? For example, could the Parliament not authorise the Minister to make subsidiary legislation to allow for oaths and affidavits to be signed by a Commissioner or Notary Public to be done virtually instead of having to amend all these laws via Parliament?
Save for the above two clarifications, I support the Bill. I support the various amendments to the Constitution and other Acts to allow for the administration of oaths through virtual means.
Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, this Bill will introduce a framework for electronic signing of oaths, declarations and notarisations. The framework will allow persons making statutory declarations, making oaths and affirmations or notarising documents to do so over video link. This move away from paper-based processes will bring time and cost savings.
I have three clarifications on the safeguards for the framework.
My first clarification is on the interpreter's involvement. Interpretation adds another step in the communication process. This can contribute to additional complexity if done over video link. The risk of miscommunication may be higher for cases where specialised interpretation is needed, for example, for persons with special needs or disabilities.
Can the Senior Parliamentary Secretary clarify if an interpreter has to be present in person with the client making the statutory declaration, oaths or affirmations? If the interpreter is allowed to be present over video link, can the Senior Parliamentary Secretary share what steps the Commissioner or Notary Public should take to ensure that the interpretation and communication is accurately done?
My second point is on the responsibility of a Commissioner or Notary Public to verify the independence of a client. The risk of clients making oaths or affirmations under undue pressure is always present, even in in-person affirmations or notarisations. However, where the Commissioner or Notary Public is only able to observe the client over video link, the risk is higher.
Can the Senior Parliamentary Secretary share what steps a Commissioner or Notary Public should take to ensure that the client signs any documents independently and without any undue pressure? For example, must a Commissioner or Notary Public take additional steps to verify the persons in the room with the client and the relationships of these persons with the client? Relatedly, can the Senior Parliamentary Secretary elaborate on the circumstances where a Commissioner or Notary Public should decline to take the oath or affirmation over video link?
My last point is on the security of communication links. The Bill does not specify the types of communication technology or platforms that can be used for the live video or television link. Can the Senior Parliamentary Secretary share whether there will be any requirements on the security of the platforms that will be permitted? For instance, must the platforms have end-to-end encryption to protect the video transmission? Allowing remote oaths, affirmations or notarisations may open up a new avenue for scammers to solicit personal data. Are there any methods in which clients can easily identify if the video links for oaths, affirmations or notarisations are valid?
Sir, notwithstanding these clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Senior Parliamentary Secretary Rahayu Mahzam.
Ms Rahayu Mahzam: Sir, I thank Members who spoke in support of the Bills. Let me now address the questions that were raised.
First, Mr Dennis Tan asked whether the amendments to section 11 apply to Commissioners for Oaths (CFOs), administering statutory declarations. The answer is yes – the section 11 amendments are intended to apply to CFOs administering statutory declarations.
Next, Mr Yip Hon Weng asked how we can guard against fraud and impersonation. Mr Louis Ng asked what steps CFOs and Notary Publics (NPs) should take to ensure that the client is not under undue pressure over video link. Mr Dennis Tan commented that the use of electronic means of communication may come with some difficulties and asked that we do not increase the standard of care expected of CFOs and NPs.
As I mentioned during my opening speech, the need to ensure the continuing integrity of the various processes was a key consideration when developing the electronic framework. The possibility of fraud, impersonation and undue pressure is not unique to the electronic space. Identity fraud and forgery can happen in the real world.
To guard against this, the Singapore Academy of Law (SAL) has existing guidelines which advise CFOs and NPs to take steps to verify the identity of the person before them, for example, by requiring the person to produce a photo ID.
Nonetheless, we recognise that the adoption of technology introduces new ways in which fraud can be carried out. Impersonation through deepfakes, which Mr Yip has mentioned, is one possibility that we need to be on our guard against.
Technology also has its limitations. It is probably easier for a person to exert undue pressure on a client in the same room without a CFO's or NP's knowledge when the CFO or NP is communicating with the client by video link instead of in-person.
So, as mentioned earlier, the Bills set out some minimum requirements that the electronic link must satisfy. One requirement is that the electronic link must enable the person who is administering the oath or statutory declaration to confirm the identity of the client. Further requirements may also be prescribed in subsidiary legislation under the Oaths, Declarations and Notarisations (Remote Methods) Bill, or the ODN Bill. These requirements can be reviewed and updated from time to time to keep pace with technological developments and to address new ways of committing fraud.
We will also work with the Singapore Academy of Law to update the existing guidelines for CFOs and NPs, so that the CFOs and NPs are equipped with the practical know-how to conduct transactions in a secure electronic environment.
When formulating the revised guidelines, we will bear in mind the issues of fraud and impersonation which Mr Yip has raised. We will also bear in mind the need to guard against undue influence.
With this in mind, CFOs and NPs will likely be required to verify whether there are any other persons in the room with the client, and if so, who they are – a step that Mr Ng had alluded to and a step which CFOs are required to take today when commissioning affidavits remotely.
All this being said, laws and guidelines are not in themselves sufficient. Those who are entrusted with the responsibility to administer the oath or statutory declaration must continue to be vigilant and to take the necessary steps to satisfy themselves of the identity of the person taking the oath or making the statutory declaration and that the person is not under undue influence.
With regard to Mr Dennis Tan's point on keeping to the existing standard of care, the revised requirements and guidelines are unlikely to result in significant additional burden to CFOs and NPs. Any specific requirements that are put in place will be those that are necessary to safeguard the integrity of the various processes.
In a related vein, Mr Ng asked whether there are methods by which clients can verify if the video links for oaths, affirmations and notarisations are valid, rather than a scam.
The best defence against scams is a vigilant and discerning public. Members of the public should take care to verify that the service provider they are engaging is legitimate and is not a scammer. In this regard, the public can visit the SAL's website today to check whether a person is indeed a CFO or NP.
As with the use of any other online service, members of the public who wish to conduct transactions remotely should also keep a lookout for tell-tale signs of scams. For example, they should check that any links that they receive are sent from the email address of the CFO or NP that they have been communicating with, and that the links point to an established video conferencing platform. If in doubt, members of the public should verify the authenticity of any links received through a separate channel such as a phone call with the CFO or NP.
Mr Yip asked about the reliability of the electronic link and what happens if the electronic link is disrupted. Mr Ng also asked whether there are any requirements as to the security of the permitted platforms and whether, for instance, they must be secured with end-to-end encryption.
The Bills are not prescriptive of the specific electronic platform that parties must use or how fast, clear or secure the electronic link must be. Instead, the Bills set out broad outcomes that the electronic link must be capable of achieving. Specifically, the electronic link must enable the service provider to communicate with the client, confirm the client's identity and verify any document that is to be signed.
An electronic link will not meet these minimum requirements if it is of such poor quality that the service provider is unable to properly make out the client's face, or if it keeps dropping such that parties are unable to communicate properly. In such cases, parties will have to try again with a better connection, or fall back to an in-person meeting.
As for the security of the electronic platform, it is up to the client and service provider to agree on an electronic platform that both are comfortable with using and that will best safeguard the confidentiality of the transaction. The client may also request for an in-person meeting instead.
I should add that even in the absence of technical difficulties or concerns about confidentiality, it will still be open to any party to end the remote session at any time and request for an in-person meeting. For instance, the service provider may do this if he or she feels that something is amiss.
Next, Mr Yip asked whether an overseas live link is allowed – I understand this to mean a scenario where one or even both parties to the process are not physically present in Singapore. For statutory declarations and notarisations, both the service provider and the client must be in Singapore before they can rely on the electronic framework that is set out under the ODN Bill. This is consistent with the position under existing law.
There is an existing framework providing various options for overseas Singaporeans who need to make a statutory declaration or who need a document to be notarised. For instance, they may approach a notary public in that country or seek assistance from a Singapore Overseas Mission.
For oaths, I mentioned earlier that our laws provide for oaths to be taken in a wide range of different processes and circumstances. Requirements such as who must take an oath, who the oath must be taken before and the form of words that must be used are set out in those existing laws. What these amendments do, is to make clear that any witnessing requirement for an oath can also be satisfied through the use of electronic means of communication such as videoconferencing.
So, apart from making clear that the use of the stipulated electronic modalities is acceptable, the Bills do not make changes to the frameworks under existing law. Therefore, to Mr Yip's question on whether any specific oath can be taken when one or more persons involved in the process is physically outside Singapore, this is context specific and must be determined with reference to the legislation governing the process in question.
For example, in the case of a witness who is appearing before Court, it is possible under the rules governing court procedure for the witness to be overseas and to take his oath and give evidence to a Singapore Court through live video link. However, this will be subject to the grant of permission by the Court. There are also existing rules and requirements on this in the Evidence Act and the Criminal Procedure Code.
Likewise, to Mr Dennis Tan's question on whether an oath may be administered en masse to polling or counting agents, this must also be determined with reference to the existing legislative provisions under the Parliamentary Elections Act and the Presidential Elections Act. The amendments under these Bills do not change the existing position under these Acts.
The manner in which oaths are administered for polling and counting agents – including whether video link is used in the first place – is something that the Elections Department will decide, depending on their assessment of what is most appropriate, to ensure that the integrity of the election process, as a whole, is not undermined.
Next, Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked whether consular officers may administer oaths and affirmations or perform notarial acts through virtual means. The powers of a consular officer to administer an oath or affirmation, take an affidavit or perform a notarial act are set out in the Diplomatic and Consular Officers (Oaths and Fees) Act 1968, or the DCOA.
Today, consular officers only perform such functions in-person. These Bills do not affect the existing position under the DCOA. We are aware overseas Singaporeans sometimes face difficulties obtaining notarial services in-person at our overseas Missions. Together with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA), we are studying possible ways, including by electronic means, to address such difficulties.
Next, Mr Louis Ng asked several queries relating to interpreters. Mr Ng asked whether an interpreter has to be present in person with the client. The Bills do not require this. It is possible for the CFO or NP, client and interpreter to be at three separate physical locations. Mr Ng asked what steps the CFO or NP should take to ensure that the interpretation and communication is accurately done.
Today, CFOs and NPs are already required to take steps to safeguard the integrity of the process when it is done in person. Similar requirements will continue to apply under the electronic framework. For example, CFOs and NPs may be required to ensure that they can hear and see both the client and the interpreter simultaneously. The specific steps CFOs and NP will be required to take will be set out in either subsidiary legislation or in the refreshed guidelines to be issued by the Singapore Academy of Law.
Ultimately, however, it will be up to each individual CFO and NP to exercise their professional judgment and experience, to satisfy themselves that the contents of the relevant document have been properly interpreted. If the CFO or NP is, at any point in time, not satisfied with the integrity of the process, the CFO or NP should stop the process, and request that the statutory declaration or oath or affirmation, be made or taken physically in person instead.
Finally, Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked if remote commissioning or remote notarisations can be enabled through the promulgation of subsidiary legislation by the Minister.
In the present case, amendments to primary legislation are necessary because we are making changes to certain requirements currently found in primary legislation. Nonetheless, going forward, the Bills do provide the Minister with the necessary rule-making powers to adjust the electronic framework using subsidiary legislation. As I have mentioned, the Minister will be able to use subsidiary legislation to prescribe specific requirements that must be satisfied. These requirements will be reviewed from time to time, to keep pace with technological developments and address new ways of committing fraud.
Mr Speaker, I believe that I have answered all the questions posed by Members. Sir, with that, I beg to move.
Mr Speaker: The Question is, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\"
Pursuant to Article 5(2) of the Constitution, a vote is taken to ascertain that the Second Reading of the Bill is supported by the votes of not less than two-thirds of the total number of Elected and Non-Constituency Members of Parliament, which is 60 Members. Clerk, ring the division bells.
[(proc text) After two minutes – (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Serjeant‐at‐Arms, lock the doors.
Before I proceed to start the electronic voting, may I remind Members that they are to be seated at their designated seats and should only start to vote when the voting buttons on the arm rest start to blink.
[(proc text) Question put, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\" (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Take a vote. Members are advised to check that their names are registered according to their vote indication when the voting results are shown on the display screens.
Before I proceed to declare the results of the vote, are there any Members who wish to claim that his or her vote has not been displayed or displayed incorrectly on the screens? Mr Desmond Choo.
Mr Desmond Choo: Mr Speaker, I would like to press \"yes.\" My vote is not registered.
Mr Speaker: Your name is missing? Okay, Mr Desmond Choo, we will add that in.
Mr Speaker: So, I will proceed to declare the voting results now. There are 83 \"Ayes\"; zero \"Noes\"; zero \"Abstentions\". The Second Reading of the Bill has been carried by the votes of not less than two-thirds of the total number of Elected and Non-Constituency Members of Parliament.
[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Ms Rahayu Mahzam]. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment. (proc text)]
Third Reading
Mr Speaker: Third Reading, what day?
Ms Rahayu Mahzam: Now, Sir, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Third time.\"
Mr Speaker: The Question is, \"That the Bill be now read a Third time.\"
Pursuant to Article 5(2) of the Constitution, a vote is taken to ascertain that the Third Reading of the Bill is supported by the votes of not less than two-thirds of the total number of Elected and Non-Constituency Members of Parliament, which is 60 Members. Clerk, ring the division bells.
[(proc text) After one minute – (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Serjeant-at-Arms, lock the doors.
[(proc text) Question put, \"That the Bill be now read a Third Time.\" (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Take a vote. You may now begin to vote. May I remind Members to depress their vote button firmly, in order to register their vote in the system.
Members are advised to check that their names are registered according to their vote indication when the voting results are shown on the display screens.
Before I proceed to declare the results of the vote, are there any Members who wish to claim that his or her vote has not been displayed or is displayed incorrectly on the screens? I do not see any.
Mr Speaker: I will proceed to declare the voting results now. There are now 83 \"Ayes\"; zero \"Noes\"; zero \"Abstentions\". The Third Reading of the Bill has been carried by the votes of not less than two-thirds of the total number of Elected and Non-Constituency Members of Parliament.
[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Oaths, Declarations and Notarisations (Remote Methods) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"
[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Law (Ms Rahayu Mahzam) (for the Minister for Law): Mr Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for Law, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time\".
This Bill amends the Oaths and Declarations Act, the Notaries Public Act and other Acts, to enact a framework that will enable statutory declarations, oaths and affirmations, and notarisations to be done through electronic means, while ensuring the integrity of these processes and maintaining a high degree of security against fraud.
This Bill is linked to the Constitution (Amendment) Bill, which we had earlier debated. In that debate, I have already explained the amendments proposed in both Bills. Members have already raised their questions and expressed their views on both Bills during the earlier debate, although they are still welcome to do so now, if they have any. Mr Speaker, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Any Member who wishes for his or her dissent, or abstention to be recorded or claim a division before I declare the results? No?
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Ms Rahayu Mahzam]. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impartial Speaker of Parliament","subTitle":"Motion","sectionType":"OS","content":"Mr Speaker: Order. I wish to draw Members' attention to the Standing Orders before the Motion is proceeded with.
The subject matter of the Motion is on the general desirability for an independent and impartial Speaker and for Parliament to be a fair arena. This Motion is not a debate on the conduct of former Speaker Tan Chuan-Jin. Members are hence reminded that they should confine their observations to the subject of the Motion to be discussed.
In their speeches, Members should not impute improper motives to any other Member and, most specifically, rulings made by the former Speaker on any point of order cannot be reviewed by Parliament except upon a substantive Motion directly addressing those specific Points of Order.
Any aspersions on the conduct of the former Speaker or allegations that he was thereby not independent and impartial will hence be out of order. Members are to abide by these Standing Orders and I will disallow any remarks which infringe the rules.
Mr Leong Mun Wai.
Mr Leong Mun Wai (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move*, \"That this House reaffirms its commitment to the need for the Speaker of Parliament to be independent and impartial and for Parliament to be a fair arena for all.\"
[(proc text) *The Motion also stood in the name of Ms Hazel Poa. (proc text)]
Before I begin my speech, Mr Speaker, on behalf of the Progress Singapore Party (PSP), I would like to congratulate you on your election as Speaker of Parliament. We are sure that your years of experience as Deputy Speaker will put you in good stead for the role that has now been entrusted to you and we trust that you will do your best to restore public confidence in the office of the Speaker of Parliament.
The events that led us to debate this Motion today has been truly regrettable. Even though Speaker Tan Chuan-Jin has resigned and apologised for his comment for Assoc Prof Jamus Lim's speech on the President's Address during the Parliamentary Sitting on 17 April 2023, the PSP believes that the conduct of the former Speaker has brought Parliament into disrepute and is a matter that deserves a full debate in this House.
Sir, the Speaker of Parliament is responsible for presiding over Parliamentary Sittings and enforcing the rules of debate that have been laid down in the Standing Orders of Parliament to ensure that Parliamentary business is conducted in an orderly manner.
In carrying out these important duties, the Speaker must remain impartial to all Members of Parliament (MPs), regardless of their political affiliation. He must be seen as a fair referee, just like a Judge.
Mr EW Barker, the first Law Minister of Independent Singapore, pointed out the similarities between the Speaker of Parliament and a Judge during a speech in this House in January 1970. Mr Barker said, and I quote, \"There is a great deal of similarity between the Judge and the Speaker. The impartiality both are expected to maintain between contending and contentious factions has to be, it is generally believed, judicial.\"
Indeed, all Speakers of Parliament prior to 1970 had been members of the legal profession, a fact that was also pointed out by Mr Barker in his speech.
It is paramount that a Speaker must be impartial and be seen by the public as impartial in discharging his duties in this House.
Speaker Tan's comment during the 17 April Sitting already damaged the public perception of its impartiality, even before the revelation of his inappropriate relation with a fellow PAP Member of Parliament (MP).
Let us consider the context of Speaker Tan's comments. Assoc Prof Jamus Lim had just concluded a speech on poverty, titled \"Hard Living in Singapore\". Among other things, he called for the implementation of a poverty line and to make the approval process for ComCare less onerous and intrusive. After Assoc Prof Jamus Lim had taken a seat, Speaker Tan muttered a comment under his breath which I will not repeat, out of respect for the Standing Orders.
Speaker Tan's comments were highly contentious for two reasons. First, unparliamentary profanities were used in the comment. Secondly, which is the more serious reason, the comment itself revealed Speaker Tan's views of Assoc Prof Jamus Lim as a person or the contents of his speech or both.
The Speaker of Parliament is, of course, entitled to form his own private opinions on any Member of this House or any speeches made here. However, as an impartial referee that enforces Parliamentary rules and procedures, the Speaker must not publicly express those opinions. This is no different from judges and heads of states in the Westminster system. We do not expect or, indeed, allow judges to express their opinions publicly or heads of states to express a different view from the government on public policy.
The issue here is that not being neutral and impartial leads to consequences of negative public perception that lower public trust in public institutions.
While Speaker Tan may not have expected that his comment will be picked up publicly, he was on duty and discharging his responsibilities as Speaker of the House. It was, therefore, a serious error to have even made that comment.
Furthermore, the tone and content of the comment make it clear that Speaker Tan objected to the contents of Assoc Prof Jamus Lim's speech. This is especially problematic because the Speaker is expected to ensure that Parliament is a fair arena for all MPs, regardless of their political affiliation and he was objecting to the speech made by a Member of a different political party.
Mr Speaker: Mr Leong, if I can just remind you what I mentioned at the start, before you spoke, that we should not be comment – this is not a debate on the conduct of former Speaker Tan Chuan-Jin.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Yes, Speaker, I understand that. But the recent event is, sort of, the ingredient for bringing out the principle, right? So, it is part and parcel of —
Mr Speaker: Yes, so stick to your Motion. But not to comment on the conduct of former Speaker Tan Chuan-Jin.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Yes, yes, that is right.
Mr Speaker: Thank you.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Sorry, I will carry on. Speaker Tan's comment thus did great damage to public perception of his impartiality as well as the impartiality of the office of the Speaker. He acknowledged this in his resignation letter to Prime Minister Lee when he said that his mistake raised \"broader questions over my neutrality and impartiality as Speaker.\"
Speaker Tan's inappropriate comments —
Mr Speaker: Mr Leong, Mr Leong. I thought you understood what I said earlier?
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Yes, but this is part and parcel of —
Mr Speaker: So, you can talk about your Motion, which is about the neutrality of the Speaker, but you do not need to make references to the conduct of former Speaker Tan Chuan-Jin. I hope you understand that?
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Point of Order, Sir. Can I know under what Standing Order I am restricted from saying this?
Mr Speaker: Well, I will get the exact Standing Order to you, but here, this Motion, I would like to repeat myself, in my opening remarks, it is not a debate on the conduct of former Speaker Tan Chuan-Jin. So, it is not about his conduct. It is about – let me read your Motion, \"That this House reaffirms its commitment to the need for the Speaker of Parliament to be independent and impartial and for Parliament to be a fair arena for all.\" That is your Motion. Thank you.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Okay. Speaker Tan's comments are a direct strike at the values that underpin this Parliament, as a result we are —
Mr Speaker: Mr Leong, since you asked me which section of the Standing Order, Standing Order 50(1) states the content of speeches and this is why I say that Members, I reminded Members that they should confine their observations to the subject of the Motion to be discussed. And in Standing Order 50(6), it states that in their speeches, Members should not impute improper motives to any other Member; and more specifically, I again repeated myself to say that rulings made by the former Speaker on any Point of Order cannot be reviewed by Parliament except upon a substantive Motion directly addressing those specific Points of Order.
So, these are the specific references that you asked for. Thank you. If you would like a copy of the Standing Order, I can pass the book to you?
Mr Leong Mun Wai: No, no, no, I understand that.
Hence, we are disappointed with the Prime Minister's confirmation during the Ministerial Statement just now that he would not have asked Speaker Tan to resign for his inappropriate comment. We think the Speaker should be held to a higher standard than an MP. This is an issue that should be debated further in this House.
For any democracy to function properly, it must function on the basis of a Parliament that it can trust. How can the public trust Parliament when its presiding officer had compromised his ability to be independent and impartial?
Mr Speaker, historically, even without recent events, the actions of the PAP Government over the years could arguably be perceived by the public to have eroded the independence and impartiality of the Speaker's office over the years. As I mentioned earlier, prior to 1970, all the Speakers of Parliament had been members of the legal profession, either judges or lawyers. Except for the brief period between 1963 and 1964, when Mr EW Barker was Speaker of Parliament, all the Speakers of Parliament were also non-partisan. When Mr Barker was elected as Speaker, Deputy Prime Minister Dr Toh Chin Chye explained that this was a temporary stop-gap measure until the consent of the Malaysian government, which was responsible for Singapore's judiciary at the time, when we were part of the Federation of Malaysia, could be solved, for a judge to be elected as Speaker. And indeed, this was followed through when AP Rajah was elected as Speaker in November 1964.
However, this convention changed after 1970, following the election of PAP backbencher and non-lawyer, Dr Yeoh Ghim Seng, as Speaker. I would like to add that this happened, incidentally, after the PAP captured 100% of the Parliamentary seats in the 1968 General Election.
Since 1970, the office of Speaker has been occupied by a PAP MP. Furthermore, in recent years, Speaker Tan and his predecessors have also been members of the Central Executive Committee (CEC) of the PAP. In other words, at the power centre of the ruling party. This evolution from having a non-partisan Speaker, a backbencher Speaker, to Speakers who are ex-office holders or members of the PAP's CEC could be perceived as having eroded the independence and impartiality of the Speaker's office over the years.
PSP believes that it is problematic for the Speaker to uphold his impartiality and independence while simultaneously being at the power centre of the ruling party and being privy to the ruling party's political strategy alongside members of the Government.
It is also difficult for the public, especially those who do not support the ruling party, to be fully convinced that a core member of the ruling party can be an impartial presiding officer of the Parliament. We are of the view that the Speaker should at least not be a CEC member of the PAP. Hence, we supported the elevation of Mr Speaker from the backbenches to the Speaker's office this time round.
We hope that the Speaker of Parliament, who is not closely linked to the core of the PAP, will be able to restore public confidence in the impartiality and independence of the office of the Speaker of Parliament. The PSP trusts, that you, Mr Speaker, will make every effort to do this for the rest of this term of Parliament.
As our democracy develops and the number of alternative and opposition MPs, we hope the Speaker will be a non-partisan person again in the future, just like AP Rajah in 1964.
Sir, since I cannot quote many of the examples that I have prepared here, I shall conclude by recounting an event in English history which has a bearing on how Speakers in Commonwealth jurisdictions conduct ourselves.
In 1642, King Charles I of England entered the English House of Commons and attempted to arrest five MPs. He demanded that the Speaker of Commons, William Lenthall, identify these five Members for arrest. Lenthall famously replied to the King, \"May it please Your Majesty, I have neither eyes to see nor tongue to speak in this place, except as the House, whose servant I am, directs of me.\" This incident underlines the principle that the Speaker should not be subordinate to the Government but an independent servant of the House. The Speaker has a duty to this House and this House alone. He is also not at liberty to express his opinions beyond defending the interests of this House.
The comments of a Speaker, therefore, must continue to build on the confidence that the public has in the office of the Speaker and he must always be independent and impartial. There is much work to be done by this House and our new Speaker to restore public confidence in the independence and impartiality of the office of Speaker, which has taken a body blow by recent events.
I call on Members to support the Motion tabled by Ms Hazel Poa and I, and unanimously reaffirm our commitment for the need for the Speaker of Parliament to be independent and impartial, and for Parliament to be a fair arena for all.
Mr Speaker: Thank you for your good wishes, Mr Leong, and I appreciate your trust and confidence.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Mr Vikram Nair.
Mr Vikram Nair (Sembawang): Mr Speaker, congratulations on your appointment as well. The position of the Speaker of Parliament exists in almost all modern parliamentary systems. The Speaker is a generally a Member of the House that is selected by fellow Members with a majority of the vote. While Singapore’s Constitution does not require the Speaker to be a Member of Parliament (MP), the general practice has been for the Speaker to be an elected Member.
In most countries, the result of these two practices, namely (a) the Speaker being an MP and (b) the Speaker being elected by the majority of the House is often that the Speaker is an MP from the ruling party. There are times when non-ruling party MPs get elected as Speaker, and in Singapore's case, when non-MPs also get elected as Speakers, but this is the exception rather than the rule.
PSP's proposal does not seem to be suggesting we do away with this completely, but just seems to suggest within certain parameters around which the person should be selected, namely that the individual should not have been a part of the core leadership team of the ruling party.
I do not think there is the need for this additional limitation and I will explain this in my speech.
The most important point is the Speaker has to command the support of the majority in Parliament. Why is this important? The Speaker has the duty to preside over the elected representatives in the Chamber and he must in turn have their mandate to do so. Otherwise, you will have the anomalous situation of an unelected person potentially controlling the proceedings of the elected officials.
I think while my colleague Mr Leong highlighted some similarities between the role of a Judge and the role of a Speaker, there are also some important differences. One of the most important differences is that a Judge makes decisions on the facts before them and their decisions bind all parties on those facts. The Speaker, on the other hand, presides over Parliamentary proceedings, and while the Speaker may make decisions on procedural issues, the substantive decisions are made by the legislative chamber itself. Bills can only be passed by elected representatives. The Speaker does not have the power to force a Bill through.
Before Singapore’s independence, when we had a Legislative Assembly under British Rule, the first Speaker, Sir George Oehlers, was appointed by the Governor-General, who was the representative of the Crown, and this was in 1955.
Since Independence though, Singapore, like the UK and all other Commonwealth countries, had its own Parliament and the Speaker was one who was voted in by the majority of legislators in Parliament. As a matter of practice, the Speaker was nominated by the Prime Minister since the Prime Minister is the individual who commands the support of the majority in the House.
The Speaker in Singapore does not have to be from the ruling party, but usually is. After Sir George Oehlers, our next Speaker was Mr EW Barker in 1963 and he was also a very successful lawyer. But he was a member of the ruling party. The next Speakers after him, Mr AP Rajah and Mr Punch Coomaraswamy, were not members of the ruling party but they were nominated by the Prime Minister and endorsed by the majority of the House.
Following that, from 1970, we had three of our longest serving Speakers: Dr Yeoh Ghim Seng, Mr Tan Soo Khoon and Mr Abdullah Tarmugi. The three of them took us all the way from 1970 to 2011. All three were members of the PAP. In Mr Abdullah Tarmugi's case, he was a member of the Cabinet, so, he was a part of the core leadership team before becoming a Speaker. They were appointed the same way as their predecessors, namely, nominated by the Prime Minister and elected by the House.
The fact that the Speaker is from the ruling party is not something that should take away from the discharge of their duties. The Speaker is still required to discharge their duties independently and impartially.
The Motion talks about Parliament being a fair arena. However, the fairness of Parliament is not just dependent on the individual who is the Speaker. The Speaker himself, like all Members, is bound by Parliament's Standing Orders as well as the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act.
Parliament's Standing Orders give Members who wish to speak a wide range of opportunities to do so. They may file Parliamentary Questions for written or oral answer, which Ministers will have to address publicly. They may speak on any Bills put forward by the Government, meaning, they have a say on any and every piece of legislation that passes this House. They may file Adjournment Motions if they need more time to speak on a specific issue and, again, the relevant Ministry will be required to address the issues raised. Finally, if they wish to speak at length on a topic, they may file a Motion, which Mr Leong is doing today.
The Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act sets out additional protections for MPs, including freedom of speech such that anything that is said in Parliament is generally protected from proceedings in Court or any other forum, other than Parliament itself, which is why the Parliament is the first port of call if Members were to breach the Standing Orders.
All these matters provided for in Parliament's Standing Orders give every Member, whether from the ruling party or the opposition, the opportunity to raise and discuss matters they feel are important.
In keeping Parliament a fair arena, it is therefore also important for all Members to respect and comply with these rules.
The substance of keeping Parliament a fair arena is, I would respectfully say, largely captured in these rules and the law. The Speaker has the duty to ensure observance of the Standing Orders by Members in Parliamentary proceedings and must be independent and impartial in doing so.
If, indeed, there is any allegation that the Speaker has not acted independently and impartially in his decisions, this should be the subject of a specific Motion. No such Motion has been put forward.
Our process also has its checks on the Speaker's conduct should the Speaker fail to discharge his duties properly. The first is the Speaker's own party, if it feels the Speaker has not acted properly in any way. The second is Parliament itself, where Members are free to raise any objections they may wish to or even file the necessary Motion. Third, the ultimate check on a Member of the legislature is the ballot box. As Parliamentary debates are public, every action that the Speaker may take is up for public scrutiny. If there is any allegation that he has been unfair or impartial in the discharge of his duties, that is something the voters may take into account, both against him and even the party he is from, if the party endorses that conduct.
I think Mr Leong has made some references to the UK and the Speaker there. I would say different countries may have different practices in selecting the Speaker. The UK has a practice of the Speaker resigning from his political party upon nomination and actually being \"dragged\", supposedly unwillingly, from this chair to take the seat of the Speaker. This is because of the history of the Speaker sometimes having to deliver uncomfortable news to the Crown and for which he may face the consequences.
However, even though the Speaker may resign from his party upon nomination, it is clear that he still has the support of the party that commands the majority in Parliament and, in most cases, was a former member of that party. That would suggest his personal beliefs are likely to be aligned with the party he was a member of. Notwithstanding that, in the discharge of his duties, he is expected to be independent and impartial.
There are other peculiarities in the UK's approach, including that the Speaker's seat is generally uncontested by other parties and he campaigns as Speaker. He is thus likely to get re-elected unchallenged if campaigning as a Speaker.
This means that, unlike the Singapore system, where people vote for all legislators, including the Speaker, in the UK, the Speaker would not be subject to a challenge at the ballot box. So, his accountability in that sense is only to the Parliament itself, should the majority nominate him again. Whereas under our system, as I mentioned, the Speaker has three sets of checks: the party he is from, the Parliament itself, and third, the ballot box.
This is a different approach, but I do not think it is necessarily superior to the one we have.
There are other Commonwealth Countries, such as Australia, which have a system very similar to ours. There, the Speaker remains a member of a political party and will have to campaign for re-election like any other Member. The Speaker needs to get the support from the majority in Parliament. In practice, most of the Speakers have been from the ruling party, although there, too, were a few notable exceptions – just like in Singapore.
The Speaker in the Australian Parliament has often had to exercise a much firmer hand than the Speaker in Singapore on Points of Order and breaches of the Standing Orders of Parliament. Yet, despite the Speaker being from a political party and exercising these powers, nobody has seriously suggested the Australian Parliament is not a fair arena for debate.
I therefore do not think that the fact that the Speaker happens to be from a political party or from its leadership automatically means that he lacks independence in the performance of his duties as Speaker.
Finally, I believe this obligation to keep Parliament a fair arena for all is not just for the Speaker, but also one in which every Member has a part. It is important for Members to respect the Standing Orders so that other Members would also have opportunities to speak and raise the points they need to speak. It is thus important for all Members to honour and comply with their obligations as set out in the Standing Orders as well as the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act.
Against this backdrop, Mr Speaker, with your permission, may I propose an amendment to the Motion?
Mr Speaker: Can I have a copy of your amendment?
Mr Vikram Nair: Yes. [A copy of the amendment was handed to Mr Speaker.]
Mr Speaker: The amendment is in order. Are copies available for other Members?
Mr Vikram Nair: Yes.
Mr Speaker: Please move your amendments. [A handout was distributed to hon Members.]
Mr Vikram Nair: I will just wait for Members to get the copies.
Mr Speaker: Yes, let us give it another minute. Mr Vikram Nair, you can move your amendment.
Mr Vikram Nair: Thank you. Mr Speaker, I beg to move the following amendments:
One, \"In line 1, after the word 'commitment', to insert '(a)'\".
Two, \"In line 2, to delete the words 'be independent and impartial' and to insert 'discharge his duties independently and impartially'; and
Three, \"At the end of line 2, to add 'and (b) to uphold the Standing Orders of Parliament and the obligations under the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act 1962'\".
The amendments have been marked up in the handout for Members' reference.
I agree with the PSP that the Speaker must act independently in the discharge of his duties. The first amendment reflects this. This is being suggested so that the Motion is not misinterpreted to mean that the Speaker cannot be from a political party in order to be independent. The amendment therefore focuses on the independence in the discharge of his duties, which is the standard Speakers in all Parliamentary systems are held to. The Speakers in many Commonwealth Parliamentary systems come from the ruling party and this has never been a basis to say Parliament is not a fair arena for debate.
The second part of the amendment is, I think, equally important. As I had explained earlier, many of the rules that ensure Parliament is a fair arena, including the rights and obligations that Members have, are all actually in the Standing Orders and the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act. These are rules that every Member should be committed to in our shared obligation to ensure Parliament is a fair arena.
I therefore beg to move the Motion as amended, Mr Speaker. Thank you.
Mr Speaker: There are three amendments proposed by Mr Vikram Nair to the Motion.
First, \"In line 1, after the word 'commitment', to insert '(a)'.\"
Second, \"In line 2, to delete 'be independent and impartial' and to insert 'discharge his duties independently and impartially'.\"
And the third amendment is, \"At the end of line 2, to add 'and (b) to uphold the Standing Orders of Parliament and the obligations under the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act 1962'\".
It may be convenient that the debate on the original Motion and on any other amendments moved by Members be proceeded with simultaneously as a debate on a single question. Do I have the hon Members' agreement to this?
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.
Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): Mr Speaker, I will follow the precedent set by my fellow Members and likewise extend my congratulations on your recent election.
I am also keenly aware that possibly, one of the catalysts for this Motion – on the need for an independent and impartial Speaker – was because of an off-the-cuff remark made by the former Speaker on a speech that I had delivered in response to the President's Address to begin this House's second session.
While any call for censure of the former Speaker would appear to have been overtaken by events, I would like to offer some thoughts on two matters: first, on the reaction to the speech, and second, on the role of debate in policymaking in a modern democracy.
The former Speaker had characterised the proposals I offered on policies targeted at alleviating the plight of the poor as populist. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, of course, and I do not fault him for having his own views on the matter. That said, I will only add that populist policies are those designed to appeal to the broad populace – hence, the name – who feel aggrieved by the establishment. Populism is about arousing the raw sentiment, with a perception of an uncaring elite.
To be clear, my intention was anything but. Rather, I was speaking up for a group that, by definition, is a minority. I would have hoped that it should not be seen as an effort to rally mass outrage, but an effort to flag concerns for a group that is often voiceless.
Mr Speaker, I now move on to my second point and that is policymaking in a modern democracy is made better when there is active debate, even when we happen to disagree.
When we were a developing nation, the sorts of optimal policies we should pursue – the pursuit of an economy open to international trade and investment flows, coupled with an orientation toward export promotion, for instance, or a keen respect for the rule of law and property rights, along with the importance of governance, more generally, and socio-political stability, undergirded by meritocratic principles and respect for the equality of different races and religions – were well understood, even if non-trivial to accomplish.
Thanks to the pioneering generation of Singapore's leaders, however, we were able to build a foundation of economic openness, institutional quality and social capital, which we as subsequent generations have been able to draw on and enjoy.
These were the ingredients for Singapore's economic success, and it has made us into one of the richest economies in the world.
While we should never allow the legacy of these hard-won policies and institutions to erode, the reality of a modern economy and society is that the way forward is no longer as certain. While many of the challenges of development were about getting these fundamentals right, the issues faced by a developed nation do not present as clear-cut a solution.
Think about matters that now occupy much of our political and Parliamentary time. Issues like the need for greater social protection through the institution of a minimum wage, official poverty line or unemployment insurance. Or a more vibrant intellectual environment that will allow our highly trained workforce the room to be creative and innovative. Or greater equality in sharing the fruits of our economic success via more progressive income and wealth taxation. Or tricky matters of individual liberty and socio-cultural norms, such as the debate over the repeal of 377A and the relative freedom of the media to publish their opinions. These examples are all fundamentally ones that involve trade-offs and redistribution, rather than efficiency and optimisation.
When that is the case, I believe it is impossible to successfully identify the right way forward for the society, unless there is genuine, passionate, and, dare I say, animated debate, with proper respect for Parliamentary decorum, of course.
This is because I sincerely believe that we will only arrive at a balance that society as a whole can accept when there is some degree of agitation toward a solution, and even if some may do so somewhat more grudgingly.
This brings me back to our former Speaker's original remark. This can only happen in a Parliamentary setting where such differences of opinion are not only acquiesced to, but actually welcomed. Do we deride what we disagree with and dismiss it with a convenient label or seek to score political points with ad hominem rebuttals or do we at least seek to understand the premise of the other's argument, giving them the benefit of the doubt even if we may ultimately disagree with them? Can this occur anywhere, but in a Chamber where Members feel that the freedom to air these alternative views, with an adjudicator that they feel is independent and impartial?
More generally, I am hopeful that this Government will not casually dismiss alternative, evidence-based policy proposals, put up in good faith, but offer equally evidence-based counterarguments when rejecting any given policy proposal. This comes down to a competition in ideas and I do not believe any single person in this House will always have the best ones.
Academics, of which I am, are taught early on in their training to respect ideas, regardless of their origin. That is why we subject our work to seminars and conferences, to peer-reviewed journals and to public scrutiny, where they are challenged and, more frequently than we like, rejected. As much as nobody enjoys having their ideas shot down, the process of defending, refining and revising our ideas is what makes them more robust and ultimately, far more valuable. In the end, only the best ideas survive, and these are the ones that have the potential to go on and make a difference for both society and for the world at large.
For the same reason, I believe we need greater competition in the politics, policies and ideas that will bring Singapore forward into the next century. Mr Speaker, I support the Motion.
Mr Speaker: Deputy Leader Zaqy Mohamad.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Exempted Business","subTitle":"Business Motion","sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Resolved, \"That the proceedings on the business set down on the Order Paper for today be exempted at this day's Sitting from the provisions of Standing Order No 2.\" – [Mr Zaqy Mohamad] (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impartial Speaker of Parliament","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Mr Raj Joshua Thomas.
Mr Raj Joshua Thomas (Nominated Member): Sir, I thank the hon Non-Constituency Members of Parliament (NCMPs) for raising the Motion. I will not be able to support the Motion as introduced by the NCMPs. While I agree that the Speaker of Parliament should be impartial and that Parliament should be a fair arena for debate, I cannot agree with the original Motion's call for the Speaker to be independent.
The term \"independent\" in the context of Parliament or in politics has a particular definition. In his speech, Mr Leong appears to conflated the words \"independent\" and \"impartial\", but the fact that they both appear in the Motion suggests that they are intended to mean different things. When applied to a Member of Parliament (MP), the term \"independent\" would generally mean that that MP is not affiliated with a political party. This definition is used not only in Singapore, but in most, if not all, Parliamentary democracies.
Article 40(2) of the Constitution provides that the Speaker of Parliament may be elected from amongst MPs who are not Ministers or Parliamentary Secretaries or from amongst persons who are not MPs. The Constitution does not require that a Speaker, whether drawn from MPs or non-MPs, to be independent.
Furthermore, article 46(2)(b) of the Constitution also provides that an MP's seat will fall vacant if he ceases to be a member of, is expelled or resigns from, the political party for which he stood in the election. Therefore, it is a non sequitur argument to expect that an MP elected as Speaker should resign from the party, he had been elected to Parliament with, as he would lose that seat. As such, this Motion, as it was originally crafted, would be envisioning a situation where only non-MP MPs who stood in the elections as independents and won, or Nominated Members of Parliament (NMPs) could be considered for the position of Speaker.
Let me deal first with independent MPs. First, there have never been independent MPs elected to the Singapore Parliament since Independence. So, this option can be dispensed with immediately. Second, I have read media reports suggesting that NMPs be considered. But, Sir, we are, quite honestly, hardly a proper source, given that our term is only half of a Parliament's full term – although some of us may serve two terms, which is not usual – but we are not senior, nonetheless, to backbenchers with sufficient experience to chair the House and to carry out all the other roles of the Speaker. We would not want a revolving door of inexperienced Speakers. In any event, given that Speakers do not take part in debates, it would be contrary to the objectives of having NMPs, which is to provide for alternative voices in Parliament.
As regard to a non-MP serving as Speaker, there have been two such Speakers, as mentioned by hon Member Vikram Nair. The first was Mr AP Rajah, who was the first Speaker of the Parliament of Singapore. He was the holdover Speaker from the previous Legislative Assembly of Singapore. Mr Rajah had at one time been a member of the Legislative Assembly and was an eminent lawyer. He later became an ambassador and a High Court Judge.
The second Speaker of Parliament, Mr Punch Coomaraswamy was also a non-MP. Mr Coomaraswamy was also an eminent lawyer and later also served as an ambassador and a High Court Judge. All Speakers since then, as mentioned by both Mr Leong and Mr Nair, have been elected MPs from the ruling party. I do not know the exact reason why the first two Speakers were non-MPs, but I can fathom that it may well be because Parliament was young at that time and wanted to have eminent local lawyers who would be familiar with formal procedure to chair the House in its early years. Once MPs had sufficient experience, they were called upon to serve as Speakers and have done so until today. They have done a good job and their fairness has largely not been questioned by Members on both sides of the House.
Furthermore, even a cursory survey of current elected MPs would throw up many names who have the knowledge, experience, temperament and wisdom to serve as Speaker. It is only if we cannot find one within that we should look without. And we can find many elected MPs to take up the role.
As mentioned by hon Member Nair, our Singapore system is different from the UK system, where the Speaker, upon his election, severs ties with his former political party so that he is, in all aspects of the job, a completely non-partisan figure. This independent character of the Speaker was attained over a long, gradual and uneven process over 300 years, and it evolved in response to the particular political situation in the UK.
Members may know the origins of the position of the Speaker in the UK. The Speaker is called the Speaker because he was the person appointed to speak to the King on behalf of the House of Commons. The Speaker was expected to provide the King with the politically unvarnished views of the House. It was considered a dangerous position as Speakers were from time to time subject to the guillotine if the King was not happy with what the Speaker spoke. Thankfully, Mr Speaker, Sir, this is no longer a hazard of that office or of your office. And it is in this regard that I will also take this opportunity to congratulate you in your elevation to the Chair.
The role of the Speaker in the UK has evolved with its independent nature solidified in both procedure and custom in the 19th century. Such custom includes, for example, that an incumbent Speaker runs in the general elections not under a political party ticket but as Mdm or Mr Speaker in elections, and it is generally unopposed. The UK Parliament also abides by what is known as the \"continuity principle\", where an incumbent Speaker after being re-elected in a general election, would be re-elected as Speaker even if there was a change of the party forming the government. This custom is not something that is present in our system.
Most other jurisdictions that have a Westminster-type parliament also do not have an independent Speaker. India and Canada flirted with the idea, but both came to the conclusion that an MP who was elected as Speaker could be impartial without having to be independent.
The Canadian parliament rejected the notion that impartiality required independence and considered it a non sequitur argument – it was not considered an unreasonable expectation of the Speaker to separate his party allegiances with his duty to parliament. It also determined that it did not possess the customary nor procedural history that the UK had to support an independent Speaker – an argument I similarly make in relation to our House.
In India, the committee considering this question came to similar conclusions as the Canadian parliament. In addition, the Indian Supreme Court had also opined on this matter and its pronouncement is worth mentioning because it sets out the underlying rational as to why a party-affiliated Speaker could still be impartial.
In the case Shrimanth Balasaheb Patil vs Hon Speaker of Karnataka, the court was faced with the petitions of five members of the Karnataka State parliament against the Speaker of that house, who had refused to accept their resignations. The court said: \"The speaker, being a neutral person, is expected to act independently while conducting the proceedings of the house or adjudication of any petitions. The constitutional responsibility endowed upon him has to be scrupulously followed, the court made it clear that his political affiliations cannot come in the way of adjudication.\" The court continued that if the Speaker is not able to disassociate from his political party and behaves contrary to the spirit of neutrality and independence, such person does not deserve to be reposed with public trust and confidence.
In other words, the court was saying that it is incumbent then on that house to invoke the relevant procedures to correct or, if necessary, to remove the Speaker.
All this having been said, I come back to first principles – that is, that our Constitution does not require that our Speaker be independent. Procedurally, I do not think that this House can affirm a Motion that is inconsistent with the Constitution or that would purport to constrain the provisions of the Constitution.
I will, however, support the Motion as amended by hon Member Nair as it addresses my concerns that we do not inadvertently affirm that a Speaker be politically independent, meaning not being part of a political party, but instead, that he should discharge his duties independently and impartially which is indeed what we should expect of the Speaker. It may seem a small change but Mr Nair's amendment changes the meaning of the Motion and removes doubt as to what exactly Parliament is affirming.
Mr Speaker: Thank you for your good wishes and also that of Assoc Prof Jamus Lim and Mr Vikram Nair. Mr Lim Biow Chuan.
Mr Lim Biow Chuan (Mountbatten): Sir, if I may also extend my congratulations on your election to the post of Speaker.
Sir, one of the duties of the Speaker of Parliament is to preside over the Sitting of Parliament and to enforce the rules prescribed in the Standing Orders of Parliament. This is to ensure the orderly conduct of Parliamentary business.
Sir, I want to stress the importance of Standing Orders because without Standing Orders, Parliament could descend into chaos as there will be no need for accountability. Members of Parliament (MPs) can be arguing, quarrelling with one another. We note that in some countries, members of parliament fight in parliament. MPs can be criticising another person in public or in parliament, without giving them a fair chance of reply. This will be in breach of natural justice.
Time limits are set in Standing Orders because MPs can drag their speeches and, in the US, this is called filibuster. Some of the older Members may remember Mr Lee Siew Choh who spoke seven hours in 1961 in the Singapore Legislative Assembly, and you then keep everyone occupied because you just want to extend the length of your speech and extend the time. So, many Parliaments, not just Singapore, set time limits on the length of speeches. So, I stress again, Mr Speaker, Standing Orders are important for the conduct of Parliamentary business.
Sir, in carrying out the duties in the House, the Speaker must remain impartial and fair to all MPs. This part, I agree with that part of the Motion of Mr Leong Mun Wai. This is also clearly stated in the website of the Singapore Parliament. The Speaker regulates and enforces the rule of debate. He decides who has the right to speak and puts the question for the House to debate on and to vote on. The Speaker does not take part in the debates of the House but can abstain, vote for or against the Motion as if he has the original vote as an elected Member.
Sir, I was elected as a Deputy Speaker from 2015 to 2020. During my five-year term, I was the Deputy Speaker to Speaker Mdm Halimah, now the President, and subsequently, I was Deputy Speaker to former Speaker, Mr Tan Chuan-Jin. As a Deputy Speaker, whenever I am required to preside over Parliament or to chair a Committee, I am always mindful of this need to ensure that I remain fair and impartial to all the Members in the House. So, I make sure that Members, whether they are from the ruling PAP party, the Opposition party or the NMPs, they are all given the chance to raise clarifications and to hold the Government to account. So, I am mindful that Parliament is a place for debate on policies and a good debate will allow better ideas to prevail and this would benefit all of Singapore. As a Deputy Speaker, whenever I hear speeches made by\tMPs from the PAP,\tMPs from the Workers' Party, I, too, form my opinion on the contents of the speech, but I keep my views to myself. And as a Deputy Speaker, I know that I should not express my own view or even mutter my view under my breath.
So, Sir, I want to add that the former Speaker, Mr Tan Chuan-Jin, has made known his stand to me and the other Deputy Speaker Mr Charles Chong that we have to be fair to all MPs, including members of the Workers' Party (WP), the NCMPs and the NMPs. Over the past many years that I have been an MP, I have not heard of any MP within the House suggest that our Speaker has not been impartial.
Sir, let me refer the House to a Point of Order which was raised by the Leader of the House in April 2023. In April 2023, the Leader of the House raised the point that Mr Leong Mun Wai had made several statements in and out of Chamber which were wrong and not proper. She said that Mr Leong had addressed Speaker in a manner that was disrespectful, disregarded the authority of the Chair, and that drew a caution from her on the need to maintain proper demeanour in Parliament.
She said Mr Leong apologised to the Speaker in Chambers very shortly and clarified he had not intended to cast aspersions on the Ministers and admitted he was wrong to make the suggestions in his statement. The Leader of the House then said there was no need to take further action on this matter and she sought Mr Speaker's concurrence on this matter, in particular to the fact of disregarding the authority of the Chair is a matter for the Speaker, and then Mr Tan Chuan-Jin, as Speaker, said he concurred.
So, Sir, this is evidence that our Speaker is impartial in his conduct. He could have taken action against Mr Leong Mun Wai for behaving in a manner that was disrespectful and had disregarded authority. But he treated everyone fairly and he accepted the apology of Mr Leong and said that he concurred with the Leader's recommendation not to take further action on the matter. So, Mr Leong apologised, Speaker accepted it, and the matter was closed. I would want to submit, Mr Speaker, that suggests very strongly that our Speaker has always been impartial.
Next, going to the point of Mr Leong's Motion that the Speaker must be independent, I am not sure how Mr Leong measures the term \"independent\". If he suggests that \"independent\" means not being a member of a political party, then perhaps I can remind him of the former Speaker of the House of Commons, Mr John Bercow.
Mr John Bercow was a member of the UK Conservative Party before he resigned when he assumed the role of Speaker. However, even though he was not a member of the political party at the time, he was accused of not being impartial when he was Speaker. In fact, it was said he was refused a place in the House of Lords because he was not seen to be politically neutral. He was alleged to be biased against Brexit. Thus, Mr Speaker, impartiality really depends on the person who is the Speaker and not his political affiliation.
In many other Commonwealth countries, many Speakers are active members of their political parties. Australian Speaker Mr Milton Dick is a member of the Labour Party, the Canadian Speaker is a member of the Liberal Party and the Speaker of the Lok Sabha India is a member of the Bharatiya Janata Party.
So, even if we appoint a person who is without any political affiliation, whether the person is a judge or otherwise, I am quite certain that the person would have his or her own views of the speeches made by Members in the House. In fact, I would submit it is impossible for anyone, except a robot, not to form their own views as to whether a speech is populist or not.
So, for that reason, I cannot support the Motion of Mr Leong Mun Wai and I would support the amended Motion as moved by Mr Vikram Nair.
Mr Speaker: Thank you, Mr Lim, for your good wishes. Leader of the House, Ms Indranee Rajah.
The Leader of the House (Ms Indranee Rajah): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing me to join the debate.
The Motion moved by Mr Leong Mun Wai is that \"This House reaffirms its commitment to the need for the Speaker of Parliament to be independent and impartial and for Parliament to be a fair arena for all\". Insofar as what he means by \"independent\" though, it was clear from his speech that, by \"independent\", he meant either non-partisan or not a member of a political party.
So, to that extent, I cannot agree with this Motion. But I do agree that a Speaker needs to be fair, impartial and to act independently. So, for that reason I would be able to agree with the first part of the amendment which Mr Vikram Nair has moved, which is that \"This House affirms its commitment to the need for the Speaker of Parliament to discharge his duties independently and impartially\".
The second part of Mr Leong's Motion seeks the House's affirmation that Parliament should be a fair arena for all. That, too, I agree, except that when it comes to being a fair arena for all, it means that all Members must participate in this and act and conduct themselves appropriately. Hence, we have the Standing Orders, which are supposed to govern the conduct of Members vis-à-vis one another, and also, the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act which sets out what Members should and should not do, and what it means when you have privileges as an MP, how you should act and not abuse them.
And, therefore, I agree with the second part of the amendment moved by Mr Vikram Nair, which is that \"This House should also affirm its commitment to uphold the Standing Orders of Parliament and the obligations under the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act\", and if we all conducted ourselves accordingly, you would have a fair arena for all.
In this regard, before I go on to explain why I support the amended Motion, may I just clarify with Assoc Prof Jamus Lim because I heard him say that he supported the Motion, but I was not sure whether he meant the original Motion or whether he meant the amended Motion?
Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.
Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): I support the original Motion and I will also support the amended Motion.
Mr Speaker: Ms Indranee Rajah.
Ms Indranee Rajah: I thank Assoc Prof Jamus Lim for his clarification.
So, let me move on to the first point about the need for the Speaker to be fair and impartial. The major Commonwealth democracies all recognise the need for the person holding the role of Speaker to act in an impartial manner when discharging his or her duties, and Singapore is no different. Speakers must behave in an impartial manner in the discharge of their duties and successive Speakers of our Parliament have acknowledged this. The question is – how is this to be achieved?
The underlying assumption or presupposition put forward by PSP is that you can only achieve this if the Speaker is independent of any political party. That is their underlying premise. The premise is that the Speaker should not have any political association, so he or she can be perceived to be completely neutral.
Well, what does our law provide? The Constitution sets out the eligibility requirements for the Speaker. MPs, except those who are Ministers or Parliamentary Secretaries, are eligible. And non-MPs are also eligible, but the Constitution requires that such persons must be persons who are qualified for election as an MP, such as being a Singapore Citizen above the age of 21 and a resident in Singapore for at least 10 years in aggregate.
So, our Constitution also recognises that MPs can be the Speaker, that is, members of a political party. Thus, under our law, any person who meets these eligibility requirements can be elected as the Speaker. So, PSP's proposal to require a Speaker to be independent in the sense of not being a member of a political party or not being an MP is actually not in accordance with and much more limiting than the Constitutional requirements. That is the first point.
The second point is: what is the practice and the reality around the world? Actually, you will find that in most of the major Westminster-style democracies like ours, the Speaker comes from the majority party. And this is true of the current Speakers of the Australian House of Representatives, the Canadian House of Commons and the New Zealand House of Representatives, all of whom are from the majority party in those Parliaments.
In the US, the Speaker of the House of Representatives is also usually from the majority party in that House. The identity of the Speaker is typically determined by the party members at the organising caucuses held soon after the new Congress is elected. So, in short, the Speaker is somebody who can receive the support from the majority of the House and that will very often be somebody from the majority party. And this arrangement reflects the reality that the person has to receive a majority of the votes in Parliament to be appointed Speaker. And it is quite natural for a candidate from the majority party to be in a position to receive the majority of votes.
It is also important to bear in mind that the majority party would have derived its majority from the voters. You do not get to be a majority party without the majority of votes. It is the electorate; it is the voters who put the PAP in Parliament as a majority. So, you have to bear in mind that the mandate of the majority party is drawn directly from the people. And the person put up for election as the Speaker, if he or she has the confidence of the majority, then he or she gets appointed as the Speaker.
And it is not always a given that a nominee from the majority party will always be able to command the support of the majority of the MPs or that the nominee may necessarily be from the majority party. For example, the current Speaker of the US House of Representatives was appointed as Speaker only after 15 ballots were taken, despite receiving his party's nomination for Speaker earlier. So, for the first 14 ballots, he did not manage to obtain a majority of the votes.
This is not the only system in practice. There are different ways of doing it and our practice is in sync with other major democracies.
Each country has to decide what works best for them. More importantly, the Parliaments have to choose the right individuals. So, just having someone who is non-partisan or not a member of any political party does not guarantee you the outcome that you would like.
The UK, for example, has a convention where the Speaker resigns from his or her political party upon being appointed as Speaker. So, ostensibly neutral, ostensibly bipartisan. The convention also extends to the Speaker's seat not being contested by the major political parties and the Speaker not campaigning on political issues.
But even though the UK has taken these steps, that does not guarantee the desired outcomes. As Mr Lim Biow Chuan highlighted earlier, the UK system did not prevent one of their former Speakers from being put in a position where he was accused of bias. The former Speaker was mired in controversy by accepting certain procedural amendments and rulings. I do not need to go into details, but in short, he was alleged of bias on issues, that is, of not supporting Brexit as opposed to remaining. So, you can have bias on issues or alleged bias on issues.
And also, he had separately had complaints levelled against him for bullying. This does not have to do with his rulings in the Chamber, but he was the subject matter of an Independent Expert Panel. And they found that his behaviour \"fell very far below that which the public had a right to expect from any Member of Parliament\", and it was so serious that, \"had he still been a Member of Parliament\" – because the Committee's rulings came out after he stepped down – the Committee said, \"we would have determined that he should be expelled by resolution of the House. As it is, we recommend that he should never be permitted a pass to the Parliamentary estate.\"
So, having somebody who is non-partisan, not a member of a political party, does not guarantee you the results that you want. At the end of the day, it boils down to how the individual holding the office of Speaker conducts himself or herself, and it is very important that the Speaker is mindful of the duties and obligations that come with the office.
But equally, it is important for the MPs to be mindful of the duties and obligations that come with their office – whether they be Ministers or backbenchers – and to not make it difficult for the Speaker, because in making it difficult for the Speaker, you also force the Speaker to have to make rulings. It is incumbent upon MPs to not disregard the authority of the Chair, to be familiar with the Standing Orders, to know what the Standing Orders mean and, if referring to articles or principles or sections, to actually know which articles and sections they are referring to, and to not misrepresent proceedings in Parliament and essentially, comply with the Standing Orders.
So, it works both ways for Parliament of function effectively, properly and importantly, to gain the respect of people. The Speaker has to do his job, but equally, all MPs and Ministers have to do their jobs.
In conclusion, what I would like to do is to just highlight some quotes in respect of previous Speakers, which really illustrate the point that I am making, which is at the end of the day, it is about the individuals. It is about how the individual in the Speaker's Chair conducts himself or herself. Previous Speakers of Parliament in Singapore have earned praise and respect from both sides of the House, even though they were a member of a political party.
So, for example, in 1995, Mr JB Jeyaretnam said when he spoke on the reappointment of Dr Yeoh Ghim Seng as Speaker, and Dr Yeoh, as Members know, was a PAP MP. Mr JB Jeyaretnam said this, “Mr Speaker, Sir, may I, as it were from the other side of the House, give you my very sincere and hearty congratulations on your election. We have heard from the Leader about your long reign in this House, but I, Mr Speaker, Sir, have only been under your rule for three years after I entered this House in December 1981. But may I say, Mr Speaker, Sir, that during that short time of three years, you have gained greatly my respect and admiration for the charm and tact with which you brought to bear to this high office that you have hold with such esteem and honour. It has not always been easy for you and sometimes it has been made trying, and my only hope is that I did not contribute in any way to your trials.” That was Mr JB Jeyaretnam. [Please refer to \"Clarification by Leader of the House\", Official Report, 2 August 2023, Vol 95, Issue 109, Correction By Written Statement section.]
Then, in 1989, Mr Chiam See Tong had this to say of Mr Tan Soo Khoon, who was Speaker and also a PAP MP – and not a lawyer. Mr Chiam said, \"Mr Speaker, Sir, if you will just allow me a moment also to convey my congratulations on your elevation to the Speakership. Sir, I think it would not be complete if it is just the Leader of the House conveying his congratulations to you. This is to make it complete. You have the approval of the whole House. I would also like to say a word of thanks to the previous Speaker who had a very good rapport with the Opposition.\"
And also, speaking when Mr Tan Soo Khoon ended his appointment as Speaker in 2002 after 13 years in that role, Mr Low Thia Khiang from the WP rose to record his views as follows, \"Mr Tan Soo Khoon, as Speaker of the House, has won my respect for being fair most of the time, if not all the time\" and that \"Being a non-PAP Member, I have not felt discriminated and I think this is important as he was the Speaker.\"
So, that Mr Speaker, concludes the essential premise, which I am making – which is at the end of the day, it is about the individual how he or she conducts themselves and about making sure that all of us do our part in Parliament.
Mr Speaker: Mr Leong Mun Wai.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Members Vikram Nair, Member Raj Joshua Thomas, Member Assoc Prof Jamus Lim, Member Lim Biow Chuan and the Minister for their contributions to this debate that I have raised together with my colleague, Ms Hazel Poa. It has allowed us to cover a little bit more ground than in the clarifications after a Ministerial Statement.
I will not rebut individually the points raised by some of the Members, but I would like to condense the thing in two points.
One, we are here today – just now with the Ministerial Statement and now with this Motion – because something has happened. And that something is a very well-meaning speech and policy proposal put up by the Assoc Prof Jamus Lim that was just written-off in this House, in a very dismissive manner – although it is just a quiet comment. But nevertheless, it is an indication that we need to remind ourselves on what is the impartiality of the Speaker. Without that, we would not be debating today.
The second point I would like to make is, some of the Members who have spoken have talked about our Parliament, that we have an untainted record, track record of the Speaker being impartial, but here is an example that we have to remind ourselves that we need to reaffirm the impartiality of the Speaker.
As a result of that, PSP had decided to put forward this Motion to suggest a gradual process whereby we can enhance the independence and impartiality of the Speaker, that this House would remember that in May this year, I actually have spoken about the rules and procedures of this House already, in my Adjournment Motion to make Parliament a fairer arena for all. At that time, I did not take up the issue of the independence and impartiality of the Speaker. But today, the situation is different.
So, the Motion is meant to propose a gradual process. As a result, we brought out the historical examples. And at the same time, we had just proposed that for the time being, Government, please ensure that the Speaker does not belong to the central committee of the ruling party. That is a small step. Of course, as our democracy develops and more and more members from different parties come into Parliament, then we can think of reverting to a situation whereby we have a totally independent Speaker. That is an ideal idea that PSP is trying to put forward with this Motion.
Parliament sits at the apex of our system of democracy. For it to function properly, the Members, processes and proceedings must all work towards promoting an environment where open, substantive and thorough debates can take place.
Well, I do not wish to go too much into Speaker Tan's case, actually, but just now I think what we have seen is that there are certain rules that this House has that has just prevented this Motion to be debated in a more open, substantive and thorough debate because of a technical point – that the Motion statement was not done in the way that allows me to have a more thorough debate. I accept that. That is the current Standing Orders of the Singapore Parliament.
In order to promote the debate, as I have said, more debate, I have put up seven recommendations in my Adjournment Motion making Parliament a fairer arena for all at the May Sitting this year, including bigger research budgets for MPs from alternative parties, more flexible timekeeping during clarifications and debates, and appointing MPs from alternative parties to chair the Public Accounts and Public Petitions Committees. These are all just incremental changes, and the Government can actually consider this and allow our Parliament to move closer to a fairer arena for all.
Hence, my Motion is meant to be a first step towards an independent and impartial Speaker and for Parliament to be a fairer arena for all.
The amended Motion on the other hand is re-affirming the status quo and just sticking to what is more of the same. And I have been debating in this House for the last three years that we cannot be just having the status quo. We have to move on. Times have changed; the environment in the world has changed. So, why are we just sticking to the old rules, in many aspects of our Government?
So, I view the two Motions as one. My Motion as a Motion with a dream, an objective that in the future, we can have a have a better Parliament. So, I hope this House will support my Motion.
Ultimately, the best solution to making our Parliament a fairer arena for all is to have at least one-third or 33% alternative MPs in this House, commensurate with the percentage of votes that alternative parties have already won among Singaporeans.
The PAP Government does not need a super majority of about 90% to govern effectively, but such a super majority prevents the views and opinions of tens of thousands of loyal Singaporeans from being adequately represented in this House.
Mr Speaker, in Chinese, please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Dear fellow Singaporeans, today, we concluded the debate on the need for the Speaker of Parliament to be independent and impartial.
This is a very important Motion, because Parliament sits at the apex of our democratic system, and the Speaker should be independent when presiding over Parliament proceedings and enforcing the Standing Orders to ensure that debates are carried out orderly. In carrying out his duties, he must be impartial and treat Members of Parliament (MPs) from different parties equally. He must be like a judge and be fair in executing Parliamentary procedures.
We should learn from the recent incidents and find ways to plug the gaps, perfect the system and grow in the future.
When we review the role of the Speaker over the years, we noticed that, compared to pre-Independence days, the impartiality and independence of the Speaker had changed quietly. Since the People's Action Party (PAP) dominated Parliament, the office of Speaker has evolved from being occupied by a non-partisan person to a senior PAP member.
Before 1970, all Speakers of Parliament had been members of the legal profession. Except for a brief period between 1963 and 1964 when Mr EW Barker was Speaker of Parliament, all the Speakers of Parliament were non-partisan.
However, in 1970, when Dr Yeoh Ghim Seng, a PAP member and non-lawyer, became the Speaker, this convention changed. I want to point out that this happened incidentally after the PAP captured 100% of the Parliamentary seats in the 1968 election.
Since 1970, the office of Speaker has been occupied by a PAP MP. Furthermore, in recent years, Speaker Tan and his predecessor had also been members of the Central Executive Committee (CEC) of the PAP. In other words, although they held a politically neutral position, they were also at the power centre of the ruling party.
The evolution, from having a non-partisan Speaker to a backbencher Speaker to Speakers who were ex-office holders or members of the PAP’s CEC, has caused many Singaporeans to question the independence and impartiality of the Speaker’s office over the past 50 plus years.
The Progress Singapore Party (PSP) believes that being simultaneously the Speaker and a CEC member of the ruling party is contradictory. Hence, we urge that the Speaker should at least not be a CEC member of the PAP. We are glad to see that the new Speaker is not a PAP CEC member.
As Singapore's democracy matures and the number of opposition MPs increases, we hope the Speaker will be a non-partisan person again like before. This will reflect progress in our democratic system and reverse the retrogressive practice of the PAP when appointing the Speaker over the past 50 plus years.
(In English): Mr Speaker, Sir, under your leadership, we look forward to this House being a fairer arena for all.
We have spent much Parliamentary time debating the issues and concerns of Singaporeans. They have arisen from the recent spate of unfortunate events. It is my hope that in the coming months, there will be no more such events and this House can refocus our attention to the more important issues faced by Singaporeans, such as the rising cost of living, price and availability of public housing, economic uncertainty and job insecurity.
Mr Speaker: Are there any clarifications for Mr Leong? I do not see any.
We have now come to the conclusion of the debate and I shall put the questions to the House for decision. We have three amendments proposed by Mr Vikram Nair. We will deal with the amendments first.
The first amendment is: \"In line 1, after the word 'commitment', to insert '(a)'.\"
[(proc text) Question, \"In line 1, after the word 'commitment', to insert '(a)'\", put and agreed to. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Does any Member wishes for his dissent or abstention to be recorded or to claim a division before I declare the result?
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Mr Speaker, Sir, we register our dissent.
Mr Speaker: Alright, we will have it recorded that Mr Leong and Ms Hazel Poa want their dissent recorded.
Mr Speaker: The second amendment is: \"In line 2, to delete 'be independent and impartial' and to insert the words 'discharge his duties independently and impartially'.\"
[(proc text) Question, \"In line 2, to delete 'be independent and impartial' and to insert the words 'discharge his duties independently and impartially'\", put and agreed to. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Does any Member wishes for his dissent or abstention to be recorded or to claim a division before I declare the result?
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Please, Sir.
Mr Speaker: Thank you, we will have that recorded – Mr Leong and Ms Poa.
The third amendment is: \"At the end of line 2, to add 'and (b) to uphold the Standing Orders of Parliament and the obligations under the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act 1962.'\"
[(proc text) Question, \"At the end of line 2, to add 'and (b) to uphold the Standing Orders of Parliament and the obligations under the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act 1962'\", put and agreed to. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Does any Member wishes for his dissent or abstention to be recorded or to claim a division before I declare the result?
The amendments have been agreed to, the Original Motion as amended is now before the House.
[(proc text) Original Motion, as amended, put and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Resolved, \"That this House reaffirms its commitment (a) to the need for the Speaker of Parliament to discharge his duties independently and impartially and for Parliament to be a fair arena for all and (b) to uphold the Standing Orders of Parliament and the obligations under the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act 1962.\" (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Does any Member wishes for his dissent or abstention to be recorded or to claim a division before I declare the result?
[(proc text) Hon Members Mr Leong Mun Wai and Ms Hazel Poa indicated for their dissent to be recorded. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Okay, Mr Leong and Ms Poa, we will have your dissent recorded. Deputy Leader of the House.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Adjournment","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Resolved, \"That Parliament do now adjourn to a date to be fixed.\" – [Mr Zaqy Mohamad]. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: We will adjourn till 11.00 am tomorrow. Order, order.
Adjourned accordingly at 7.11 pm.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Former Formula One CEO Bernie Ecclestone's Alleged S$650 Million Trust in a Singapore Bank Account","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"41 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Prime Minister in relation to the UK trial of Bernie Ecclestone that allegedly involves undisclosed assets of US$650 million in a Singapore bank, whether the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) is satisfied with the anti-money laundering precautions that have been put in place at the bank.
42 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Prime Minister (a) whether the Government has received any requests from the UK law enforcement agencies regarding the case involving former Formula One CEO and Chairman Emeritus Bernie Ecclestone's alleged failure to declare to the UK government a trust in Singapore of about S$650 million in a bank account; and (b) if yes, what assistance has been provided.
Mr Lawrence Wong (for the Prime Minister): Ms He asked if the Singapore Government has received any requests from UK law enforcement agencies in relation to the case involving former Formula One boss Bernie Ecclestone. It is our policy, in line with international practice, not to comment on whether a foreign government has made a request for legal assistance on specific cases.
That said, we can confirm that the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS), Singapore Police Force and Attorney General’s Chambers have worked closely with the UK authorities on their investigation and prosecution of Mr Ecclestone. In fact, Singapore proactively shared relevant information with our UK counterparts, which helped them develop their case.
In 2017, MAS conducted an inspection of the bank cited in recent media reports, to assess its controls for mitigating money laundering and terrorist financing risks. During the inspection, MAS specifically reviewed the bank’s handling of its relationship with Mr Ecclestone. While MAS found that there was room for improvement in the bank’s anti-money laundering processes, it did not find gaps or weaknesses that were systemic in nature. MAS also noted that when adverse news about Mr Ecclestone first surfaced in 2013, the bank promptly subjected the account to enhanced monitoring controls by requiring all transactions to be flagged for scrutiny and approval.
MAS will continue to work with financial institutions to ensure that our financial sector’s defences against financial crime remain robust.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Justification for Distinction between Ethnic Integration Policy and Non-citizen Criteria for Open Market Rentals of HDB Flats","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"45 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for National Development (a) what is the justification for the distinction between the ethnic integration policy (EIP) and non-citizen criteria for open market rentals of HDB flats since both will alter the characteristics of a housing estate regardless of the duration of the tenancy; and (b) whether the Ministry has considered applying EIP criteria for open market rentals when they exceed a certain duration.
Mr Desmond Lee: The Ethnic Integration Policy (EIP) applies to the sale and purchase of all Housing and Development Board (HDB) flats. The EIP ensures a balanced mix of the various ethnic communities in our HDB towns. Tenants who rent HDB flats on the open market are not subject to EIP, as their stays are typically temporary in nature and do not affect the ethnic proportions in our public housing estates over the long term.
Flat owners who wish to rent out their flats to one or more tenants who are neither citizens nor Malaysians, are subject to the Non-Citizen (NC) Quota. The NC quota helps to maintain the Singaporean character of our HDB heartlands and prevents the formation of foreigner enclaves, as it caps the maximum proportion of flats that can be rented out to such non-citizen tenants, regardless of their race.
Together, the EIP and NC quotas help to ensure that our HDB estates reflect our ethnically diverse Singaporean character. The Ministry of National Development will continue to review our housing policies to keep pace with the societal changes and evolving needs of Singaporeans.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Permitting One-year Renewals of Certificate of Entitlement in Addition to Five-year and 10-year Renewal Options","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"47 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Transport whether the Ministry will consider permitting one-year renewals of the Certificate of Entitlement (COE) in addition to the renewal options of five-year and 10-year durations.
Mr Chee Hong Tat (for the Minister for Transport): The current policy allows vehicle owners to renew their Certificates of Entitlement (COEs) for another five or 10 years. The decision to allow five-year renewals was made as a concession. Given the limited supply of COEs, we must strike a balance between existing vehicle owners who wish to renew their COEs and those who wish to buy a new vehicle. Each renewal is one less COE that is returned to the pool for new buyers.
Allowing one-year renewals may also inadvertently amplify the magnitude of the COE cycles, as vehicle owners may use it to time the market by deregistering their vehicles only when COE prices are low. The COE quota supply may be even scarcer when COE prices are high, exacerbating the COE cycle.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Authenticity of Quotations for Star Rate Items in Development Project under State Courts","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"
50 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Law in relation to the concerns expressed in the Auditor-General’s Office (AGO) report for the financial year 2022/2023 about the authenticity of quotations provided for star rate items in a development project under the State Courts (a) whether the quotations have been provided by the contractor or sub-contractors of the project; and (b) whether there has been any proactive review of this matter following a similar observation made in AGO’s report last year and, if not, why not.
Mr K Shanmugam: Based on information provided by the State Courts on the abovementioned project, the quotations for star rate items in relation to the State Courts Towers development project were provided by sub-contractors to the project consultant of the project in accordance with the contract requirements. In this regard, the project consultant would refer to four quotations – three quotations obtained by the sub-contractor and one quotation obtained independently by the project consultant. The quotations were assessed by the project consultant and thereafter used to price the star rate item. As the Auditor-General’s Office (AGO) had expressed concerns over the authenticity of the quotations received by the project consultant, the AGO recommended that the State Courts carry out internal investigations. The State Courts lodged a Police report as there may be a potential conflict of interest should investigations disclose any criminal offence(s) and the case comes before the Courts. As Police investigations are ongoing to determine if there was any wrongdoing, it would not be appropriate for the State Courts to comment further.
The Courts have informed that processes were put in place in accordance with the principles in the Government Instruction Manual, with clearly segregated duties and independent layers of safeguards and validation checks performed by various parties, including the project consultant, superintending officer, the independent project manager and State Courts officers, to ensure that star rates used for variations were reflective of fair market prices. Specifically, the project consultant was primarily responsible for assessing the cost reasonableness of star rates independently by obtaining one or more quotation(s) from other sources to assess the sub-contractor’s quotations. The superintending officer from the project consultant was responsible for confirming the star rates and had certified the amount due to the contractor for the variation. The independent project manager was responsible for verifying that the requested sum for these star rates was in order before recommending to the State Courts to proceed with payment. In the design and development of its contract management process, the State Courts were cognisant of past AGO findings relating to star rate items concerning other public sector agencies and had, therefore, put in place the segregation of roles and independent checks before payment was made.
The goods and services that were the subject of this observation were delivered. The State Courts have been conducting engagement sessions with its officers to share best practices on internal controls as well as lessons learnt from AGO audits and AGO’s Annual Report. The State Courts also regularly briefs its consultants and contractors of ongoing development projects to reiterate and remind them to adhere to the requirements for submission of documents for star rate items.
In addition to its existing controls, the State Courts also consulted the Ministry of Finance (MOF) on additional measures that could be put in place to strengthen the management of star rate items. MOF recently shared a good practice guide that was issued in July 2021 containing tips on detecting irregular and fraudulent quotations. The State Courts have shared MOF’s guide with its officers and incorporated these additional good practices into its processes.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Plans to Introduce Mandatory Mental Health Awareness and Training Programmes for Employers and Managers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"51 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Minister for Manpower in light of the recent findings from Duke-NUS and IMH on the economic impact of mental health issues on productivity (a) whether there are plans to introduce mandatory mental health awareness and training programmes for employers and managers; and (b) whether the challenges or considerations in implementing a mandatory approach can be elaborated.
Dr Tan See Leng: The study by Duke-NUS and the Institute of Mental Health (IMH) presents the economic case for organisations to invest in their employees’ mental well-being given the economic and productivity loss resulting from depression and anxiety among adults.
The Ministry of Manpower does not mandate mental health awareness and training programmes for employers and managers at the moment. There is a wide range of businesses, and they vary in the nature of work, size of company, supervisor-employee ratio, employee needs and company resources. There is also a wide spectrum of mental health conditions and a wide range of factors affecting one’s mental health, some of which are beyond the workplace. There is no one-size-fits-all approach to supporting mental health and well-being for employees.
Instead of prescribing mental health awareness and training programmes for employers and managers, we encourage every workplace to identify suitable representatives to be Mental Well-being Champions to increase awareness and promote adoption of mental health support measures.
Employers and managers who are passionate about this cause are welcome to attend free or subsidised training programmes offered by the Workplace Safety and Health Council and Health Promotion Board. Tripartite Partners also provide practical guidance via the Tripartite Advisory on Mental Well-being at Workplaces that employers can adopt to support their employees’ mental well-being.
That said, workers too have to take ownership of their mental well-being by taking active steps to stay positive mentally and seek help when needed. Family members, friends and coworkers can also play a part in supporting the mental health and well-being of those around us.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Residents Affected by Delays in HDB's BTO Projects Caused by COVID-19 Pandemic and Interim Housing Options Offered","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"53 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for National Development for the 28% of HDB's BTO projects still under construction due to delays caused by the COVID-19 pandemic (a) how many residents are affected by these delays; (b) what interim housing options has HDB offered to the affected residents; and (c) how does the reimbursement sum offered to the affected residents help to cover the inconveniences caused by the delay.
Mr Desmond Lee: The Housing and Development Board (HDB) has completed 72% of Build-To-Order (BTO) projects that were delayed due to disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. About 49,000 out of the 71,000 households who were affected by these delays have been invited to collect or have collected their keys.
Twenty-eight percent of the BTO projects delayed by the pandemic are still under construction. For these projects, around 22,000 affected households will progressively receive their keys by the first quarter of 2025 or earlier.
We understand that affected residents are anxious and concerned about these delays. HDB is doing its best to catch up on these delays while ensuring safety and quality. Eligible flat buyers who need interim housing can apply for a Parenthood Provisional Housing Scheme (PPHS) flat. For low-income households with no family support and no other housing option, HDB will also consider offering Interim Rental Housing (IRH) on a case-by-case basis. Some flats that are used for IRH or PPHS could otherwise have been used for the Public Rental Scheme. Even as we assist flat buyers who need temporary housing due to BTO completion delays, we must also balance the use of flats across different rental schemes to meet the needs of different groups, prioritising the most needy.
For the minority of households who had their key collection delayed beyond the Delivery Possession Dates (DPD), HDB offers monetary reimbursement under Part 8C of the COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) Act (COTMA). Flat buyers whose flats are delayed beyond their DPD will be able to seek reimbursement for qualifying costs incurred for delays beyond the DPD. To further minimise the inconvenience, HDB has offered to pay these affected flat buyers the maximum reimbursement sum that they would be eligible for, without them having to submit any claims or proof of the expenses incurred.
HDB will continue to work closely with its contractors to catch up on BTO delays and deliver flats to Singaporeans in a timely manner, without compromising safety and quality.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Studies on Direct Correlation Between Employee Wellness and Productivity in Workplace","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"54 Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether there have been studies conducted by the Government on the direct correlation between employee wellness and productivity in the workplace; and (b) whether there are any initiatives in place to measure the impact on employee wellness resulting from workplace transformation.
Dr Tan See Leng: International studies have shown that there is a positive relationship between well-being and productivity. Since 2021, the Ministry of Manpower has been collecting data on mental well-being at the workplace via the iWorkHealth tool. The iWorkHealth tool is a self-administered psychosocial health assessment tool for companies and their employees to identify common workplace stressors. Based on responses from about 16,000 employees, we found that employees who experienced work stress or burnout (i) took about an additional 1.25 to 1.5 days of medical leave per year and (ii) encountered accidents or near-miss incidents about two to 2.5 times more, compared to employees who did not. In other words, when employers take care of employee well-being, they can expect to see lower absenteeism and fewer accidents.
As businesses and jobs transform, employers should design work processes and workplaces with the physical and mental health and safety of their employees in mind. We urge employers to tap on the iWorkHealth as one of the tools to address workplace stressors in the company. The Workplace Safety and Health Council is open to supporting companies that are interested in measuring the impact on employee well-being resulting from workplace transformation.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Plans on Use of Surplus from FY2022/2023 Revenues Net of Expenditures to Support Transformation and Growth of SMEs and Workers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"55 Mr Derrick Goh asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance given the surplus for FY2022/2023’s revenues net of expenditures, whether the Government can share its plans on how it will use these surplus funds to support SMEs and workers to help them to transform and grow.
Mr Lawrence Wong: My response will also address a Parliamentary Question filed by Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui, which is due for reading at a subsequent Sitting as it is related to the same subject matter.
The Overall Fiscal Position for FY2022 turned out to be slightly better than what we had projected in this year’s Budget. The additional resources are welcomed and will be put to good use, be it to deal with immediate concerns like cost of living, to strengthen our social compact under the Forward Singapore exercise, or as Mr Derrick Goh suggested, to support our small and medium enterprises (SMEs) and workers.
The Ministry of Finance (MOF) is working on these plans with other agencies, and the spending estimates will be tabled for Parliament’s approval as part of our annual Budget process.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Alleged Transactions over No-public Tender Leases of Maldivian Islands in 2014 and 2015 by Hotelier Ong Beng Seng","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"56 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Prime Minister (a) whether there was any investigation by CPIB into the alleged transactions over no-public tender leases of Maldivian islands in 2014 and 2015 by Singaporean hotelier Ong Beng Seng; (b) if not, whether CPIB was aware of the allegations; and (c) if no investigation was pursued, why.
Mr Chan Chun Sing (for the Prime Minister): Assoc Prof Jamus Lim asked whether the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) was pursuing another specific investigation. Due to operational considerations, CPIB does not, as a general rule, comment on the existence or non-existence of investigations. For the ongoing investigation involving Mr S Iswaran, CPIB has made an exception to disclose that he is being investigated by CPIB as he is a Minister.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Process for Award of Contract to Run Formula One Singapore Grand Prix for Another Seven Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"57 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) whether the Ministry will release a breakdown of the process by which the award of the contract to run the Formula One Singapore Grand Prix for another seven years was made; and (b) whether the Ministry is currently reviewing this contract in light of new information that has emerged relating to possible conflicts of interest in the decision-making process.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The Formula One (F1) Singapore Grand Prix began in 2008 for a term of five years until 2012. This was renewed in a subsequent contract for five years until 2017 and, following that, for four years until 2021. The years 2020 and 2021 were disrupted by COVID-19. Since its debut in 2008, the race has generated more than S$1.5 billion incremental tourism receipts and attracted more than 550,000 unique international visitors. In addition, the race continues to reinforce Singapore’s reputation as a global city, attract Meetings, Incentives, Conferences and Exhibitions (MICE) events and business meetings, generate local business spend and create jobs for Singaporeans.
The current contract to host the Singapore Grand Prix is the fourth contract renewal. Towards the end of the third contract term in 2021, the Singapore Tourism Board (STB) commissioned an independent consultancy study to evaluate the costs and benefits of a fourth term extension. The study concluded that the race would continue to bring significant benefits to Singapore. To allow time for international travel to recover after COVID-19 and to take into account the construction of NS Square, MTI and STB ascertained that an extension of seven years would be appropriate. The Government accepted STB’s recommendation in September 2021. Subsequently, STB entered a seven-year contract with \tSingapore Grand Prix in January 2022.
We are unable to comment about any Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) investigations that are ongoing.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Variance between Expected and Actual Grants Disbursed to Businesses and Individuals and Steps to Enhance Accessibility and Usage of Unused Funds","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"61 Mr Derrick Goh asked the Minister for Manpower in view of the Ministry’s lower-than-expected expenditure for FY2022/2023 by about $3.3 billion (a) what are the reasons for the variance between the expected and actual grants disbursed to businesses and individuals; (b) how have application processes to grants been improved and simplified to enhance their accessibility; and (c) what are the plans to use these unexpected funds available to further support the upskilling of individuals as well as to boost productivity and local employment by our SMEs.
Dr Tan See Leng: The Ministry of Manpower (MOM)’s budget expenditure takes into account COVID-19-related measures. The bulk of this went into providing for the Jobs Growth Incentive (JGI). JGI was an extraordinary measure introduced during COVID-19 to support employers to expand local hiring. MOM took on a more generous stance in providing funding to preserve and increase hiring activity in the labour market, given the uncertainties posed by COVID-19 on the economy. The lower-than-expected budget utilisation for the last financial year was largely due to significantly lower COVID-19-related spending, particularly in the utilisation of JGI. This was due to the rapid recovery in the jobs market and the economy in general.
In processing grants, the Government aims to do so efficiently and expeditiously, while ensuring accountability for funds disbursed. For example, wage support schemes such as JGI, Enabling Employment Credit and Senior Employment Credit, are administered as automatic schemes, where eligible employers will receive support without having to submit an application. At the same time, we have to institute checks to detect possible cases of abuse or error, hence, a minority of cases are picked up for manual review based on a risk management framework.
As we manage our finances across an entire term of Government, the funds not used for JGI can be deployed to other spending plans, which could include, as Mr Derrick Goh suggested, efforts to support our small and medium enterprises (SMEs) and workers. The spending estimates are tabled for Parliament’s approval as part of the annual Budget process.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Allowing Households to Withdraw Unutilised GST U-Save Vouchers for Other Living Expenses","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"62 Mr Kwek Hian Chuan Henry asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance whether the Ministry will allow households which are unable to fully utilise their GST U-Save vouchers to withdraw the balance for supporting their other living expenses.
Mr Lawrence Wong: The GST Voucher (GSTV) – U-Save rebates are designed to offset households’ utilities expenses. Unutilised rebates have no expiry date and can be rolled over to offset future utilities expenses.
The Government has also introduced support measures to help Singaporeans defray other living expenses. These include the CDC Vouchers in January, the Cost-of-Living Special Payment in June, the GSTV – Cash in August and the Assurance Package Cash in December.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on National Arts Council's Review of Buskers' Feedback on Sharing of Busking Slots on E-service Portal","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"64 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) whether the Ministry can provide an update on the National Arts Council (NAC) review of buskers’ feedback on allowing buskers to share busking slots on the busking e-service portal; and (b) when will the findings of NAC’s review be ready.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: The National Arts Council (NAC) is presently engaging with the stakeholders, including members of the busking community, in a review of the busking scheme which will be completed by the end of this year. NAC will share on its review when ready.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Collaborating with Ministry of Education to Introduce and Adopt Healthier SG in Schools and Institutes of Higher Learning","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"65 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Minister for Health whether the Ministry will consider introducing the Healthier SG initiative upstream by collaborating with the Ministry of Education to introduce and adopt Healthier SG in schools and Institutes of Higher Learning.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The short answer is yes, the Ministry of Health (MOH), the Ministry of Education (MOE) and the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) will work together to roll out preventive care strategies upstream in preschools and schools, to help our young pick up lifelong good health habits.
There is a growing body of literature, including our local research findings, which showed that how our young eat, sleep and use devices can have a profound impact on the health and development of our children later on in life.
MOH, MOE and MSF will share more details on the programme when ready.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Drivers of Corporate Income Tax Revenue of $23.1 Billion in Financial Year 2022/2023","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"66 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) what are the drivers of our Corporate Income Tax (CIT) revenue of $23.1 billion in the financial year 2022/2023, which is a 26.8% increase from the preceding financial year; (b) how does the $23.1 billion figure compare to the CIT revenue in the past 10 years; and (c) whether the trajectory of the CIT revenue suggests that we can defer or cancel the scheduled increase in GST on 1 January 2024.
Mr Lawrence Wong: The higher corporate income tax collection in FY2022 was due to higher business profits driven by the strong economic recovery in 2021. The increase was mainly from the financial and insurance, services, wholesale and retail, as well as manufacturing sectors. Data on corporate income tax collection in the past years is publicly available on the data.gov.sg website. Generally, growth in our corporate income tax revenue has been broadly in line with gross domestic product (GDP) growth.
We adopt a responsible approach to managing our fiscal resources. We consider not just the year-to-year changes but, more importantly, the medium-term trend in our expenditures and revenues. With an ageing population and rising healthcare costs, Government expenditure is expected to increase from the current 18% of GDP to potentially over 20% of GDP by FY2030. This has yet to account for additional spending that may arise from new policy initiatives, including the need to invest further in resilience and to strengthen our social compact and economic competitiveness.
On the revenue side, while we may get some upsides from time to time, our revenue generally does not grow faster than GDP in the medium term without tax rate changes. This is why the revenue measures announced at the recent Budgets, including the GST increase this year and next year, remain necessary to meet our medium-term spending needs.
Deferring the Goods and Services Tax (GST) increase will only store up more problems for the future, leaving us with less resources to take care of our growing fiscal needs. We will continue to monitor our revenue and expenditure trends closely and adjust our fiscal strategies to meet our collective aspirations in a way that is fair to both current and future generations of Singaporeans.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Provision of Point-to-Point Bus Services to Primary School Students during School Peak Periods","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"67 Mr Don Wee asked the Minister for Education whether the Ministry can work with the public bus operators via LTA to provide point-to-point bus services to primary school students during school peak periods.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: Public bus operators provide public bus services under the Land Transport Authority’s (LTA) Bus Contracting Model, which are planned taking into account ridership, existing connectivity options and financial sustainability. Public bus operators which have sufficient capacity to enter the school bus market without compromising on public bus services are welcome to bid for school bus contracts.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Mandatory Labelling of Personal Mobility Aids to Differentiate from Other Personal Mobility Devices","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"69 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for Transport whether the Ministry will consider mandatory labelling of personal mobility aids to differentiate them from other types of personal mobility devices.
Mr Chee Hong Tat (for the Minister for Transport): Personal mobility aids (PMAs) include wheelchairs, motorised wheelchairs and mobility scooters which are designed to carry individuals with mobility challenges. PMAs are subject to a device speed limit of 10 kilometres per hour, and mobility scooters must satisfy certain additional criteria, such as having three or more wheels, a single seat, a footboard and be steered by handlebars. Devices that do not satisfy these criteria, such as e-scooters, are considered motorised personal mobility devices. These would be regulated differently under the Active Mobility Act and require mandatory registration, labelling and inspection.
Our current regulations surrounding PMAs are intended to be inclusive to support a wide range of persons with mobility challenges. The Active Mobility Advisory Panel is currently reviewing these regulations and will study the feedback raised by the Member.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of Arrest of Hotel Properties Ltd's Managing Director on Temasek Holdings' Investment in Real Estate Assets of Singapore Press Holdings","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"
70 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance in view of the SGX announcement dated 14 July 2023 by Hotel Properties Limited (HPL) on the notice of arrest given to its Managing Director by the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB), whether there is any impact on Temasek Holdings’ investment in the real estate assets of Singapore Press Holdings in March 2022 through a consortium with HPL.
Mr Lawrence Wong: As the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) investigations are ongoing, it would not be appropriate to comment on any matter related to the arrest of the Managing Director of Hotel Properties Limited.
Separately, the Government does not typically comment on Temasek’s individual investments or those of its portfolio companies. There is a public statement by the consortium, Cuscaden Peak Pte Ltd, which states that the situation is not expected to impact the business and operations of the Cuscaden Peak Group. Based on public information, this includes the Singapore Press Holdings (SPH) assets. Members could refer to that statement for additional details.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Programmes to Increase Participation Rates of Elderly Men at Active Ageing Centres","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"
72 Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui asked the Minister for Health (a) whether there are dedicated programmes conducted by Active Ageing Centres that cater to elderly men so as to increase their participation rates in the activities conducted; and (b) whether the Ministry has worked with operators of Senior Activity Centres to better understand why elderly men are less likely to frequent these centres.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Indeed, elderly men are generally more driven by specific interests when deciding whether to take part in activities, unlike women who may choose to participate for social reasons. We also observed that they also prefer activities that give them a sense of agency. To cater to this, some Active Ageing Centres (AACs) empower elderly men to initiate and take the lead to organise programmes that they are interested in, such as guitar playing or playing pool. AACs also encourage their male seniors to take up volunteering opportunities, such as delivering meals or checking in and befriending other seniors, to give them a useful role in the community. More AACs have also started offering communal dining which draws a good mix of male and female participants, enabling them to form social connections with the larger community.
The Ministry of Health will continue to support and expand these activities to encourage active ageing in the community.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Assistance to Residents Ineligible for HDB Public Rental Scheme or Unable to Afford Market Public Rentals","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"73 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for National Development whether the Government will consider reviewing its policy to extend assistance to residents who are ineligible for flats under the HDB public rental scheme or are unable to afford the market public rentals.
Mr Desmond Lee: The Housing and Development Board takes a needs-based approach and assesses all requests for public rental housing holistically. Various factors, such as applicants’ circumstances, household income, household size, family support and ability to afford other housing options will be considered. Those who do not have family support and cannot afford other housing options, including renting from the open market, will be assisted with a public rental flat.
We review the Public Rental Scheme regularly to ensure that it remains a social safety net for citizen households with no other housing options.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Companies Investigated for Splitting Local Qualifying Salary Payments for More Foreign Worker Quotas","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"75 Ms Yeo Wan Ling asked the Minister for Manpower how many companies in the past five years have been investigated for splitting Local Qualifying Salary payments over two related companies to enjoy more foreign worker quotas.
Dr Tan See Leng: Companies are not allowed to split the salaries of its local employees across different business entities for the purpose of obtaining foreign worker quota for each business entity. Those who do so will be investigated for breaching the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act as a form of inflating their foreign worker entitlement.
Between 2018 and 2022, the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) investigated about 640 employers for inflating their foreign worker entitlement. Of these, only a small proportion involved employers splitting the salaries of their locals across multiple business entities. MOM does not specifically track whether these business entities are related as it is immaterial to the enforcement outcomes.
Of the 640 employers investigated, enforcement actions were eventually taken against about 15% of them. No enforcement action was taken against the remaining employers as investigations showed that they did not hire any foreign workers using the additional quota gained, there were administrative lapses by the companies or due to insufficient evidence.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reducing and Consolidating Tray Return Counters in Food Establishments","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"76 Ms Yeo Wan Ling asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment, given that the Tray Return Programme has been in force for 12 months with little incidences of infractions, whether the Ministry will consider reducing and consolidating the tray return counters in food establishments.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: In general, the National Environment Agency (NEA) and the Singapore Food Agency (SFA) do not specify the number of tray and crockery return points that food establishments should provide. Food establishments are required to provide sufficient tray and crockery return points for the diners to return their used trays and crockery, taking into account factors, including the number of diners, size of the establishment, visibility and ease of accessing the tray and crockery return points. Based on feedback received from members of the public, NEA and SFA may engage food establishments to adjust the number of tray and crockery return points, if required.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures Implemented to Minimise Risk of Trees Falling Due to Heavy Rainfall","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"77 Ms Hany Soh asked the Minister for National Development (a) in the past month, how many trees have fallen due to heavy rainfall; and (b) what measures has NParks implemented to minimise the risk of trees falling due to heavy rainfall during this period, especially in areas of high human and vehicular traffic, such as parks and roads.
Mr Desmond Lee: The National Parks Board (NParks) manages over two million urban trees in Singapore’s parks, park connectors, state lands and along roads. In July this year, there were 28 incidents of uprooted trees under its management due to adverse weather conditions, such as heavy rain and strong wind. There were no injuries reported for these incidents.
NParks’ tree management regime is based on the guidelines of the International Society of Arboriculture, which sets the benchmark for international standards on tree care, including tree inspection and operations, such as pruning, pest management, transplanting and risk management. Regular tree inspections are carried out by trained inspectors every six to 24 months, with trees that are close to areas with high pedestrian or traffic activity inspected more frequently.
In 2012, NParks further strengthened the tree management programme by implementing crown reduction or crown thinning. Before the onset of periods of adverse weather conditions, crown reduction is carried out on mature trees to manage the overall height of the trees and to reduce the wind resistance of the canopy. To improve the general health of our trees, NParks also carries out mulching to supplement the regular application of fertilisers.
This rigorous regime of tree inspection and maintenance is complemented by the use of technology. For instance, NParks has developed a Tree Structural Model to better assess the impact of strong winds on the stability of trees and to inform intervention measures, such as tree pruning.
With the strengthening of our tree management regime over the years, the annual number of tree incidents has fallen by 85% from about 3,100 cases in the year 2000 to around 480 in 2022.
Trees can be affected by pests and diseases as well as environmental conditions. Even healthy and structurally-sound trees can sometimes fall during storm events due to exceptionally strong winds or heavy rainfall. NParks will continue to review and adapt its tree management regime to incorporate best practices to minimise such occurrences.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Companies Reported for Employing \"Phantom Workers\"","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"78 Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin asked the Minister for Manpower (a) from 2021 to date, how many companies have been reported for employing “phantom workers”; (b) what are the top three sectors in which such companies function; and (c) what recourse is available for unsuspecting workers when their salaries and CPF contributions trigger incorrect income tax requirements.
Dr Tan See Leng: From 2021 to 30 June 2023, the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) received about 2,000 reports on companies inflating their foreign worker quota by making Central Provident Fund (CPF) contributions to locals who are not working for the firm, otherwise known as “phantom workers”. Of these, only about 10% were eventually found to be substantiated and referred for further investigations. The top three sectors were food and beverage, personal services, such as beauty salons and spas, and manufacturing.
As “phantom workers” are typically only paid CPF and not their salary, these CPF contributions would not form part of the taxable income. However, should anyone suspect that their income tax had been incorrectly computed, they should inform the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS) promptly and provide supporting documents to validate their claims, for example, payslip or employment agreements. IRAS will then review and rectify any inaccuracies if substantiated.
Singaporeans who receive CPF contributions from unknown companies should immediately report the matter to the CPF Board.
80 Ms Hany Soh asked the Minister for Education in view of SPH Media Group’s Report published on 16 June 2023 (a) whether the Ministry has conducted a review to ascertain whether schools have suffered any loss stemming from the arrangements to supply schools with SPH publications; and (b) if so, what is the nature and quantum of such losses.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: Our institutions paid SPH Media only for services rendered according to the subscription plans. They did not suffer any financial loss arising from the arrangements for SPH publications to be supplied.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Fair Assignment of Ride Hail Cases to Drivers Given Recent Acquisition of Trans-Cab by Grab","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"81 Ms Yeo Wan Ling asked the Minister for Transport in view of the recent acquisition of Trans-Cab by Grab, whether the Ministry and LTA will be monitoring the fair assignment of ride hail cases across all drivers on ride hail platforms.
Mr Chee Hong Tat (for the Minister for Transport): Ms Foo Mee Har and Mr Yip Hon Weng have filed related questions for a subsequent Sitting. The Ministry of Transport will respond to these questions together. [Please refer to \"Evaluation of Grab's Proposed Acquisition of Trans-Cab for Anti-Competitive Practices\", Official Report, 3 August 2023, Vol 95, Issue 110, Oral Answers to Questions section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Termination of Main Contractor for HDB's Punggol Point Cove BTO Project","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"83 Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling asked the Minister for National Development with regard to the termination of the main contractor for HDB's Punggol Point Cove BTO project in Punggol (a) whether there are any implications to other HDB projects that the current contractor is engaged in; (b) what are the main issues affecting the contractor resulting in repeated failure to meet construction targets; and (c) whether there are alternative contractors available to continue the project.
Mr Desmond Lee: The Housing and Development Board (HDB) terminated its contract with CKR Contract Services Pte Ltd (CKR) for Punggol Point Cove (Phase 2) because of CKR’s unsatisfactory progress and repeated failure to meet critical milestones and targets for the project.
Prior to terminating CKR’s services, HDB had put in extensive efforts to support CKR. For example, HDB facilitated approvals for CKR’s round-the-clock construction works, provided advance payments and helped to secure accommodation for CKR’s workers on-site and at external dormitories. Despite HDB’s efforts, CKR did not make reasonable construction progress. On-site works were often halted as CKR was unable to secure sufficient workers and could not ensure the timely supply of materials to the site.
To safeguard the interests of flat buyers and minimise further delays, HDB terminated its contract with CKR for Punggol Point Cove (Phase 2).
HDB recognises that any delay in the completion of our flats may cause significant inconvenience to flat buyers. A decision to terminate a Build-To-Order (BTO) contract is therefore not taken lightly. HDB closely monitors BTO contractors who may be facing challenges in meeting their project timelines and regularly assesses these contractors’ ability to meet the committed timelines towards project completion. While HDB will make reasonable efforts to lean forward to support these contractors as much as possible, this has to be weighed against the interest of our flat buyers, who remain HDB’s top priority. If there are any changes to their Probable Completion Dates, HDB also strives to give affected flat buyers sufficient notice of at least six months to a year, wherever possible.
HDB is currently in the process of bringing on board a new contractor to complete the remaining works. HDB will work closely with the new contractor as well as suppliers and sub-contractors to expedite the remaining construction works, without compromising quality and safety. HDB expects the flats to be completed by their respective delivery possession dates in the fourth quarter of 2024 and the first quarter of 2025.
CKR is, and remains, the contractor for several other HDB projects, namely, Eunos Court and Toh Guan Grove. To date, all the blocks in Eunos Court have been completed, while Toh Guan Grove is currently on track to be completed by the project completion date committed to flat buyers. HDB will monitor CKR’s progress very closely and will take all necessary measures to ensure timely completion of these projects.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on Number of Motorised Bicycles and Tricycles Sold in Past Three Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"84 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for Transport whether the Ministry has data on the total number of motorised bicycles and tricycles that are sold in the past three years.
Mr Chee Hong Tat (for the Minister for Transport): Power-assisted bicycles (PABs) are required to register with the Land Transport Authority for use on cycling paths and roads. The number of registered PABs increased from about 16,000 in 2020 to 37,000 in 2022. Motorised tricycles are not allowed on public paths and roads unless exempted for specific uses.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Support for Hawker Stall Operators Facing False Food Hygiene Complaints Adversely Impacting Their Reputations","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"85 Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) how does the Singapore Food Agency currently support hawker stall operators who face false food hygiene complaints that adversely impact their reputations; and (b) whether there are existing mechanisms through which hawker stall operators can report cases of malicious intent, such as the deliberate planting of foreign objects in food.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: In situations where the feedback provider knowingly provided false or misleading information to the Singapore Food Agency (SFA), SFA will take enforcement action under section 88A of the Environmental Public Health Act for providing false or misleading information. This could result in a fine not exceeding $5,000 for first offenders, a fine not exceeding $10,000 or imprisonment up to three months or both for repeat offenders. If a food business operator has good reasons to suspect that someone has deliberately contaminated their food, they may wish to lodge a Police report so that an investigation can be conducted.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Permission for Persons on Bail to Leave Singapore","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"1 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Prime Minister (a) under what circumstances are persons on bail allowed to leave Singapore; (b) since 2022, how many persons on bail have been granted permission to leave Singapore; (c) beyond a high bail amount, what steps are taken to reduce the flight risks of such persons; and (d) whether a person’s income and net worth are considered when bail amounts are set.
Mr Chan Chun Sing (for the Prime Minister): The purpose of bail is to secure the attendance of the person arrested or charged. The quantum of bail varies according to the specific circumstances of each case. Bail conditions, such as a requirement for the person to surrender his passport, may also be imposed.
When setting the quantum of bail and the conditions to be imposed, the law enforcement agency and the Courts consider a variety of factors to assess the flight risk of the accused. These include: (a) the gravity of the alleged offence; (b) the extent of the person’s roots in Singapore; and (c) whether the person has attempted to abscond previously.
A person’s background, employment history and financial position are relevant considerations for assessing his flight risk. For example, the fact that a person is employed in Singapore and has assets here is evidence of his roots in Singapore. This would weigh in favour of a lower flight risk. However, the person’s background, employment history and financial position are just some of the many factors considered in determining flight risk.
Persons on bail may be allowed to leave Singapore if they are granted permission to do so by the law enforcement agency – for agency bail; or the Court – for Court bail.
The main consideration is whether the person will return to Singapore, if granted permission to leave. Apart from the general factors considered in assessing flight risk, the factors considered in deciding whether permission should be granted include: (a) the reason for travel; (b) the intended destination; and (c) the duration and expected date of departure and return to Singapore.
If permission is granted, the bail quantum may be increased and additional bail conditions may also be imposed to prevent absconding. These bail conditions may include a requirement that: (a) the person furnishes a complete itinerary of his travel, including where he would be staying and his contact number while overseas, before departing Singapore; and (b) the person remains contactable by the Investigation Officer when he is overseas.
The number of persons on bail who are granted permission to leave Singapore is not specifically tracked. It is not uncommon for persons on bail to apply for permission to leave Singapore and for permission to be granted if the law enforcement agency or the Court is satisfied that the person will return to Singapore.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Trading Platforms in Financial Markets","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"2 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Prime Minister whether MAS has assessed the impact of artificial intelligence (AI) on trading platforms in financial markets for (i) the risk of \"herding\" where individual actors make similar decisions due to similar trained AI models or similar data aggregates and (ii) the potential for conflict of interest when a trading AI platform system is simultaneously considering both the platform's interest and the customers' interests, especially if without disclosure to customers.
Mr Lawrence Wong (for the Prime Minister): The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) requires regulated financial institutions (FIs) to have controls in place to avoid or mitigate conflicts between their interests and those of their customers. This approach is technology-neutral and is applied across all regulated FIs.
As early as 2018, MAS introduced the Fairness, Ethics, Accountability and Transparency (FEAT) Principles to guide FIs’ responsible use of artificial intelligence and data analytics (AIDA) in their products and services. Amongst other things, these principles require FIs to ensure that AIDA adoption does not result in customers being treated less fairly than the business. FIs are also required to provide customers transparent disclosures on the FIs' products and services, to facilitate informed decision-making.
The risk of herding in trading platforms arising from the use of artificial intelligence (AI) models is currently assessed to be low as FIs in Singapore are still at a nascent stage of using AI models for decision-making. Nevertheless, MAS continues to carefully monitor and assess the risks brought about by AI in financial markets. In recent years, MAS has worked with the industry to develop a framework which enables FIs to evaluate their AI systems against the FEAT Principles. MAS will continue to engage the industry on the responsible use of AI in finance.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures to Address Findings in Auditor-General's Thematic Audit on Key COVID-19 Grant Schemes in Report for FY2022/2023","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"3 Mr Don Wee asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance in view of the findings and recommendations in the Report of the Auditor-General for FY2022/2023 arising from the Auditor-General’s thematic audit on key COVID-19 grant schemes, whether these findings will be addressed and measures be worded into operational procedures so that the Government's response time continues to be swift when the next crisis occurs.
Mr Lawrence Wong: The Auditor-General’s thematic audit on key COVID-19 grant schemes noted that the Government had to develop and implement new grant schemes rapidly during the COVID-19 pandemic and adjust these schemes as the situation evolved.
While the Auditor-General's Office (AGO) affirmed that these schemes were well-designed with the necessary controls in place to ensure proper management, it also identified areas for improvement. Agencies have since taken steps to address the root causes of the audit findings. The learning points from these audits have been incorporated into the agencies’ operational plans and procedures. However, as the next crisis will not be identical to COVID-19, Government agencies will have to stay agile and nimble in adapting and responding quickly to new challenges and demands.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Court Decision in Herbalife International Singapore Pte Ltd vs Comptroller of Goods and Services Tax on Revenue Collection Leakages","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"4 Mr Derrick Goh asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance in view of the Court decision in Herbalife International Singapore Pte Ltd vs Comptroller of Goods and Services Tax in March 2023 (a) how many similar cases concerning revenue collection leakages have been detected in the past; (b) what is the total amount involved in these leakages; (c) how were these cases dealt with; and (d) whether there are any updates to IRAS’ study of the judgment and potential plans to address this gap in the Goods and Services Tax Act 1993.
Mr Lawrence Wong: The issue in the case of Herbalife International Singapore Pte Ltd vs Comptroller of Goods and Services Tax is whether the Goods and Services Tax (GST) should be charged on the discounted or full price of products sold by Herbalife International Singapore Pte Ltd (Herbalife) to its members. The GST Board of Review had earlier ruled in favour of the Comptroller; however, the High Court subsequently ruled in favour of Herbalife upon its appeal for GST to be charged on the discounted price of its products.
The decision by the High Court is specific to the facts of the Herbalife case. Other cases involving direct selling companies have facts and circumstances that differ from the case of Herbalife and are thus not directly comparable.
The Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS) will continue to study the various business models and industry arrangements in reviewing whether there are any gaps in the existing GST legislation.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Incidence of People Refusing Conveyance to Hospitals via SCDF Ambulances","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"5 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Home Affairs in view of the increasing number of people who refuse conveyance to hospitals via SCDF ambulances in recent years (a) whether SCDF will consider (i) doing a study to understand the different reasons given for refusal, (ii) determine the proportion of such people whose lives or health may be compromised by their refusal; and (b) what can be done to reduce the number of such incidents.
Mr K Shanmugam: As mentioned in our earlier reply to the Member on 5 July 2023, over the last five years, the number of people who refused conveyance was about 10% to 12% of the total number of calls received for the Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF)’s emergency medical services (EMS). [Please refer to \"Persons Refusing Conveyance via SCDF Ambulances to Hospitals\", Official Report, 5 July 2023, Vol 95, Issue 107, Written Answers to Questions section.]
While the absolute number increased annually, this increase was in line with the increase in the overall EMS call-load. We had also explained to the Member that SCDF does not track the reasons for refusal of conveyance.
Ambulance services and healthcare institutions worldwide are guided by the same set of medical ethics, which includes patient autonomy and informed consent. As such, SCDF respects the patient’s right to refuse conveyance. As mentioned in our earlier reply to the Member on 5 July 2023, the only exception is when the patient is assessed to be mentally incapacitated.
Our officers will counsel patients who refuse conveyance on the potential medical consequences. This includes engaging their family members or next-of-kin, where possible. For patients who continue to refuse conveyance, SCDF will advise them to seek medical treatment on their own or call 995 again, if necessary.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures to Pre-empt Rise in Concert Ticket Scams on E-commerce Platforms","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"6 Mr Derrick Goh asked the Minister for Home Affairs given the recent demand for concert tickets by high-profile artistes, (a) what measures were taken to pre-empt and mitigate a rise of concert ticket scams on e-commerce platforms; (b) whether the measures have been assessed to be effective; and (c) what actions have the Ministry taken to (i) reduce such incidents and (ii) place further accountability on these platforms to do more and be proactive in reducing scams.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Singapore Police Force (SPF) has observed an increase in e-commerce scams involving concert tickets. In this scam variant, victims would come across advertisements for concert tickets on e-commerce websites or social media platforms, such as Carousell, Facebook, Telegram and Twitter. When victims approach the scammers to purchase the concert tickets, scammers would often claim that the tickets are selling fast to pressure victims into making payment quickly.
Once the payment is received, scammers would claim to be unable to transfer the tickets to the victim and thereafter become uncontactable. In some cases, victims may receive their tickets via email or WhatsApp, only to realise that the tickets are invalid on the actual day of the concert.
To combat this scam variant and scams in general, no single measure alone is adequate. Instead, we require a multifaceted approach, including blocking scam content, enhancing the safeguards on digital platforms and public education.
SPF worked closely with social media and e-commerce platforms to take down scam advertisements for concert tickets, as well as accounts involved in such scams, as soon as they were detected. SPF also worked with the platforms to prevent such scams from happening, such as through pre-emptive detection and blocking of scam accounts.
To raise awareness of concert ticket scams, SPF partnered ticket retailers, concert organisers and online platforms to issue advisories to the public. For example, SingPost displayed these advisories on digital screens within their outlets for members of the public who were queuing to purchase concert tickets. Ticketmaster placed similar advisories on their website.
To tackle e-commerce scams upstream, the Inter-Ministry Committee on Scams launched the E-commerce Marketplace Transaction Safety Ratings (TSR) in May 2022. TSR informs consumers on the anti-scam measures that major e-commerce marketplaces have in place, such as user verification and secured payment options. We encourage consumers to transact only with the marketplaces with better ratings. For example, Facebook Marketplace is rated the worst in the TSR. They have not implemented the safeguards we recommended despite repeated engagements with them. Shopee and Carousell, on the other hand, have stepped up their measures and we are glad also for the sake of their customers.
In July 2023, the Ministry of Home Affairs passed the Online Criminal Harms Act, which will allow the Government to issue Directions to online platforms to disable online criminal content and activities, including scams-related ones. The Government can also require providers of designated online services to introduce upstream measures, such as user verification, to prevent scams from occurring in the first place.
Ultimately, the best defence against scams is a discerning public. We urge the public to adopt precautionary measures through the three simple steps of “Add”, “Check”, “Tell”.
First, “Add” the ScamShield App, anti-virus software and other security features, such as multifactor authentication for digital accounts and transaction limits for Internet banking. When transacting online, use secure payment options and never take transactions or payments off-platform.
Second, “Check” the reviews of the seller and look out for potential red flags when making online purchases. For concert tickets, only purchase from authorised sellers and legitimate resellers, such as Ticketmaster. Where possible, arrange for a physical meet-up with the seller to verify the authenticity of the tickets, before making payment.
Third, “Tell” your family and friends about scam encounters and report fraudulent advertisements to social media and e-commerce platforms as well as to the authorities.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Success Rate in Pre-Marriage Long-Term Visit Pass Assessment Applications","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"7 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Home Affairs in each year from 2016 to date (a) how many Pre-Marriage Long-Term Visit Pass Assessment (PMLA) applications are received; (b) of these how many are issued with a Letter of Long-Term Visit Pass (LTVP) eligibility; and (c) of those who are successful and applied for an LTVP, how many are eventually issued an LTVP or LTVP+.\n\n\n
Mr K Shanmugam: From 2016 to 2022, an annual average of: (a) 3,900 applications for the Pre-Marriage Long-Term Visit Pass (LTVP) Assessment (PMLA) were processed by the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA); and (b) 3,000 Letters of LTVP Eligibility were issued.
Of those who had received a Letter of LTVP Eligibility, about 1,900 annually were eventually granted an LTVP or LTVP-Plus (LTVP+). This is because not every person who has obtained a Letter of LTVP Eligibility goes on to apply for an LTVP. Those with a Letter of LTVP Eligibility, which is valid for one year, will generally have their LTVP or LTVP+ approved if their circumstances were unchanged from the time at which they completed the PMLA.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Applications for Long-Term Visit Pass and Re-applications for Pre-Marriage Long-Term Visit Pass Assessment","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"8 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Home Affairs in each year from 2016 to date (a) how many Long-Term Visit Pass (LTVP) applications are received; (b) of these, how many applicants have previously applied for a Pre-marriage Long-Term Visit Pass Assessment (PMLA).
Mr K Shanmugam: From 2016 to 2022, the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) processed an annual average of 7,200 applications from foreign spouses of Singaporeans for the Long-Term Visit Pass (LTVP). Of these, an annual average of 3,000 applicants had completed the Pre-Marriage LTVP Assessment (PMLA) prior to applying for LTVP.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Land Area Occupied by Black and White Bungalows and Occupancy Rate","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"9 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for Law (a) what is the total land area and built-in area respectively occupied by black and white bungalows in Singapore; (b) what is the occupancy rate of black and white bungalows as of 30 June 2023; and (c) what is the median vacancy period.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai (The Second Minister for Law): As the custodian of state land and properties, the Singapore Land Authority (SLA) oversees the management of about 2,600 state properties, including around 600 heritage black and white bungalows.
It has previously been explained in detail in Parliament on 3 July 2023 that SLA deploys state properties to a variety of different uses. [Please refer to (a) \"Approvals for Rental of and Works to be Done at State-owned Bungalows\", Official Report, 3 July 2023, Vol 95, Issue 105, Written Answers to Questions section; and (b) \"Rentals of State Properties\", Official Report, 3 July 2023, Vol 95, Issue 105, Ministerial Statements section.]
In the same way, the surrounding state land is used in a variety of ways, having regard to the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) Master Plan. For heritage bungalows which are located within landed estates and rented out for residential use, the adjacent state land which does not have an alternative specified use may be included in the tenancy boundary. For cases where the bungalows are put to other uses, such as commercial use, the adjacent land can be used for other purposes like place-making and may be excluded from the tenancy boundary.
It has also been explained in Parliament that SLA has carefully broadened the usage of these heritage bungalows to meet the evolving needs in Singapore, bearing in mind the URA Master Plan and the need for a judicious balance between protecting heritage properties and redeveloping them altogether.
The occupancy rates of these heritage bungalows have generally moved in tandem with changes in market conditions.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Cases of Disputes Between Neighbours over Second-hand Smoke and Enforcement Orders Sought and Successful","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"10 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Law (a) whether the Ministry tracks the number of cases in the past five years involving disputes between neighbours over second-hand smoke where a party has sought to enforce a Community Disputes Resolution Tribunals order by (i) applying for a special direction, (ii) applying for a person to enter into a compliance bond or, (iii) applying for an exclusion order; and (b) for each of these applications, how many and what percentage of applicants have been successful in each year.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Community Disputes Resolution Tribunals (CDRT) recorded 79 cases of “causing excessive smoke” from 1 January 2018 to 30 June 2023. This covers second-hand smoke and other smoke-related activities. CDRT does not track second-hand smoke cases specifically.
Out of these 79 cases, as at 30 June 2023: (a) 31 CDRT orders were made; (b) 37 cases were withdrawn; (c) seven cases were dismissed; and (d) four cases are ongoing. From the 31 CDRT orders that were made, seven applications for a Special Direction were filed. CDRT granted the Special Direction in two cases. Out of the two Special Direction applications that succeeded: (a) a Compliance Bond was concurrently sought and granted in one application; and (b) a subsequent application which was filed for an Exclusion Order was withdrawn.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Justification for Exempting Creditors from Attending Debt Repayment Scheme Hearings","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"11 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Law (a) what is the justification for allowing creditors to be exempt from attending Debt Repayment Scheme hearings; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider making such attendance by creditors mandatory in the future.\n
Mr K Shanmugam: Under the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018, the Official Assignee (OA) must convene a meeting of creditors to review the debtor’s debt repayment plan before approving it.
This allows the debtor and the creditors to express their views or raise objections to the proposed debt repayment plan before the plan is approved. Any creditor who is named in a debtor’s statement of affairs may choose to attend the meeting. There is, however, no legal requirement to do so.
Creditors can also submit written questions or raise any objections he or she may have on the proposed debt repayment plan for the OA’s consideration.
The current system allows for the views of both the debtor and the creditors to be taken into account while giving the creditor the flexibility to decide if he or she wishes to attend a meeting. There is, therefore, no need to mandate the creditor’s attendance at the meeting.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Co-funding Total Cost of Organising 2022 Formula One Singapore Grand Prix","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"12 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) what was the total cost of organising the 2022 Formula One Singapore Grand Prix; and (b) of the total cost, what was the total cost that was ultimately co-funded by the Government and what were the types of costs that were co-funded.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The cost of organising the 2022 race was between $135 million and $140 million. This was similar to previous years of hosting the race. As per past years, the Government’s share was 60% of the total cost. The types of costs that the Government co-funded comprised items such as maintenance of the racetrack, setting up infrastructure for the event, such as grandstands, hospitality suites and providing security and medical services during the event.
13 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for Trade and Industry in view of recent reports of exploratory studies at a site near the Sembawang hot spring, whether an update can be provided on the Government's assessment of geothermal energy's potential future contribution to low-carbon energy and/or energy conservation in Singapore.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Singapore does not have sufficient near-surface underground heat resources, such as underground hot water or steam, to deploy conventional geothermal systems. However, with new developments in geothermal technology, there is potential to harness heat that is deep underground for power generation.
The exploratory study led by researchers from the Nanyang Technological University found that in Admiralty, the heat at a depth of four to five kilometres could be sufficient for electricity generation.
However, these new geothermal technologies that can harness heat at such great depths have yet to be commercially deployed. There are, therefore, no immediate plans for geothermal energy production in Singapore.
To holistically assess Singapore’s geothermal potential, the Energy Market Authority will be launching a tender later this year to conduct a geophysical survey across Singapore. The survey will take a few years to complete. It will provide additional data to help in the assessment of geothermal energy as a potential source of renewable energy in Singapore.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Risk of Corporate Bankruptcies and Steps in Place to Cope with Inflation and Higher Borrowing Costs","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"14 Ms Foo Mee Har asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) whether the wave of corporate bankruptcies around the world in volumes not seen since the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis is similarly hitting Singapore; and (b) how are Singapore firms coping with inflation and higher borrowing costs.\n\n
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The number of compulsory winding-up in Singapore has remained relatively stable over the last three years at an average of about 200 cases per year, which is comparable to the past 10-year average. The Government remains committed to supporting businesses to weather near-term challenges and pursue longer-term growth and transformation.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Trade Relations between Singapore and Vietnam and Singapore Companies' Participation in Rapid Growth of Vietnamese Economy","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"15 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) how has trade relations grown between Singapore and Vietnam over the last five years; and (b) how can Singapore companies participate in the rapid growth of the Vietnamese economy.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Bilateral goods trade between Singapore and Vietnam grew by around 11% per annum from S$20.9 billion in 2018 to S$31.3 billion in 2022. Bilateral services trade grew by around 14% per annum from S$4.4 billion in 2017 to S$7.4 billion in 2021.1 In 2022, Vietnam was Singapore’s 11th largest trading partner.
Singapore’s Direct Investment Abroad (DIA) to Vietnam amounted to S$31 billion as of 2021.2 Vietnam is a fast-growing economy in our region, with a young and well-skilled workforce. Singapore companies have been entering Vietnam in sectors, such as infrastructure, manufacturing, logistics and consumer goods and services. There are also opportunities in the emerging areas of innovation, energy and sustainability. EnterpriseSG’s Market Readiness Assistance grant and its network of overseas centres and partners, such as the Singapore Business Federation (SBF)’s GlobalConnect@SBF, can help Singapore companies enter and expand their business in Vietnam.
16 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) how has Singapore expanded its sources of renewable energy over the last 10 years; and (b) what are the future plans to increase import of renewable energy, especially from the Southeast Asia region.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Singapore has limited sources of renewable energy. We do not have sufficient wind speeds for wind farms, or the rivers needed for hydro-electric power. Solar is a viable source of renewable energy domestically. However, we do not have the land for large-scale solar farms. To overcome this constraint, we have adopted innovative ways to maximise deployment of solar photovoltaic systems, such as on reservoirs. Over the last 10 years, solar deployment in Singapore has grown more than 50 times, from about 16 Megawatt-Peak (MWp) at end-2013 to about 900 MWp as of the first quarter of 2023. We are on track to achieve our solar deployment target of at least two Gigawatt-Peak (GWp) by 2030.
We are also working on the feasibility of importing up to four gigawatts (GW) of low-carbon electricity by 2035. If realised, this could supply about 30% of our projected energy needs in 2035. The Energy Market Authority (EMA) has launched a Request for Proposal (RFP) for parties that are interested to export electricity to Singapore. In March 2023, EMA issued a Conditional Approval for Keppel Energy Pte Ltd’s proposal to import one GW of electricity from Cambodia. We look forward to issuing more Conditional Approvals to other viable projects.
In addition to RFP, Singapore has been working with our Southeast Asian neighbours on small-scale electricity import trials that serve as pathfinders for larger-scale projects. In June 2022, we commenced the Lao PDR-Thailand-Malaysia-Singapore Power Integration Project (LTMS PIP). This imports up to 100 megawatts (MW) of renewable hydropower from Lao PDR via Thailand and Malaysia using existing grid interconnections.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of Termination of Black Sea Grain Deal between Russia and Ukraine on Singapore's Economy and Mitigation Measures in Place","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"17 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Trade and Industry given the termination of the Black Sea grain deal between Russia and Ukraine (a) what is the expected impact on Singapore’s economy; and (b) what are the measures in place to ensure that the food prices in Singapore are kept in check.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The direct impact of the expiry of the Black Sea grain deal on Singapore’s food supply and economy is expected to be manageable as Ukraine’s share of our grain imports is small. Nevertheless, the Government will continue to monitor the knock-on effects of the expired deal on global food markets and strengthen the resilience of our food supply through import source diversification, local production and food stockpiling.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Actions Taken to Reclaim Monies incorrectly Disbursed to Merchants or Citizens through SingapoRediscovers Vouchers Scheme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"18 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) whether remedial action has commenced to reclaim any money disbursed to merchants or citizens incorrectly through the SingapoRediscovers Vouchers scheme; (b) if so, what types of actions have been taken; and (c) how much has been clawed back so far.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The Singapore Tourism Board (STB) has commenced action to recover the disbursements made to ineligible persons and aims to complete this over the next few months. Individuals who fail to make repayments could be made ineligible for future campaigns that offer similar benefits to citizens.
STB's retrospective checks after the Auditor-General's Office's audit indicated that all merchants onboarded to the SingapoRediscovers Vouchers scheme were eligible, hence, no clawback is required from merchants.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Categorising All Vehicles Transporting Passengers or Goods for Monetary Gain as Commercial Vehicles under COE Category C","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"19 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Transport whether the Ministry will consider categorising all vehicles that transport passengers or goods for monetary gain as commercial vehicles under COE Category C.
Mr Chee Hong Tat (for the Minister for Transport): The Certificate of Entitlement system is designed to allocate vehicles to different quota categories according to the vehicle types and not the intended purpose of use. Cars are in Categories A and B, while motorcycles are in Category D. Goods vehicles and buses are in Category C.
Categorising vehicles based on their purposes would result in significant rigidity for vehicle owners and would also be challenging to enforce. The current approach of categorisation by vehicle type allows owners to optimise the use of their vehicles based on their needs. For example, a car or motorcycle can be used to transport goods both for personal and commercial purposes.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Revenues from Carrier Bag Charges","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"20 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) whether the revenues received for carrier bag charges are received by the Ministry or are retained by the retailer; and (b) whether profits from such charges net of bag costs have been designated for environmental transition programmes.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Under the Resource Sustainability Act, larger supermarket operators with an annual turnover of more than $100 million are required to charge at least five cents for each disposable carrier bag provided at their Singapore Food Agency-licensed supermarkets. For public accountability and transparency, they are also required to publish information on how the proceeds were used. The Government strongly encourages supermarket operators to channel the proceeds from the bag charge to environmental or social causes and all supermarket operators have indicated that they intend to do so.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Study on Particulate Pollution from Growth of Electric Vehicle Population","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"21 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment whether the Ministry will consider undertaking a study (i) to understand how much particulate pollution has and will be generated from vehicle tyres and brakes, especially having regard to the growing number of electric vehicles which are heavier and likely to create more wear on tyres and (ii) to identify steps to be taken to reduce the level of pollution.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Particulate matter is generated by vehicle tyres and brakes, including those of electric vehicles which tend to be heavier and create more wear on tyres. We are tracking this issue closely and monitoring international developments in research and regulation.
The National Environment Agency has also invited research proposals on studies on particulate matter generated by tyres and brakes under the Air Quality Monitoring and Control Funding Initiative. This will improve our understanding of this issue and serve as a reference as we determine what steps we need to take to address such pollution.
22 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Education (a) over the past five years, how many secondary school students have been asked to leave school after having been retained too many times; and (b) whether such students can be offered pathways in Institutes of Technical Education even though they may not have sat for GCE “N” or “O” Level exams with a view to retaining them within the education system. \n
Mr Chan Chun Sing: On average over the past five years, five secondary school students left school each year due to them being retained multiple times.
These students can enrol in General Education courses offered by the Institute of Technical Education (ITE), which lead to the GCE \"N\" or \"O\" level qualifications. They can also take up ITE Skills Certificate courses, which provide foundational training in industry-relevant skillsets and prepare students to access further upgrading.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Eligibility for ComCare Short-to-Medium Term Assistance under Past and Present Per Capita Household Income Benchmarks","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"23 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for Social and Family Development what is the estimated number of households that are eligible for ComCare Short-to-Medium Term Assistance under (i) the previous per capita household income benchmark in 2014, when it was last revised, (ii) the previous per capita household income benchmark in 2023 and (iii) the new per capita household income benchmark.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The per capita household income (PCHI) benchmark indicates the approximate income level at which households could qualify and is not a criterion that once met would automatically qualify a household for ComCare Short-to-Medium Term Assistance (SMTA).
Eligibility for SMTA is based on a holistic assessment by Social Service Offices (SSOs), taking into account factors, such as household income, savings and availability of family support. The PCHI benchmark is, therefore, not used to determine the number of eligible households.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Revising Section 88A of Administration of Muslim Law Act 1966 to Include Overseas Halal Certificates Recognised by MUIS","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"24 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Social and Family Development and Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs (a) whether MUIS will consider revising section 88A of the Administration of Muslim Law Act 1966 to include overseas halal certificates to be officially recognised by MUIS; and (b) whether MUIS will provide an avenue for the public to (i) check and verify with MUIS recognition of halal certification marks from overseas halal certification bodies and (ii) report any breaches or misuse of such marks or certificates.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: As part of the continual efforts to strengthen the halal regulatory regime, \tthe Majlis Ugama Islam Singapura (MUIS) has been taking steps to prevent misuse or breaches of foreign halal certification marks. Following a comprehensive review of the Foreign Halal Certification Bodies (FHCB) Recognition Scheme in 2021, MUIS is strengthening the legislative framework for (a) recognising FHCB, (b) regulating the use of recognised foreign halal certificates in Singapore under the MUIS FHCB Recognition Scheme, and (c) imposing penalties on the misuse of FHCB marks or certificates.
The list of MUIS-recognised FHCB, including their respective halal certification marks, is published on MUIS’ website. Members of the public who wish to report any suspected cases of breaches or misuse of FHCB marks or certificates can contact \tMUIS with their concerns at 63591199 or info@muis.gov.sg.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Breaches of MUIS' Halal Certification by Licensed Food Importer","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"25 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Social and Family Development and Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs with regard to the prosecution of a licensed food importer for false halal certificates from an overseas halal certification body and false halal labelling (a) whether the importer’s food importing licence has been revoked; (b) whether the importer concerned and the officers prosecuted will be barred from applying for MUIS halal certification in the future; and (c) what are the steps and measures taken to ensure that such breaches are expeditiously detected and reported.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The Member is referring to the case of Yocorn Food Enterprise Pte Ltd (Yocorn), which is a licensed food importer, but not a Majlis Ugama Islam Singapura (MUIS) halal-certificate holder. When MUIS detected that Yocorn was selling smoked duck falsely labelled as “halal” to MUIS halal-certified food establishments, MUIS immediately instructed its other halal-certificate holders not to purchase any smoked duck items from Yocorn that were presented as “halal”. MUIS also stepped up its inspections of food establishments that serve duck items to ensure compliance. Yocorn’s licence was not revoked but Yocorn and its director were fined $35,000 and $20,000 respectively under the Wholesome Meat and Fish Act for their actions.
MUIS regularly inspects halal-certified food establishments to ensure that their products and offerings are accompanied by valid halal certification from MUIS or MUIS-recognised foreign halal certification bodies. Food establishments that have previously breached the conditions for MUIS’ halal-certification are inspected more frequently by MUIS. Such establishments are also given a shorter validity for their halal certification when they are recertified.
MUIS will take the necessary investigative and enforcement actions if any breaches of its Halal Certification Conditions are identified and reported. MUIS regularly reviews its Halal Certification Conditions, including to tighten measures taken against companies with repeated halal violations.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures to Address Rising Suicide Rates Among Young People and Strategies to Improve Mental Health Support","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"26 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Minister for Health what measures will be taken to address the rising suicide rates, especially among the young people.
27 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Minister for Health in light of the recent increase in suicide rates in Singapore particularly among young people aged 20 to 29 (a) what measures are being taken to address this alarming trend; and (b) what strategies are being implemented to improve mental health support for this age group.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Suicide is tragic, personal, complex and multi-faceted. The best interventions include building mental resilience, encouraging help-seeking, spotting early indicators for crisis intervention and supporting individuals in crisis, with support from multiple stakeholders.
This will be addressed in the next Sitting together with similar Parliamentary Questions for a more holistic reply. [Please refer to \"Addressing Rise in Suicide Cases and Making Mental Healthcare Assistance Readily Accessible\", Official Report, 03 August 2023, Vol 95, Issue 110, Oral Answers to Questions section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures to Address Public Health Impact of Loneliness among Seniors","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"28 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Health (a) what measures is the Ministry taking to address the public health impact of loneliness among seniors and mitigate the associated negative health outcomes; (b) how does the Ministry plan to tackle the stigma surrounding loneliness and create a supportive environment that encourages seniors to seek assistance and support for their feelings of loneliness; and (c) how will the Ministry ensure that existing initiatives effectively reach and support older adults, including those who live with family but suffer from loneliness.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: As explained earlier, as our society ages, we need three healthcare subsystems – acute care, preventive care and aged care – to work in concert. In developing the aged care system, the Ministry of Health is stepping up efforts to combat social isolation and draw seniors out of their homes to keep them socially connected. Social connectedness is a major social determinant of health.
We will leverage on the Silver Generation Office to conduct outreach to such seniors, and Active Ageing Centres (AACs) to be staging points for seniors to participate in community activities and be part of a social support network.
Battling social isolation will need to be a multi-stakeholder community effort, involving the People’s Association and grassroots organisations, SG Cares Volunteer Centres, healthcare clusters, AACs and other community partners.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Use of Vacant Premises like Schools to Alleviate Shortage of Heavy Vehicle Parking Lots","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"29 Mr Don Wee asked the Minister for National Development whether URA can work with SLA to look into the shortage of heavy vehicle parking lots by utilising vacant premises like schools.
Mr Desmond Lee: As of June 2023, there are about 41,000 heavy vehicle (HV) lots island-wide and about 31,800 HVs registered under the Land Transport Authority's Vehicle Parking Certificate scheme. Hence, there are sufficient lots for all HVs island-wide.
The majority of HV lots are provided by the private sector and located within industrial estates, which is where most HVs operate. There are also HV lots in places like schools, where school buses are already allowed to park overnight.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Objective Criteria and Standards Used by NParks in Deciding Necessity for Environmental Impact Assessment","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"30 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for National Development (a) what are the objective criteria and standards that NParks uses in deciding whether an Environmental Impact Assessment is necessary; and (b) when have these objective criteria and standards been last reviewed and updated.
Mr Desmond Lee: Today, as part of the planning process, development projects that are in or near sensitive areas, such as nature reserves, nature areas, other areas of significant biodiversity and marine and coastal areas or have potential transboundary impact, are required to undergo an in-depth consultation process with the relevant technical agencies, such as the National Parks Board (NParks), National Environment Agency, Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore and Singapore Food Agency, to discuss the scope of works, potential environmental impact and corresponding mitigating measures.
If the potential environmental impact of a project is assessed to be significant, an environmental study will be required to assess in greater detail the nature and magnitude of the impact and the mitigation measures and monitoring plans to address them. The assessment on whether to require an environmental study takes into account considerations, such as the development details, including construction methods, as well as ecological factors, such as the habitat types, floral and faunal diversity and ecological connectivity that could potentially be impacted.
We continually review and update our approach based on evolving scientific knowledge and information on the environment. For example, through NParks’ island-wide Ecological Profiling Exercise, we have gained a better understanding of Singapore’s ecosystem and ecological connectivity, which we consider when assessing whether an environmental study is required for development projects.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Concessions for HDB Flat Owners with EV Cars to Park at Closest HDB Car Park with EV Charging Stations","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"31 Miss Rachel Ong asked the Minister for National Development whether there are plans to provide concessions for HDB flat owners with EV cars to park at the closest HDB carpark to their flats with EV charging stations at season parking rates. \n\n
Mr Desmond Lee: The Land Transport Authority (LTA) and the Housing and Development Board (HDB) are deploying electric vehicle (EV) charging points in nearly 2,000 HDB car parks by 2025.
To support the charging needs of residents with EVs, HDB allows residents to temporarily transfer their existing season parking to another car park with EV chargers, at the same season parking rate.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Purpose-built Dormitories and Beds Completed and Planned","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"32 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Manpower what is the number of purpose-built dormitories and the number of beds that have been (i) completed annually in each year over the last 10 years and (ii) expected to be completed in each year over the next five years.
Dr Tan See Leng: Twenty-five purpose-built dormitories (PBDs) having a total of about 145,800 beds were completed in the past 10 years. Relevant Government agencies will continue to work together to make more sites available for PBDs and expect at least seven PBDs with a total of 47,000 beds to be completed over the next five years.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Price and Lease Length of Dormitory Bed Rental Contracts and Measures to Mitigate against Excessive Rental Increases","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"33 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what is the (i) average price and (ii) average annual increase in dollar and percentage terms per dormitory bed for each year over the last five years; (b) what is the average lease length for dormitory bed rental contracts; and (c) what measures are being introduced to mitigate against excessive rent increases for dormitory beds.
Dr Tan See Leng: Commercial dormitory bed rental contracts are typically signed for one or two years. The median monthly rental rate of new contracts signed in the first quarter of 2023 was $420 per bed, compared to $280 in the first quarter of 2019, which was when the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) started tracking the bed prices of commercial dormitories.
Currently, strong demand for dormitory beds is contributing to the increase in bed rental prices. Other factors include the higher cost of manpower, utilities and bank financing. The number of migrant workers in the Construction, Marine and Process sectors in May 2023 was 18% higher than pre-COVID-19 levels to help companies catch up on projects delayed by COVID-19. However, this number cannot keep rising as housing is already tight.
The Government had taken a number of steps to facilitate more bed supply by adding nearly 17,000 beds since December 2022, which include: (a) relaxing the application criteria for building Factory Converted Dormitories (FCDs) to increase the number of workers in new and existing FCDs; (b) increasing the allowable Gross Floor Area in industrial buildings for dormitory use from 40% to 49%; (c) enabling existing dormitories with excess space to increase their occupancy load whilst keeping to the standards of the Foreign Employee Dormitories Act licensing conditions; and (d) conversion of facilities previously used for quarantine or isolation purposes during COVID-19 into commercial beds for rent.
Employers, too, must do their part to adopt productivity measures to reduce their reliance on foreign workers and build their own construction temporary quarters and factory converted dormitories to house their workers. MOM reminds employers to ensure housing has been secured for their workers before they enter Singapore.
34 Miss Rachel Ong asked the Minister for Manpower whether the Ministry will reintroduce a heightened safety period with extended safety measures given the continued occurrence of workplace fatalities.
Dr Tan See Leng: Workplace safety must remain a priority for employers. The Ministry of Manpower's (MOM) clear stance on safety has not changed after the exit from the Heightened Safety Period (HSP) in May 2023 and we will press on towards our Workplace Safety and Health (WSH) 2028 goal of keeping our fatality rate at below 1.0 per 100,000 workers. The trend of major injuries has shown early signs of improvement in the second quarter this year even though fatalities were higher in July. As there can be fluctuations from month to month, we have to monitor the situation closely over a longer period.
The Multi-Agency Workplace Safety Taskforce (MAST) had announced that most of the HSP measures would be established as permanent safeguards. Additionally, MAST will implement a suite of Safety Accountability, Focus and Empowerment (SAFE) measures to strengthen WSH ownership by (a) implementing sectoral measures, (b) placing greater accountability on company directors and management, (c) expanding safety training, and (d) raising penalties.
Notably, among the permanent HSP measures is the requirement for Chief Executives (CEs) to personally account for serious WSH lapses following serious or fatal workplace incidents. The upcoming SAFE measures include training for CEs and Board Directors of all companies to reinforce their responsibility for safety. This will start in September 2023. In October 2023, the Demerit Point System will be expanded to the manufacturing sector to deter WSH breaches and uplift standards. The implementation of further measures is also planned for in the coming year, such as mandating video surveillance systems for construction sites with project value of $5 million and above. In the coming weeks and months, MOM will also intensify inspections to ensure that employers maintain a strong focus on safety.
Beyond the Government efforts, we need everyone to play their part. For employers, this means putting in place a robust WSH management system and, for workers, adhering to safe work procedures and avoiding risk-taking behaviours. All of us also have a role to play in reporting unsafe situations at the workplace. This is why the theme of this year’s National WSH Campaign is “Reporting Saves Lives”. Collectively, we can continue to uphold strong WSH standards and keep workers and workplaces safe.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Companies Entering and Exiting Business Under Surveillance Programme since 1 January 2023","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"35 Miss Rachel Ong asked the Minister for Manpower how many companies have entered the Business under Surveillance (BUS) programme since 1 January 2023 and how many have exited from the programme since.\n\n
Dr Tan See Leng: The Business Under Surveillance (BUS) programme focuses on helping poor-performing companies improve their Workplace Safety and Health (WSH) performance through the development and implementation of a robust safety and health management system. Companies with fatal workplace incidents, serious incidents or poor enforcement records and are unable to demonstrate that they can manage WSH properly will be required to enter the BUS programme. Construction companies in the BUS programme can be temporarily disqualified from taking part in public sector construction tenders. A company’s bizSAFE status will also be suspended if it enters the BUS programme and it will not be able to qualify for private sector contracts that may require bizSAFE.
Since 1 January 2023, a total of 10 new companies across industries, such as construction and manufacturing, have entered the programme and are still in the programme. On average, companies will take about 18 months to exit the BUS programme. During this period, the Ministry will engage the company’s senior management and WSH professionals to develop outcome-based action plans to improve their WSH management systems. We will only allow the company to exit the programme after they have fulfilled the action plans and demonstrated improvement in its WSH performance and management systems.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Regulation on Maximum Number of Continuous Work Hours Per Day and Total Number of Work Hours Per Week for Construction Site Supervisors","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"
36 Miss Rachel Ong asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether the number of continuous work hours per day and the total number of work hours per week undertaken by construction site supervisors overseeing work health safety issues are being monitored; and (b) whether there are regulations on the maximum number of continuous work hours per day and total number of work hours per week allowable for construction site supervisors.\n\n
Dr Tan See Leng: Construction site supervisors are protected from excessive working hours under Part 4 of the Employment Act. They are not allowed to work more than 12 hours a day and should not be contractually required to work more than 44 hours in a week. Should they be required to work overtime, they can only work up to 72 overtime hours in a month. They are also not required to work more than six continuous hours without a break.
Furthermore, under the Workplace Safety and Health Act, employers are required to conduct proper risk assessment of work activities and plan and manage their employees’ workload and work shift so as to manage fatigue.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Electronic Payment of Salaries for Work Permit Holders","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"37 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what proportion of Work Permit holders maintain bank accounts and are paid their salaries electronically; and (b) how the Ministry can make consistent electronic payments a regular practice for such workers.
Dr Tan See Leng: Approximately 97% of employers of Work Permit holders who live in dormitories make salary payments electronically. The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) does not collect data on the proportion of Work Permit holders (WPHs) – both living in and outside of dormitories – who are paid their salaries electronically.
As electronic payment of salaries reduces the risk of salary disputes and delayed salary payments, MOM strongly encourages employers to adopt electronic payment of salaries. Should any WPH request for his or her salary to be paid directly to his or her bank account in Singapore, the employer is legally required to do so under the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Clarification by Leader of the House","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WS","content":"[(proc text) (a)\tThe following statement was made by the Leader of the House (Ms Indranee Rajah) during clarification on the Ministerial Statement, “CPIB Investigation Involving Minister S Iswaran and the Resignations of Former Speaker and a PAP MP”, at the Sitting of 2 August 2023: (proc text)]
The Leader of the House (Ms Indranee Rajah): I understand that the Parliament Secretariat had since 2020, organised 18 overseas Parliamentary trips, including the AIPA General Assembly one in August, the upcoming one in 2023; and 60 MPs have participated in these visits across the years since 2020. Of the 18 visits, Miss Cheng Li Hui only participated in one overseas trip and that is the AIPA General Assembly one held in Cambodia in 2022, but she did not attend more overseas trips than other MPs. With regard to her selection for that trip, I understand that the name was put up by the staffing officer and approved. [Please refer to \"CPIB Investigation Involving Minister S Iswaran and the Resignations of Former Speaker and a PAP MP\", Official Report, 2 August 2023, Vol 95, Issue 109, Ministerial Statements section.]
[(proc text) Written statement by Ms Indranee Rajah circulated with leave of the Speaker in accordance with Standing Order No 29(5): (proc text)]
I wish to make the following factual correction to my reply given during the Sitting of 2 August 2023. My statement should read as follows:
The Leader of the House (Ms Indranee Rajah): I understand that the Parliament Secretariat had since 2020, organised 19 overseas Parliamentary trips, including the AIPA General Assembly one in August, the upcoming one in 2023; and 60 MPs have participated in these visits across the years since 2020. Of the 19 visits, Miss Cheng Li Hui only participated in one overseas trip and that is the AIPA General Assembly one held in Cambodia in 2022, but she did not attend more overseas trips than other MPs. With regard to her selection for that trip, I understand that the name was put up by the staffing officer and approved.
[(proc text) (b)\tThe following statement was made by the Leader of the House (Ms Indranee Rajah) during the Motion, “Impartial Speaker of Parliament”, at the Sitting of 2 August 2023: (proc text)]
The Leader of the House (Ms Indranee Rajah): So, for example, in 1995, Mr JB Jeyaretnam said when he spoke on the reappointment of Dr Yeoh Ghim Seng as Speaker, and Dr Yeoh, as you know, was a PAP MP. Mr JB Jeyaretnam said this, “Mr Speaker, Sir, may I, as it were from the other side of the House, give you my very sincere and hearty congratulations on your election. We have heard from the Leader about your long reign in this House, but I, Mr Speaker, Sir, have only been under your rule for three years after I entered this House in December 1981. But may I say, Mr Speaker, Sir, that during that short time of three years, you have gained greatly my respect and admiration for the charm and tact with which you brought to bear to this high office that you have hold with such esteem and honour. It has not always been easy for you and sometimes it has been made trying, and my only hope is that I did not contribute in any way to your trials.” That was Mr JB Jeyaretnam. [Please refer to \"Impartial Speaker of Parliament\", Official Report, 2 August 2023, Vol 95, Issue 109, Motions section.]
[(proc text) Written statement by Ms Indranee Rajah circulated with leave of the Speaker in accordance with Standing Order No 29(5): (proc text)]
I wish to make the following factual correction to my reply given during the Sitting of 2 August 2023. My statement should read as follows:
The Leader of the House (Ms Indranee Rajah): So, for example, in 1985, Mr JB Jeyaretnam said when he spoke on the reappointment of Dr Yeoh Ghim Seng as Speaker, and Dr Yeoh, as you know, was a PAP MP. Mr JB Jeyaretnam said this, “Mr Speaker, Sir, may I, as it were from the other side of the House, give you my very sincere and hearty congratulations on your election. We have heard from the Leader about your long reign in this House, but I, Mr Speaker, Sir, have only been under your rule for three years after I entered this House in December 1981. But may I say, Mr Speaker, Sir, that during that short time of three years, you have gained greatly my respect and admiration for the charm and tact with which you brought to bear to this high office that you have hold with such esteem and honour. It has not always been easy for you and sometimes it has been made trying, and my only hope is that I did not contribute in any way to your trials.” That was Mr JB Jeyaretnam.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null}],"writtenAnswersVOList":[],"writtenAnsNAVOList":[],"annexureList":[],"vernacularList":[{"vernacularID":5712,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Lee Hsien Loong","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20230802/vernacular-PM MS 2Aug2023-Chinese_PMO.pdf","fileName":"PM MS 2Aug2023-Chinese_PMO.pdf"},{"vernacularID":5713,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Leong Mun Wai","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20230802/vernacular-Leong Mun Wai Motion 2Aug2023-Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Leong Mun Wai Motion 2Aug2023-Chinese.pdf"}],"onlinePDFFileName":""}