Mdm Speaker:\tOrder. Presentation of Petition. The Nominated Member Mr Kok Heng Leun wishes to present a Petition. Mr Kok.
Mr Kok Heng Leun (Nominated Member): Mdm Speaker, I present to Parliament a Petition under Standing Order No 18. The Clerk has endorsed this Petition as being in accordance with the rules of Standing Order No 18(5).
This Petition is presented on behalf of Mr Koh Eng Khoon, Mr Hong Theng Hoh, Mr Sonny Liew and others of like opinion. Including the three petitioners that I have named, there are a total of 792 valid signatures.
Madam, the petitioners alleged that the Sungei Road Market, being the only living remnant of the grassroots tradition of free hawking in Singapore, is an invaluable and irreplaceable element of the organic intangible heritage and communal identity of our country. It is also the indispensable means of livelihood of the many dozens of elderly vendors who have few or no practicable alternatives; yet are supporting themselves and contributing to our community and shared social fabric.
In light of this, the petitioners ask this House to designate an alternative site to which Sungei Road may be relocated.
The petitioners pray, and I quote:
\"One, designate an alternate site to which Sungei Road Market may be relocated; two, dialogue empathetically, genuinely and comprehensively with the Sungei Road Market vendors; three, refer the issue of relocation of the Sungei Road Market to a Select Committee for further public consultation and deliberation.\"
I will now hand the Petition to the Clerk.
[(proc text) Petition handed to the Clerk at the Table. (proc text)]
Mdm Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order No 18(6), the Petition shall stand referred to the Public Petitions Committee. Order. Questions for Oral Answer.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Managing Parking and Use of Bicycles from Bike-sharing Schemes","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"1 Mr Zaqy Mohamad asked\tthe Minister for Transport (a) whether the Ministry plans to align measures to manage indiscriminate parking and use of bicycles owned by bike-sharing companies across agencies so that there is a consistent framework that can be implemented in areas managed by HDB, URA and Town Councils; and (b) what are some of the concerns and feedback from the public and operators for some of the measures being considered.
2 Mr Ang Wei Neng asked\tthe Minister for Transport (a) what is the policy of the Government on regulating dockless bicycle-sharing schemes; (b) since January 2017, what is the number of complaints received on the improper usage of dockless bicycles, including indiscriminate parking and vandalism; and (c) what is the number of dockless bicycles confiscated by the authorities and, of which, how many have been returned to the bicycle sharing firms.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Transport (Dr Lam Pin Min) (for the Minister for Transport):\tMdm Speaker, may I have your permission to take Question Nos 1 to 2 together?
Mdm Speaker: Yes, please.
\tDr Lam Pin Min: The Land Transport Authority (LTA) has been coordinating with fellow Government agencies and Town Councils to align the approach against indiscriminate parking of shared bicycles. There are three elements in our approach.
First, ensure an adequate supply of parking spaces. LTA is working with the National Parks Board (NParks), the Housing and Development Board (HDB) and Town Councils to increase bicycle parking capacity within their premises. On LTA's part, it has implemented 34 bicycle parking zones, which can accommodate 1,400 bicycles at Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) stations. These are quicker to implement than bicycle racks and LTA will be providing more, including near bus stops. At the same time, LTA will continue with its ongoing plans to add 6,000 more bicycle lots at various MRT stations, and another 500 lots in the city area by 2019.
Second, ensure the cooperation of the bicycle-sharing companies. LTA requires them to promptly remove the bicycles which are indiscriminately parked. It is in their interest to cooperate with the authorities. Any public backlash may make the business model unsustainable.
Third, strict enforcement against errant behaviour. If the indiscriminately parked bicycles are not removed within half a day, LTA will impound them, levy a fee on the bicycle-sharing companies for the resources used for the impounding, and fine the companies. LTA has received about 70 complaints of indiscriminate parking since the beginning of this year. This does not include the many comments on forum pages and social media. LTA has served around 1,000 notices for indiscriminately parked bicycles, of which 200 bicycles have been impounded, and about half of the impounded bicycles have been collected by the companies.
Mdm Speaker: Mr Ang Wei Neng.
\tMr Ang Wei Neng (Jurong):\t Mdm Speaker, can I check with the Senior Minister of State, in total, right now, how many dockless bicycles do we have in the market, and whether the three companies are in discussion with LTA to expand the number of bicycles rapidly, and whether any of the three companies have started to implement the geo-fencing scheme and the scheme to encourage people to park properly and also have some system to penalise the users who park improperly?
\tDr Lam Pin Min: I would like to thank Mr Ang for the supplementary questions. At this point in time, there are a total of about 29,000 to 30,000 shared bicycles available in the market. LTA is engaging the bike-sharing operators to deploy their fleet in a responsible manner to prevent excessive, indiscriminate parking as well as disamenities to the public.
As to the Member's last question on geo-fencing, LTA is also working with the various bike-sharing companies to look into some of these innovative and technological solutions so that the prevalence of indiscriminate parking will also be minimised.
\tMdm Speaker: \tMr Zaqy Mohamad.
\tMr Zaqy Mohamad (Chua Chu Kang): I have two supplementary questions. One would be the number of lots you have or have planned to put in place, are they sufficient? I looked at the plan and it is for 2019. The issues that are faced by my residents and many others in Singapore show that the bikes are indiscriminately parked if there are no parking spaces allocated for them. The regulatory framework today has to take into account that there are not enough parking places and that you need to enforce this a lot more stringently.
The second question relates to my Parliamentary Question on the level of enforcement. LTA has the enforcement authority but I think most of the other agencies have not implemented this. Are there plans to make this more consistent across all agencies?
I can give some data points. My Community Club, which is managed by the People's Association, for example, has 65 of these illegally parked. We have called the operators and they have not collected any of the bikes. They may not be interested in collecting them because the bikes may already have been paid for by deposits. To a certain sense, there is the business model issue, and there may not be interest for them to also collect the bikes. So, the level of enforcement may not be sufficient. Are there other plans to make enforcement more consistent across all agencies, not just LTA?
\tDr Lam Pin Min: Mdm Speaker, I would like to thank Mr Zaqy Mohamad for the supplementary questions. The Member is right and I agree with his suggestion that we need to have a whole-of-Government approach. Currently, we have about 130,700 rack and dockless bicycle parking spaces. LTA will work with Government agencies, including Town Councils, to allow shared bicycles to be parked in all public bicycle parking areas. We are looking into increasing the number of parking places as well.
LTA will also coordinate and strengthen enforcement approaches across these various agencies against indiscriminate bicycle parking.
Last but not least, as part of the whole-of-Government approach, LTA will work with all agencies to harmonise the active mobility infrastructure to make it more convenient and seamless for users.
Mdm Speaker: Mr Ang Wei Neng.
\tMr Ang Wei Neng: I have two more supplementary questions. Are there any more new entrants into the bike-sharing market that have approached LTA recently? Jurong Town Council has increased the number of yellow boxes for shared bicycles to park but we still face indiscriminate parking. Will the Ministry of Transport consider imposing a rule for the three companies to implement policies to encourage proper parking first, before LTA allows them to expand at such a great speed?
\tDr Lam Pin Min: Mdm Speaker, there are currently no new entrants of bike-sharing operators. We do foresee that there may be a potential for new entrants in the future. We are also working with the bike-sharing operators to encourage them to come up with some form of incentive and penalty system so that they can modify or mould the behaviour of users, so that indiscriminate parking will be discouraged, just as the Member had mentioned, in his Town Council.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Prosecution for Hirers of Bicycles Who Damage Bicycles Illegally","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"3 Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked \tthe Minister for Home Affairs whether the Government will prosecute hirers of rental bicycles who damage, dismantle or dispose of bicycles illegally or convert them for their own use.
\tThe Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Amrin Amin) (for the Minister for Home Affairs): The Police will conduct an investigation if a case is reported and a criminal offence is committed. Based on the facts of the case, the Police will consult the Attorney-General's Chambers, who will decide whether to prosecute the persons involved, whether the offender is a hirer or not.
This approach is no different from how we deal with other offences. For example, last month, the Police investigated two cases at Jalan Tenteram and Upper Boon Keng, where rental bicycles were thrown from buildings. The person arrested for the Upper Boon Keng case was charged in Court and he was convicted of a rash act and sentenced to nine weeks' jail. For the Jalan Tenteram case, an arrest was also made and investigations are ongoing.
However, prosecution by itself will not eliminate the problem of misuse or abuse of the rental bicycles. The bicycle rental companies and the hirers have to take responsibility to ensure the appropriate use of the rental bicycles.
\tMdm Speaker: \tMr Lim Biow Chuan.
\tMr Lim Biow Chuan (Mountbatten): Mdm Speaker, there were several reports in the newspapers about bicycles having been dismantled, having had their Global Positioning System (GPS) devices removed, and some are thrown into the river and so on. Surely, the Police ought to take punitive action. If we do nothing, then it may be seen that we are tolerating, we are accepting behaviour that totally disregards the rights of the owners of bicycles. If we allow such behaviour to continue, then, today, it may be those bike-sharing companies; tomorrow, it will be some other illegal activity.
I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether the Police would take a more stringent approach against culprits who abuse shared bicycles, who remove and dismantle them or who basically convert the shared bicycles to their own use and leave these bicycles at home. To me, this is theft, this is conversion.
\tMr Amrin Amin: I thank the Member for raising the issue. It is an issue that we take seriously and we will work closely with the Ministry of Transport to conduct enforcement action. Where necessary, we will take punitive action to deter such acts.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Help for Vendors Displaced by Closing of Sungei Road Hawking Zone","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"4 Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked\tthe Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) whether the Government will reconsider its decision not to provide a replacement site for the Sungei Road Hawking Zone (SRHZ); and (b) whether an update can be provided on the help given to the vendors and whether any additional help will be given to vendors after the closure of SRHZ.
5 Mr Kok Heng Leun asked\tthe Minister for the Environment and Water Resources after the closure of the Sungei Road flea market, how will the Ministry engage and monitor the mental health of the elderly vendors who are displaced after losing their stalls and livelihood.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for the Environment and Water Resources (Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan) (for the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources):\tWith your permission, Mdm Speaker, may I take Question Nos 4 and 5 together?
Mdm Speaker:\tYes, please.
\tDr Amy Khor Lean Suan: Thank you. Street hawking, or the peddling of goods on the streets, was common in Singapore several decades ago. If we look at the old photos of street hawking, we can see the poor hygiene conditions, the pollution of waterways, the piles of waste that attracted pests, the potential fire hazards and the obstruction to traffic that resulted in disamenities to the residents at such localities. The Government thus undertook to relocate the street hawkers to purpose-built hawker centres and markets. Many street hawkers had made the transition well, making use of the sheltered facilities to sell their goods and going on to expand their offerings.
However, not all the street hawkers were resettled and 31 rag-and-bone men were given permits to continue their trade at the Sungei Road site in view of their chosen trade. In 2000, when their permits expired, the site was designated as the Sungei Road Hawking Zone (SRHZ). Only 11 of the 31 original permit holders still remain today.
Through the years, many others have taken the opportunity to peddle their goods for free at SRHZ. However, the activities of SRHZ have resulted in disamenities, such as the obstruction of roads and the storage of goods in surrounding areas, including the nearby drains and housing estate, posing risks to public health and incurring additional public resources for the upkeep of the public areas.
Despite this, we have continued to allow SRHZ to remain in operation for as long as we could, even though the area has been zoned for residential use. In fact, when the Jalan Besar Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) station was being constructed in 2011, instead of removing the whole SRHZ, the size of SRHZ was reduced as required, so that SRHZ could continue to stay open.
We understand that SRHZ holds memories for some Singaporeans. The National Heritage Board (NHB), therefore, conducted research and documentation to preserve the memories of the site for future generations. A virtual tour of the site as well as other resources are available on NHB's heritage portal, \"roots.sg\". Singaporeans have also contributed their personal stories, photographs and videos on social media.
Since 2012, we have informed the Association for the Recycling of Second Hand Goods that notice would be given to the users of SRHZ to cease their operations once the development plans for the Sungei Road area are confirmed. This was also mentioned to this House in 2012. Now that the site where SRHZ is located is required by the Ministry of National Development (MND) for ground preparation works to facilitate future public housing development, the last day of operations of SRHZ will be 10 July 2017.
We note that there are calls, including a Petition presented earlier by the Member, Mr Kok Heng Leun, for SRHZ to be relocated. Indeed, SRHZ users who wish to continue their trade can do so at appropriate venues, such as hawker centres, where there are better facilities and necessary amenities for users to conduct their businesses, or at existing flea markets, where these activities can be properly managed. This is similar to how street hawkers in the past have moved on to purpose-built hawker centres and markets.
Users may also take advantage of the opportunities that these new business locations present. For example, Mdm Tan Guo Mei, who was featured in the news recently, took the opportunity when she moved to a lock-up stall at a hawker centre to expand her offerings to include new goods which she can sell at all times and not be exposed to the weather elements. Other SRHZ users who have taken up such stalls have also indicated that they intend to move on to also sell new items, such as shoes and accessories, beyond the second-hand items that they used to sell.
The National Environment Agency (NEA) has set aside more than 40 lock-up stalls at hawker centres for those SRHZ users who wish to carry on their trade. To assist them in their transition, we have offered the 11 original permit holders a 100% rental rebate for the first year and a 50% rental rebate for the second year. For all other users, we have offered a 50% rental rebate for the first two years on a goodwill basis, provided they live in public housing and do not own more than one property. So far, 29 SRHZ users have been allocated a lock-up stall. Many of these stalls are clustered at two popular hawker centres not too far from SRHZ − the Chinatown Market and the Golden Mile Food Centre.
The Hawkers' Associations at these two centres have, in fact, invited the SRHZ users who have taken up stalls there to join them, which is an important step to help the users integrate into the local hawker centre community. To further assist these SRHZ users in their transition to the new business environment, NEA will facilitate training for those interested in getting tips on merchandising and display of their items for sale. NEA has also put out information on their new business locations so that the SRHZ users' clientele and those who wish to buy second-hand goods can go to these locations after SRHZ closes.
Today, the sale of second-hand goods in Singapore is not limited to SRHZ. Nor does it have to be done solely at hawker centres. For example, in some existing flea markets, such as that at Kreta Ayer, which have been in existence for some 15 years, there have always been vendors who sell second-hand goods items.
We also recognise that some of the users would prefer not to operate daily and wish to sell their goods at flea markets instead of operating a lock-up stall. To this end, NEA has worked with the People's Association (PA) and the Central Singapore Community Development Council (CDC) to assist the SRHZ users to tap on existing flea markets. So far, 16 SRHZ users have applied for stalls at the flea markets at various locations, including those near their homes. A majority of those who have chosen to continue their trade at flea markets have, in fact, moved to the Kreta Ayer flea market which is located between Block 4 Sago Lane and Chinatown Complex.
I note that there have also been calls for the Government to engage the users of SRHZ deeply. I would like to take this opportunity to share that we have, indeed, been doing so. Over the past few months, NEA has been working with the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF), Workforce Singapore (WSG) and Central Singapore CDC to proactively engage the SRHZ users onsite, as well as offsite, to offer various forms of assistance after the closure of the site.
Besides assistance with getting stalls at hawker centres and flea markets, WSG has been providing job placement assistance to the SRHZ users who wish to seek employment. MSF and the Central Singapore CDC have also been actively helping those who require financial assistance to get financial help through the ComCare scheme and other schemes. So far, 18 out of the 23 individuals who applied for financial assistance are assessed to be eligible and have received financial assistance. For example, one of them is a 61-year-old man who is receiving assistance while he makes the transition to his new job as a cleaner at a primary school.
All in, the agencies have engaged about 200 users of SRHZ, most of whom are between the ages of 40 and 65. All SRHZ users who are in need of help and have come forward are being assisted. More than 60 of them are now receiving some form of Government assistance, including those who have been allocated stalls. Another 70 or so had earlier indicated interest to receive assistance. However, they have not yet come forward to apply as many of them have indicated that they will decide on their future plans only after the closure of SRHZ.
More than 80 SRHZ users, however, have told us that they do not require any assistance after the closure of SRHZ. This is because they are able to support themselves, or their families can support them, or they have full-time jobs elsewhere. Some have shared that they have been plying their trade at SRHZ as a hobby occasionally on the weekends and will discontinue doing so once SRHZ closes.
Besides the assistance given by Government agencies, many Grassroots Advisers and community leaders have also been visiting the SRHZ users residing in their constituencies on a one-on-one basis in their homes to see if they require further community assistance. Those in need have been offered community support, such as job referrals and financial help, to tide them over the transition period. Others have also been encouraged to join the health and wellness programmes organised by their Residents' Committee (RC) as a good way to stay active after the closure of SRHZ.
We would like to thank all who have given their views and suggestions in support of the SRHZ users. I would like to assure Members of the House that my Ministry will continue to work with the relevant agencies to engage and support the SRHZ users through their transition and ensure that necessary help is rendered to them even after the closure of SRHZ. We would also like to encourage the community to continue to support the SRHZ users, for example, by patronising their stalls in hawker centres and flea markets.
Mdm Speaker: Er Dr Lee Bee Wah.
\tEr Dr Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon):\tMdm Speaker, I have two supplementary questions. First, how can we help those who have expressed concern that there had been a decline in earnings after moving to hawker centres and flea markets? Is there any further help in their set-up cost or further rebates? Question two is whether the Government is following up on the SRHZ users who have not come forward for assistance and say they will wait until the SRHZ closes.
\tDr Amy Khor Lean Suan: I would like to thank the Member for her supplementary questions. Regarding the first question, about how we can ensure that they succeed in the lock-up stalls in the hawker centres or markets or in the flea markets, as I have said earlier, we understand that in any change of business, for instance, business locations, a transition is required and it is not unexpected that business could be slow in the beginning. So, to ease them into the transition, we have provided, as I have said, rental rebates as well as offer short training courses that will provide them with tips on merchandising, display and so on at the shops, as well as, of course, now we have put up information at the SRHZ itself to tell the customers there where some of these stalls or these users have relocated to. We are also working with them to come up with flyers that they can distribute to let their customers know where they are.
In addition, I understand that there is also help, for instance, from Central CDC, from Mayor Denis Phua and her team, in transitional assistance to help them at the flea market and also at the stalls, and various schemes. And I know also, as I have said, that the Hawkers' Association at Chinatown as well as at Golden Mile have actually welcomed the SRHZ users who are going to set up stalls there and even offered them membership into the Hawkers' Association so that they can integrate into the community.
With regard to the 70 who have said that they will only decide after the closure of SRHZ, for those who have given us their contact information, we will continue to engage them even after the closure and see what kind of assistance they need. If they require flea market stalls and so on, we will help them to apply. If they require other assistance, for instance, if they decide to change trade to look for a job, we will also work with the agencies to help them with that.
For those who have not given us their contact information, they can come forward to NEA and we will coordinate this on a whole-of-Government basis.
Mdm Speaker: Mr Kok Heng Leun.
\tMr Kok Heng Leun (Nominated Member): I thank the Senior Minister of State for her reply. I just want to ask if the Ministry would still consider the relocation plans that the grassroots committee has actually presented. In fact, they have the \"Robinson Petang 2.0\", where they have suggested alternative sites, including how to manage the disamenities.
It is important to know that what happened here in Sungei Road is that it is a place-making that is very, very genuine and real. By removing it, we are actually taking away that place-making possibility. If there is something that is already ground-up and alive, why take it away? Why not have a relocation, put them there and, at the same time, manage the disamenities which I think is something that we can do?
\tDr Amy Khor Lean Suan: I would like to thank the Member for his supplementary question. As I have said earlier, we understand that SRHZ holds fond memories for a number of Singaporeans. In fact, because of that, we have got NHB to do research as well as documentation and put this up together with the virtual tour on their heritage portal.
SRHZ used to be a place where you could find very unique antiques, knick-knacks and so on but, over time, the nature of the site has changed, both in terms of the profile of the users of the site, as well as the buyers and the type of goods sold. In fact, if you go to SHRZ now, the most common type of goods sold there, are not necessarily second-hand goods, but second-hand goods, such as clothes, watches, handphone covers, cables, as well as shoes, that is, goods that are not unique to or only sold at SRHZ. In fact, you can find them in neighbourhood shops, too. Indeed, the sale of second-hand goods is not limited to SRHZ. There are already existing avenues where such goods are sold, say, in the existing flea markets, which are also ground-up initiatives from the community mostly, and also online.
So, in view of that, for SRHZ users who want to continue to ply the trade, we are offering them relocation alternatives, concrete relocation alternatives, either in lock-up stalls in the hawker centres and markets, or at existing flea markets where the goods sold are not incompatible with what the SRHZ users want to sell. In fact, by offering them, say, lock-up stalls, it is a more sustainable permanent solution, and they can actually use it to expand their offerings beyond what they are selling currently.
As I have said, during transition, there is bound to be some uncertainties, and we are doing our very best to help them. So, notwithstanding this, obviously, if there are other ground-up efforts in terms of flea markets that the community wants to create and put up, some of these SRHZ users conceivably can also join them.
Mdm Speaker: Ms Denise Phua.
\tMs Denise Phua Lay Peng (Jalan Besar): I thank the Senior Minister of State for her comprehensive answer. I have to declare that I have residents in the nearby neighbourhood who have objections to the disamenities caused by the zone for many years, but I also have some residents who are the zone users themselves. I have three supplementary questions.
It has been said that the users are elderly and dependent on the business at SRHZ for a living. Some also said that it is good for the elderly to be active, to push the carts in the elements and set up stalls elsewhere. I wonder what is the Government's specific response to these needs, especially for the elderly? Also, how many users has the Ministry found who are actually dependent on the zone for a livelihood?
Second, I would like to ask if the Ministry has analysed the reasons, as what my colleague Er Dr Lee has mentioned, and identified further solutions on how to address the grouses of poorer business by the current users who have moved or are going to move to lock-up stalls that are provided by NEA. And by giving such priority, are there also objections to these priorities given? Can other community groups at the grassroots level also be engaged to help resolve these issues?
Third, what is the Government's specific response to some of the requests of the users and supporters for relocations to several suggested replacement sites in the cities, or other preferred sites for free or very low rent with provision for storage space and shelter, and what is the Government's response if there are also other similar needs?
\tDr Amy Khor Lean Suan: I thank the Member for her supplementary questions. With regard to the first question on how many users rely on SRHZ for their livelihoods, based on our engagement with these users on the ground as well as how the health of the SRHZ users would be affected with the closure of SRHZ, let me say, as I have replied in my response earlier, that we have engaged more than 200 SRHZ users. Just by way of comparison, during the weekends, which is the peak of SRHZ when most of the users will be there to ply their trade and sell their goods, there are usually about 200 SRHZ users. So, our engagement has been quite comprehensive.
Of the more than 200 that we have engaged, actually more than 80 have said that they do not need assistance after the closure of SRHZ. They have given various reasons. Some say they can support themselves. Some say their family can support them. For others, they have full-time jobs. They go to SRHZ to ply their goods perhaps on the weekends. For some, they say they ply their goods as a hobby and they have decided to stop after the closure of SRHZ although, if they wish to, they can actually continue at the flea markets.
We have helped all those who have come forward to ask for assistance. More than 60 have been assisted, one way or the other. Some have been allocated lock-up stalls. As I have said, 29 have been allocated lock-up stalls, including Mr Tang Kong Yuen who is the Vice President of the Association for the Recycling of Second-hand Goods, and 11 of them have already started operating their lock-up stalls. Sixteen have been given flea market stalls, and some have already started operating. These users have the entrepreneurial spirit. They have embraced change and decided to move on and have, in fact, started operating their stalls. We should encourage and help them. Members of the community who are concerned could also help them, for instance, by patronising their stalls.
For the other 70, they have actually come forward and said they may need help, but that they want to wait until after the closure of SRHZ to decide and, as I have said earlier, we will help them. We will continue to see how we can assist them after the closure. I think that the users of SRHZ do not need to ply their trade in order to stay healthy. In fact, pushing the cart and so on may actually be detrimental to their health if they do not do it properly. We have many programmes in the community, for instance, the PA's health and wellness programmes that our seniors can participate in to stay socially active and engaged, and also physically active.
Regarding the second question, which is quite similar to Er Dr Lee Bee Wah's question about how to ensure that they continue to be supported, first, let me place on record that we want to thank Mayor Denise Phua and the Central CDC for the tremendous help that her officers and herself have given during the last few months in engaging the SRHZ users, not just onsite, nearly every week onsite, but also offsite through phone calls, visits to the SRHZ users to see what kind of assistance could be rendered.
I know that besides the assistance that we have given in terms of rental rebate, for instance, the service and conservancy charges rebates for two months as well as various other help that I have mentioned, the Central CDC has come up with various schemes to help them, including a transitional assistance programme and another new scheme that they are coming up with to help ensure or to help the SRHZ users at the lock-up stalls to give them a good chance to make sure that they can carry on their business there.
In addition to that, she also asked how we can make sure that we continue to engage them. Actually, our place managers do visit the SRHZ users who have already set up stalls at the markets and even at the flea markets to see how they are doing, and to see if additional assistance needs to be rendered.
Regarding relocation, I think I have answered that earlier. Mr Kok Heng Leun also asked about relocation. As I have said, the nature of SRHZ has changed over the years. In fact, we have allowed SRHZ to continue for as long as possible, but now that it is needed for redevelopment and we have to close it, plus the nature of the site has changed over the years and given that the sale of such goods is not just limited to SRHZ, we have helped them to relocate to other areas, like hawker centres as well as flea markets.
I have also noted that there is a natural clustering now. Most of the SRHZ users are now relocated either in Chinatown Market or in Golden Mile Food Centre, as well as the Kreta Ayer flea market, all of which are actually very near SRHZ and all of which, if you look at it, the goods sold are not really incompatible with what the SRHZ users are selling.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Personal or Pecuniary Interests of Ministers and Senior Officeholders","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"6 Ms Sylvia Lim asked\tthe Prime Minister (a) what rules are in place to ensure that Ministers and senior officeholders with personal or pecuniary interests in the subject matter of Government decisions do not influence or participate in the related deliberations and decision-making and how are the rules enforced; (b) in respect of Government opinions or decisions relating to the estate and assets of the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew, what conflicts or potential conflicts of interest did the Government identify to exist from among the members of the Cabinet and with regard to the Attorney-General; and (c) how are these conflicts or potential conflicts of interest managed.
7 Mr Leon Perera asked\tthe Prime Minister (a) under what circumstances are Ministerial committees whose existence is not made public are convened to address issues; (b) how many of such committees currently exist and whether their terms of reference and composition can be publicly announced unless forbidden by national security concerns; and (c) in respect of the Ministerial committee reviewing the fate of No 38 Oxley Road, whether independent heritage experts and processes for public opinion sensing will be engaged by the committee.
8 Mr Chen Show Mao asked\tthe Prime Minister what mechanisms are in place to prevent, limit, detect and address situations where Ministers or political appointees use State Organs to obtain information not related to the performance of their duties, advance personal interests or punish detractors, critics or political opponents.
9 Mr Pritam Singh asked\tthe Prime Minister in view of public concerns over allegations of abuse of power over the matter of 38 Oxley Road, whether he supports a Motion to set up a special Select Committee of Parliament, comprising Members from all parties, to receive relevant evidence and with public hearings that are broadcast live.
10 Mr Png Eng Huat asked\tthe Prime Minister (a) what rules and directives are in place to prevent Ministers and political appointees from abusing their positions by allowing or condoning their family members to access, influence and direct senior civil servants on matters beyond their professional course of work; (b) how often are these rules and directives communicated to Ministers, political appointees and senior civil servants and in what form; and (c) how will such cases be treated when abuse of position and power is proven.
11 Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) whether deeds of gifts executed with NHB may be shared with third persons and, if so, under what circumstances may they be shared; and (b) whether the deed of gift of items from 38 Oxley Road had been protected by a confidentiality clause and, if so, why did NHB release the deed to the Prime Minister.
\tThe Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien): Mdm Speaker, may I beg leave for Question Nos 6 to 11 to be answered by the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister Teo in the Ministerial Statements that they will make later today, as well as by the Ministers when the House considers the two Statements?
Mdm Speaker: I give my permission. We go to Question No 12. Mr Patrick Tay.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Criteria for Merging Schools and Junior Colleges","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"12 Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan asked\tthe Minister for Education (Schools) whether the Ministry has plans to further reduce the number of primary and secondary schools and junior colleges (JCs) in view of a smaller student population as compared to when the schools were first started or built.
13 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked\tthe Minister for Education (Schools) in respect of the merger of schools and junior colleges (a) what are the criteria used to decide on how the respective schools or colleges will merge with their respective counterparts; (b) what are the criteria used to decide on which school or junior college should give up the use of their name or existing premises after the merger; and (c) whether all the affected schools and junior colleges have been consulted prior to the decision by the Ministry.
14 Mr Desmond Choo asked\tthe Minister for Education (Schools) in view of the smaller enrolment of students in the longer term (a) how can our teaching staff be prepared for school mergers; and (b) how can training be provided to give them more redeployment options.
15 Mr Pritam Singh asked\tthe Minister for Education (Schools) why the Ministry did not consider shelving the establishment of the new Eunoia Junior College and convert one or more junior colleges out of the four that are to be discontinued to offer the same educational programme planned for Eunoia Junior College.
16 Mr Zaqy Mohamad asked\tthe Minister for Education (Schools) (a) whether the reduced supply of junior college places following the merger of JCs will result in higher aggregate scores for JC admission; and (b) whether the Ministry was expecting an increase in admissions when Eunoia Junior College was set up.
17 Mr Leon Perera asked\tthe Minister for Education (Schools) (a) what is the junior college enrolment size that is deemed to constitute minimum \"critical mass\"; (b) what is the expected percentage of total JC places with a cut-off point at or over 10, post-merger of the JCs; and (c) why did the Ministry reject the option of retaining the four JCs slated for the merger and reducing class size with some programmes operated on a cluster basis with JCs or Institutes, as necessary.
18 Mr Seah Kian Peng asked\tthe Minister for Education (Schools) whether junior college mergers will continue beyond 2018 in light of falling birth rates.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Education (Dr Janil Puthucheary) (for the Minister for Education (Schools)): Mdm Speaker, may I have your permission to take Question Nos 12 to 18 together?
Mdm Speaker:\tYes, please.
\tDr Janil Puthucheary: Mdm Speaker, the Ministry of Education (MOE) regularly reviews the education landscape to ensure students' educational experience remains relevant. In planning for schools, our priorities are to meet the demand for school places at both the national and local levels and ensure accessibility to students based on proximity to housing developments and public transport.
At the national level, the fall in live births over the past two decades has led to a corresponding decline in the demand for school places. This demographic wave is felt across all levels of our school system. Since 2015, MOE has merged or announced the mergers of 18 pairs of schools, including four pairs that would be merging in 2018. Earlier this year, MOE announced the mergers of 14 more pairs of schools in 2019.
We recognise that school mergers are painful for students, staff and alumni, but they are necessary. Without mergers, some schools will be facing such low enrolment that they will not be able to provide our students with the array of subject combinations, co-curricular activities (CCAs) and enrichment programmes that they deserve.
The 32 mergers which have been announced since 2015 will bring down our overall school places. Mr Patrick Tay and Mr Seah Kian Peng asked if there would be further school mergers, given the falling cohort sizes. We want to give some time for things to settle down and monitor choice and enrolment patterns before making any further decisions. Our priority for the next few years is to support our schools, staff and students as we adjust to these mergers.
However, in the longer term, with the demographic shifts both at the national and localised levels, we cannot rule out the need for more mergers in the next decade, difficult though they may be.
Four pairs of junior colleges (JCs) will be merged for the first time in 2019. The JC1 intake is projected to fall by 20%, from 16,000 students in 2010 to around 12,800 students in 2019. This fall of 3,200 JC1 students is equal to the intake for four typical JCs. If MOE does not take any action now, several of our JCs would find themselves with JC1 intake of below 400, less than half of the typical 800. Some would even struggle to fill 200 places. When this happens, the educational experience of the students enrolled in these JCs will be severely compromised. We decided that it is better to plan for the mergers now to ensure a smooth transition for the merging schools and affected students and teachers.
We settled on the eventual JC merger pairs after taking into consideration a few factors, especially student choice and the enrolment patterns of the JCs. We also considered geographical spread of the merged pairs and compatibility of merger partners. After the mergers, we would preserve good geographical distribution of Government non-IP JCs, with one each in the West, North, Northeast and East regions. The mergers involve the eight Government non-Integrated Programme (IP) JCs as mergers involving Government-aided schools pose significant issues and additional challenges due to their governance framework.
MOE considered different options before making the difficult decision to merge schools. One was to retain schools even when enrolment has fallen very low and bring together students from various schools and run programmes at the cluster or regional level. However, we decided against it as staff and students will face operational challenges, such as timetabling constraints, and travelling between different schools for activities would add to their commute time. Our students' educational experience and their experience of school life would inevitably be compromised. We also believe that there is value in enabling students to immerse themselves in their schools. That is what builds a sense of belonging and school spirit.
Mr Leon Perera suggested that instead of merging JCs, we allow a reduction in class sizes in those JCs with low enrolment. These are two separate issues. We are merging schools to ensure a good range of programmes for our students in schools that would otherwise face low enrolment. MOE takes a needs-based resourcing approach for teacher resourcing, targeting additional support at students with greater learning needs by reducing class sizes in a selective manner, so as to improve our educational outcomes across different schools and student profiles. We have been able to do this due to our steadily improving teacher-to-student ratios, which are now comparable to that of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries. We believe that this approach in reducing class size is more targeted and sustainable and can be applied across all schools based on needs, rather than just the schools with low enrolment.
The sites of the merged schools in 2019 are chosen based on a number of factors, including the accessibility to public transport and the quality of school infrastructure, which includes the age of buildings and facilities available. In addition, for the JC mergers, the selected merged sites took into consideration the desire for us to have a good spread and distribution of JCs across the island.
Schools' heritage and identities are valuable aspects of our students' experience. The names of the merged schools have not been decided. In naming the merged schools, MOE will consider the schools' history and heritage, stakeholders' interests and the sentiments of all schools involved. Similar to primary and secondary school mergers, the merged JC will comprise a significant proportion of staff from both JCs. We will retain the special programmes and events, plus the signature CCAs of both JCs, so that the heritage of the merged JC is enriched from merging aspects of both colleges.
Over the years, MOE has engaged school leaders and many educators on the issue of falling cohort sizes and the rationale for school mergers at various MOE engagement platforms. As Members would appreciate, the issue of the actual school merger is very emotive and we need to approach this matter with care. This is not a matter that we can do extensive pre-announcement engagements without causing unnecessary anxiety. Our engagements are focused on the post-announcement phase, targeting key areas of concerns for staff and students, such as support during the transition and preservation of their school heritage. I would like to assure Mr Dennis Tan that we work closely with our key stakeholders for the mergers and will continue to do so with the affected schools to ease the transition for all staff, students and parents.
I understand that some parents and students are concerned that fewer JCs would mean stiffer competition for places. Let me give a categorical assurance that all JC-eligible students, that is, those with a score of 20 points or below, who opt for the JC pathway will be able to enrol in one of the JCs. For 2018, we plan to increase the JC1 student intake for the remaining JCs and we have sufficient capacity in our JCs to ensure that no JC-eligible student would be denied a place.
A related question is how the eventual JC cut-off points for the 2018 Joint Admission Exercise would change with the JC mergers. MOE does not predetermine JC cut-off points. They vary from year to year depending on students' choices. We do not know how students' choices may change with the announcement of JC mergers. For this reason, I am unable to give specific answers to Mr Zaqy Mohamad's nor Mr Leon Perera's questions as to whether we will see higher aggregate scores for JC admissions or specific percentages following the mergers. With the change in the 2018 JC landscape, variations in cut-off points may be slightly more than in previous years. Most importantly, a student who qualifies for JC and chooses to go there, will have a JC place. Our educators, as well as Education and Career Guidance Counsellors, will continue to guide our students in selecting their post-secondary pathways based on their strengths, aspirations and interests.
Mr Pritam Singh asked why we chose to set up Eunoia Junior College (EJC), and if we had anticipated falling JC cohort sizes in the coming years.
MOE had decided to set up various new schools in 2010, namely, Crest, Spectra, as well as EJC, as part of our efforts to provide more options in our education landscape, and better meet our students' diverse aspirations and educational needs. This was even though we were aware of the falling cohort sizes in the coming years. Crest and Spectra were specially established to offer a special Normal (Technical) curriculum to cater to secondary school students who are more suited for the applied learning track.
In the same vein, we set up the new EJC to cater to students who would benefit from the IP pathway at three secondary schools − Catholic High, Convent of the Holy Infant Jesus (CHIJ) St Nicholas Girls' and Singapore Chinese Girls'. We started the new IP pathway in 2004, with the intention that this would, over time, admit up to 10% of the Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE) cohort, and the IP pathway has been valued by students. The extension of IP to these three schools and the announcement of EJC in 2010 were part of this planned IP expansion.
The suitability of a JC to partner its feeder secondary schools to offer IP is an important consideration to ensure that the programme offered will be meaningful for the students. At that time, there was no suitable JC to partner these three secondary schools. EJC was thus set up to leverage the strengths of the partner secondary schools and to add diversity to the JC landscape.
Like Mr Desmond Choo, MOE recognises that school mergers are unsettling for school staff. In the case of teachers, this sometimes involves redeployment to another level, for example, from secondary school to primary school, or JC to secondary or primary school. There are also areas of needs in MOE Headquarters, such as developing resources for information and communications technology learning for our students, and other vacancies where teachers could contribute.
MOE takes great care in managing staff matters in school mergers. We work closely with school leaders and support them in engaging affected staff. For all school mergers, we have assured our MOE staff that they will not be retrenched. Staff are engaged on the deployment plans and manpower needs for the merged schools. They are also informed of the redeployment plans and support available to them. Many of these conversations take place on a one-to-one basis. Thereafter, staff are given time to explore options they are interested in through our internal posting exercise. MOE will also assist staff who need additional support during the redeployment process.
MOE will provide the necessary training for teachers who will be redeployed to levels they have not taught before. The training includes bridging courses to equip them with the necessary pedagogical skills and content knowledge to teach at the redeployed level. Apart from deepening their understanding of the different learning profiles of the students they will teach, these bridging courses will also help teachers understand their students' different social and emotional needs, and how they can foster strong teacher-student rapport to help them better support these students in their learning. These teachers will also have the opportunity to be attached to their new schools before their formal postings begin. After they have been posted, MOE will continue to support these teachers through regular engagement sessions.
Apart from providing teachers with the requisite training, we recognise that redeployed teachers will also need personal time and space to adapt to their new environment. The receiving schools will pair each redeployed teacher with a buddy or mentor and provide a supportive environment to ensure a smooth transition. We also encourage schools to, where possible, adjust the workload for cross-deployed teachers in their first year. MOE is committed as a system to help these teachers transit smoothly so that our teachers continue to make a positive difference in our students.
I understand that the process of school mergers is a difficult and challenging one for the schools and all stakeholders involved. We are making every effort to ensure that the transition will be a smooth one. We value our students' learning experience and their attachment to our schools. Thus, we are also committed to continue the rich heritage and history of our schools through the cohorts of students to come.
Mdm Speaker: Mr Patrick Tay.
\tMr Patrick Tay Teck Guan (West Coast): I thank the Senior Minister of State for the response and answers. I just have two supplementary questions, as well as clarifications and suggestions.
Firstly, it is on the plight of the workers. I am glad to hear that none of the teaching and non-teaching staff would be made redundant and retrenched. However, as we know, because of such rationalisation, there will be transfers of teachers, including non-teaching staff, for example, the administrative staff. I say this because I speak on behalf of the four teachers' unions as well as our public sector unions. There is general concern how they will be helped because different schools have different cultures, geographically as well as whether they are primary and secondary schools, or JCs. It is very different in the way they do things, whether it is IP schools, non-IP schools or other schools. That is one.
Secondly, I urge the Ministry, although I know it is a sensitive process, to engage and inform the unions, in the spirit of good labour-management relationship, in advance so that we can prepare beforehand, in case any of these grievances do come to us.
\tDr Janil Puthucheary: Madam, I agree with the Member that the transfers of staff, whether it is teaching or non-teaching staff, will, indeed, be associated with anxiety, and MOE will do as much as we can to ensure that these transfers are smooth. This is a combination of finding appropriate postings on the basis of skills as well as needs, and we do take into account the compatibility of the culture and socio-emotional aspects. We also provide pedagogical support, additional courses and training for staff who may be doing something that they are not familiar with, especially if they have been used to teaching a particular subject or level for many number of years. They will need professional training and assistance to make the transition work.
The Member's point about engaging the union is an apt and appropriate one. As I have explained, the announcement of the specific merger pairs was not something that we could test the waters with extensively before a decision was made. So, I hope the Member appreciates that we made the announcements and began engagements as soon as we were able to, with some confidence that there was clarity over the decisions that we were going to go forward with. But the larger point that we do have to make sure that we work well with the teachers' unions and have good labour relations in this aspect is very important. I do agree with the Member.
Mdm Speaker: Mr Dennis Tan.
\tMr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Non-Constituency Member): Madam, I have four supplementary questions for the Senior Minister of State.
The first question is that if geographical location is one of the criteria that was taken into account, did the Ministry consider that in closing Serangoon Junior College, potential students residing in the northeast areas like Sengkang, Punggol and Hougang, would be affected, that is, they would have to travel to a college that is further away?
The second supplementary question is that there is some talk that only the Government-funded, non-IP, non-Mission, non-affiliated JCs are being merged. If we look at the list of schools to be closed, that hypothesis does not seem entirely baseless. What is the Senior Minister of State's comment on what I would say is a popular view that is being taken?
The third supplementary question is that if low enrolment is a criterion, last year's Straits Times reported about the growing popularity of a few JCs, namely, Meridian JC, Nanyang JC and Serangoon JC. Was this taken into account for this particular criterion of low enrolment? Does the Ministry not agree that by choosing to close down these schools, they would, to some extent, have undone some of the hard work that the principals and staff had put in?
Finally, the Senior Minister of State also mentioned about consultation. Could I just ask who were the stakeholders from the affected JCs who were consulted? How long ago was this consultation? How long did the consultation take place?
\tDr Janil Puthucheary: Madam, I thank the Member for the four questions. With respect to the first and the third questions, the geographical considerations and enrolment were taken into account. But no single factor was overwhelming. So, for both dimensions − the enrolment as well as the geographical location − we can find examples where it is not ideal. There is no nice or ideal solution to this. It is painful to close a school, merge a school or relocate a school. There is anxiety when staff have to change jobs, to do something that they have not been doing, to move from one place of work to another. There is no easy answer to this. But we did try as far as possible to ensure that the merged pairs result in a good geographical spread of JC places across the nation.
Yes, there would be some students who will end up having a slightly longer commute. It is not the only factor, but geographical considerations were taken into account.
Low enrolment was taken into account. The point the Member made was that we were undoing the work of the staff to build up a JC. I think whether you are a low-enrolment school or a high-enrolment school, you would feel that your work has been undone. This is a very understandable concern. It is not about whether it is a low-enrolment school or a high-enrolment school. That anxiety is going to be there. So, we are trying as hard as possible to preserve the ethos and values of these schools when we merge them, through the preservation of their niche programmes, CCAs, engagements with the renaming, the history and the heritage.
Ultimately, that work and the values and the effort rest in the professionals who are involved. The key part of a school is the teachers, staff and the ethos and values they bring. They are staying within our system; we are not losing them. As we merge these schools, these professionals who are part of our education landscape, the key part of our education landscape, the work that they have done in developing their profession and developing their schools, will be preserved within our system because they are all being retained within our system or have the opportunity to be retained within our system.
All the stakeholders in all the merging schools have been consulted and continue to be engaged with thoroughly − staff, students, alumni − and the engagement is ongoing as we have to think of names and various other aspects.
As for the issue of the Government non-IP schools, I think I have addressed that in my response initially that it is correct that the mergers involve the Government non-IP JCs, and there are a couple of reasons. I am just trying to find the paragraph, so I can refer the Member to it. One is the issue of governance. If you have a Government-aided school versus a Government school, the governance framework is different. If you are trying to merge two schools with two very different governance frameworks, there are additional challenges − not impossible but it adds an added layer of complexity and difficulty that we felt was not needed at this point in time, that we could do it without having to engage in an even more difficult exercise.
So, I had addressed that. Was there an additional point about that that the Member had? I mean, we do acknowledge that it is so, and I hope I have explained why it is so.
Mdm Speaker: Mr Zaqy Mohamad.
\tMr Zaqy Mohamad (Chua Chu Kang): I thank the Senior Minister of State for the explanation. Two supplementary questions. Is there a concern by the Ministry that there will be a further decline in the number of JC places, in the sense that they are talking about future graduate workforce in Singapore?
The second question is whether the Senior Minister of State would say that the JC experience, in terms of infrastructure and environment, has not really changed compared to, say, competition, such as polytechnic places where today, there is a lot more vibrancy in terms of marketing and the variety of courses being made available. If you go to the polytechnics, for example, many of the students I spoke to and asked, \"Why did you choose polytechnics over JCs?\", for example, they would say, \"You go to a JC, you see classrooms and classrooms and not much more, whereas if you go to the polytechnic, you will see labs, very interesting things\". So, the experience also matters in terms of the erosion of JC places. Would the Ministry be reviewing that because there is value to a JC education? Would not having changed this environment and experience result in further erosion of students taking the JC pathway, given that you also have more competition for students today, with regard to whether it is the International Baccalaureate (IB), IP or polytechnics?
\tDr Janil Puthucheary: I thank the Member. To the first question, our anticipation is that the proportion of a given cohort that will apply for the JC pathway and then seek a graduate education is likely to be the same. In absolute numbers, it may change but in terms of proportions, the pathways are there. We anticipate that, likely, the proportions will remain about the same going forward. It is hard to say, but that is our anticipation of the future.
The Member brought up a very important point about the methodology of teaching in JCs. If I understand that correctly, that perhaps there are aspects of the curricular experience or the student experience in our JCs which are different from what someone might experience at the polytechnics. But that is a good thing. We have increasing diversity in the post-secondary education landscape.
For a student to be offered more choice where the choice is not merely about the certification pathway or the accreditation pathway, or the academic process that they are going through, but the holistic student experience they may have, is a good thing. If there is an opportunity for the JCs to think about how they can improve their provision of a student experience because of competition for the students to go to alternative pathways, that can also only be a good thing to improve our education landscape.
I do not think the changes in enrolment numbers, the falling birth cohort and our need for mergers of institutions would change any of these. This is a natural outcome of the increasing diversity that we want to have and that we are developing within our education space.
Mdm Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.
\tMr Pritam Singh (Aljunied):\tI have one supplementary question. Why was it not possible for MOE to transfer staff and to provide resources to support the IP Programme to existing JCs, especially since the Ministry was aware of falling cohort sizes in 2010? This would have allowed the long heritage of some JCs which are going to be closed shortly, as announced this year, to continue to grow and thrive?
\tDr Janil Puthucheary: I thank the Member for the question. We explored a wide range of possibilities to deal with this problem. I cannot speak specifically of the processes in 2010 but, certainly, across time, we have explored a wide variety of possibilities of how we might deal with falling enrolment, whether we need to change the models of some of the JCs, go for smaller JCs, go for larger JCs, including some of the suggestions that the Member has made.
There was no singular reason why that was not done. It was the larger reason that, system wide, we wanted to preserve a number of outcomes. We wanted to have, in 2010, the three schools that we talked about to increase diversity in our landscape and provide a receptacle for the IP Programme for the secondary schools that I spoke about in my earlier response. And later on, as part of the programme, we wanted to ensure that geographical distribution and access to public transport, the changes where housing is going to be going forward, where the population shifts are going, are considered. So, there is no single neat reason why one particular route was not taken. It was really an overall approach, and judgement was made that this was perhaps the best way to go forward to try to deal with the problem, which is a painful problem.
One consideration is the pain and the distress the alumni feel. It is very real. It is not something to be trivialised or ignored, and it is not something that MOE was unaware of. But MOE has to balance that with how we can best serve the next generation. Whether it is the geographical distribution, the enrolment, the emotional distress of the alumni, we cannot allow any single factor to override completely what should be our prime concern, which is, how to develop an education system that is going to best serve the next generation, looking forward to the future. There are unknowns but that is how we have to approach this problem. We acknowledge the problems and the distress that it has caused and we are trying our best to minimise them.
Mdm Speaker: Mr Leon Perera.
\tMr Leon Perera (Non-Constituency Member): I thank the Senior Minister of State for his detailed answers. I just have four supplementary questions.
Firstly, I think the Senior Minister of State has acknowledged the emotional cost that this has created. My question would be in terms of the longer-term planning protocols and processes within MOE. Are there any learnings that have been drawn from this? Clearly, falling birth rates would have been foreseeable a very long time ago because these are patterns that do not tend to fluctuate too much year by year. Nevertheless, capacity did increase over the last decade. So, have there been any lessons drawn about how we can improve the forward planning in terms of establishing new JCs, establishing more capacity for JC places?
Secondly, it is in relation to JCs that cater to students who score 10 points and above, or students who score less well academically. It would appear that the number of JC choices available to such students would now be diminished and that would mean that there would be longer travel time for such students. For example, 14 to 16 pointers in the east would have fewer JC options, and students in the west with 10 to 12 points would have fewer options as well. I think the Senior Minister of State did acknowledge that in the context of discussing CCA clustering, increasing travel times does diminish the quality of the student experience. Would the Senior Minister of State acknowledge that this is in some sense penalising those students who opt for the JC path but perform less well academically, and what measures are going to be taken to manage that?
Thirdly, my understanding is that at the time when the JC mergers were announced, MOE was in the process of implementing a new curriculum in JCs and this was the curriculum that MOE invested in, bringing teachers in to train the JC teachers on this new curriculum. There was a period when the teachers would have to review the curriculum, revise and test their teaching materials, get feedback from the teaching process and so on. My question is just on the timing of the announcement. Would the timing not have been better if it had been either before or after the implementation of this new curriculum, which, it is my understanding, is currently in process?
Lastly, on the fate of administrative non-teaching staff and vendors in the JCs, I would like to ask about vendors, such as canteen operators, shop operators, lab technicians and so on, what measures are being taken to assist them in the transition.
\tDr Janil Puthucheary: If I could address the last question, we are looking at all staff, different groups of staff and different types of challenges. We are looking at all staff to ensure that they have opportunities.
The third question is about the timing of the announcement, the curriculum review and training of teachers. Yes, there were announcements of specifics for the JC curriculum review. But the reality is that curriculum review, pedagogical development and professional training are ongoing all the time. There is always going to be tweaks to our system. There is always going to be new courses and new skills to be developed. There is never going to be a good time. There is never going to be the equivalent of a \"Now it is school holidays and we can clean the canteen\". In terms of our education system, this ongoing professional review is constant. We will always find something happening and something going on. So, we had to make the choice for the timing of this in terms of how far ahead we had to plan for birth cohorts, at which point we were going to have an enrolment that was so low that a JC was not going to be able to run a viable programme with CCAs and performing arts and so forth, and the academic curriculum. So, that is fundamentally what determines the timing, not anything else.
As for the cut-off points, and how it may affect the students who are, perhaps, not performing so well, this will vary over time. As schools merge and other schools see changes in capacity, the cut-off point required to get into a given JC may change. It depends on some degree of competitiveness amongst the student cohort and it depends on the choices that students make. There is no deliberate attempt to penalise anybody here. There is no deliberate attempt to put the burden of these school mergers on a particular segment of our population. What will happen over time is that the cut-off points and the choices that students make will change. And, really, there is no way to accurately plan or predict that except to say, on the whole, every JC-eligible student will have a place in the system. We are not denying that to anybody.
The first question that the Member brought up was about lessons that have been learnt. This is going to be a dynamic process. The changes in birth cohort, the changes in where population lives and what we do in our education system, will require a dynamic process. Between 2005 and 2012, we significantly rammed up JC places. We had packed classrooms because we had maximised the capacity, because that was when we had the peak student cohort sizes going through. We are not going to turn around and say that was the wrong thing to do at that time because now we are reducing places and merging schools. That was what we needed to do then, and this is what we need to do now. We do have to take a dynamic approach.
The forward projection of the birth cohort is unknown. We had some anticipation but we do also have some anticipation that things would change. We have a window, we know about the births that already happened, we do not know about births that have not happened yet. There is some uncertainty in this, just as there is uncertainty about the choices that students would make over the popularity of a new JC or a merged JC. There is some uncertainty about this. There are a number of factors to take into consideration. We try to minimise the downsides, we try to have a key principle about why we are doing this and how we want to go forward in order to serve the future students of the education system, to service the next generation.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Scope and Terms of Reference of Future Economy Council","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"19 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked\tthe Minister for Finance (a) what are the scope and terms of reference of the Future Economy Council; (b) how does the new Council intend to work and coordinate with the other economic agencies and efforts to tackle challenges of the future economy; and (c) what are the desired outcomes set for the Council.
\tThe Minister for Finance (Mr Heng Swee Keat): Mdm Speaker, a small, open economy like Singapore's must adapt to the significant structural shifts in the external environment. Industries and jobs are changing due to changes in technology, demand patterns and supply conditions. In particular, digital technology is likely to trigger changes in many industries. These changes will bring new opportunities and new challenges. After extensive consultation, the Committee on the Future Economy (CFE) has proposed a set of recommendations to guide our approach.
The CFE's strategies have set the broad directions. The Future Economy Council (FEC) will oversee the implementation of the CFE recommendations and will build on the work of the earlier Council on Skills, Innovation and Productivity, which includes SkillsFuture initiatives and the Industry Transformation Maps (ITMs).
At its core, the scope and focus of FEC are on growing and transforming Singapore's economy for the benefit of our people. This will be done at three levels. First, growing an economy that is vibrant, open and connected to the world, supporting the growth of new and existing industries. Second, strengthening our enterprises through industry-specific transformations to help them grow, innovate and scale up. And third, enabling Singaporeans to acquire and utilise deep skills, so as to seize opportunities in the future economy.
All these will require close collaboration among the tripartite partners. The Government, industries, unions and individuals all have key parts to play. The Council, therefore, comprises representatives from the Government, private sector, unions, Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs) and Trade Associations and Chambers (TACs). Besides the main Council, six tripartite FEC subcommittees, led by private and public sector co-chairs, are coordinating the efforts for six clusters of industries. At the industry level, we have Industry Tripartite Committees leading the work on the ITMs.
Let me give Members an example of a collaboration from the Built Environment FEC subcommittee co-led by Minister Desmond Lee and Mr Lim Ming Yan from CapitaLand. As part of the Construction ITM under the subcommittee, the Building and Construction Authority (BCA) brought together 400 industry stakeholders, including IHLs and TACs, such as the Real Estate Developers' Association of Singapore (REDAS) and the Singapore Institute of Building Ltd (SIBL), and identified 35 key technologies across seven clusters in the built environment for further research and development (R&D) to unlock greater productivity gains. The work culminated in the Construction Productivity R&D Roadmap, which is being incorporated as part of the Construction ITM. This example illustrates how different stakeholders can come together, each bringing their unique strengths, to advance the construction industry.
The structural changes that are happening in the global economy will require us to respond robustly. All parties will need to each do our best and work in close partnership to respond to change. Together, we can build a value-creating economy that is open and connected to the world, offering a multitude of opportunities and creating good jobs for Singaporeans.
Mdm Speaker: Mr Liang Eng Hwa.
\tMr Liang Eng Hwa (Holland-Bukit Timah): Madam, I agree with the Minister that transforming the economy is our foremost task at hand. We need to really move fast and move decisively, as these are among the key success factors.
While the establishment of the Steering Council would help the various stakeholders align and better coordinate across the various verticals within the Government, I would like to ask the Minister whether the Council would also help to achieve the agility that the CFE had emphasised on a lot in the report that the Minister had mentioned and whether having a Council such as this would help it to be able to move fast and decisively.
Secondly, the Government Parliamentary Committee (GPC) for Finance, and Trade and Industry has put up a series of recommendations to the CFE last year. We are happy that many of our suggestions are featured in the CFE report. May I ask the Minister if FEC will continue to engage and consult widely and, if so, how does it intend to go about doing this in taking in new ideas, harnessing new ideas in this fast-changing environment that we are in?
\tMr Heng Swee Keat: I agree with Mr Liang that we need to move fast and decisively, especially given the rapid changes that I mentioned − changes in technology, demand patterns and supply conditions. We need to continuously anticipate and embrace these changes and transform our economy for the future. At the same time, we know that we cannot predict the future with any certainty and, therefore, we will not be able to anticipate every single change and trend. So, we must have the agility to make changes and adjustments along the way and ensure that we continue to be in the right direction.
In fact, the ITMs that we are working on are not meant to be cast in stone. Neither are they meant to be a kind of fixed marked paths for us to just follow. Rather, I would characterise the ITMs as live plans that we will have to continuously monitor, update and review. We will have to map and remap our paths along the journey.
This is not something that the Council alone can do. The FEC members from the private sector, unions and TACs play an important role in this, not just in the FEC meetings themselves, but also in helping to disseminate the message of the need for change and the agility to change.
We need all stakeholders to come on board this in order for us to be successful. I would say that, more importantly, the FEC is here to create and enhance the environment for our entrepreneurs and businesses to thrive. I hope that our entrepreneurs and businesses will continue to move fast, seize opportunities, make use of the Government schemes and facilitation in their growth and internationalisation.
As to Mr Liang's second question on suggestions that were made and how we would go about consultation, the GPC for Finance, and Trade and Industry has, indeed, given many valuable ideas and suggestions during the CFE process. Many of the ideas were incorporated into the CFE recommendations. I would like to thank Mr Liang and the GPC members for their valuable and thoughtful suggestions. I am happy that there is a meeting of minds on CFE.
On engagement, the short answer is yes, definitely. Engagement is a key and vital part of the current phase of our FEC work. FEC and its six subcommittees are continuing with and building on the engagements and consultations that were started as part of the CFE process. This engagement will continue with focus group discussions, thematic engagement sessions, visits to companies, unions, TACs and IHLs.
Earlier on, I shared the example of the engagements done as part of the Construction ITM. Members can see that with 400-over stakeholders, how much effort went into doing that.
Many engagement sessions with stakeholders have been held and we will continue to hold them. Similar engagement and consultation efforts are going on in other ITMs. I had spoken of only one ITM but there are many other ITMs for which the work will be continuing.
We welcome suggestions on how we can continue to do this even better and strike a good balance between consultation and implementation.
Mdm Speaker: Ms Denise Phua.
\tMs Denise Phua Lay Peng (Jalan Besar): Three questions. One, would the Minister consider under the CFE developing a new literacy curriculum for the 21st century workforce, especially for the adults, so that everyone would be able to rise above the current skills level and be a bit more future-ready?
Two, I am really concerned about the possibility of a segment of the workforce being left behind. I would like to ask the Minister how we could ensure those elderly, low-skilled are not left behind in the future economy.
Three, addressing what I see is a development where, for example, in transport, many of our professionals, managers, executives and technicians (PMETs) are taking to becoming Uber and Grab drivers when the development in the future economy is really towards driverless vehicles. I would like to ask the Minister's opinion on that.
\tMr Heng Swee Keat: I thank Ms Denise Phua for her three very thoughtful questions. First, on whether CFE would develop a new literacy curriculum for adults, the skillsets which are needed for all of us as working adults will change and keep changing. That is why SkillsFuture is such an important part of this effort. As to whether there should be a new broad-based curriculum for everybody, that is something which we would have to study further. What we do know is that we do need to equip many of our people with greater skills in information and communications technology (ICT). I mentioned that ICT is one sector for which many industries will be affected and transformed. We are hoping to use ICT to transform many of these industries and create better jobs for our people. There will be a lot of new skills that are needed. Whether it should be something that applies generically across all sectors or whether it should be targeted at particular sectors is a subject that we are studying.
The second question on the concerns that elderly and low-skilled workers are being left behind is something that is of great concern. I had several discussions with Minister Lim Swee Say on this matter as well as with Minister Ong Ye Kung and Minister Josephine Teo on skills and specific segments of our workforce that we have to pay special attention to. Indeed, the elderly and the low-skilled are one area that we are working on. We have to think about not just the skills but the job redesign that is necessary. Again, this is something which the tripartite committee will have to look at. Every of the ITMs will need to address some of these critical issues.
Similarly, the Member's third question on PMETs and how technology will change their jobs, we are fortunate that our educational standards and level and the skills of our people have gone up over the years. We are in a better position today to adjust to these changes and we will perform. But at the same time, the pace of change has also accelerated. So, how do we ensure that all our workers, whether they are PMETs or non-PMETs, continue to have the skills to make changes?
Which are the sectors for which the change will be even more rapid? I would say that given the pace, the nature of technology, it is difficult to predict that there is one particular area A or B that will be more at risk. But we will try and, at the same time, we need the industries, we need the companies to work together with us to ensure that these changes are made smoothly.
Mdm Speaker: Order. End of Question Time. Introduction and First Reading of Bill.
[Pursuant to Standing Order No 22(3), provided that Members had not asked for questions standing in their names to be postponed to a later Sitting day or withdrawn, written answers to questions not reached by the end of Question Time are reproduced in the Appendix.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Administration of Muslim Law (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"to amend the Administration of Muslim Law Act (Chapter 3 of the 2009 Revised Edition)\", (proc text)]
[(proc text) presented\tby the Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs (Assoc Prof Dr Yaacob Ibrahim); 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":"Alleged Abuse of Power on 38 Oxley Road","subTitle":"Statement by Prime Minister","sectionType":"OS","content":"The Prime Minister (Mr Lee Hsien Loong): Mdm Speaker, I am making this Statement today because my siblings Dr Lee Wei Ling and Mr Lee Hsien Yang have made serious allegations of abuse of power against me and my Government.
The allegations seem to concern, primarily, three matters. One, the setting up of the Ministerial Committee on 38 Oxley Road; two, the Deed of Gift for some artefacts from the house that were to be displayed in an exhibition by the National Heritage Board; and three, accusations of nepotism over my wife and son, and accusations that I want my father's house kept standing to bolster my power.
These allegations are entirely baseless but they have already damaged Singapore's reputation. Unrebutted, they can affect Singaporeans' confidence in the Government. I, therefore, have no choice but to address them promptly and publicly. I also have to do so in Parliament. Under the Constitution, the Prime Minister is a person who commands the confidence of the majority of the Members of Parliament (MPs). As their PM, I have a duty to explain myself to MPs and to rebut in Parliament the allegations against me and my Government.
I know many Singaporeans are upset by this issue. They are tired of the subject and wish it would end. I, too, am upset that things have reached this state. As your Prime Minister, I deeply regret that this has happened and apologise to Singaporeans for this. As a son, I am pained at the anguish this strife would have caused my parents to feel if they were still alive.
I intend to clear the air today to explain the matter fully and to answer all questions on the matter. I am not here to make a case against my siblings. Parliament is not the place for that. What is private, I will try to resolve privately. But what is public, I have to explain and render account.
I stand by what I will say in this Chamber. I shall be separately issuing whatever I say in this debate as a statement by me outside the House which will not be covered by Parliamentary privilege.
To respond to these allegations of abuse of power, I will have to go into some background about 38 Oxley Road and the family discussions on the house so that Members can make sense of the allegations. But my account will inevitably be from my perspective. So, I will try my best to be objective and factual.
I will cover the discussions on 38 Oxley Road when Mr Lee Kuan Yew was alive, what happened after Mr Lee passed away, and then, where the matter stands today.
Mdm Speaker, may I now ask the Clerk to distribute Handout 1 to Members?
Mdm Speaker:\tYes, please. [A copy of handout 1 was distributed to hon Members.]
Mr Lee Hsien Loong: My father's wish, held for many years, is well-known to all Singaporeans. He wanted the house at 38 Oxley Road to be demolished. After my mother died in 2010, my father wrote to Cabinet to put his position on the record. This the first note you have in the bundle which is dated 27 October 2010. It is a letter from Mr Lee to the Cabinet and it reads:
\"I have discussed this with my family many a time. They agreed with me that 38 Oxley Road should not be kept as a kind of relic for people to tramp through. Take photos of it or whatever else they want, but demolish it after I am gone.
I have seen too many places which are kept frozen in time. My most vivid memory is that of Nehru's final home, that of the British Naval Commander of the Indian Ocean Fleet in New Delhi.\"
Actually, it was another British General's home but you get the point.
\"It was once a grand building. Kept as a monument with people tramping in and out, it became shabby. It is not worth the restoration, unless they restore it just for people to look at.
38 Oxley Road has no merit as architecture. So, please respect my wish to have it demolished when I am no longer around.\"
Cabinet noted his letter. A few months later, in January 2011, my father published the book, \"Hard Truths to Keep Singapore Going\". In the book, the question of preserving his house came up. He said, \"I have told the Cabinet, when I am dead, demolish it\".
He explained again that he did not want the house to become a shambles. The cost of preservation would be high because the house was built over a hundred years ago and had no foundation. If the house was demolished and planning rules could change, the value of the land, as well as the surrounding plots, would go up.
However, after \"Hard Truths\" was published, there was a strong public pushback. Many Singaporeans did not agree with Mr Lee. They wanted the house to be preserved. This was, after all, the house of Singapore's founding Prime Minister, where important political decisions were made that shaped the future of Singapore. We are a young nation and what the house represents is of particular significance to our history and nationhood.
So, in March 2011, my father asked some newspaper editors for their views. All the editors replied that they would like it to be kept, given its historical importance and heritage value. Guntor Sadali, then editor of Berita Harian, wrote to my father:
\"I was personally shocked and sad, when I first read about you saying that you wanted the house demolished after you are gone.
The historical value of the house is priceless…if we demolish it, our next generations will regret it. We should avoid making this mistake.\"
Mr Lim Jim Koon, then editor of Lianhe Zaobao, suggested that the house be conserved and turned into a museum, like the Sun Yat Sen Memorial Hall. These were not the answers my father hoped to get.
My father then wanted to leave the decision to his children. But we told him that only he could decide. He then said his decision was to knock it down. I told him that in that case he should tell the editors and put it on record. And so, he did.
After the General Election in May 2011, Mr Lee retired from the Cabinet. He then decided to put his views on record again. And that is the second letter in the bundle you have, 20 July 2011. He wrote to Cabinet to reiterate that he wanted the house knocked down. I will read it. It says:
\"I have previously written to Cabinet that the house should be demolished. It has no foundations and it is in poor condition. It is difficult to maintain if people start tramping through the house. Whenever there is piling in Cluny Road for new homes, hairline cracks begin to appear on the walls. So, keeping the house is too hazardous and costly. I, therefore, repeat my wish to have the house demolished when I am no longer alive.\"
This is the letter which I referred to when I addressed Parliament on 13 April 2015 and said he expressed his wish that the house be knocked down. But I misspoke. I said that it was December 2011. In fact, he wrote this on 20 July 2011.
When I saw this letter the next morning, that means, 21 July 2011, I immediately invited Mr Lee to make his case in person to Cabinet. I thought that with his force of personality and conviction, meeting the Ministers would give him the best chance to convince Cabinet, as he had done so many times before. My father agreed to come. He met Cabinet that very afternoon. But the Ministers were unanimous in expressing their opposition to knocking the house down. I was the only one who did not express a view, because I was both a son and the Prime Minister and, therefore, conflicted.
After the meeting, my father continued to ponder over how to deal with the house. In fact, even before the Cabinet meeting, he had been discussing with the family how to go about demolishing the house and redeveloping the site.
We explored in the family all kinds of permutations − to demolish the house and redevelop the site, maximise value. We discussed who to inherit the property, whether it should be one of the children or several of the children, whether to demolish the house before or after my father died, whether to donate the proceeds to charity after the site was redeveloped and, if so, which children would share in the donation, and which charities to donate to.
At one point, my brother suggested that my father gift the property to Singapore, subject to the condition that the house be demolished and a small public park be built in its place.
I said that I thought this was worth considering, but I offered another option: to demolish the house and redevelop the site as my father wanted, but then to sell off the property and donate the proceeds to charity.
I asked my father between the two which he preferred, and he replied the latter, in other words, demolish the house, redevelop and sell off, and donate the proceeds to charity. He even had some ideas which charities he wanted. He was a practical-minded man.
In August 2011, about a month after the Cabinet meeting, my father decided to will 38 Oxley Road to me as part of my share of his estate, and he told the family so.
Ho Ching and I knew my father's wishes and also my mother's feelings. We also knew how Cabinet and the public viewed the matter. We started discussing alternatives with my father to see how best we could fulfil his wishes in the event that the house could not be demolished. My father's concern was that the house should not become run-down and dilapidated and that it should not be an expensive burden to maintain.
My late mother had a different concern: privacy. She felt strongly that her private living spaces should always remain private. She had been most distressed at the thought of people tramping through her personal spaces, after she and my father had passed away, to gawk at how they had lived. Even when not so familiar people came into the house for one reason or the other to meet her or my father, she would complain afterwards, \"You could see them looking around, eyes opened, to try and find out how we live.\" She resented it.
So, Ho Ching and I came up with a proposal to renovate the house to change the inside completely. Demolish the private living spaces to preserve the privacy of the family, keep the basement dining room, which was of historical significance, strengthen the structure which was decaying and create a new and separate living area, so the house could be lived in.
My father accepted this proposal. In December 2011, he told the family that it was \"best to redevelop 38 Oxley Road straightaway\" after he died and do what we proposed. By redevelopment, he meant remove the private spaces and renovate the house but without knocking it down.
At around the same time, on 27 December 2011, he wrote to Cabinet a third time. And you have the letter with you:
\"Cabinet members were unanimous that 38 Oxley Road should not be demolished as I wanted. I have reflected on this and decided that if 38 Oxley Road is to be preserved, it needs to have its foundations reinforced and the whole building refurbished. It must then be let out for people to live in. An empty building will soon decline and decay.\"
Ho Ching and I, therefore, proceeded along these lines. We kept the family fully informed of our considerations and our intentions. We emailed everyone, including my father, my sister, my brother and his wife. No one raised any objections to the plan. My father met the architect, went through the proposal, and approved the scheme to reinforce the foundations and renovate the house.
Mdm Speaker, may I now ask the Clerk to distribute Handout 2, which contains the relevant correspondence?
Mdm Speaker:\tYes, please. [A copy of handout 2 was distributed to hon Members.]
Mr Lee Hsien Loong: So, Members will see, the first page, is my father's authorisation letter to the architect to submit the development application. He signed it on 28 March 2012:
\"I hereby authorise you to act as my agent to submit on my behalf an application to the competent authority under the Planning Act 1998 for a written permission to develop lot 99909X TS20\" − that means Town Sub-division 20 − \"at 38 Oxley Road for proposed additions and alterations to existing two-storey detached dwelling house, River Valley Planning Area.\"
And so on. \"I hereby authorise you to pay on my behalf to the competent authority all processing fees or charges payable by me in connection with the application.\"
The Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) approved it a few weeks later on 17 April 2012. Members have that, too.
I have just given Members the first page of the Grant of Written Permission. The rest is the fine print. But the first page puts the key points − name and address of developer: Lee Kuan Yew, 38 Oxley Road; date of application received and so on; particulars of decision: planning permission is granted under section 14(4) of the Planning Act for the application referred to, details are set out in Part 3, subject to conditions in Part 4, additional notes in Part 5.
As far as I knew, that was how the family had settled the matter, rationally, amicably while Mr Lee was still alive which is what he had hoped to achieve and strived very hard to achieve. I heard nothing to the contrary until after my father died.
My father passed away on 23 March 2015. On 12 April 2015, three weeks later, his last will was formally read to me and my two siblings. 38 Oxley Road was given to me. The demolition clause was in the will.
Mdm Speaker, may I now ask the Clerk to distribute Handout 3 which is the demolition clause.
Mdm Speaker: Yes, please. [A copy of handout 3 was distributed to hon Members.]
Mr Lee Hsien Loong: The demolition clause was in two main parts with a third minor part at the end. I will read it out in full:
\"I further declare that it is my wish and the wish of my late Wife, KWA GEOK CHOO, that our house at 38 Oxley Road, Singapore 238629 (\"The house\") be demolished immediately after my death, or if my daughter Wei Ling, would prefer to continue living in the original house, immediately after she moves out of the house. I would ask each of my children to ensure our wishes with respect to the demolition of the house be carried out.
If our children are unable to demolish the house as a result of any changes in the laws, rules or regulations binding them, it is my wish that the house never be opened to others except my children, their families and descendants.
My view on this has been made public before and remains unchanged. My statement of wishes in this paragraph 7 may be publicly disclosed notwithstanding that the rest of my will is private.\"
This whole thing is one paragraph 7 but I have broken it up so you can see the different sections.
The following day, I had to speak in Parliament on how we would honour Mr Lee Kuan Yew. The question of 38 Oxley Road was bound to come up. There were already suggestions from the public on what to do with the house, including turning it into a museum and memorial. I was personally in a difficult position because I was both Mr Lee's son and the Prime Minister. So, at the reading of the will, I discussed with my siblings what I could say about the house in Parliament.
There was a difference of views. Hsien Yang for the first time objected to the renovation plans that my father had approved. He wanted the house to be knocked down immediately. This was a complete surprise to me. I pointed out that his position now was different from what the family had discussed and agreed upon. But it was not possible to knock down the house immediately, anyway, because my sister, Wei Ling then said she intended to continue to stay in the house. And in his will, my father had expressed his wish that Wei Ling be allowed to stay there for as long as she wished. So, I said we should honour that, and that I would say in Parliament the next day that the Government would not make any decision, until such time as my sister was no longer staying there.
We also discussed what I should say in Parliament regarding my father's wishes. I wanted to read out Mr Lee's 27 December 2011 letter to the Cabinet, stating his view on what to do with the house if it is to be preserved. I also wanted to read out the demolition clause in his will, in full. My brother and his wife objected strenuously. But I decided that I had to do so, and I said so. So that my father's views would be on the record and Singaporeans could know accurately what his thinking had been. Later that evening, I discovered that my siblings had issued a statement which contained the full demolition clause.
In Parliament the next day, I made a statement which I had cleared with my key Cabinet colleagues because I was speaking as Prime Minister. I read out both the letter to Cabinet and the whole demolition clause. I said \"we should not rush into making decisions on this matter, especially so soon after Mr Lee has passed away. We should allow some time to pass, consider the ideas carefully, and make calm, considered decisions which will stand the test of time. We want to honour Mr Lee, but we must do so in the right way.\" I stated that my father's position on 38 Oxley Road had been unwavering all these years, that he wanted the house knocked down, and that, as a son, I wanted to see my father's wishes carried out. I told Parliament that since my sister was going to continue living in 38 Oxley Road, there was no immediate issue of demolition and no need for the Government to make any decision now. As and when my sister was no longer living there, the government of the day would consider the matter.
After the Parliament Sitting, I took two major steps. One, I recused myself from all Government decisions relating to 38 Oxley Road. I was conflicted, being my father's son, the inheritor of the house and also the Head of the Government, it was not proper for me to take part in any decisions on 38 Oxley Road. So, at the next Cabinet meeting, two days after the Parliament Sitting, I recused myself from all discussions and decisions relating to the house, and placed Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean in charge. This was formally recorded in the Cabinet minutes. From that point on, I have been out of the loop whenever the Government handles matters concerning the house. I play no part in any of the discussions or decisions. Whenever Cabinet deliberates on the house, for example, when it set up a Ministerial Committee, I absent myself, and Deputy Prime Minister Teo chairs the meeting.
My second major action, after my father died, was to divest myself of the house. Soon after the Parliament Sitting, I learned that my siblings were unhappy that I was getting the house. I was not sure why, but I thought the best way to resolve the matter was to transfer the house to them. I first offered to transfer the house to my sister for a nominal sum of $1, on condition that if the property is sold later or acquired by the Government, all proceeds or compensation would go to charity. Unfortunately, that deal fell through.
Subsequently, I made a fresh proposal to sell the house to my brother at fair market value. This time we reached agreement, this was December 2015. And we also agreed that my brother and I would each donate half the value of the house to charity. We both did so, and in addition I topped up another half myself. In other words, I myself gave away the full value of the house that I had inherited. And, together, my brother and I have donated one-and-a-half times the value of the house to charity.
So, if you understand that properly, the house comes to me, I sell it to my brother for the market value, he gives me the value of the house, so many dollars, I give half of those dollars to charity, he gets the house. In addition, he gives the same amount, half the value of the house to charity. On top of that, I separately give half the value of the house to charity. So, I give one times the value, he gives away one-half times the value, the house is with him.
That complicated arrangement substantially addressed a major concern of mine: that was, that our family be seen not to be benefiting financially from 38 Oxley Road, either through receiving compensation from the state for acquisition or resisting acquisition or preservation/conservation to profit by redeveloping and selling the property.
I have given Members the background to 38 Oxley Road, our discussions when my father was alive and what happened after my father passed away. Where does the matter stand today? There is, in substance, no longer anything for my siblings and me to dispute over on the matter of the house. We all want our father's personal wish to be carried out, which is to knock the house down. I no longer have any interest in the house. My brother owns it. I do not take part in any Government decisions on the house. So, why is there still an argument? I really am not sure, but one possible factor may be a difference in views between me and my siblings.
The difference is over this question: what did my father think about the house, apart from demolition? Was his view black and white, all or nothing − demolish the house no matter what? Or was he prepared to consider alternatives should demolition not be possible? My siblings' view is that my father absolutely wanted to demolish the house, with no compromise. And they point to the first half of the demolition clause as evidence. That is the first section that Members have in the handout. And they say that if he considered any alternatives, such as the next section of the handout, that it was only because he was under duress. Because the Government had the power to prevent him or his heirs from knocking it down.
My view is that while my father wanted the house to be demolished, he was prepared to consider alternatives should the Government decide otherwise. Indeed, he put it in writing and approved alternative architectural plans which were submitted to URA, as I explained earlier, and approved by URA.
Next, we have to look at the full demolition clause, and not just the first half, and the full clause shows that my father did accept alternatives. Further, I have pointed out some unusual circumstances surrounding how the last will was prepared, which are relevant because of the weight that my siblings put on the demolition clause in the last will.
Despite this difference in views, I still see no need for argument. I have submitted my views to the Ministerial Committee. My siblings have submitted theirs. We have commented on each other's views. I will leave it in the good hands of the Committee. In any case, the Government has stated that the Committee will not make any decisions on the house and will not even recommend any decisions on the house to Cabinet. The Committee will only list options for the house, so that when a decision does become necessary one day, perhaps decades from now, the Cabinet of the day, most likely by then under a different Prime Minister, will have these options available to consider. There is, therefore, no reason at all for anybody to feel \"pushed into a corner\" by the Committee, as my brother has claimed to be.
Regrettably, my siblings have now gone public and accused me of abusing my office. There are very few specifics in their charges. But because their father is Mr Lee Kuan Yew, their accusations gain some credibility and I have to take their charges seriously, which is why I am here addressing them in Parliament.
What are their allegations? First, the alleged abuse of power. My siblings have given scant details of the charge, but my brother has cited as a \"prime example\" the setting up of the Ministerial Committee. I have already explained that I have recused myself. Deputy Prime Minister Teo is in charge of this matter. I had nothing to do with the decision to set up the Ministerial Committee. I do not give any instructions to the Ministerial Committee or its members. My only dealing with the Committee has been to respond to their requests in writing by formal correspondence, no different from my siblings' dealings with the Committee. This is the right and proper way to handle a conflict of interest.
My siblings argue that even though I have recused myself, the Ministers are my subordinates and, therefore, the Ministerial Committee cannot be independent from me. In fact, they say this of Parliament itself. And this cannot be right because if the Ministers are subordinates and cannot be independent, the Ministerial Committee cannot be independent. Then the Cabinet minus me cannot be independent. The Government minus me cannot be independent. What is the process for dealing with the matter concerning the Prime Minister's personal matters?
But the process which we have embarked on, me recusing myself on the Cabinet, minus me dealing with the matter, is the standard practice for a person facing a potential conflict of interest. He takes himself out from handling the matter. He does not participate in making any decisions about it. He lets somebody else deal with it. It could be his deputy, it could be some other senior colleague, it could be the rest of the Cabinet, as in this case.
This is exactly what I have done in the case of 38 Oxley Road. I myself do not deal with the matter at all. I take no part in discussions or decisions concerning the house. Deputy Prime Minister Teo is in full charge. Ministers and officials report to and take directions from Deputy Prime Minister Teo on all 38 Oxley Road matters.
Suppose instead that I had decided as Prime Minister to knock the down the house and had pushed that decision through without allowing the Government to consider the alternatives, weigh the considerations and go through due process, just because it was what my father wanted. That would have been a real abuse of power. That would have gone against the whole system of rules and values that Mr Lee Kuan Yew spent his whole life upholding and building up.
The second issue my siblings accused me of is separate from the house itself. After my father passed away, my siblings gifted artefacts from 38 Oxley Road to the National Heritage Board (NHB). This was formalised in a Deed of Gift. My siblings have accused me of improperly obtaining this Deed which was between them and NHB. They say I obtained the Deed as Prime Minister, and gave it to my lawyers, and that was wrong. But I disagree. The Deed was signed by my sister and brother, who were acting for my father's estate. I was one of the beneficiaries of the estate. I was entitled to be consulted by my siblings before they did this, but I was not consulted.
In June 2015, Minister Lawrence Wong updated me on a major SG50 exhibition on our founding fathers. He told me the exhibition included artefacts from Oxley Road and described the conditions attached to the gift. He subsequently gave me the Deed, which I had not seen it before. As Prime Minister, I had every right to see it.
After reading the Deed, I became very concerned over what the NHB had agreed to. The terms were onerous and unreasonable to NHB. For example, whenever NHB displayed the items, it also had to display them with the first half of the demolition clause. But only the first half, which said that Mr Lee wanted the house knocked down, and not the second half of the clause which stated what Mr Lee wanted done if the house could not be knocked down. This partial selective disclosure would mislead the public on Mr Lee's intentions.
Furthermore, my siblings had announced publicly that this was a gift. But, in fact, they had set conditions in the fine print: if at any time, if any of the terms of the Deed were breached, my siblings could immediately take back all the items for $1. Therefore, this was not a gift at all. They had misled the public.
Mr and Mrs Lee Kuan Yew had gifted many items to NHB during their lives, and they had never imposed any conditions on their gifts remotely like these. What Lee Wei Ling and Lee Hsien Yang had imposed on NHB was wrong.
Discovering all this, as Prime Minister, I had to act. Otherwise, people might later wrongly think that I was party to this. It is nonsensical to say that because I saw the Deed in my official capacity, I could not raise the matter with a family member. If I come across anyone doing something wrong, even family, maybe especially family, it is my duty to put a stop to it and set them right if I can. In the same way, if any Minister discovers, in the course of his official work, that a family member is dealing improperly with some Government agency or seeking to take advantage of the Government, truly the Minister must take this up with the family member and get him or her to stop. That is what the code of conduct is for. This is expected of anyone in a public position, especially me, as Prime Minister.
I, therefore, wrote to my siblings through lawyers to object to what they had done. On the Government's side, I told Minister Lawrence Wong to take instructions from Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean on this matter. I believe this was the correct and proper way for me to handle the Deed of Gift.
Third, my siblings have made allegations about nepotism, concerning my wife and my son, Hongyi. And that I want 38 Oxley Road kept standing, in order to inherit my father's credibility and bolster my standing.
Hongyi, my son, has publicly said he is not interested in politics. Nor have I pushed him to enter politics. My wife, Ho Ching, is the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Temasek Holdings. As CEO, she reports to the Board, chaired by Mr Lim Boon Heng. As a company, Temasek Holdings answers to its shareholder, the Ministry of Finance, under Minister Heng Swee Keat. I have every confidence that both Mr Lim Boon Heng and Minister Heng Swee Keat understand the meaning of good corporate governance. It is the Temasek Board which appoints the CEO, and the appointment has to be confirmed by the President, who is advised by the Council of Presidential Advisors (CPA). If Ho Ching ever behaves improperly, I have no doubt that the Temasek Board, the President and CPA know what their duty is.
Regarding the house and how its continued existence enhances my aura as Prime Minister, if I needed such magic properties to bolster my standing after 13 years as your Prime Minister, I must be in a pretty sad state. And if Singaporeans believe that such magic works in Singapore, I think Singapore would be in an even sadder state. Now, Mdm Speaker, may I have your permission to say some words in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mdm Speaker, it is with a heavy heart that I speak before you today in Parliament, to explain my position to Members of Parliament and Singaporeans on this matter.
Over the past few weeks, the dispute between me and my siblings has become public, creating anxiety amongst many Singaporeans. That my family is in discord is sad. What is even sadder is to see the legacy Mr Lee Kuan Yew painstakingly built throughout his life besmirched overnight. The legacy he left behind is priceless. Everyone hopes that this matter can be resolved and we end this altercation quickly.
I understand the people's sentiments. I would also like to see this matter resolved quickly. However, the joint release my siblings made do not pertain to just family matters. My siblings have made allegations against my character and damaged the Government's reputation, affecting people's trust in the Government. I am, therefore, compelled to refute these baseless allegations.
I have explained the details in my English speech. After my father passed away, as the eldest son in the family, I naturally wanted to carry out my father's wishes and I did my best to settle the differences between me and my siblings. But as the Prime Minister, I must also take into account the country's interest and allow the Government to deal with matters relating to Mr Lee's house in an impartial manner. I am caught between these two conflicting roles, so I have done my best to keep my private interest and my public duties separate.
As Prime Minister, I have recused myself from all Government's decisions relating to the house. Barely a month after my father's passing, Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean was put in charge of this matter. I am not involved and do not interfere. Whenever the Cabinet deliberates on the house, for example, when it set up a Ministerial Committee, I absent myself and do not participate in the discussions.
As the eldest son in the family, it is my duty to protect my parents' and family's reputation. My father willed 38 Oxley Road to me. Later, I discovered that my siblings were not pleased about this. To pacify them, I offered to transfer the house to my sister at a nominal sum of $1. Unfortunately, the deal fell through. Later, I sold the house to my brother, and I donated the full value of the house to charity. I did not want any monetary benefit from the house.
I thought that having sold the house, my siblings would be satisfied as I no longer have any interest in the house. I did not expect that they would disregard the family's reputation and air this matter in public, by making baseless allegations against me and the Government. As the elder brother, I really do not know what else I should or can do.
But as the Prime Minister, I am very clear that I cannot leave this matter alone because the allegations have affected the people's trust in the Government and Singapore's standing in the world. I must clarify this matter in Parliament, set the record straight, and show that my team and I are determined to defend the Government's integrity and the rule of law. Parliament is a solemn platform where MPs are free to question and criticise the Government. Mr Lee Kuan Yew was in a similar situation. Many years ago, my father and I purchased some private property which drew criticism and affected the Government's reputation. Mr Goh Chok Tong was then Prime Minister. He asked us to clarify the issue in Parliament and be subject to questioning by the MPs. After that Parliamentary session, we cleared all the doubts that Singaporeans had and restored their trust and confidence in the Government.
Today, I am doing the same. I will open myself to questioning by MPs, including opposition MPs. I want to explain this matter clearly and eliminate all doubts. The family matter is an emotional one, and it is not likely that it can be resolved fully. But, still, I hope that someday there will be a reconciliation among the siblings. In the meantime, the nation must come first. I must maintain the people's trust in the Government. I must assure them this remains an incorruptible, effective and impartial Government, all key to Singapore's survival.
Once again, I regret the confusion and trouble my family matter has caused. I hope this Parliamentary session will clear the air. My team and I will continue to do our utmost to serve the people.
(In English): Mdm Speaker, may I now continue in English?
Mdm Speaker: Yes, please.
Mr Lee Hsien Loong: I have brought this matter to Parliament because Singaporeans are entitled to a full answer from me and my Government. Parliament may not be a Court of law, but it is the highest body in the land. It is also where my Government and I are accountable to MPs and to the people of Singapore
Many people have asked me why I am not taking legal action, to challenge the will, sue for defamation or take some other legal action to put a stop to this and clear my name. These are valid questions. I took advice. I considered my options very carefully. I believe I have a strong case.
In normal circumstances, in fact, in any other imaginable circumstance than this, I would have sued immediately, because the accusation of the abuse of power is a very grave one, however baseless it may be. And it is, in fact, an attack not just on me, but on the integrity of the whole Government. But suing my own brother and sister in Court would further besmirch our parents' names. At the end of the day, we are brothers and sister, and we are all our parents' children.
It would also drag out the process for years and cause more distraction and distress to Singaporeans. Therefore, fighting this out in Court cannot be my preferred choice. Every family will understand that family disputes do happen, but they are not something to flaunt in public. That is why I have done my best to deal with this out of the public eye.
For example, I kept my submissions to the Ministerial Committee private. My purpose was not to pursue a fight with my siblings, but to assist the Committee in its work. Unfortunately, my siblings made public allegations against me, and then I had no choice but to defend myself and release the statements and facts about the matter. I stand by the statements I have published, but I really do not want to go further if I can help it.
Today, I am making this Statement in Parliament to account to Members and to Singaporeans, and to deal with this issue expeditiously so that Singaporeans can understand what it is all about and we can put the matter to rest, I hope, once and for all.
Deputy Prime Minister Teo will be making a Ministerial Statement after me. He will explain his and the Government's actions and decisions on this matter. Other relevant Ministers will speak, too.
I invite Members to raise all questions, suspicions or doubts directly in this Chamber with me and my team. I have seen the questions filed by the Workers' Party (WP) MPs. It is striking that the questions are general and concern broad principles and rules. They contain no specific allegations or facts about any wrongdoing or impropriety. But if I am mistaken and the WP has come across such allegations or facts, please raise them today. My Ministers and I will deal with all their questions and give comprehensive answers because we have nothing to hide.
I have told the People's Action Party (PAP) MPs that I am lifting the Party Whip. Strictly speaking, there is no Whip to lift because there is no vote to be taken. But I said this to emphasise what I expect from this debate − a robust questioning and a full airing and accounting of the public issues and allegations. All MPs, whether PAP MPs, Opposition MPs or Nominated MPs (NMPs), should query me and my Ministers vigorously and without restraint. That is the way to dispel all the doubts, innuendo and tittle tattle that have been planted and circulated. That is the way to strengthen confidence in our institutions and our system of Government and refocus our energies on the challenges we face as a nation.
The legacy of Mr Lee is much more than an old house. Mr Lee's legacy is Singapore and the values that we uphold. We have built something special in Singapore − a cohesive, multiracial, meritocratic society; a fair and just society, where the same rules apply to everybody, whether you are a Minister or an ordinary citizen; whether you are the Prime Minister or the children of the founding Prime Minister. You are not above the law.
My colleagues and I are in politics and in Government to fight to uphold this legacy to keep Singapore successful. We have sworn to serve Singapore faithfully. When private interests and public duties clash, we make sure that our private interests do not sway our public decisions. When allegations of impropriety and corruption are made, we take them seriously and investigate them fully. Ministers are bound by a code of conduct which is tabled in Parliament. And after every General Election, I issue Rules of Prudence to every PAP MP, so that they know how to conduct themselves to protect their own reputation and to safeguard the integrity of the PAP Government and the Singapore system.
In Singapore, everyone is equal before the law. Mr Lee understood this most of all. When the dust has settled on this unhappy episode, people must know that the Government in Singapore operates transparently, impartially and properly. That in Singapore, even Mr Lee's house and Mr Lee's wishes are subject to the rule of law. That the Government he built is able to withstand intense and sustained attacks on its reputation and integrity, and emerge not just untainted but, in fact, strengthened.
This is the \"house\" that Mr Lee built, not 38 Oxley Road. When Mr Lee was asked what were the most important things to him in life, he said, \"My family and my country\". It pains me that this episode has put both under a cloud and done damage to Singapore.
I hope, one day, I will be able to resolve the unhappiness within the family. But, today, I stand here before Members to answer your questions, clear any doubts and show you that you have every reason to maintain your trust in me and my Government.
My colleagues and I will continue to serve you and work with you, as we have always done, to the best of our ability. Thank you, Mdm Speaker. [Applause.]
Mdm Speaker:\tDeputy Prime Minister Teo will be making a related Ministerial Statement. So, Members who have any clarifications to make, please do so in your speeches after the Deputy Prime Minister's Ministerial Statement. Deputy Prime Minister Teo, please.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":" Ministerial Committee on 38 Oxley Road","subTitle":"Statement by Deputy Prime Minister","sectionType":"OS","content":"The Deputy Prime Minister and Coordinating Minister for National Security (Mr Teo Chee Hean): Mdm Speaker, Members of this House, let me first address the questions by several Members of Parliament (MPs) about the rules governing the conduct of Ministers, political appointees and public officers.
Ministers and Members of this House are well aware that our conduct must always be above board. There is a Code of Conduct for Ministers which has been in force since 1954. It was last revised and laid before this House in 2005. Ministers and other political appointment holders are notified of this Code at the start of each term of office and when a new political officeholder is appointed. The Code clearly states that a Minister must not direct or request a civil servant to do anything or perform any function that may conflict with the Civil Service's core values of incorruptibility, impartiality, integrity and honesty.
The Code sets out guidelines on what constitutes private interests, requires Ministers to disclose these private interests and states that they should not influence or support issues in which they have a private interest. Ministers are expected to be scrupulously above board and ensure no real or perceived conflict of interest between their official duties and private interests.
As Prime Minister Lee had said in his Ministerial Statement earlier, the Prime Minister sends the Rules of Prudence after every election to all MPs of the PAP. These Rules set out clearly the conduct expected of the MPs, including the need to be proper and above board in their dealings with Government departments and public officers. These Rules are also released to the media.
The Public Service is also guided by a Code of Conduct that lays down the principles and rules that public officers must abide by. This is periodically refreshed, and the Code of Conduct is available to all public officers in hard copies and on the Intranet.
The Public Service takes integrity very seriously. Public officers must not undertake any activity that can give rise to any perception that official resources are being used for party political purposes. Public officers are also expected to uphold the integrity and the reputation of the Public Service and public confidence in it. This includes protecting the confidentiality of information. Any request for information from the public is not granted automatically but would be carefully assessed on its merits. And this applies to members of the public who happen to be family members of political appointees as well.
To ensure that public officers understand and uphold these values, the Code of Conduct is discussed in induction programmes for new public officers. Permanent Secretaries and Statutory Board Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) also lead town halls to explain the Code of Conduct to their officers. These town halls include discussions to help officers understand how to interpret and live the code.
As I had informed the House on several occasions, there are avenues for public officers to report suspected misconduct directly to their agency heads or Permanent Secretaries. They may also report to the Head of Civil Service, the Public Service Commission or to enforcement agencies, such as the Police or the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau.
Singapore and Singaporeans can justifiably be proud of the hard-earned reputation and long track record of integrity of our Public Service. We are recognised for our record of integrity by Transparency International, by the World Economic Forum and the International Institute for Management Development (IMD) in their rankings on Global Competitiveness for the transparency and efficiency of our public institutions. This is a key pillar of Government that Mr Lee Kuan Yew and our Pioneer leaders have built. The Public Service staunchly believes in and commits itself to living up to the high standards set by Mr Lee and his founding team.
Let me now move on to address the questions several MPs have raised about the Ministerial Committee on 38 Oxley Road. And I will cover three areas.
First, why was the Committee formed?
Second, what is the work of the Committee?
Third, what are our next steps?
First, why did we set up this Committee? There is a significant public interest element involved when considering options for founding Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew's house at 38 Oxley Road. At the same time, the Government has also said that it will pay attention to respecting the wishes of Mr Lee for his house. These considerations are in addition to the due processes that take place for all buildings and structures with heritage and historical value.
There is a misconception that the Government is seeking to make a decision now. The Ministerial Committee does not decide. It is merely preparing drawer plans of various options and their implications so that a future government can refer to them and make a considered and informed decision when the time comes to decide on the matter. The Ministerial Committee has made it clear to Mr Lee Hsien Yang and, in particular, to Dr Lee Wei Ling, that neither the Ministerial Committee nor the Cabinet will be making any decision. And there is no decision required so long as Dr Lee continues staying in the house. This is what Mr Lee wanted and expressed in his will. It might be 20 to 30 years later before a decision needs to be made. However, if Dr Lee chooses to leave earlier, say, within a few months, then the Cabinet and the Government will have to decide, and it would be useful to have studied the different options.
Some of us in Cabinet, including me, also felt that it would be a useful element for a future government deciding on the house if it had a set of options that came from Ministers who had personally discussed this matter with Mr Lee.
Following the passing of Mr Lee Kuan Yew on 23 March 2015, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong informed Cabinet on 15 April 2015 that he would recuse himself from all Government decisions to be taken on the house. This is in accordance with the guidelines in paragraphs (3) and (4) of the code of conduct for Ministers. It was proper for the Prime Minister to recuse himself as there is a conflict of interest between his public role as the Head of Government, and his private role as a son of Mr Lee, and, in addition, because he had been bequeathed the property.
As the Prime Minister had recused himself, I chair the Cabinet should any deliberations take place on this property. Cabinet had recorded this at its meeting on 15 April 2015. On 1 June 2016, at a Cabinet meeting which I chaired, Cabinet approved the proposal by the Minister for National Development to set up a Ministerial Committee to draw up the range of possible options for 38 Oxley Road. Prior to this, work on this issue had been carried out at staff level with interagency consultations as needed, with matters being surfaced by relevant Ministers to me or the Cabinet, without the Prime Minister, when necessary. I had supported the Minister for National Development's proposal, as setting up such a Ministerial Committee would improve coordination and oversight on this matter.
I chair this Committee on the property at 38 Oxley Road, and included the relevant Cabinet Members, that is, the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth Grace Fu for heritage, the Minister for Law K Shanmugam for land issues, and the Minister for National Development Lawrence Wong for urban planning.
This Committee is like numerous other committees that the Cabinet may set up from time to time to study specific issues, for instance, on Smart Nation and Digital Government, Population, National Research and on Climate Change which I chair.
Deputy Prime Minister Tharman has provided examples of other committees that he chairs, such as for the Changi East Developments. We even have a task force now looking at infant formula. They are all part of the normal working process of the Cabinet, or, indeed, the board of any large organisation. We would rarely need to announce the formation of such committees, as they often relate to internal working processes and coordination within the Government. There is nothing unusual about this.
This is similar in approach to Cabinet committees set up by many other governments. These committees ultimately report to the Cabinet, which operates under the principle of collective Cabinet responsibility. This is an important consideration because members of Cabinet may have differing perspectives, but once the Cabinet decides, members take collective responsibility for the decision. This remains a valid consideration for us.
Second, on the work of the Committee. The Terms of Reference of this Committee are to assess (a) the historical and heritage significance of the property; (b) the wishes of Mr Lee Kuan Yew in relation to the property; and (c) the possible plans for the property and the neighbourhood and the options to move forward.
As we wanted to get the views of Mr Lee's children, Mr Lee Hsien Loong, Dr Lee Wei Ling and Mr Lee Hsien Yang were duly informed separately, in writing, on 27 July 2016, that a Ministerial Committee, of which I was the Chairman, had been formed to consider the options for 38 Oxley Road and the implications thereof, and that the Committee would look into various aspects, including what Mr Lee Kuan Yew's thinking on the matter was.
I will now elaborate on these three aspects of the Terms of Reference.
With regard to the first aspect of the Terms of Reference for the Committee − why does the Government need to get involved in this matter at all? The Government has the responsibility to consider the public interest aspects of any property with historical and heritage significance and has a range of powers to gazette or acquire such property. I should emphasise that the Government not only has the legal powers to act but, indeed, the responsibility to decide on what to do. The Government cannot outsource decision-making on this. Ultimately, the government of the day has to decide and carry the decision.
The Government has to carefully consider the merits for each property to be preserved or conserved. Currently, 72 buildings and structures are gazetted as national monuments, some of which were private residences. And we have conserved over 7,000 buildings. Many of these predate our Independence and hark back to our early immigrant and colonial era, such as Admiralty House, the House of Tan Yeok Nee and the Sun Yat Sen Nanyang Memorial Hall.
We have precious few from our Independence era, and there have been calls to conserve these, such as several blocks of SIT flats in Tiong Bahru. For those who are not familiar with what \"SIT\" stands for, it is the Singapore Improvement Trust, the precursor of the Housing and Development Board.
In the 1960s through to the 1980s, we cleared whole precincts and demolished many buildings for urban development, to make way for the new, in land-scarce Singapore. There was an urgent need for decent housing and industrial and commercial land for jobs − all for our people.
When we look back, we were perhaps in some cases overzealous in doing so. Indeed, as fewer such precincts or buildings remained, the value of each of them as a link to the past became more salient − old shophouses and warehouses, Peranakan houses, \"black and whites\", and Bukit Brown. With the passing years and fading memories, more Singaporeans, too, began to yearn to keep these gradually dwindling remaining physical links to our past, either for their architectural typology or the history they embody.
In some cases, the property owners or members of the public argued to retain the buildings, for example, the old National Library building not so long ago, but they had to make way for development needs. In other cases, owners applied for redevelopment but were directed to conserve the buildings for their historic or heritage value, often forgoing considerable financial gains they might have reaped from redevelopment. There is a due process for considering such matters and the decision is never taken lightly. The ultimate decision is made by the Government. The Minister for National Development will elaborate on this later in his speech.
These public interests and considerations apply to 38 Oxley Road as well. It was home to our founding Prime Minister. It was in its basement dining room that many important discussions and critical decisions on the future of Singapore were made by Mr Lee and our Pioneer leaders. As Mr Lee and our Pioneer generation of leaders − in fact, our Pioneer generation − pass on, the historical significance of markers of this period has grown. 38 Oxley Road is a key marker of this turning point in our history. Since we do not need to decide now how best to maintain this important historical link to the past, it might be best, for the time being, to avoid taking irreversible steps, such as demolition and redevelopment of the site, so that we have the benefit of time to consider the matter and the merits of various options with the perspective of history.
A key consideration for 38 Oxley Road is Mr Lee's thinking on the property, which brings me to the second aspect of the Terms of Reference. The Committee has been paying particular attention to respecting Mr Lee Kuan Yew's wishes as we look at the range of possible options. This is the reason why we had sought views from Mr Lee's children.
When Mr Lee met the Cabinet in July 2011, he expressed his wish for the house to be demolished, but Mr Lee also listened carefully to the views of the Cabinet members. It was not a stormy discussion. It was a considered discussion where he presented his views and he listened to the views expressed by the Cabinet members. While Mr Lee expressed his personal wishes, he was also very proper. Mr Lee did not direct the Government. He was aware of the Government's responsibilities and how the law on this matter operates. Mr Lee wrote to the Cabinet five months later, informing us that he had reflected on the matter. Earlier today, the Prime Minister read out to Members of this House the letter that Mr Lee had written to the Cabinet. This was Mr Lee's last formal communication with the Cabinet on this matter.
Subsequently, as we have learnt from the beneficiaries of his estate, he had also expressed his wishes on the property in paragraph 7 of his last will. Members will also be aware of this. This paragraph had two main limbs, with a third limb saying that this paragraph could be made public so that his wishes are known.
The Ministerial Committee wrote to all of Mr Lee's children on 27 July 2016, shortly after the Committee was formed, to invite them to share with the Committee, any views they would like on Mr Lee's thinking on the property, and the context and circumstances relating to his thinking beyond what had already been stated in public, so that these could be taken into account. Indeed, it is only natural that the Committee should ask the siblings for their views.
The siblings wrote to us, providing differing views, including on the drafting of the last will. We then provided each party two opportunities to comment on the views of the other party. Indeed, the fact that the Committee received differing views showed how essential it was that we had sought the views of the siblings on Mr Lee's wishes and thinking.
Mdm Speaker, Mr Lee Hsien Yang has made various allegations about the Committee, which are baseless. He has repeated the same allegations today, ignoring the replies that have been provided to him in writing, in fact, since the very beginning when he was first informed of the setting up of the Committee. If I may draw Members' attention to the response from my Press Secretary yesterday, and I seek Mdm Speaker's permission to circulate this response to Members.
Mdm Speaker:\tYes, please. [A copy of the handout was distributed to hon Members.]
Mr Teo Chee Hean: Exchanges have happened quite rapidly, so, Mdm Speaker, I will read this out.
Mr Lee Hsien Yang's statement on 2 July 2017 presents a selective and inaccurate account of his exchanges with the Ministerial Committee on 38 Oxley Road house. \"Selective\" and \"inaccurate\". The Committee sought Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee Wei Ling's views on the late Mr Lee's wishes and thinking in July 2016.
In its initial letters, the Committee had made clear to Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee Wei Ling the purpose and scope of the Committee's work. This includes (a) why the Committee was formed, (b) who it reports to, namely, the Cabinet, (c) what it would look into, and (d) why Mr Lee Hsien Yang, Dr Lee Wei Ling and, of course, Mr Lee Hsien Loong's inputs would be useful.
The Committee told him clearly that it was listing the various options for the house to present to Cabinet. The Committee was not going to make any recommendations. The Government had no intention of making any decision on the house, as long as Dr Lee Wei Ling resides there, and Mr Lee Hsien Yang had acknowledged this in one of his subsequent replies. As such, it was clear to all parties involved that the Government was not making an immediate decision on the house, and that no decision may be necessary for another 20 to 30 years.
I have enclosed letters dated 27 July 2016, shortly after the Committee was formed, and 24 August 2016 to Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee Wei Ling, which made these points very clear. The Committee has no power to decide on the validity of the last will. This, too, was made clear to Mr Lee Hsien Yang on 25 April 2017 that the Committee is not the place where decisions on the legal validity of the last will can be made, and this is a matter between him and Mr Lee Hsien Loong.
So, this was made very clear to Dr Lee and Mr Lee Hsien Yang on 25 April 2017. I have not included that letter because I do not want to swamp Members with voluminous exchanges and letters.
The Committee also made clear to Mr Lee Hsien Yang from the outset that his provision of any reply was purely voluntary. On this basis, Mr Lee Hsien Yang proceeded to make various submissions to the Committee, both last year and into this year. The circumstances of the last will became relevant for a good reason, and this is because Mr Lee Hsien Yang's representations to the Committee placed reliance on one part of the last will as the primary evidence of Mr Lee's intent. He wanted the Committee to focus on one part of the clause relating to Mr Lee's wishes on the house and not the other parts.
When the circumstances related to the drafting of the last will were brought to the Committee's attention, Mr Lee Hsien Yang's views on this were sought, and in the same vein − I might add − the Committee had also posed questions to Mr Lee Hsien Loong, some of them uncomfortable ones based on representations made by Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee Wei Ling.
Mdm Speaker, I am quite puzzled.
First of all, Dr Lee Wei Ling and Mr Lee Hsien Yang knew about the Committee. We informed them shortly after the Committee was formed on 27 July 2016. So, they knew about it. We also informed them what the Committee was setting out to do − this was on 27 July 2016 and, in response to his questions, we expanded on that, gave him some reassurances. And Members can see that from the letter on 24 August 2016. They were also invited to make representations to the Committee. The Committee was not looking at things in isolation. Now, how can they be making representations to the Committee if this was a secret Committee and they did not know it existed?
They gave their views and they offered them freely and voluntarily. They were also told clearly on 25 April 2017 that the Committee is not looking into the validity of the will, and its only interest is in understanding Mr Lee's wishes better.
So, Mdm Speaker, going through the facts and the chronology, Dr Lee Wei Ling and Mr Lee Hsien Yang, we must then ask, are they being truthful and honest when they allege that this is some \"secret\" Committee which they did not know about, and which was only acknowledged after Dr Lee Wei Ling and Mr Lee Hsien Yang somehow exposed its existence? They knew about it. They were responding to it and sent several representations. They knew what the Committee was doing and, so, there is nothing mysterious about it, or there should not be.
Mdm Speaker, just because Mr Lee Hsien Yang may have found some questions inconvenient to answer, that does not mean the Committee was abusing its power or doing something wrong. It was giving an opportunity for parties to express their views.
Consider if the Committee had not asked the siblings for their views, it would have been a significant omission and then, in such a situation, the siblings might be justifiably upset that the Committee had not given them an opportunity to make their views known, or to make clarifications which another party may have put in which differed from theirs. But all the siblings were provided a full opportunity to do so. The siblings should, therefore, really have no reason to be unhappy with being asked, being given the opportunity to make voluntary representations to offer their views and to make clarifications.
Mdm Speaker, so what is the Committee's interest? Our interest is confined to obtaining as full a picture as possible of Mr Lee's thinking on the house. Now we have to decide: if we want to take Mr Lee's views into consideration, then we must understand what they were; if we decide that we are not going to take Mr Lee's views into consideration at all, then we do not need to ask. But if we want to know and get as full a picture as possible as to what Mr Lee's were, then it is incumbent for the Committee to try to determine these as best as we can.
I should emphasise again that it is not for the Committee to decide whose claims are valid, in particular, over the validity of the will. We had explained this, as I have said, on 25 April 2017 in writing to Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee Wei Ling. What we do try is to understand, as best we can, Mr Lee's wishes and thinking.
We had also explained that all the representations and views offered were voluntary. Mr Lee Hsien Loong provided his representations in the form of three statutory declarations, but there was no need for any party to respond if they did not wish to provide views or clarifications, and no need for them to put their views down as statutory declarations either. But we did tell all of them that any views provided would be useful and the Committee will consider all the views offered.
Mdm Speaker, we should be clear that the difference of views had origins that arose before the formation of the Committee in June 2016. Indeed, soon after Mr Lee's passing, the allegations of \"dynastic ambitions\" and \"abuse of power\" were already being made, to many people, in smaller circles. I know because several people spoke to me about having been approached and offered these allegations and views, and they expressed their concerns. This was shortly after Mr Lee's passing, well before the formation of any committee.
In April 2016, before the Committee was formed, Dr Lee Wei Ling had made a public posting making such allegations. I do not recall that Mr Lee Hsien Yang dissociated himself from these postings either.
Saying that the Committee has somehow now \"pushed\" Mr Lee Hsien Yang to take these allegations public, therefore, does not conform to the facts and chronology.
Mdm Speaker, I am not in a position to opine why Mr Lee Hsien Yang now makes such a claim and his motivation for doing so.
Both parties made representations to the Committee that might have been uncomfortable to the other. Each party's views were circulated, with their permission, to the other party. Both parties were offered opportunities to respond if they wished to. This is being open and transparent with all the parties. Being given the opportunity to voluntarily clarify issues even though they may be uncomfortable can hardly be considered an abuse of power.
The Committee is not the reason for these differences. The Committee is merely trying to get the best understanding of Mr Lee's thinking on the property. As there are differences of views, it may be useful to have a contemporaneous record of what these are, so that they can be referred to, if needed, when a decision is needed to be taken eventually.
I should also point out that the Committee carried out its work through direct correspondence in writing with the siblings, and out of the public eye. The Committee did not think that it was useful for these differences to be aired in public. But the siblings' views had relevance to the Committee's work because it helps the Committee take Mr Lee's wishes into account, along with the public interest aspects, when drawing up a range of options for the property.
We hope that the differences of views on private matters can be resolved within the family. But, ultimately, the government of the day and its Ministers cannot avoid taking responsibility for making the required decisions on matters involving the public interest.
And this is why Singapore has laws that give the Government powers, specifically the Preservation of Monuments Act and the Planning Act in this case. As Members have asked, this does not preclude consultations or the involvement of some memorial committee at an appropriate time. In fact, I think this will be useful. Members of the public have already written in, offering suggestions. At the appropriate time, I will see how best to seek wider public views on this. But I suppose I also have to weigh this against those who might jump to the conclusion that doing so means that the Government is imminently going to decide or to do something with the property when there is no need to decide now.
Mdm Speaker, I wish to point out an irony in this matter.
If Prime Minister Lee had not recused himself and had simply, as the Prime Minister, ordered the Government agencies to demolish the house without due process, that would have been an abuse of authority and power. It would have bypassed the objective due process that Mr Lee himself would have stood for.
Instead, Prime Minister Lee did the proper thing, recused himself and let the Cabinet, without him, chaired by me, decide on how to proceed with the matter. It is ironic that following the proper process is now being labelled, by some, as an abuse of power. Perhaps it is because they feel that their demand for a particular outcome should simply be carried out. But simply doing this would be an abuse of power. Going through due process is the proper way of doing things.
Anyone who has run a major listed company would or should know how companies deal with conflicts of interest, even where it involves the Chairman or CEO. Take, for example, a property company that is going to bid for an en bloc redevelopment. If the Chairman or CEO happens to own apartment units in this development, they would have to recuse themselves. Others in the company would then have to be empowered to decide on the bid.
We now come to the third aspect of the Terms of Reference of the Committee − the due process to develop possible plans and options for the property.
No decision is required now on what to do with the property. The Government had stated on several occasions that it will not do anything to affect Dr Lee Wei Ling's right to continue living at 38 Oxley Road. As I said earlier, this was made clear to the siblings in writing that neither the Committee nor the Cabinet will make any decision on the House, and that the Committee is only listing and studying the various options, as drawer plans.
Even though no decision is needed now, it is prudent to commence that due process which is needed to consider the various options before making any decision on the house, as with all properties of significant public interest. This will take some time and the Government has to study the options in advance of any eventualities. For instance, if Dr Lee chooses to move out of the house in the near future, the decision on what to do about the house might have to be taken at that point.
On the options for the house, the Committee does not take a binary, \"either or\" approach. The Committee has no preconceived notion that the house must be kept as it is, or that it must be totally demolished. Instead, the Committee's approach is to study and prepare a range of options for the property and the neighbourhood so that a future government can make an informed and considered decision when it becomes necessary, always taking into account Mr Lee's views. A range of intermediate options is possible.
I met Mr Lee Hsien Yang earlier five times in 2015, between 14 April and July 2015, and once more, the sixth time, in April 2016, on a range of issues. The meetings were before the Ministerial Committee was formed. In our meeting on 27 April 2015, we talked about various possibilities for the property. I informed Mr Lee Hsien Yang that I would personally not support the options at either end of the range. At one end, preserving the house as it is for visitors to enter and see the private spaces, would be totally against the wishes of Mr and Mrs Lee Kuan Yew. And at the other end, demolishing the house and putting the property on the market to develop new private residences, such as luxury apartments. And this remains my view.
The latter, redevelopment into private apartments, would not only result in the loss of a historically significant property, but also allow this very history to be exploited for private profit, for example, by marketing the residences as \"living at the former house of Mr Lee Kuan Yew\". I am certain many Singaporeans will have not approved of this. Indeed, Mr Lee Hsien Yang has also acknowledged this, and on 1 July 2017, has said that he has no \"inclination\" to do so.
The Committee has been studying various intermediate options, such as demolishing the house but keeping the basement dining room with an appropriate heritage centre attached. The dining room was where many important historical meetings were held to discuss how a self-governing Singapore would take shape.
I personally think there are merits in these intermediate options which could provide a good solution. But these studies are ongoing. Mr Lee Hsien Yang has in his public statements also indicated that he is open to some of these options.
Mr Lee Hsien Yang also acknowledges that no decision is needed now as Dr Lee Wei Ling continues to live in the property. This is also the position of the Government. In his statement on 1 July, he also said that he recognises that \"no man stands above the law\". As I have explained, the Government has a duty to go through due process for when a decision needs to be taken, at some future time. And so, we both acknowledge that.
So, there should really be no reason to disagree with what the Committee is doing. We told him what we were doing. He knows we exist. We are studying the possible options for the time when a decision has to be made.
Third, what are our next steps? Mr Lee Hsien Yang now owns the property. As provided for in Mr Lee Kuan Yew's will, Dr Lee Wei Ling can stay in it for as long as she wishes. And we have said we will not do anything to affect Dr Lee's right to continue living there.
There is no decision required of this Government so long as Dr Lee stays there and the house is properly maintained, as provided for under the Building Control Act and the Planning Act. Even if the Government were to take a position today, it would not bind a future government at the time when that future government has to make a decision and implement it. We cannot take a prospective decision and say, \"30 years from now, the future government will do this.\" Because the future government has the powers under the law to decide for itself.
Mdm Speaker, the studies on the options for the house are continuing. While there is no urgency to complete these studies within a specified timeframe − these are drawer plans which would be reviewed periodically − I will consult my colleagues to see if it is useful to put out a range of possibilities, to let the public ponder on the matter without having to arrive at any decision.
Emotions on this issue are still very strong, not just within the family, but also among some Singaporeans. Emotions have sadly been heightened again by this public disagreement. A period of calm would be useful for reflection.
With the passage of time, I hope that we will be able to arrive at a wise decision on this matter in an informed and considered way that takes into account the significant public interest to preserve the heritage of our young nation, while respecting Mr Lee's personal wishes for the house.
Mdm Speaker, I have explained to this House the robust processes that the Government has for dealing with and avoiding conflicts of interest.
I explained that the Ministerial Committee was formed to examine (a) the historical and heritage significance of the property, (b) the wishes of Mr Lee Kuan Yew in relation to the property, and (c) the possible plans for the property and the neighbourhood, and the options to move forward. These are all matters which the Government has to take responsibility for and has to plan for. This is just the normal process of the Government doing its work in a calm, objective and proper way.
In the coming days, we will fully debate the specific allegations that have been made against the Government and examine whether there is any substance behind them. Even as we do so, I hope that Members will leave enough room for the private issues to be worked through within the family.
But we must not shy away from dealing decisively with the public issues which go to the heart of our system of clean and honest Government, and we must do so for the good of Singapore.
I urge Members to ask me and my Cabinet colleagues probing questions on any aspect of these allegations which Members feel is relevant. Clear any doubts that you may have.
We must keep our public institutions neutral and not have allegations hurled at our public officers without basis. At the end of this session, Singaporeans should have their confidence in the honesty of our Government and our public officers strengthened.
We make decisions and act in the public interest of Singaporeans. We do not bend to the private demands of individuals, no matter who they are, or what family connections they can claim. This is the foundation upon which Mr Lee Kuan Yew and his team built our Singapore for all of us. Mr Lee would have expected no less from us. This is the Singapore that we want to continue living in. And this is the Singapore that Prime Minister Lee, our Cabinet colleagues and I, and all our public officers in our agencies will fight to uphold and take forward.
We have many real challenges, and much to do. Let us all focus together on these and work together to continue to serve Singaporeans and bring Singapore forward. That is what Mr Lee would have wanted us to do, more than anything else. Thank you, Mdm Speaker. [Applause.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"38 Oxley Road","subTitle":"Debate on Ministerial Statements","sectionType":"OS","content":"The Prime Minister (Mr Lee Hsien Loong): Mdm Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order No 44, I beg to move, \"That the two Ministerial Statements made by me and Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean on 38 Oxley Road be considered by Parliament.\"
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mdm Speaker: Minister Lawrence Wong.
The Minister for National Development (Mr Lawrence Wong): Madam, I would like to speak on two matters in this debate. First, I would clarify the issue of the Deed of Gift between the executors of the estate of the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew and the National Heritage Board (NHB), as I was then the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth. Second, I would elaborate on due processes for proposals on the conservation and preservation of properties.
First, let me touch on the Deed of Gift. From early 2015 onwards, NHB started planning for a major SG50 exhibition on 6 August 2015, just before the Jubilee Weekend. The exhibition was on Singapore's Founding Leaders. Following the passing of Mr Lee Kuan Yew in March 2015, NHB was also in discussion with the executors of the estate about a donation of artefacts from 38 Oxley Road which could be incorporated into the exhibition.
The Deed of Gift was not based on NHB's standard agreement. The executors of the estate, namely, Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee Wei Ling, insisted on several unusual conditions. These conditions included (a) the right to buy back the items at $1, so long as the house was not demolished, and (b) the display of the wishes of the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew to demolish the house. As Members would have heard just now, the Deed of Gift required NHB to display only part of the demolition clause in Mr Lee's will. In other words, NHB was to display the first part, which sets out Mr Lee's wish to demolish the house, but not the second part, which sets out his wish should the house not be demolished. At that time, NHB did not pick up the significance of this partial quote from the demolition clause.
Ms Lee Suet Fern, who was then the Director on the Board of NHB, was also involved in the discussions between NHB and the executors. She supported the conditions stipulated by the executors in the Deed and, her law firm, Morgan Lewis Stamford LLC, helped in the process of finalising the Deed.
The executors held firm to many of the terms they had stipulated in the Deed. For example, when NHB asked to amend the $1 buyback provision, the lawyer for the executors stated that this clause was non-negotiable. While the terms were unusual, NHB proceeded to sign the Deed with the executors because it recognised the heritage significance of the artefacts and felt that it would be in the public interest for them to be exhibited.
NHB also assessed that several of the objects were in a deteriorated condition and required immediate care and conservation. So, NHB signed the Deed with the executors on 8 June 2015. At around the same time, I updated the Prime Minister on the plans for the exhibition and the inclusion of the Oxley Road artefacts in the exhibition, including the conditions stipulated in the Deed. I later shared with him a copy of the Deed on 12 June.
As the Prime Minister shared earlier, he felt that the terms of the Deed were onerous to NHB and he told me that, as a beneficiary of the estate, his consent for the donation had not been sought, the executors had not informed him of the donation nor the terms of the donation.
NHB was caught in a difficult position. It had signed the Deed and had accepted the gifts. But it was not clear if the executors were properly empowered to enter into the Deed without first consulting all beneficiaries. This also raises questions about the validity of the agreement. Moreover, the planned exhibition was just two months away and NHB did not have much time left to resolve the issues and then properly prepare for the exhibition.
I discussed this with the then CEO of NHB Ms Rosa Daniel to see what could be done about the matter. Given the circumstances, we agreed that it would be better to take a pause and not rush the Oxley Road items for the August exhibition. We could exhibit them at a later stage, after the issues had been resolved. So, I asked Ms Daniel to inform Mr Lee Hsien Yang that we would like to put off the display of the Oxley Road artefacts from the August exhibition and do so at some time in the future.
Mr Lee Hsien Yang responded on 10 June that this request was unacceptable and would be a breach of a legally-binding Deed. In fact, NHB had no intention to breach any legal obligation and Ms Daniel clarified this point in an email to Mr Lee Hsien Yang the next day. She said that the Minister's instructions are that NHB is not to breach its obligations if it has entered into valid agreements which are binding on it.
While the executors were insistent that NHB had to follow through on the exhibition, NHB still had the duty to check whether the Deed of Gift was in order in light of the different views of the beneficiaries. Hence, NHB wrote to the lawyers of the executors to clarify whether probate had been granted for the will, whether there were any other beneficiaries entitled to the assets of the estate and, if so, whether the consent had been obtained for the gift to NHB. Before responding to these queries, the executors of the estate put out a media release on 11 June publicising their donation of items to NHB. This was a surprise to NHB because the queries had not been addressed. So, NHB issued a statement that same night to highlight that there remain some questions on the Deed of Gift which NHB was in the process of clarifying with the executors.
On 12 June, Mr Lee Hsien Yang replied to NHB that the executors had not obtained probate for the will but that probate was not necessary for the executors to have the power and authority to enter into the Deed of Gift. He also said that NHB should not be concerned about the position of the beneficiaries under the will. But this response still left open the question of whether there were, indeed, other beneficiaries and whether their consent had been sought for the donation of items to NHB for the exhibition under the stipulated conditions.
Throughout this period, I was discussing the matter with Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean as the Prime Minister had said that he would leave it to the Deputy Prime Minister to handle the specific dealings between NHB and the executors on the Deed of Gift. Deputy Prime Minister Teo's main concern on the conditions was that NHB was being asked to display a partial quote of the demolition clause which did not fully reflect Mr Lee Kuan Yew's wishes. He felt that NHB, as a public institution, should remain neutral and should not be drawn into a private disagreement or be used to present a particular point of view which was incomplete.
Nevertheless, after weighing all the factors and considering that NHB had already signed the Deed, both Deputy Prime Minister Teo and I agreed that the pluses of having the exhibition with the Oxley Road artefacts in accordance with the Deed outweighed the potential controversy that was likely to arise. This was a major SG50 exhibition on our founding leaders. We had artefacts not just from the estate of the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew but also from the National Archives and the families of other founding leaders. And many of these artefacts had not been displayed before. The artefacts helped to enhance the storyline of the exhibition and to bring out the values of our founding leaders for Singaporeans.
Subsequently on 25 June, the Prime Minister informed me that he had written to the executors, in his capacity as beneficiary, indicating to them that notwithstanding his position on the Deed of Gift, he would not object to the exhibition as he did not want to put NHB in a difficult position.
NHB was thus able to proceed with the exhibition with agreement from all beneficiaries. As NHB needed more time to prepare, it sought the consent of the executors to push back the exhibition date. Eventually, the opening was shifted from 6 August to 21 September 2015. In fact, I attended the opening with Mr Lee Hsien Yang, Dr Lee Wei Ling and Ms Lee Suet Fern. The exhibition was very well received, and it has been extended till now.
Madam, as I have explained, my discussion with the Prime Minister on the exhibition was in his official capacity and I shared the Deed of Gift with him on that basis. In response to the question from Assoc Prof Daniel Goh, the Deed of Gift did not have a confidentiality clause. If Mr Lee Hsien Loong has asked for the Deed of Gift in his private capacity, NHB would have been entitled to give it to him, given his position as elder son and beneficiary of the estate.
More generally, in a scenario where items are being donated to NHB from an estate, and NHB becomes aware that one of the beneficiaries objects to the terms of the donation, it would be necessary for NHB to take steps to verify that there is agreement from all beneficiaries. Otherwise, it could face a potential claim from a beneficiary whose consent was not given. In this case, Mr Lee Hsien Loong told me that his concern was not with the donation of artefacts to NHB but rather the way it was handled and the terms of the donation, as he had shared in his speech earlier. Despite his personal reservations over how the artefacts were conveyed to NHB by the executors in the Deed of Gift, the Prime Minister did not instruct me to stop the display of the Oxley Road artefacts in the exhibition. Instead, he asked me to take instructions from the Deputy Prime Minister on the matter and that was how the matter was handled.
So, Madam, I have given an account of what happened to the NHB Deed of Gift. Contrary to this being an abuse of power, I believe the matter was handled correctly and above board.
Madam, I will next elaborate on the due process that applies to the conservation and preservation of properties which is something that the Deputy Prime Minister had highlighted briefly in his speech.
The Government undertakes a vigorous assessment process for all such properties before deciding whether or not to conserve or preserve them. I will elaborate briefly on what this process is.
First, Government agencies will undertake detailed research on the preservation or conservation merits of the property of interest. Agencies will have to review the historical, cultural, social and heritage significance of the property, its national importance as well as its architectural merits and rarity. In examining the historical significance of a site, for example, NHB will review how the site has played a role in our national history. In examining the architectural merits of the building, the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) will study which parts of the building are most architecturally significant, or, if it is a cluster of buildings, which are the most significant buildings within the cluster.
Next, agencies would look into the planning considerations of the property and its surroundings. This includes examining whether there are any technical regulatory requirements which may have an impact on the form of preservation or conservation proposals for the property.
Agencies will also review the allowable uses of the site. For example, URA may look at whether a conserved residential building can be adapted for commercial use or for civic and community purposes. But such a change in use will have to be compatible to its surroundings and supported by infrastructural considerations, such as a potentially higher traffic count brought about by the change of use.
Arising from these planning studies, agencies may then review the need for the Government to acquire the property for conservation or preservation. Under the Preservation of Monuments Act, if a building is occupied as a residence and the Government chooses to gazette it as a monument, then the Government has to acquire it within one year of the preservation order or else the preservation order will lapse. But beyond the legal requirement, the question is whether the planning intent for the conserved or preserved site is best served by having the Government owning the site as opposed to leaving it under private ownership. For example, if the intent for the site is to have significant public access and the owner is not prepared to do so, then one option is, indeed, for the Government to acquire the site.
Madam, this sort of research work provides important baseline information for all properties deemed to have heritage and architectural value. In fact, that is the norm. Agencies will engage and undertake these sorts of research work to provide the baseline information we need for all such properties.
If there is a need to decide on the next step for the property, then the Government agencies will proceed to seek views from the relevant stakeholders. Of course, views will be sought from the property owner. Views will also be sought from relevant professionals and subject matter experts. The URA has a conservation advisory panel while the NHB has a preservation of sites and monuments advisory board. The advisory panels comprise professionals in the building, arts and heritage and education sectors, and will provide their inputs on the conservation or preservation proposals tabled by the agencies. URA and NHB will submit the recommendations of their findings to the respective Ministries for decision thereafter. If the Government, acting through the Ministry of National Development (MND) or the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth, decides to pursue the conservation or preservation proposal, the property owner will be given the opportunity to respond and appeal.
Based on past cases, the vast majority of owners would agree with the conservation or preservation proposals. A few have appealed but the final decision for conservation or preservation lies with the Government.
Madam, we should follow this due process for all properties with architectural or heritage merit, including 38 Oxley Road. In fact, prior to the formation of the Ministerial Committee, various agencies have already been working on this issue. NHB has been documenting the historical significance of the house. MND and URA have been looking at options for the property as well as the planning and zoning implications arising from the different scenarios. This work was being done at the staff level.
Later, in discussing the matter with the Deputy Prime Minister and various Ministerial colleagues, we agreed that it would be useful to have a Ministerial Committee to coordinate the work across agencies and to oversee the matter. That is why MND tabled the proposal at the Cabinet meeting chaired by Deputy Prime Minister Teo on 1 June to set up the Ministerial Committee to draw up a range of possible options for 38 Oxley Road. As the Deputy Prime Minister said earlier, the Ministerial Committee has no preconceived notion on what to do with the property. But the current Government has the duty to do the work now in listing out all the options and to prepare ahead of the implications of each one of them. That is the right and responsible thing to do.
Madam, like many Singaporeans, I am saddened by the events that have transpired over the last few weeks. Many baseless allegations have been made against the Government and I hope this debate will give us a chance to discuss the issues openly, dispel doubts and strengthen confidence in our public institutions and system of government.
Above all, we will continue to uphold the values of Mr Lee Kuan Yew and our founding leaders and do our utmost to serve Singapore and Singaporeans.
Mdm Speaker:\tWe will take all clarifications after the speeches. Mr Sitoh Yih Pin.
Mr Sitoh Yih Pin (Potong Pasir): Mdm Speaker, the controversy surrounding 38 Oxley Road, the private home of our Founding Prime Minister, the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew, has been the subject of intense public scrutiny for the past few weeks.
At its heart lies the issue of whether the private home of Mr Lee should be demolished in accordance with his personal wishes. Other critical and crucial ancillary issues raised include allegations of abuse of power and the manipulation of our State Organs by our Prime Minister and the Cabinet.
On the issue of 38 Oxley Road, public opinion has been deeply divided.
Madam, I, therefore, rise to address two main concerns raised by Singaporeans. One, why has the Government set up a Ministerial Committee to consider options that may differ from the personal wishes of the late Mr Lee? Two, why is this issue being debated in Parliament?
Madam, in response to the first question, some argue that this is strictly a private battle. They say any dispute over the last will and testament of Mr Lee should be a matter placed for judicial decision between the estate, executors and beneficiaries. Our Government should not interfere.
Many of my residents have shared their views with me on whether 38 Oxley Road should be demolished. Opinions are mixed. There is no consensus. Therefore, no view is without merit. Whether one agrees with or is opposed to the demolition of 38 Oxley Road is a matter of opinion, and valid, reasonable arguments prevail on both sides of the aisle.
However, whether 38 Oxley Road should be demolished is not up for debate today. We have not convened to decide this. The question is whether the Government should have set up the Ministerial Committee and placed itself in the position to consider options that may not be in line with the late Mr Lee's personal wishes.
The allegation made is that steps taken by the Government to consider preserving 38 Oxley Road in any form or manner are invidious, aimed at furthering sinister political ends.
Madam, I do not intend to delve into the merits or the lack of merits of the allegation but merely wish to raise a second perspective to this issue. There is a Chinese phrase that I keep in mind whenever a complex conundrum of an ethical nature confronts me and that is \"合 情 合 理 合 法\". That is, to see if the action taken was reasonable, logical and legal. If any action meets all these three criteria, then more likely than not, it is an ethically sound one.
Mr Lee Kuan Yew was the Founding Prime Minister of our country. Our history, the odds and obstacles we faced and how far we have come bears no repeating today. Supporters or detractors alike, there is no one in Singapore who can reasonably deny the crucial role Mr Lee played in bringing Singapore from Third World to First.
Mr Lee played the role of a Founding Prime Minister of a country post-Independence, not unlike Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru of India or Chairman Mao Zedong of China. Citizens of these respective countries may not all subscribe to the politics or personalities of these political figures, but they stand for more than just their political or personal beliefs. Their place in a nation's history cannot be replaced and should not be forgotten.
Madam, to Singaporeans, Mr Lee stood for far more than just himself. This was clearly evident during his passing and funeral in 2015. Mr Lee stood for the fundamental values of what Singapore represents − multiculturalism, meritocracy, good governance, rule of law, the list goes on. I am sure all Singaporeans agree with me when I say that the ideals of these values associated with Mr Lee should be passed down to latter generations of Singaporeans.
Preserving 38 Oxley Road is one way to do so. I grant detractors that it is not the only way or may not be the best way to do so, but I am of the respectful and humble view that it will be a great dereliction of duty of any Singapore government of the day not to even consider the possibility of doing so.
This is not an alien concept either. In the United States, their very first President, George Washington's home at Mount Vernon, Virginia, was designated a National Historic Landmark in 1960 and listed on the National Register of Historic Places.
Therefore, what we must ask ourselves is this: is it reasonable, logical, legal, that is, 合 情 合 理 合 法, for our Government to set up a Ministerial Committee to consider the possibility of preserving the home of Mr Lee? All things considered, the answer must be yes.
Madam, the next question then is: why are we debating this in Parliament? Some Singaporeans say that Parliament is not the place to settle family disputes. Well, they are absolutely right. A simple answer is that we are not doing so today. We are not here to settle family disputes. We are here today to address the serious allegations made against the Prime Minister and Cabinet for abuse of power and manipulation of State Organs for personal needs. We are here because the integrity of the Prime Minister and our Government has been called into question and Singaporeans have a right to know the full details of these allegations.
How then is this different from all the other allegations made by many others over the years? Why the different approach, some argue. My sense from speaking with Singaporeans on this issue is that the perception of credibility is higher because of the individuals making the allegations. Dr Lee Wei Ling and Mr Lee Hsien Yang are children of the late Mr Lee and siblings to the Prime Minister. Being family members to two of our Prime Ministers suggests that they are in a position to know or possess information that ordinary Singaporeans may not. This may not necessarily be true. But there is this public perception, the perception that allegations made by the Prime Minister's siblings or family may be more credible than others.
Madam, it is, therefore, imperative that these allegations are addressed head on. A formal national forum, such as a Parliamentary debate, is ideal to address these allegations. It is important because such allegations have far-reaching implications, not only about the decision to demolish a house, but the integrity and reputation of the Singapore Government is at stake at home and abroad. Amidst an uncertain world and a volatile economy, nothing can be more important.
The Prime Minister's Statement today provides the answers needed to Singaporeans to clear the allegations of abuse of power and manipulation of State Organs. This is clear. We all hope that this matter will be resolved with finality after this debate.
The issues relating to the late Mr Lee's personal wishes regarding 38 Oxley Road, his last will and testament, as well as the dispute between family members, are private personal family matters and should rightly remain so.
However, as pointed out by many Singaporeans leading up to the debate, Dr Lee Wei Ling and Mr Lee Hsien Yang are not present in this House to participate in this debate today. There is, therefore, a likelihood that further rebuttals and counter-allegations will continue in social media and the press after this debate concludes. Singaporeans are concerned that a further protraction of this saga will harm and detract Singapore from other far more pressing and urgent national and international issues that confront us.
We do not want this to happen. Once the allegations against the Prime Minister and the Cabinet have been put to rest after this debate, our Government must press ahead with our national agenda.
Mdm Speaker: Mr Low Thia Khiang.
Mr Low Thia Khiang (Aljunied): Mdm Speaker, this is a sad day for Parliament that we have to hear and debate the dispute of the descendants of our Founding Prime Minister, Mr Lee Kuan Yew. It is sadder still that this whole saga is centred on Mr Lee's will because his wish on 38 Oxley Road is well-known.
I would like to state from the outset that the Workers' Party (WP) has only a simple and broad position on this unfortunate saga, that is, the WP is concerned about how this saga would affect our nation. The opinions of the WP members and Members of Parliament (MPs) on the other aspects of the issues are just as diverse as public opinion has been in these few weeks.
As an outsider to this dispute, I personally believe that the acrimony between the Lee descendants has much deeper roots than just the fate of the house arising out of the will. This is because all sides seem to be willing to risk the national interest by bringing this private matter into the public domain.
This is a fundamental point that I want to make which I personally feel strongly about. The problem with this whole saga is that the line between the private and the public has been blurred and crossed too many times by the Prime Minister, the Lee siblings and the Government, too. We need to restore the line, make it a bright red line, resolve the aspects of disputes that have crossed into the public domain and push the dispute back into the private domain. We need to do this so as to move on for far more important issues that are truly national issues. This saga is distracting the Government, distracting Singaporeans, distracting the international audience and damaging the Singapore brand.
Mdm Speaker, the line between the private and the public is a very important one for good governance. It is also the foundation of Singapore's unforgiving anti-corruption stance. Unfortunately, in this whole saga, I personally think that the line has been blurred and crossed many times by all sides.
First, Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee Wei Ling should not make vague allegations in the public domain against the Prime Minister based on scattered evidence centred on family displeasure. Making allegations that appear to be calculated to undermine the Prime Minister's authority does not make for constructive politics in Singapore. It is a reckless thing to do and I do not see how this is in the national interest.
If the accusers have details and concrete evidence that the Prime Minister has been lying and abusing his power, allowing his wife to influence the appointment of public officials, they should make all of them public by now. They should not be waging a continuous media campaign to keep the nation in suspense.
However, the Government has also contributed to the squabble. It does not help that the Prime Minister and some of his Cabinet colleagues have responded in kind on Facebook and even making counter allegations on the motive and character of the other party.
The Government should set an example and needs to maintain its dignity in the face of insults to its integrity. It should not be involved in a Facebook brawl for the whole world to see. Cabinet members, more than anyone else, should refrain from making insinuations about the character and motivations of the accusers. The Government should not continue with this dispute in the public domain.
Mdm Speaker, good government cannot be achieved in social media. The Prime Minister is faced with serious allegations from his brother and sister. These allegations need to be addressed in a proper manner. As the Prime Minister once said himself, \"Such matters cannot be just you say, I say. It is the hallmark of the People's Action Party (PAP) Government in the past to get to the bottom of such matters via the Court.\" I believe that the \"you say, I say\" exchange will continue in social media if the Prime Minister fails to take action to put a stop to it.
The Prime Minister, as he had said earlier in the Ministerial Statement, seems to hope to resolve this issue after this Parliament session. But how sure is he that his siblings will not continue to make allegations or adding new allegations against him? He is already being accused of trying to cover up and whitewash himself by using Parliament.
Next, it seems to me that the Minister for Law was a close personal friend of Mr Lee Kuan Yew and other members of the Lee family. He has now fallen out with some members of the Lee family. Dr Lee Wei Ling said he was a changed person. He was previously involved in giving personal advice relating to Mr Lee Kuan Yew's will. However, he is also now part of the Ministerial Committee which is looking at the issue of the house arising from the will. Is there not a conflict of interest there?
Furthermore, the current Attorney-General (AG), Mr Lucien Wong, was acting as Mr Lee Hsien Loong's personal lawyer in his private dispute against his siblings. But now, the same person is in the position to advise the Government and the Cabinet on matters related to the house and Mr Lee Kuan Yew's will. Is there also a conflict of interest here? Was this consideration taken into account when he was appointed the AG? Can the Prime Minister clarify the role of the Law Minister and the AG in this matter and explain to the House whether there is any conflict of interest? If so, how are they going to account to the public for this? Is their current position still tenable?
Mdm Speaker, I am personally perplexed and lost, as are many Singaporeans, on the Lee family saga. However, this is not a Korean drama show. It is a serious matter because it affects the credibility of our entire country. The timing of the public blow-up of the private dispute is also unfortunate. At this juncture, the country faces serious challenges. Singapore is facing a tricky and volatile geopolitical situation and the Government has to navigate our small state between a self-centred America and a more assertive China skillfully and carefully. We also seem to be vulnerable to the worsening security situation in the war against terrorism in Southeast Asia with troubling cases of self-radicalisation surfacing at home.
We had only recently embarked on a critical transformation of the Singapore economy and workforce to enable our companies and workers to seize the opportunities of technological disruption to stay competitive. We are still fixing persistent problems with our physical and social infrastructure, in particular, the recent continuous major Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) breakdowns.
Although the Prime Minister has said this saga will not affect the work of the Government, I am of the view that it is a serious distraction to the Government in dealing with the serious challenges when the Cabinet members − all of them are not members of the Lee family − but have been unnecessarily drawn into the dispute which, to me, is essentially a family dispute.
The Ministers need to focus on rallying Singaporeans to be united in facing the challenges and not be participating in a divisive dispute. The Government needs to move on. I hope that all necessary steps are taken by the Prime Minister and his Cabinet colleagues to achieve a resolution as soon as possible.
In this regard, I have a couple of personal suggestions for the Government to consider and hope to end the matter and move on.
First, I am of the view that the correct platform to settle the private dispute is the Court. Individuals who make less serious allegations that undermine the reputation and authority of the Prime Minister and Cabinet Ministers have been brought to task for libel. There is no reason why this time it should be different because it comes from the Lee family.
In fact, the allegations are much more serious. Given the past track record, not doing so would risk the Government giving the impression that it is afraid of what the Lee siblings might say or reveal. This will taint the trust Singaporeans have placed in the Government and compromise the high standards that the Government prides itself on achieving and aspires to maintain.
Anyway, this Lee family saga playing out on Facebook has become an ugly media circus. Settling this in Court will enable everyone to put forward their sides of the story with evidence and with dignity.
Second, the Government has the power under the law to decide what to do with 38 Oxley Road, as what Deputy Prime Minister Teo has said. The Government can take the options available under the law by going through the process of assessment to make a decision like any other important heritage sites in Singapore.
I believe that, to a large extent, it is the delay in acting which has led to this sorry state of affairs. Why is there a need for a Ministerial Committee to look into this when the Government clearly has the power to act decisively in the national interest? What further deliberations does the Committee intend to make and how much more time does it need to come to a decision?
Mdm Speaker, Singaporeans are embarrassed. Singapore's international reputation has taken a beating. Some countries which had a high regard for us are laughing at us, and the international media has amplified and maximised the bad publicity on Singapore.
The Lee family saga has shaken international confidence in Singapore, which is known as a country of political and social stability. The country's reputation is at stake, the Prime Minister's credibility has been called into question and the Government's authority has been undermined.
I urge the Prime Minister and the Cabinet to do whatever is necessary to bring this dispute to a quick resolution. Settle the dispute in the appropriate forum, which is the Court. Restore the line of distinction between the private and the public.
Mdm Speaker: Ms Sun Xueling.
Ms Sun Xueling (Pasir Ris-Punggol):\tMdm Speaker, in Mandarin please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Ever since I saw Mr Lee Hsien Yang's Facebook post on 14 June, my mood has been sombre. When this first happened, the face of Mr Lee Kuan Yew is what was in my mind first thing in the morning.
Looking at the situation today, I was thinking that Mr Lee Kuan Yew must be very sad, and maybe very angry as well.
The Prime Minister has said this before, that he hopes to see his late father's wish being fulfilled, but he also said, it will be up to the Government of the day then to make the decision.
On one hand, the Prime Minister hopes to be the filial son of the family, fulfilling his late father's wish; at the same time, as a responsible Prime Minister, he must not interfere with the normal procedures of the Government. Because how to resolve this matter on 38 Oxley Road is a statutory right of the Ministers. In this incident, I see the dilemma faced by the Prime Minister.
In response to Mr Low's question just now, the Prime Minister said he had attempted many possible ways to resolve the dispute privately. However, Mr Lee Hsien Yang has chosen to accuse the Prime Minister openly via the social media platform. As a result, the Prime Minister had to apologise to all Singaporeans who are disturbed and confused by the news of this private family dispute. From this incident, I can see how the Prime Minister is being wronged and how he is exercising forbearance.
Singaporeans put a lot of emphasis on the importance of the family unit. The family represents warmth, mutual trust and mutual care. To bring a private family dispute between siblings to the social media platform for open discussion in the middle of the night, and to consistently throw out new allegations day after day via Facebook posts, are not going to make the issue clearer. Instead, it will only widen the differences and worsen the relationship.
The residents whom I had met hope to see reconciliation, rather than the breaking up of the family. I hope that the consistent attacks on the social media platform can cease, so as to leave some room for every party involved and, at the same time, protect the international image of Singapore.
The allegation that the Government is abusing its power is a serious allegation. It does not matter if this allegation is the key point or a subpoint of this family dispute. It is clear that it has affected the people's confidence in the Government and Singapore's international reputation and, thus, it is necessary for us to clear the air in Parliament.
In the Deputy Prime Minister's speech, he said that there is no need for us to decide if we should demolish the house for the time being, as Dr Lee Wei Ling is still staying there. This decision might only need to be taken 20 to 30 years down the road. I think it is very important to clear the air, because some people have the misconception that we have to make the decision now or that the Government has already decided not to demolish the house. This is not the case.
The Ministerial Committee is only asking some questions currently, so as to get a better understanding of the situation. By right, this should not cause any conflict. The Deputy Prime Minister has explained that the Ministerial Committee actually does not have the power to decide on whether the house should be demolished or not. What the Committee can do is to give the Cabinet some suggestions. Thus, there is no basis to the allegation that the Government is abusing its power.
The parties involved might think that the setting up of the Ministerial Committee itself is an abuse of power. But from what I understand, in the day-to-day work of the Cabinet, it is very common to set up different Ministerial Committees. For example, I am part of the baby formula Committee, led by two Ministers. It seems nothing unusual, it is just part and parcel of the Government's work.
Furthermore, if we were to study carefully the will of the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew, we can see there are actually two parts. The first part is regarding his wish to demolish the house, whereas the second part emphasised that everything must follow the law and Government procedures first. Mr Lee knew very well the relationship between individuals and the law and he would never surpass legal procedures because of his personal wish.
Some people might ask, besides legality, should we not also consider feelings and reasons in this matter? Should we give more thoughts to Mr Lee's wishes? I can see that it is exactly out of respect for reasons and feelings that the Ministerial Committee consulted the Lee family members and mulled over different options. But unfortunately, even consultation like this was criticised.
Then why did Mr Lee Hsien Yang come up with such allegations? Only they themselves know the truth. However, it is clear from the questions raised that the parties involved do not trust the Government nor our law enforcement agencies. Mr Lee Hsien Yang said he had no confidence in the Prime Minister and he even suggested that he would leave Singapore unless the Prime Minister is no longer the Prime Minister. He wants the Prime Minister to step down.
Mdm Speaker, trust is the premise for any reconciliation. Only with trust can people communicate and collaborations become easier and happier. If there is a lack of trust, no matter what one does, it will still feel like things are not right.
When there is an enquiry, if there is a trust, what we see is a concern and a normal procedure. But if there is no trust, then what we see is spying and abuse of power.
For an action like packing up of stuff, if there is trust, what we see is assistance, dogsbody work that is of no importance; but if there is no trust, then what we see is interference and theft.
It is precisely because we have trust in Singapore, when you see a Traffic Policeman, you will not worry that he is a robber. And because there is trust, in Singapore, when you see someone is injured in a traffic accident, you would go forward and help him and not think that he is a conman.
This kind of mutual trust among Singaporeans does not come out of the blue; it is formed after multiple elections of credible and principled leaders as the basis and is built upon the way we rule our nation with our Judiciary, Parliamentary, Government and education systems.
These systems ensure that we set correct and effective targets that balance the wants of all walks of society and also the long-term and short-term needs of all Singaporeans. These systems ensure that those who made mistakes would not go unpunished and also ensure that there are checks and balances among the different powers. This enables the Government to give priority to the common interest of the people when making any policy decisions.
These systems were built up painstakingly by Mr Lee Kuan Yew and our Pioneers over the years. These truly are the most treasured legacy left behind by Mr Lee.
Ever since Mr Lee Kuan Yew passed away two years ago, Singapore's law and systems have not changed a bit. With or without this recent incident, Singapore's ruling system is still here. Singapore is still Singapore.
Just in 2016, Singapore was ranked No 7 on the Global Least Corrupt Index, overtaking western countries like Germany, the United Kingdom and the United States.
After this incident went public, I have asked many residents on what they think about the allegation of abuse of power. Their responses were very simple, \"We trust our Prime Minister.\" They said, \"We do not think that he is such a person\". Such simple responses actually encompass a lot of more important meanings.
Now, what shall we do? Since the eruption of this incident, the Prime Minister's Office (PMO) had issued at least three statements. The Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister and Ministers have also responded and explained the functions of the Ministerial Committee.
When faced with this incident, we can, of course, spend an onerous amount of time putting together every detail and what every party had said, so as to conduct a thorough investigation and get to the bottom of things based on all possible assumptions and imaginations. But we must make a reasonable choice. Do we really want the valuable time of the Prime Minister and Ministers to be spent on refuting allegations on Facebook, rather than solving pressing issues faced by Singaporeans?
Perhaps we should have more confidence in our systems, and in ourselves as well. We can be courageous and confident to face the post-Lee Kuan Yew era and embrace the opportunities and challenges of the new world order.
We can also be courageous to forgive those who have disappointed us, solve differences rationally and face tomorrow together.
In many years to come, 38 Oxley Road might or might not be around, but what I hope to see is that Singapore's core values and the mutual trust among Singaporeans will never disappear.
(In English): Mdm Speaker, in English, please.
In the past two weeks, 38 Oxley Road became Singapore's most famous address with global news networks carrying more than 160 articles with screaming headlines. I have had many conversations with residents since the issue broke. The tirade online in the name of fulfilling Mr Lee's wishes is a strange way to honour Mr Lee's legacy. There are many theories as to why it had happened. From sibling rivalry, to warring factions in the family, to a fallout due to money. We do not know any better, not being privy to family matters. But if we were to look at the reasons presented in the joint statement on 14 June, namely, that keeping the house would help fulfil dynastical ambitions and provide political capital, I would say that that has not found traction on the ground.
The Singapore public is a rational and discerning one. To suppose that they will vote based on a \"halo effect\" bestowed upon the Prime Minister by the simple act of him moving into a house, is an insult to the intelligence of Singapore voters.
That said, I had come into this debate with certain questions on my mind. Could the Prime Minister have done anything better to prevent such a situation from happening? For instance, why offer the house for $1 to Dr Lee Wei Ling and then subsequently sell the house to Mr Lee Hsien Yang for full market value? This lends scope to the idea that the Prime Minister had sought to play Mr Lee Hsien Yang out by making him pay 150% value for the house and then subsequently blocking him with the Ministerial Committee.
I understand that the Prime Minister subsequently donated the proceeds from the house to charity. He then recused himself from Government deliberations on the property. Some question if it is possible for the Prime Minister to thoroughly remove himself from the equation, given that he is the Prime Minister. But I think that would be akin to saying that the Health Minister should not have family members using Singapore's health services or that the Minister of National Development should not buy a house. I think Deputy Prime Minister Teo has explained quite clearly about the code of conduct that public officeholders and civil servants need to adhere to.
What I cannot quite get my head around is why there is so much unhappiness over an issue that apparently cannot be settled now. Dr Lee Wei Ling could be staying there for the next 30 years. Therefore, there is nothing for the Government to do now as no decision needs to or can be made. So, I am not sure what the dispute is about. Why is there any argument since the house cannot be demolished now anyway? It looks to me that a sensible course of action is to consider different options and to talk to the family members about various options and to understand their thoughts about the matter.
Another question I have is why the Prime Minister did not challenge the last will when he first got to know its contents? The Prime Minister obviously believes that the circumstances around the drafting of the last will are suspect and had actually gone to the extent of doing a statutory declaration which has very serious implications if he is subsequently found out to have lied. Mr Lee Hsien Yang can actually sue the Prime Minister for what he, the Prime Minister, has set out in his statutory declaration, namely, that he has grave concerns about the events surrounding the making of the last will and by what appears to be a conflict of interest involving Mrs Lee Suet Fern.
I think we should clarify this because it helps to potentially establish why we face the current situation. I note that the joint statement by Dr Lee and Mr Lee Hsien Yang was published on 14 June, before the timeline of end of June which was the original proposed date for their response to the questions. Since then, there has been no clarification by the siblings on who drafted the last will and the circumstances in which it was prepared.
Next, now that we are aware that there are two parts to Mr Lee Kuan Yew's will, it appears ironical that those who accuse the Prime Minister of an abuse of power are asking for an exemption from the rule of law, that they are asking for an upfront commitment to the demolition of 38 Oxley Road, relying only on the first half of Mr Lee Kuan Yew's will and ignoring the fact that Mr Lee knew that the laws of the land will always prevail and which he mentioned in the second part of his will. They are also ignoring the fact that since Dr Lee is staying there, there is nothing for the Government to do now. I would think that this Government is not able to give any commitment about what is going to happen in 30 years and that any decision cannot be binding on future governments.
Mr Lee Kuan Yew personally oversaw the passage of the Land Acquisition Act in 1966 and the Preservation of Monuments Act. In the Act, authorities will seek the owner's consent in the case of a private dwelling that has been gazetted for preservation or conservation, but the Government can also acquire the property under the Land Acquisition Act if the owners are unwilling.
Given that the Preservation of Monuments Act has been in place since the 1970s, at a time when Mr Lee Kuan Yew was the Prime Minister and in the driving seat for enacting Bills to spearhead Singapore's development, it is clear that Mr Lee knew that the decision to gazette a house for preservation or conservation is ultimately the responsibility of the Government and he would have expected due process to be followed even if the matter to be decided had been his own house.
Mr Lee's greatest legacy is the system he had put in place together with our other founding fathers to ensure Singapore's stability, progress and sustainability. The Singapore system is one that is founded on law, respected institutions, a credible Civil Service and leaders with integrity. With these as foundations, our society is one that reflects trust between the Government and the people, and trust among our people.
It is assuring to note that since the issue broke, our stock markets have not tanked, asset prices remain stable, and the Singapore dollar actually rose in the same period. This shows that confidence and trust in our system and in our leaders remain strong.
We will have to decide where we go from here. No less than three statements have been issued by PMO since the allegations broke. The Prime Minister has explained with regard to the allegations of abuse of power levelled against him while both Deputy Prime Ministers have explained the role of Ministerial Committees.
We can continue to debate this issue, attempt to poke holes everywhere and also dwell into what could have been done better and engage in as many imagined scenarios as we can. But even so, I suspect the issue will not close even after today's debate.
Mr Lee Hsien Yang has stated that he does not trust Mr Lee Hsien Loong as a brother, as a leader —
Mdm Speaker:\tMs Sun, you have only one minute left. Please conclude your speech.
Ms Sun Xueling: Okay. And he would only reconsider his position to leave Singapore if the Prime Minister were no longer in a position of power. It appears that he wants to bring down the Prime Minister.
I suspect that when an individual chooses to look at the world through a distorted lens, there are conspiracies and shadows everywhere. A clarification becomes an act of aggression, cleaning the house becomes intermeddling and theft.
We will have to make a conscious choice if we want the energies of our Prime Minister and other Ministers named in the saga to spend their time addressing allegations levelled at them over Facebook anytime of the day, but there are childcare centres to be built, seniors to be taken care of, MRTs that need to be looked into, our homeland and cybersecurity defended and economic restructuring to be carried out. There is work to be done, dogsbody work, and I hope our political leaders and the Government can get on with it.
Mdm Speaker: Mr Kok Heng Leun.
Mr Kok Heng Leun (Nominated Member): Mdm Speaker, I find that, this time, writing a speech is most difficult because of the allegations that were there. Much has been said and will be said about this matter, and so, this time, I think I will be terse.
On the fundamental level, the 38 Oxley Road case is one whereby private citizens, namely, Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee Wei Ling, are alleging that the Prime Minister and the Government are abusing their powers. I think it is, therefore, necessary for the Government and Parliament to address these allegations in an open, transparent and fair manner. As mentioned in the Straits Times, in our tightly knitted Singapore community, when relationships are complex and interwoven, where duties and private relationships intermingle, how do we ensure that there are institutional checks and balances to prevent any abuse?
This furore has raised many questions in the minds of Singaporeans I have spoken to. These are some of the questions that have been directed to the Government as well as to Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee Wei Ling. Let me just share some of them here.
Who drafted the last will? Why the rush to prepare and sign the will? And when Dr Lee Wei Ling claimed that the Prime Minister had, I quote, \"angrily threatened to gazette 38 Oxley Road\", is there anyone else who can collaborate on this allegation? When Dr Lee Wei Ling also alleged that photographers from the Ministry of Communication and Information (MCI) helped Ms Ho Ching photograph and catalogue the late Mr Lee's artefacts, questions arise, like, why documentation must be done when the family is still in a period of grief?
When Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee alleged, and I quote, \"we feel hugely uncomfortable and closely monitored in our country\", does Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee Wei Ling have any substantial evidence for these statements? Did the Government investigate these statements and, if it had, what were the findings? Were Mr Lee and Dr Lee being interviewed and questioned after they had made these statements? When both Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee Wei Ling alleged that the Prime Minister harbours political ambitions for his son Mr Li Hongyi, again, where is the evidence? What is the Prime Minister's position on this?
Since the Government knew of the dispute within the family, why did the state not let the dispute be settled before considering possible actions for 38 Oxley Road? What is the reason for the Government's choice for not taking the probate at face value and focus solely on the historic value of the house? Why must a Ministerial Committee be set up when we have the Preservation of Sites and Monuments Board which can decide on whether 38 Oxley Road should be preserved, demolished or any other options? What is it in this particular case that is beyond the mandate of the Board that they cannot decide or advise and how do we know in future when or whether a Ministerial Committee should be set up to look at preservation of particular sites and monuments?
And in the case of the appointment of Mr Lucien Wong as the AG, was the President formally informed of the current AG's former role as the Prime Minister's personal lawyer? If he was informed, then how did the President address this issue of potential conflict of interest?
What does \"open, transparent and fair\" mean? To me, it means being able to find satisfactory and trustworthy responses to the above questions. It also means all individuals involved should get a fair hearing, their statements carefully studied by an independent panel and these proceedings made fully available to the public as well, precisely because these allegations are serious and that is why we are here today.
The Parliament sits here to hear, as we have done, the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister's elaborate statements and I thank them for it. But I would state that it now still sounds like a case of \"your words against mine and mine against yours\". I believe the public would also want to hear from Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee Wei Ling and all the players involved as well in the same manner as a matter of fairness.
As such, Parliament might be the right place to air the Government's position but may not be the right place to settle this issue once and for all, as some of the Members have wished for. So, they may have to consider another independent platform that will allow all parties to present their cases.
Some people have spoken of the desire for closure on this issue. But what kind of closure do we want? A good closure is not just about restoring or maintaining faith and confidence in the Government. It is also about the opportunity to scrutinise and interrogate existing systems and structures. We must ensure this mechanism that we want to hold on to such that it will not be misinterpreted in our efforts in disincubating this issue as a calibrated public relations exercise.
This is crucial on many levels. We have to show that the system we have in place are robust, with checks and balances built in to withstand open scrutiny. A good closure can only be achieved if our system inspires confidence by being truly transparent and allowing for fair hearing from all sides − Government officials and individual citizens. As such, I would like for Parliament to consider setting up a public inquiry on this matter, maybe through a Parliamentary Select Committee, so that all parties involved can have their allegations and statements articulated and scrutinised equally.
It is important for Singaporeans to have an unwavering belief in our system of Government. In a moment of crisis, the resilience of Singapore and our system is at the same time being tested and strengthened. This is a case when the private and the Government disagree. How should we sort this out? And maybe I would suggest for the Government to consider seriously setting up an independent ombudsman to deal with such disputes in future whenever they arise.
I have one more point to say and this relates to the emotional aspects of heritage and memory. We all hold on to our memories. We want to remember and preserve things we hold dearly in a specific way. Some buildings and monuments do not only impact individuals but also the wider community. The loss of our national heritage, whether the National Library, the National Theatre, dragon playground or Bukit Brown Cemetery, can be very emotional, affecting not just the mind but the heart and soul of the people involved. Very often, past decisions have been made favouring pragmatism over idealism. Society has had to accept the decisions and just move on.
So, I was very glad to hear the Deputy Prime Minister acknowledging that, in the past, such work has been overzealous. However, in this particular case, it is a bit different from the National Library building because the National Library and Bukit Brown Cemetery were public spaces. But now, we have a private estate where the community believes that it has a lot of historical value. And how do we then balance the need of the individuals as well as the state?
In the case of 38 Oxley Road, can a decision be made with wisdom and clarity? Will the closure we all seek ever be fully realised? Many elderly people I meet through the course of my work on end-of-life issues share with me stories about their wills. Although they know what they want, they are very apprehensive and worry about how other family members would think. When I asked them if they have discussed the matter with their family members, they said it is difficult to talk about such things. Such obstacles, combined with feelings of pride and fear and blindness, can lead to decisions that seed future disputes. It is then when conversations become important.
And so, in future, when wills are being made, should we not consider having this possibility whereby family members should be part of the process and maybe be a requirement? Of course, there is contention about that.
Family does not always have a beautiful utopian image that we like to conjure. Family is all about relationships. Where there are disputes, how do we repair a broken relationship? Honestly, I do not know if it is ever possible, because in our Chinese saying, we have said this, \"破 镜 难 圆 \", that is, \"a broken mirror can never come together\".
I would like to end with some words from Shakespeare's King Lear because as I was going through all this, King Lear kept going through my mind. The last words of the play ring very loudly, \"The weight of this sad time we must obey. Speak what we feel, not what we ought to say. The oldest hath borne most. We that are young shall never see so much, nor live so long.\"
I hope this incident, whatever its final decision, will only strengthen our resolve to make Singapore exist and its system even more robust, open and transparent.
Mdm Speaker: Before I proceed to call the next Member, let me just remind Members that the debate is on (a) Alleged Abuse of Power on 38 Oxley Road; and (b) the Ministerial Committee on 38 Oxley Road. So, let us confine the debate to the integrity of the Government, its processes, institutions and leadership and not talk about the merits of the family dispute. Mr Zaqy Mohamad.
Mr Zaqy Mohamad (Chua Chu Kang):\tMdm Speaker, please allow me to start my speech in Malay.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Firstly, please allow me to wish you Selamat Hari Raya, Mdm Speaker, and I also seek your forgiveness, and to all Members in this House and Muslim Singaporeans, too.
Over the past few weeks, an unexpected development caught many Singaporeans by surprise. The quarrel between siblings from the family of Singapore's founder, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, was made public and affected all of us.
This is especially since the allegations were mainly aimed towards the eldest son of Mr Lee, who is also the Prime Minister. What is more serious are the allegations levelled by his own siblings that are certainly hard to ignore and instead should be addressed properly without making matters worse.
Within the Malay community, based on my own observations and conversations, many have expressed concern and are quite uncomfortable with matters like having a family quarrel so openly. Some felt that it is a private matter and should be resolved within the family itself, based on some of the issues that were raised.
Some are confused, some have raised questions, and some have queried how such a quarrel could happen. To them, in line with our cultural values, it is not good to talk about such matters. What more when it involves the family of a leader who is renowned and beyond compare? As children, it is our responsibility to protect our family's good name, regardless of their position.
However, we should understand that this is not a trivial dispute, because it involves issues of national interest and also involves our Prime Minister. The allegations that were made can affect the integrity of the leadership and also the Government, as well as the people's confidence, and this should be addressed firmly.
Most importantly, Singaporeans should know the true facts. With that, they can decide for themselves why this dispute is brought to the open now because all it does is confuse matters further to the point that it affects the reputation of the Government and Singapore. Our limited resources should not be spent on addressing issues that essentially should not have been raised until it becomes the focus of the Government, especially since we are facing many national challenges.
I am moved by the Prime Minister's apology, as well as his explanations and clarifications about the actual situation. It is clearly difficult for the Prime Minister, seeing that he is the Prime Minister and also the eldest son of Mr Lee Kuan Yew. Others who are involved in this issue are also prominent people and have served in various capacities in Singapore. That is why today's session is very important.
I would like to thank the Prime Minister and also the Deputy Prime Minister for their focus on safeguarding the Government's integrity in this Chamber. Although I do not think that this session can resolve the dispute, however, as many Singaporeans have wished for, it is hoped that this session can address the various allegations about the Government's abuse of power and any conflict of interest amongst those who are involved, including the Prime Minister, in the matters related to 38 Oxley Road.
It is important for us to address four main issues. Firstly, the role of the Ministerial Committee and the role of the Prime Minister. Second, should the Government involve itself with the issue of who prepared the last will? Thirdly, whether there was any conflict of interest in the issue of the Deed of Gift. Fourthly, is Parliament the most appropriate platform?
I will touch on the first matter in my Malay speech, and the rest in my English speech later.
I understand that the formation of a Ministerial committee is a normal thing as the Cabinet forms Ministerial committees on many strategic matters. Therefore, is the 38 Oxley Road issue such an important matter that it requires a Ministerial-level committee?
In the Prime Minister's speech just now, he has convinced the people that the Government acted independently of the Prime Minister, especially since it has to make a decision in which the Prime Minister himself has a personal stake.
Singaporeans' views about the residence at 38 Oxley Road have been mixed. Tradition teaches us to respect the wishes of the late Mr Lee and the wishes of the family. However, the house is not any house, and its historical significance has evoked an emotional response from many Singaporeans. Many have also voiced out and wrote in for the house to be preserved. Hence, we can understand why the Government took into account and considered the historical significance of the house and explore options for the house.
The Deputy Prime Minister, who also chairs the Ministerial Committee, have explained further about the role of this committee and why it was studying family matters, even though the late Mr Lee had several times stated his desire for the house to be demolished.
If the Government's position is that no decision needs to be made as long as Dr Lee Wei Ling still resides there, why was there a hurry to form this committee? There are other matters regarding the potential value of the site of the house and the Government's jurisdiction about preserving the house as a heritage. These matters require explanations. Otherwise, incorrect facts and allegations can confuse many people. In the end, after the sequence of events have become clearer, based on the facts presented, we are more informed that the Ministerial Committee and the Prime Minister have given the commitment that no decision will be taken as long as Dr Lee Wei Ling still resides in the house.
As long as no final decision needs to be made until it is time to do so, what is the actual intention of making this dispute public? What is the real motivation behind this unhappiness? This can confuse the people and should be resolved honestly before it becomes prolonged.
The house, the family involved, and even the institutions and laws created regarding matters like land acquisition and heritage protection, are all the legacy of the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew. Therefore, I reckon that Singaporeans do not wish to see these institutions and legacy become tainted by this dispute.
(In English): Mdm Speaker, the last couple of weeks have been a difficult one for many Singaporeans. As we deal with the information being shared by both parties on social media, we also had to contend with the country's history, systems and reputation being questioned in the international media − a source of concern and, sometimes, embarrassment to many Singaporeans I spoke to.
But at the heart of it all, amidst all the attention and information being shared by many quarters, the one question that I was left to grapple with was: what was the issue about in the first place?
We know that according to the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew, the house need not be demolished until his daughter chooses not to live in it. The Government is also clear that it will respect Mr Lee's wish in this regard. Hence, it is not as if a decision was taken. We have been assured before by the Government that as long as Dr Lee Wei Ling continues to live in 38 Oxley Road, it shall remain intact.
So, why is this matter being debated now? And we are left puzzled as to what is the underlying motivation behind this dispute. If the Government has committed not to make a decision at this point in time and not on behalf of the government of the future, then what are this dispute and the public allegations all about? Is it just about the house or is there more to this?
The other concern is a question of principle. For decades, many regular Singaporeans have had their homes and land acquired for the greater national good. Some for development of Housing and Development Board flats or MRT lines, while others for heritage and preservation. So many others have sacrificed − not everyone willingly − for the greater good and national interest. If some members of the Lee family believe that they should be exempted from Government deliberations or decisions just because they are a family of standing, then I think this sets the wrong principles and precedence. Based on the Prime Minister's Statement earlier, I can only guess that the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew recognised and respected this. Otherwise, he could have left out the second part of paragraph 7 of his will or deliberated the demolishment of the home while he was still alive.
Regardless of the motivations and timing, this issue has raised many questions, particularly certain allegations against the Prime Minister and the Government of abuse of power. Like many Singaporeans, I would like to know if these allegations had an ounce of truth and I trust that this Parliamentary session must shed light because Singaporeans want to know the truth.
Mdm Speaker, there are four particular issues where questions need to be answered. First, the role of the Ministerial Committee. I understand that Ministerial Committees are common and the Cabinet has assembled them on many strategic matters. But was the case of 38 Oxley Road such an important issue that it required assembling a Ministerial Committee? Would it not have sufficed to have URA, NHB or any other relevant Government agency assess the matter and give its recommendations to the Cabinet instead?
And if, indeed, it was necessary, then Singaporeans deserve to know if the Committee was indeed independent. Because the fact that you have to make a decision on the matter where their boss has personal interest does raise questions, but I think the Prime Minister has already also spoken that you have to trust the Cabinet and the Government to remain independent. The Deputy Prime Minister, too, has also shared in his Ministerial Statement of the roles and functions of the Ministerial Committee. But the question I have would be that the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew had mentioned on many occasions that he wanted the house demolished. What else transpired when he met the Cabinet on 21 July 2011?
The Government has said that it did not need to make a decision now as Dr Lee Wei Ling is still staying there. If so, was there a reason to set up the Ministerial Committee now? Is there a hurry to do so?
And how has the Committee interpreted paragraph 7 of the will thus far? Under what circumstances or criteria can the Government declare a house a national monument for preservation to prevent any demolition or redevelopment while the family chooses to live onsite? In its study, what does the Committee estimate to be the potential value of the site, if sold, given the current zoning of the area?
The second area, Madam, that requires clarification is the Deed of Gift. Due to the allegations that have been made, many Singaporeans deserve to know when the Prime Minister came to know of the Deed and if there was any leak outside of the purview. And I think the Minister has addressed that earlier.
Here, the role of NHB comes into question. Why did NHB sign on to take over the items, despite the onerous contractual obligations and knowing that there could be potentially a family dispute?
Since there was potentially a conflict of interest in the matter of Ms Lee Suet Fern, who served on the NHB board and whose firm had prepared the contract on behalf of the family, then why did NHB go ahead and sign it? Was it under any pressure to do so, as you have a Board of Directors working the agreement? Given that many of our top talent in Singapore wear multiple hats, how can we enhance the governance of our Government agencies to avoid potential conflict of interest in future?
The third area that I seek clarification on is on the matter of the last will of the late Mr Lee and the extent to which the Government should be involved in determining its accuracy.
Firstly, why is the Ministerial Committee concerned about the validity of the will? Many Singaporeans wonder why it is necessary for the Government to be involved in ascertaining the accuracy of the will, if at all. Should it not be a private matter, to be challenged in Court, they ask?
There are also some quarters who see the Government taking a role in this because the Prime Minister came out to say that he has \"grave concerns\" on the preparation of the last will. Perhaps it may be useful for the Prime Minister to clarify in which capacity he made this comment as it would then clarify the Government's perceived role in it.
Lastly, on the platform that has been chosen for this matter, as mentioned by Members, some Singaporeans have asked if a Ministerial Statement in Parliament was the right platform to address this issue.
While I agree that the integrity of the Government should be defended, I hope that we all also realise that this may not stop further allegations from being hurled at the Government. We have already seen, just in the past few days alone, how new actors have been brought into the fray − both Ministers and public servants − as the allegations grew.
How does the Government plan to handle communications and further clarifications from the Lee family if there are still queries beyond what has been explained today? Under what circumstances will the Government or Parliament consider further enquiry or a select committee to investigate any further allegations or disputes of accounts?
I urge all members of the family to take a more private course from here on to address this dispute. Opening it up into the public domain does not serve Singapore's interest at all, as it only tarnishes the country's reputation, something that no Singaporean would want and, not least, the late Mr Lee himself. If the family wishes to honour his wishes and legacy, then this would be a good base to start from.
Mdm Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim.
Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Mdm Speaker, the Lee siblings have stated that their big brother has misused his position and influence over Government agencies to drive his personal agenda, and that they feared the use of the Organs of State against them. These are serious charges and deeply troubling.
But to be fair to the Prime Minister, are the allegations outrageous? Are they merely a figment of the Lee siblings' overactive imagination? We in this House will not be able to get down to the bottom of these questions during this debate for one simple reason − there is no natural justice in the procedure adopted. With due respect to the Prime Minister, we are only hearing the Prime Minister's version, the Government's version, today. What else there is, we do not know. Indeed, allegations have been made today that the Lee siblings have been selective in their documentation and may not have been truthful. They are not here to defend themselves.
I am not accusing the Prime Minister of lying. I am simply stating what we all know − that we simply do not have full information to confidently decide on who and what to believe.
Notwithstanding the limited value of this session, I wish to raise one matter that should be of concern to every Singaporean who wishes to see Singapore as a bastion that upholds the rule of law. And, that is, how fundamentally precious it is that we defend with all our hearts and minds the independence of our Organs of State? We must protect the Organs of State as professional bodies with a national mission. The Government should never seek to interfere with or to influence those Organs of State set up to ensure good governance.
For instance, take the Auditor-General's Office (AGO). AGO is an Organ of State. AGO prides itself in its Core Values of Independence and Integrity. In elaborating on its independence, the AGO states that it carries out its audits without fear or favour. In explaining its Integrity, the AGO pledges to strive to uphold the public trust in its work. Such a lofty mission is fleshed out in the AGO's annual reports, which document publicly the financial management shortcomings of Ministries and PMO. The significant contribution of AGO towards good governance and public accountability is clear to all of us.
I now turn to another Organ of State, the AG's Chambers (AGC). According to the AGC website, the AGC recognises that \"As principal legal adviser to the Government, the AG plays an important role in upholding the rule of law in Singapore, and thus contributes to one of the key aspirations of her people: to build a democratic society based on the fundamental ideals of justice and equality\".
Madam, make no mistake. The AG is a fiercely powerful state actor, more powerful than our Judges. When Judges decide cases, they are constrained by the laws passed by Parliament, and their decisions are public and appealable. By contrast, the AG, as the Public Prosecutor, has almost absolute prosecutorial discretion. He can decide not to charge a person who has committed an offence, to let an offender off with a warning, to reduce charges and so on. These decisions are most weighty, yet they are not public and not appealable. It is not an exaggeration to say that all of us are at the mercy of the AG. But each of us should be fairly treated by him since, under the Constitution, all of us are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law.
Even though the AG is constitutionally a member of the Executive, he is expected to work independently. It is stated on the AGC website that the AG, in his role as public prosecutor, \"is vested with the power to institute, conduct or discontinue proceedings for any offence. The AG is independent in this role, and not subject to the control of the Government\". These are the AGC's own words.
Indeed, past Law Ministers had expressly endorsed the need for there to be distance between the Government and AGC. For instance, Prof S Jayakumar recently gave an interview for a book marking AGC's 150th Anniversary. There, he recalled how when he was appointed Minister of State for Law in 1981, he was given an office located at AGC, then in High Street. Prof Jayakumar then recounted as follows: \"I told the then AG Tan Boon Teik that it was not proper for a Minister of State for Law to be housed in AGC because it would raise all sorts of questions about the AGC's autonomy.\"
Fast forward to today. In prior debates this year, I had raised questions about the appointment of the current AG and his newest Deputy AG. The role of the newest Deputy AG as an immediate past MP is well-known. As for the AG, it was also well-known that he had been a senior partner in the same firm as the Law Minister for a long time. They probably understand each other intimately. We now learn from the Lee siblings that the AG also happened to be the Prime Minister's personal lawyer, and that he had advised the Prime Minister specifically on the matters relating to the Lee estate.
Now, there is no legal prohibition on appointing the Government's close friends and former party comrades as the AG or Deputy AG. But, from a system point of view, do these appointments instill public confidence that the AGC will act independently in matters where the Government, or worse, the Prime Minister, has an interest in the outcomes? At the time when the appointments were being considered, were there no other qualified persons to take up those posts? What about the many career Legal Service officers who had dedicated their lives to public service? Was there no one there good enough?
Coming back to facts at hand, I am concerned about the conflicts of interest. How will the AGC act in advising the Government on any decisions it wishes to take on 38 Oxley Road? Has the AGC already been giving advice to the Committee, and who within the AGC is giving the advice? Has the AG recused himself from even touching the file, since he had represented Prime Minister Lee in his personal capacity as a beneficiary? What about the Deputy AG? I understand that he only recently resigned as a cadre member of the PAP. When was this? Will he recuse himself from the matter, too, since his former party leader, the Secretary-General, is personally involved?
Madam, Singaporeans are upset over this saga for a multitude of reasons. One consistent theme is embarrassment at the public airing of family disputes and that family matters should be settled privately. Another thread is whether the Prime Minister, other Ministers and the AG had exercised their powers properly in handling matters touching on the Lee estate. My concern is on the latter, particularly how we protect the rule of law and our institutions. Let us be most alive to the risk of a slippery slope that erodes public trust in the independence of our Organs of State.
Mdm Speaker: Mr Christopher de Souza.
Mr Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah): Mdm Speaker, Organs of State are key pillars in Singapore's system of Government. Each has an indispensable mission. When allegations are made against Organs of State, that they cower to personalities, that they are subservient to personalities, then I begin to take those allegations very seriously.
Why? I have spent my adult life in Organs of State. I happened to have served in four − a judicial officer in the Supreme Court, then posted to the AGC and, thereafter, appointments in the State Courts and the Supreme Court, and now, Parliament.
In each office, I have never made the mission of the Organ of State subservient to any personality − never. In every Organ of State I have worked in, we worked toward a higher mission − the good of a working, functional Singapore − for generations of Singaporeans to come.
So, for me, it is the allegations against the Organs of State that have migrated this family issue from the private domain into the sphere of public debate. And so, we are here today, in Parliament, to get to the bottom of these allegations, extract answers and determine their veracity. Not a pleasant exercise, but one that is required.
I will focus on the allegations first, and then, will pose a series of questions arising from the allegations. I will focus on the allegations surrounding the misuse of Organs of State and abuse of power. I think it is better that I do not weigh in on the aspects of the will because I am a partner at Lee & Lee. Not Stamford Law. I am a lawyer at Lee & Lee and declare that for the Hansard record.
So, let us get on with the allegations.
On 29 June 2017 at 5.25 pm, Mr Lee Hsien Yang said this on Facebook:
\"We have serious concerns with Lee Hsien Loong's attempt to cover up and whitewash himself in Parliament on 3 July. We have begun to show evidence of his misuse of his position and influence to drive his personal agenda.
This Parliamentary session is a forum that again places Hsien Loong before his subordinates. They lack both sufficient background and evidence of the numerous instances of abuse and conflicts of interest, many yet to be raised. Historically, few PAP MPs have dared to dissent even when the Party Whip was lifted.
There will be no opportunity or adequate time for evidence to be properly drawn together, placed before Parliament, and considered. Indeed, it could also be an opportunity to continue to mislead or insinuate under this privilege.\"
The allegation infers that there are issues that need to be addressed that may not have, as of yet, surfaced. I do not want to prejudge the situation. It is my hope that whatever can be addressed at this session be addressed, that is, all that have been brought up since 14 June and whatever else Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee Wei Ling could launch. Deal with the whole lot now, instead of having to reconvene if future and different allegations are made. With that, I would like to ask some questions pertaining to the crux of the allegations.
The first set of questions is relating to the Government as a whole. Dr Lee Wei Ling and Mr Lee Hsien Yang have said, \"We fear the use of the Organs of State against us and Hsien Yang's wife, Suet Fern.\" My question: is it true or false that the Organs of State are being abused to target Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee Wei Ling?
Second, \"[Dr Lee] Wei Ling and [Mr Lee] Hsien Yang question whether able leaders with independent political legitimacy will be sidelined to ensure Hsien Loong's grip on power remains unchallenged.\" Is it true that ensuring the Prime Minister's power remains unchallenged, if that is at all true, trumps independent political legitimacy?
Third, to the South China Morning Post (SCMP), Mr Lee Hsien Yang has said, \"A few of the attacks that we have had to face in private are now public − false accusations, character assassinations, the entire machinery of the Singapore press thrown against us.\" Is it true or false that the Government has used the Singapore press to target Dr Lee Wei Ling and Mr Lee Hsien Yang?
Fourth, they continued to say, \"They see many upright leaders of quality and integrity throughout the Public Service who are constrained by Hsien Loong's misuse of power at the very top.\" Is it true that the Public Service is constrained by the Prime Minister's misuse of power at the top?
Fifth, is it true or false that the leadership and direction of the Government is directed for personal purposes or any other improper purpose?
Sixth, is it true or false that Organs of State may be used for personal agendas?
The seventh set of questions is about the Cabinet and the Ministerial Committee. Is it true or false that the Ministerial Committee is merely a facade and that the Prime Minister is able to influence it one way or the other?
Eighth, is it true or false that the Ministerial Committee never told Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee Wei Ling about options they were exploring?
Ninth, on 15 June 2017 at 9.25 pm, Mr Lee Hsien Yang wrote, \"Hsien Loong's public statement to Parliament contradicts the statutory declaration he made to his secret committee. It is wrong to lie to Parliament and it is wrong to lie under oath.\" My question: is it true or false that the Prime Minister lied to Parliament?
Tenth, on 14 June 2017, Mr Lee Hsien Yang said, \"Hsien Loong has asserted to the Committee that Lee Kuan Yew would 'accept any decision by the Government to preserve 38 Oxley Road.'… In doing this, Hsien Loong has deliberately misrepresented Lee Kuan Yew's clear intentions for his own political benefit. He has also gone back on his own declarations that he would recuse himself from all Government decisions involving 38 Oxley.\" Is it true or false that the Prime Minister has misguided a Ministerial Committee to fulfil his own personal purposes?
These series of questions are questions that are drawn from the multiple allegations thrown at the Organs of State, the Prime Minister and his office. In short, the insinuations of Mr Lee's and Dr Lee's allegations are that there has been an abuse of power and that the Organs of State carry out agendas beyond the scope of their mission. Hence, the need for this thorough debate.
It is my view that no mission of an Organ of State in Singapore should lay subservient to a personality. More so this House. Its mission to serve the electorate must never be compromised or seen to be compromised.
It must be so, for this system of governance must last for generations to come and must be held in high regard by Singaporeans through that course. That is why these allegations must be aired, debated, answered to. Such rigour brings accountability, such accountability brings trust, such trust ensures productive leadership, and such productive leadership brings about a working, functional Singapore. Today is an example of the rubric for accountability.
Before I close, I want to say this. I have worked with the Prime Minister for a number of years now, and I have never had cause to doubt his integrity and loyalty to the country. It has been, and I trust, will always be, Singapore first, for him. It is \"Majulah Singapura!\" for him. However, I also have a sacred duty to the constituents I represent and serve. Therefore, it is incumbent on me and my duty as an elected Parliamentarian and Government Parliamentary Committee Chair for the Ministries of Home Affairs and Law to ask the tough questions.
So, the debate has to be robust. But the debate's robustness is not only to advantage all Singaporeans to get to the bottom of the facts but it is also to show jurisdictions and the press worldwide that we allow facts to speak for themselves in this House. Much has been said by the foreign press about this kerfuffle. The New York Times, SCMP, Cable News Network (CNN) have gleefully covered this. It is my hope that the responses will put an end to the doubts. Then, we can steer Singapore back to important affairs of the state.
What is of foremost importance to me is the continued good reputation of our system of Government and that Singaporeans continue to have confidence in that system, a system built by Mr Lee Kuan Yew and our founding fathers, a system we have a deep duty to advance and to protect.
Mdm Speaker: Er Dr Lee Bee Wah.
Er Dr Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon): Mdm Speaker, first of all, I wish to thank the Prime Minister for his courageous and open approach to this matter by calling for the House to debate the issues raised. I note that the dispute has been covered in the international press, including the unproven allegations about the Prime Minister and our system. The whole affair has tarnished the reputation of our Government as clean and altruistic. That is precisely the reputation that the late Minister Mentor Lee spent his whole life building. If he were alive, he would be deeply hurt by the quarrelling of his children in public.
Many of my residents have been discussing this issue. Many wonder why the siblings took such private issues to the public. Many residents have asked many questions. Today, on behalf of my residents, I would like to raise three issues.
First, NHB's Deed of Gift. Let me begin by raising questions about the NHB exhibition. As Minister Lawrence Wong mentioned just now, this exhibition received items from the executors of the estate, Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee Wei Ling, under two unusual conditions. One was that the executors of the estate could buy back all the items at $1 as long as 38 Oxley Road was not demolished. Second was that part of the demolition clause from the late Minister Mentor Lee's will, the part that expressed the wish for immediate demolition of the house after Dr Lee Wei Ling moves out of it should be prominently displayed, whereas the other part of the will outlining what was to be done if the house could not be demolished was to be omitted from the exhibition.
Mdm Speaker, if I heard Minister Lawrence Wong correctly, Morgan Lewis Stamford LLC helped draft the Deed. Ms Lim Suet Fern was asking NHB to accept the terms which are bad for NHB and misleading the public. Is this acceptable conduct for Morgan Lewis, Suet Fern as lawyer and NHB Board Member? Can Minister Lawrence Wong please explain?
The second issue is about the will. Many asked, \"What is the quarrel all about? What is the core of this matter? What is the problem with the will? Who drafted the will?\" Mr Lee Hsien Yang said it was drafted by Ms Kwa Kim Li. But Ms Kwa Kim Li denied it. We do not even know who drafted the will. Was it Ms Lim Suet Fern? If so, why not just come out and admit it? What is he afraid of? Why does he try and deny that his wife drafted it when emails seem clear? So, now, what has it to do with the Government? What is the Government supposed to do? Can anyone please enlighten us?
The third issue is the Ministerial Committee. Also, in view of Minister Mentor Lee's latest will which is with the demolition clause, how much weight will Minister Mentor Lee's wishes bear on the decisions to be made by the Oxley House Ministerial Committee? What has the Committee done that Mr Lee Hsien Yang claimed that he was \"pushed into a corner\"? In yesterday's Straits Times, Hsien Yang said that he would not want to preserve the house nor would he want to build a condominium because it would not be in accordance with Minister Mentor Lee's values. Does that not sound a lot like what Deputy Prime Minister Teo said − that he would not support the two extremes of total preservation and letting the public in, and building private residences on the other hand? So, what is the dispute? Why are we quarrelling about this? Mdm Speaker, allow me to continue in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Many residents told me that this dispute was bad for both Singapore and Mr Lee Kuan Yew's reputation. They asked me what this whole thing was about. Why can it not be settled peacefully?
They specifically wanted to ask why some basic facts cannot be shared with Singaporeans in full and truthfully. For example, with regard to Mr Lee Kuan Yew's Memorial Exhibition, Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee Wei Ling set conditions that only the first half of the demolition clause of the will can be displayed and, the second half, which considered the possibility of preserving the house, cannot be displayed. Why did NHB agree to such conditions? Is this deliberately misleading Singaporeans?
Another example is relating to who drafted the last will. Mr Lee Hsien Yang said it was drafted by Kwa Kim Lee but she denied it. However, their email shows that Mr Lee Hsien Yang's wife, Ms Lim Suet Fern, was involved in the drafting. Why would Mr Lee Hsien Yang deny it? I think if Mr Lee Kuan Yew were alive, he would definitely not want him to confuse the facts.
Another question − Mr Lee Hsien Yang said he did not want to preserve the house nor have it redeveloped into a condominium. Deputy Prime Minister Teo also said that he personally did not support the two extreme options, that is, to preserve the house and open to the public on one end, or to redevelop it into a private building on the other. It seemed that they shared the same view. Then why would Mr Lee Hsien Yang make it into the gossip of the town?
He should have done what the Prime Minister did – give statutory statement to the Ministerial Committee and then let the Committee decide. Why would he rather damage the reputation of his family and his country than doing so?
What is the purpose of Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee Wei Ling? Is it really about fulfilling their father's wish or do they have some other motives? In their first statement, they said they did not trust Mr Lee Hsien Loong's leadership. Does this mean they will not stop until Mr Lee Hsien Loong steps down? The house is merely an excuse. If it is really the case, then it is against the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew's wish as well as Singaporeans' democratic right.
Mr Lee Kuan Yew once said that he sent his children to Chinese schools to instill traditional values in them. If he were alive, he would be very sad to see his children in discord and the country being ridiculed.
Hence, I urge Mr Lee Hsien Yang, if he really wants to be a filial son, to settle the issue privately and not hurt his father's beloved Singapore anymore. Ultimately, whoever started the trouble should end it.
Mdm Speaker: Ms Kuik Shiao-Yin.
Ms Kuik Shiao-Yin (Nominated Member): Mdm Speaker, every major speech I have given in this House has centred on our need to fight for our unity. It is one of the richest parts of the inheritance we have received from our founding generation. If we lose our unity as a country, we will lose our name in this world, and we will lose everything. So, it is something I will always defend.
So, it does grieve and anger me to see so much of our country's reputation and trust being squandered on a social media war, of all things. If all this turns out to be nothing more than some personal game of brinksmanship being played rather than a genuine desire to improve our political process, then I think there will be many angry and hurt Singaporeans to reckon with. Because for us ordinary Singaporeans, be we supporters of the establishment or supporters of the Opposition, this is not about what is to happen to one house, this is about what we want to happen to the country we all call our home. To us on the ground who care, this saga is not a cynical game of cards. This is all our lives, not just one family's, but all of ours.
The allegations of abuse of political corruption, state intimidation and nepotism being made by Mr Lee Hsien Yang are damning. The worst of the allegations, which are not related to the house, are presently light on details, but because of the background and well-respected name of the accusers, the allegations have to be given their due weight.
If the allegations are true, the accused must be held to account. If the allegations are false, the accuser must be equally held to account. Otherwise, how are we, the people, to make sense of those who are less powerful who have been sued or bankrupted for equally or less defamatory remarks?
For many conservative Asians, in the case of family, we will always want to protect our own. I personally would rather never close the option of mercy. Should there still be the slightest possibility for mediation and grace and forgiveness to still intercede in this situation, and allow reconciliation and compromise to be made somehow, I hope it can be taken. The difficulty here though is that because of the seriousness of the allegations of corruption, this situation can no longer be judged according to our personal preference or seen as just a domestic family quarrel. It is a national level political issue and I respect the Prime Minister for recognising it as so by opening himself up to Parliamentary scrutiny.
We pride ourselves as a country that governs by rule of law, so justice must be seen to be served. We, the people, cannot be asked to tolerate a situation where the powerful are allowed to say or do whatever they wish, not be held accountable for it and then freely exercise their option to leave the country behind for greener pastures when they are done with their personal agendas. This is not the Singapore we want to live in. Or the Singapore we have been asked to fight for. The powerful must be bound by the same principles, values and rules that the less powerful are being asked to play by.
So, I agree with the WP's approach that \"the crux of the family issues surrounding 38 Oxley Road is for the family to resolve privately or in Court\" and that Parliament should only be \"concerned with the allegations of abuse of power and the harms these have caused to confidence in Singapore and our political institutions.\"
The Prime Minister's accusers should have an independent, neutral space where they can be held to account for their words, put down their side of the story on official record, sharing whatever arguments and evidence they have to back their claims. Such a hearing can happen either as an independent Select Committee, or a Commission of Inquiry (COI), which would have full authority to investigate the accusations, to summon evidence surrounding the most biting allegations raised in the original \"What has happened to Lee Kuan Yew's values?\" document about the supposed misuse of power by the Prime Minister and his wife, the supposed Orwellian threat of state intimidation and monitoring of private citizens, and the supposed nepotism behind key appointments in the Public Service. Because if investigations reveal there are truth and substance to the allegations, their wrongs must be made right. It is presently hard to ask more questions because, so far, details are just so vague and the people who can supply more detailed evidence to these questions are just not in this room.
The Prime Minister has shared his hope that \"this full, public airing in Parliament will dispel any doubts that have been planted and strengthen confidence in our institutions and our system of government.\" I hope so much for that to be true, too, but from what I know of ground sentiments, I do not think that is going to happen for those who are unconverted or those who are sitting on the fence. Mr Lee Hsien Yang has already made it clear to the many Singaporeans following his Facebook posts that he believes \"This Parliamentary session is a forum that again places the Prime Minister before his subordinates\" who \"lack sufficient background and evidence of the numerous instances of abuse and conflicts of interest, many yet to be raised\".
That is why I hope the Prime Minister will consider subjecting himself to an independent Committee of Inquiry on the allegations made against him and his Government. A Committee of Inquiry or Select Committee with enough independent non-PAP, non-subordinate representatives would help to address some of his accuser's concerns. I understand this is not a process to be taken lightly and runs the risk of stretching out the painful saga, but I believe it is a significant display of political courage that will shore up much trust in our system's integrity, and it will also be a significant display of trust also in the people who will be asked to sit on those Committees.
Prime Minister, I respect your decision to put forth your perspective on the Oxley issue as a statutory declaration. It means high stakes for you if you are found to be falsifying your statement. So, it does show me how seriously you have considered the stakes of your words. I also respect your decision to open this up to Parliamentary debate and inviting all of us in this House to ask questions that call you to account because every word will go down on public record in the Hansard. Your earlier sharing that you intend to put your words out in public, free of Parliamentary privilege, is an important move that I believe will build trust.
Because in this culture right now shaped by social media, where words are allowed to flow fast and free, it has become all too easy to forget why things like statutory declarations and Hansards matter. They remind us that for society to be strong, for democracy to be resilient, we must all allow the law to call us to account for our words, the things we choose to say, the things we choose not to say, because words are the way we build or break our worlds. Since the Prime Minister has already made a statutory declaration, it would be most fair and helpful for Singaporeans to have an independent Committee set up that can request that his accusers would also offer theirs.
Beneath all this is the uncomfortable accusation about whether we are a country of one-man rule. Part of the reason why perceptions of authoritarianism continue to fester is that there are still many people who believe and perceive the Government to be opaque in its decision-making and defensive in its communication about its work. This is just a long-standing perspective on the ground that is clear to anyone who looks at contentious Facebook comment threads on any socio-political issues. The idea that anyone would see secret Ministerial Committees as nefarious may seem strange and even silly to those in Government who are familiar with what they are. But to someone hearing about it for the first time, it can be construed to sound mysterious and Orwellian. Where there is no information and understanding given, misinformation and misunderstanding will rush in to fill the vacuum.
This Oxley Road saga is painful but there are many thoughtful commenters who do not think this is necessarily a bad thing. If anything, a deeper and more open conversation about how political power works in Singapore may be just what our system needs to truly grow up as a post-Lee Kuan Yew democracy. Our electorate needs better political education, and more open, empathetic communication about our political processes can help.
Singapore is bigger than Lee Kuan Yew's values. For no matter how great or powerful or righteous any one man may be, the best of men still die and a country must learn to live beyond them. I do not think that is an offensive thing to say because that is a view Mr Lee himself has held. His expressed distaste for idolisation and personal monuments is something establishment and non-establishment Singaporeans can respect and get behind.
If Singapore is to stay strong, we must remember this to be true. We are no country of one man. We are no country for one man. We are a country of many people, many families and many interests.
I have been serving on the Founder's Memorial Committee since 2015. Please let me share some insights. We have been gathering views from thousands of Singaporeans − historians, architects, regular people on the street, young people − about what kind of memorial would best honour the legacy of our Founding Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew and the pioneering team of leaders that built the nation alongside him. Incidentally, Oxley never actually came up as a major suggestion. They wanted more public spaces like Fort Canning or Singapore River.
What we learnt is that many Singaporeans wanted a memorial that could go beyond a mere recollection of the past. They wanted a memorial to be forward-looking and ever relevant to a new generation, a memorial that did not just centre on one particular personality but powerful principles that could be passed on to endure forever. Many hoped for the Founder's Memorial, whenever and wherever it does get built, to ultimately stand for unity across the divides. I imagine whatever Singaporeans had wanted for the Founders' Memorial, they would want for the Oxley house as well. Whether Oxley stays or goes or becomes a memorial garden with a basement, I hope we can find some compromise that will enable it to not go down in our history as a memorial born first in bitterness. Mr Lee Hsien Yang seems open to that memorial garden idea. So, hopefully that can be the beginning of some common ground that will move us all forward.
Many Singaporeans in the process also referred again and again to the national pledge written by our founders as still the best representation of the story they wanted Singapore to live out, from generation to generation. Singapore was, is and must always be about more than one man's − or one family's − values. Even the national pledge that most closely enshrines all our nation's values was not written by one man alone. It went through a long chain of drafting starting from a Mr Phillip Liau, Mr George Thomson, then Mr S Rajaratnam, various Ministry officials and then Mr Lee Kuan Yew and then submitted to the then Cabinet for final approval.
I have come to believe that nations are really just families writ large. Psychologists who study resilience in families notice that the more children know about their family history, the stronger their sense of personal agency, self-confidence and capacity to face challenges. It also turns out that the pattern of the story told by each family matters. Some families tell their children an ascending narrative with a constantly upward, upbeat, hopeful trajectory. Some families tell descending narratives with a constantly downward depressing and pessimistic trend. But what was interesting is psychologists discovered that both these kinds of families are not resilient. It is those families that tell an oscillating narrative instead − a roller-coaster trajectory of a tale with ups and downs − that consistently produced the most resilient children. They understand that highs and lows were part of life and problems were better faced together rather than apart. The oscillating family story helps them develop a strong \"intergenerational self\", a purposeful awareness that they are part of something larger than themselves.
So, yes, I know many Singaporeans are deeply saddened by all that has happened so far. Many want this conversation full of suffering to just end. I hope we do not artificially shut down the conversation because learning to talk about our biggest mistakes, our darkest imperfections, our most painful wounds from our past is precisely what our younger generations need right now as a country if we hope to be resilient.
This season in our political history need not be part of a descending narrative but an oscillating one. If this event helps us start to talk more openly about how things work in our country and how we want things to work in our country, the good and the bad, it is possible for us to come out of this saga even stronger as a people.
Mdm Speaker: Order. I propose to take the break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 4.40 pm.
Sitting accordingly suspended
at 4.15 pm until 4.40 pm.
Sitting resumed at 4.40 pm.
[Mdm Speaker in the Chair]
(Debate on Ministerial Statements)
[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]
Mr Kwek Hian Chuan Henry (Nee Soon): Mdm Speaker, Singaporeans have seen many twists and turns in the past few weeks. We see new Facebook posts and statements every other day.
Many Singaporeans are unsure of what to make of this debate. We want to know what is at the heart of this disagreement because some things just do not add up. I have three examples.
One, Mr Lee Hsien Yang shared that Dr Lee Wei Ling will probably stay in the house for many more decades. The Government also confirmed that, if this is the case, the current Cabinet, minus the Prime Minister, would likely not be the ones making the final decision. Therefore, both sides agree that the decision could be decades away. So, why disagree now? Should not Mr Lee Hsien Yang, or those after him, raise the issue with the future government and the people of Singapore at that point?
Two, Deputy Prime Minister Teo mentioned the possibility of a memorial park with only the basement preserved. And recently, Mr Lee Hsien Yang suggested planting a memorial garden after the demolition of the house. Both options are not that far apart. Why can both sides not continue to talk and come to an agreement over time?
Three, both sides have stressed that the Government has the right to gazette the house, because the Government has the responsibility of determining what is national interest. This means that both sides cherish the core Singaporean principles: that the rule of law must apply; that no one is above the law; and that the law must serve the people.
So, are both sides really that far apart that a family dispute needs to be aired on the national stage with profound implications on Singapore's international standing and at a time of many pressing challenges?
We have heard the viewpoint of Mr Lee Hsien Yang, his wife and Dr Lee Wei Ling. Having listened to the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister, it is clear that there is nothing to argue about the house. The house and what to do about it cannot possibly be the reason why the siblings have gone public, since the Government has already said that there is nothing for the Government to do for many years, so long as Dr Lee Wei Ling continues to stay there.
So, what is really behind all these? Is it attacking the Prime Minister by using the house as a proxy? Mr Lee Hsien Yang said he wants the Prime Minister down. Is that the true motive?
Next, I note that over the last few weeks, Mr Lee Hsien Yang has evolved his position on what to do with 38 Oxley Road. Initially, he had stated that he had not thought through the plans beyond demolition. Subsequently, he mentioned the possibility of planting a memorial garden. And in his Facebook post yesterday, he stated that he has no current intention of redeveloping 38 Oxley Road as a luxury condo because it would be an affront to the values of Mr Lee Kuan Yew.
However, a careful reading of his statement shows that this may not be definitive, because his declaration of \"not inclined to apply for rezoning\" does not rule out redevelopment under all circumstances.
Next, it is important for Singaporeans to be fully informed of the financial implications of various options for 38 Oxley Road. The Government has highlighted various options − conservation, preservation and land acquisition. I have heard that these options are worth around $20 million. Now, if full demolition and redevelopment happen in the future, and if URA under the future government agrees to rezoning, the land could be worth a lot more. I believe a piece of land nearby was recently sold for more than $100 million.
The public debate on what to do with the house will likely last a long time, perhaps even lasting beyond those currently involved. Therefore, it is important for us to put all the facts on the table, including the financial implications, so that from now to the point of decision, Singaporeans can have a fuller appreciation of what drives the various viewpoints.
Next, I would like to ask about the Ministerial Committee. Most Singaporeans I speak to understand that Ministerial Committees are part and parcel of routine Ministerial work. Nevertheless, they can be fully reassured if they have a clear understanding of how this Ministerial Committee works and how it is organised to be exploring independently the options. Can the Government share on the following?
One, who initiated the Ministerial Committee? Did the Prime Minister recuse himself, and did Deputy Prime Minister Teo, as the leader of the Cabinet in the Prime Minister's absence, propose the Ministerial Committee? Two, who selected the members of the Ministerial Committee? Was it the Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister Teo or somebody else? Three, what are the operating protocols? For example, were discussion and information shared on a need-to-know basis within the Committee? Are there any other operating protocols that the Ministerial Committee will abide by in the future that would provide us with additional reassurances?
Next, the issue of the seventh will. Much has been said about the seventh and final will. Can the Prime Minister share comprehensively why he did not contest the seventh will?
Last, I hope that Singapore can move beyond this issue after this Parliamentary debate. I am glad that the Government has chosen to respond to allegations through transparency and debate, because having a clean and honest government is what kept Singapore exceptional.
Moving forward, Singaporeans want an immediate and firm reassurance that our Government integrity is beyond reproach. Singaporeans hope that all parties concerned, especially after the debate today, will try to prevent their private debate from continuing to spill over to the public arena. Singaporeans want our Government's undivided attention on pressing national matters concerning the livelihood and security of our people.
After we finish the debating on this Ministerial Statement, Parliament will discuss two more important Bills: one, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) Act that would keep our financial system intact when the next global financial crisis strikes; and two, the Home Team Corps Bill that would strengthen our people's support for a safe Singapore.
The issues that directly affect Singaporeans' lives must always come first. Let us not keep our people waiting.
Mdm Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.
Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Mdm Speaker, Singapore has been a one-party dominant state since Independence. The ruling party has thus single-handedly shaped the political culture in Singapore. Our political culture is one that does not condone any allegations of wrongdoing or impropriety against the Government of the day. Accusers are expected to back up their claims with evidence and, if they cannot, they are sued. Millions of dollars in damages have been awarded when unsubstantiated allegations amounting to defamation and slander have been made against politicians, so as to preserve their moral authority. Many families have been besmirched by this. In fact, Opposition politicians have been challenged to sue PAP MPs if they feel wronged.
As recently as 2008, the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew himself said, and I quote, \"I know the mentality of and the attitudes of the people in Singapore − and they know me by now, that if anybody impugns the integrity of the Government, of which I was the Prime Minister, I must sue….And I must demand that either the Court finds that those defamatory words (are) true, in which case, I am demolished, or there is a penalty.\"
The anomaly in this matter before the House today surrounds the decision taken by the Prime Minister − ironically it must be said − not to sue in spite of the serious allegations of abuse of power, much to the surprise of many Singaporeans.
Singaporeans have been sued for defamation for much less, one of the most famed examples being former MP Mr JB Jeyaratnam's utterance of the following at an election rally in 1997 where he said, and I quote, \"Mr Tang Liang Hong has just placed before me two reports he has made to the Police against, you know, Mr Goh Chok Tong and his team.\" When it was suggested to the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew by a reporter that it was tenuous to base a defamation suit on Mr Jeyaratnam showing copies of Mr Tang's Police reports to a rally crowd, Mr Lee said this was a matter for the Courts to decide, and that his lawyers had advised him to sue. As for Mr Jeyaratnam's offer to apologise without paying damages, the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew was quoted as saying, \"I'll leave things to the lawyers. I have other things to do.\"
In the normal course of events, the Government would do precisely that − leave the matter to be settled by lawyers in Court. Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee Wei Ling would expect to face multiple defamation lawsuits for alleging that the Prime Minister has either lied or been corrupt in his dealings. As this has not happened and in view of the political culture that I have spoken of, there are Singaporeans who believe that the allegations made against the Prime Minister may have more than a grain of truth to them. Many allegations have been made, and one need only peruse the document made public by Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee Wei Ling, released on 14 June 2017 titled, \"What has happened to Lee Kuan Yew's values?\" to remind themselves of them.
I would expect the Prime Minister to make a compelling case today and when this debate closes, but until Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee Wei Ling are fully heard, doubts will continue to linger and this matter will not be put to rest unless a resolution is sought through the Courts. Until that is done, who here would dare bet against a new Facebook post emerging from Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee Wei Ling tomorrow?
The Prime Minister has to go to the Courts to rebut these allegations of abuse of power in order to decisively settle this issue.
In 1996, allegations were made against Mr Lee Hsien Loong during the Hotel Properties Limited (HPL) saga. This episode erupted as a result of a public perception that both Mr Lee Kuan Yew and Mr Lee Hsien Loong had unfairly received discounts in their purchase of properties from the developer HPL. In that case, a Parliamentary session, procedurally similar to the one we are having in the House today, was held to clear the air over the matter. However, the circumstances and facts of that episode and how it came to be debated in Parliament were diametrically different in a number of important ways.
Firstly, a senior civil servant, the Deputy Managing Director of MAS, reported to the Finance Minister about HPL obtaining a waiver from the Singapore Stock Exchange from seeking shareholder's approval for the purchase of property by then Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew. There was also market talk that Mr Lee had been offered units in all the properties developed by the HPL group.
The Finance Minister duly reported this to the then Prime Minister Mr Goh Chok Tong who ordered an investigation to get the Stock Exchange to provide a list of purchasers of two HPL developments, including questioning both the Senior Minister and then Deputy Prime Minister Mr Lee Hsien Loong, who had also purchased two HPL apartments. In view of his investigation, Prime Minister Goh was convinced that there was no wrongdoing.
Secondly, caveats were openly lodged giving the names of the Senior Minister and the transacted prices after discount. This fact was crucial, as a transparent caveat lodgment did not suggest wrongdoing by any stretch.
Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, Mr Lee Kuan Yew instructed Mr Ong Beng Seng, the Managing Director of HPL and a key player in clearing the air, to confront the media about the propriety of the purchases by himself and the Deputy Prime Minister. Mr Lee stressed to Mr Ong that it was not enough for HPL to release a press statement but that a press conference was in order. Contrast this important detail with the absence of any sense of closure on the allegations made by Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee Wei Ling in the matter we are debating before the House today.
Finally, during the HPL debate, sitting MPs, some of whom worked for developers, were able to clarify the nature of how developers used complicated pricing strategies to market and sell their properties.
The extent of probity and the affirmative conclusions to various matters in the HPL issue notwithstanding, by the time it came to an end in this House, MPs were in a position to triangulate various facts which, in totality, made it absolutely clear that no improprieties could be alleged by any reasonable person in the purchase of apartments by the Senior Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister.
In the matter before us today, can we honestly say that we are apprised and fully aware of the evidence and facts relevant to the allegations of the Prime Minister abusing his power so as to come to the same conclusion? Frankly, by the end of today's debate, Iike the MPs in this House in 1996, if we can say yes, then there should no lingering suspicions or doubts that the Prime Minister abused his powers in the matter of 38 Oxley Road. And that would be a welcome outcome for Singapore.
However, in view of the highly unusual decision by the Prime Minister not to clear his name in the Courts, the key question before this House is how do we move forward from here?
Parliament can be a platform to look into and address the matter, but the choice of the appropriate Parliamentary forum is crucial. In fact, allegations of abuse of power by the Prime Minister may conceivably gain even more traction if the wrong Parliamentary forum is chosen.
In the event the Prime Minister eschews going to the Courts to address these allegations of abuse of power even as more allegations are made and left to the people's imagination to ruminate over, I am of the view that the next best option would be for Parliament to prepare to organise a special Select Committee to look into the allegations made against the Prime Minister.
Its remit would simply be to look into the truthfulness of the allegations and get to the bottom of the matter. In light of evidence being made available to it, the Committee can be expected to summon, if it so chooses, the Prime Minister, Mdm Ho Ching, Mrs Lee Suet Fern and anyone else to shed light on the allegations.
I make this proposal for a Select Committee of Parliament in the public interest as I believe it is an avenue to put a stop to these allegations which have now moved beyond damaging just the Government but have damaged Singapore's reputation and the trust people outside Singapore have in its institutions.
Many Singaporeans are unaware that the consequence of ignoring a summons from Parliament are severe and a defaulter can be arrested and brought before the Select Committee to set the record straight. Should any witness be contemptuous before the Committee, beyond hefty fines, Parliament is even empowered to commit that individual to prison for the rest of this Parliamentary term.
Mdm Speaker, the longer this sad episode drags on, Singapore's reputation as a country where the rule of law is a strict guiding principle of our society and the credibility of the Government will be cast in very serious doubt. Like many Singaporeans, I agree that the matters surrounding the will and, like disagreements, are fundamentally family issues and should be privately resolved forthwith either through the Courts or through mediation. But it is the allegations of abuse of power that have to be decisively addressed, otherwise an odour will linger, one that will have severe and significant repercussions for Singapore's reputation. I do not believe a Parliamentary debate like the one we are having today will put the matter to rest, even as I hope I am wrong.
Mdm Speaker: Ms Jessica Tan.
Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo (East Coast): Mdm Speaker, thank you for allowing me to speak. This whole situation is really quite unfortunate. Singaporeans are used to seeing Singapore being cited for our reputation for good governance. In the last three weeks, what we have experienced is quite the opposite. In fact, it is like a bad dream. As one of my constituents had put it, I quote, \"The reputation of Singapore is at stake here and all eyes from the international community are on us\". What started out as a \"private family matter\" is no longer just that. The allegations of the abuse of power by the Organs of State put into question the integrity of the Government, and this is serious. Public interest is now at stake. So, it is imperative that it must be put right.
I thank Prime Minister Lee for recognising that this family dispute, the dispute between him and his siblings and it being publicly aired, have caused damage to Singapore and Singaporeans. I am glad that he has apologised to Singaporeans but, as we all know, damage has been done to the reputation of Singapore and the confidence of Singaporeans. So, an apology is not quite sufficient.
So, while we would have preferred not to have to discuss this in Parliament, given the serious allegations and how things have played out, it is important that we address the crux of the concerns of Singaporeans. To be clear, the dispute between Mr Lee Kuan Yew's children is not what we are here to debate, as this is a matter to be settled between the siblings privately. What I wish to speak about today are the consequential impact of the allegation of the abuse of power and, hence, the question on the integrity of the Singapore Government.
The matter regarding 38 Oxley Road is unprecedented. It is not just a house. It was in that very house that much of the foundations of Singapore's political history started. The owner of the house was not just any person but Mr Lee Kuan Yew, one of Singapore's founding fathers. Hence, the decision on what is to happen to the house on 38 Oxley Road is not a simple decision. It involves not only the interest of Singapore but also the desire to honour Mr Lee Kuan Yew and his last wishes.
It is because of the unprecedented nature of the matter that \"how\" the decision is arrived at is as important as the decision itself. Therefore, it is critical that as much information as possible on the process and rationale for the options being considered be shared with Singaporeans.
I know we have a reputation of being efficient, effective, handling things in the best possible way with the least amount of disturbance and resources. But I think this is unprecedented and it matters to Singaporeans, not just because it is about Mr Lee Kuan Yew but it is also because it is about the history of Singapore. Therefore, we have to share as much information about the \"how\" as it is about the decision.
So, this brings me to the question of the Ministerial Committee. The Ministerial Committee was convened in July last year, as shared by Deputy Prime Minister Teo, and the Ministerial Committee has been set up to look into various options for what happens to the house 38 Oxley Road and the implications of these options. The options that the Ministerial Committee arrives at will guide the decision that Cabinet and the government of the day will have to make when the time comes for a decision on 38 Oxley Road, when Dr Lee Wei Ling no longer lives there.
It is, therefore, crucial that Singaporeans − and I stress this again, I know some people may say it does not matter because if we have the right people in the Committee it is okay, but it does matter – are given as much information on the process and the considerations made to arrive at the options. This will help assure Singaporeans if there is, indeed, independence.
I would like to ask some questions that have been lingering on the ground as well, questions that pertain to why were members of the Ministerial Committee not disclosed until recently, or under what circumstances are Ministerial Committees which are not publicly convened? I hope these can be answered.
Prime Minister, you have said that you have recused yourself from all Government decisions to be taken on 38 Oxley Road. You have provided information to the Ministerial Committee. I think it is also important for you to share the significance of you providing the Ministerial Committee with the statutory declaration. I do not think people understand the seriousness, or at least not everybody may understand the seriousness of a statutory declaration. I think it is important that you share its significance.
Mdm Speaker, with all that is happening, I do hope that we will find a way to honour Mr Lee Kuan Yew and, at the same time, although it is difficult for many of us to see it at the same time now with all that is happening, I hope that we can bring Singaporeans and unite Singaporeans together, having gone through what we are going through now.
Mdm Speaker: Senior Minister of State Janil Puthucheary.
The Senior Minister of State for Communications and Information and Education (Dr Janil Puthucheary): Mdm Speaker, a number of Members of the House have stood up to suggest that Parliament is the wrong place and that this should not have been brought to Parliament. There are two major arguments being made. One is, if there is no substance to these allegations, why are we spending our time in Parliament dealing with what is essentially a private family matter? The other is that there is potential substance but this needs to be better dealt with somewhere else.
The first point I want to make is that coming to Parliament does not preclude anything else happening outside of Parliament. It is not a zero-sum game. Two weeks have passed since the first allegations were made. Can you imagine that this would have been resolved in the Courts in two weeks? Can you imagine that a special Select Committee could have been constituted, could have called witnesses, analysed the problem, submitted a report in two weeks? Nothing else could have happened in two weeks.
But if it comes to Parliament, as we have done today, and we have to debate the Home Team Corps Bill, which I will be speaking on sometime after this debate – if we have to debate about issues to do with our finances, about MAS or other Statutory Boards and we have a lingering suspicion about our process of Government, about the authority of the Members of this House to debate, to analyse, to deal with the most pressing problems facing Singapore – how could we have gone forward? It is ridiculous to suggest that we cannot talk about this in Parliament. We have to talk about this in Parliament.
The first point, I find more interesting − that there are no specifics, there is no evidence, there is no substance to the allegations. \"Do not let this go on, end this saga now, because there is nothing to it\" − these are things that have been brought up by PAP MPs, Nominated MPs (NMPs) and Opposition MPs. We have not yet had specifics about what we should be doing differently, other than debate this in Parliament. A special Select Committee is an instrument, a tool empowered by Parliament, as Mr Pritam Singh had argued just now. How can he say that it would be better than Parliament, if he says that there is something wrong fundamentally with Parliament? Yes, a special Select Committee has time, space and the opportunity to gather more evidence and to go into more details. But it is given those powers by Parliament. Ultimately, it provides a report to Parliament and the actions taken on its recommendations are done by Parliament. So, if we are going to choose these routes, the one thing we cannot do, is say that Parliament is not the appropriate place to deal with these matters.
The expectations we have in Singapore are high. The expectations of Parliamentary process, the expectations of prudence, of probity. But even on a very pragmatic basis, we are expected to forward plan just about everything. If Members think back not many minutes, not many hours ago, to the Parliamentary Questions, I was standing at this very same rostrum, having to defend questions about the extent to which we could predict changes in our school landscape 15 years, 10 years, five years ahead of time. We are expected to have drawer plans for just about every eventuality.
When something goes wrong, when a conflict arises, when something is brought out into the public space, people are unhappy about it. One of the first questions that would be asked is, \"Could you not have anticipated this? Could you not have thought about it? Do you not have a scenario plan for this?\"
I suspect the social media posts and the subsequent storm of interest over the last two weeks were one of the few things that, perhaps, was not anticipated as a drawer plan. But what to do with the property, the house, the heritage values, the conflicting public sentiments, surely, this is something that we need to have a drawer plan on.
I want to make it very clear that what we are doing, this forward planning, this developing of scenarios, this consideration of public views and Opposition views, and diverse views, this is part of how our system works. Coming to Parliament today is a demonstration that our system works, that our governance and our Government, the values and the expectations of our public are a marker of our system working. Our ability to talk about this, the documents that have been shared here today, the record of conversations, the record of interactions that we have had that we bring to bear to make this debate happen, are a marker of the transparency and effectiveness of our system working.
The allegations that are being put across, the mechanisms, a separation from the public and the private space, an attempt to moderate and deal with the influences, potential allegations of the abuse of power, these are markers and demonstrations of our system working. These are markers of transparency, of accountability. Accountability around process, around documentation. Accountability not just at the top − it has to be especially at the top, the Prime Minister has talked about that − but accountability extends all the way through. This code of conduct, these values and these processes need to be understood by every officer in that chain of command so that they know when they are being asked to do something inappropriate, that they know that they have alternative lines of reporting, that they know that they can document these things and it will be there as a matter of record for the Courts, for a special Select Committee or for MPs to access, demonstrate and debate. Everything we have done so far today, our ability to talk about this in this House, is a marker of our system working.
It is the form that many people are carried away with; but it is the substance that is far more appropriate. You can have a special Select Committee but if the Members on that special Select Committee do not do their job properly, it will not have the substance. We could have a debate here in Parliament but if we did not do our job properly, do our due diligence properly, search for questions, search for problems, search for evidence, search for substance to the allegations and bring them forth in this House, we would not be doing our job properly and we would not be giving substance to the form of a Parliamentary debate.
Mr Singh's allegations that somehow this is an inappropriate place because MPs have not been able to bring up evidence, bring up substance to the allegations. That is a marker of an absence of evidence, that is a marker of an absence of a problem, assuming the Members of the Opposition have been diligent about trying to find a problem. I am sure they have. Why would they not?
The substance is important. The words − the words of our Constitution, the words of our laws, the wording of clauses and paragraphs – they need to be turned into deeds, they need to be turned into deeds to demonstrate that we value them, that we value these processes and that we value this idea of accountability.
The Prime Minister has held himself up as an example. He set the bar very, very high but he has made it absolutely transparent what he expects of all of us. Recusal whenever there is the possibility of conflict of interests, a removal of any benefit that you might accrue to yourself, expose yourself to questioning, waiving of the Parliamentary privilege. These are steps to deal with conflicts of interest, deal with possible abuses of power and remove the possibility of conflict of interest, remove the possibility of an abuse of power.
Yet, all of these mechanisms are now being criticised as markers of the exact opposite. It is ridiculous. It is inappropriate. But it is of great interest that no one has been able to substantiate anything in this House. If we are going to have a Select Committee, you need to have some reason to have this Select Committee as opposed to just saying, \"I was not able to do my job properly.\"
These are important and serious allegations. One of the more serious allegations involves the issues to do with the AG, conflicts of interest. I am going to leave it to some of my colleagues in the Ministry of Law to answer that.
The other serious statements are slightly contradictory. I just want to highlight a few of these. Ms Kuik Shiao-Yin pointed out a few of these contradictions. You want this thing to be settled quick, you want it to go to the Courts. That is only going to drag it out. You want this thing to be dealt with behind closed doors. The Ministerial Committee operates behind closed doors; information is shared with the participants and the people that are called to it. You want everything out in the public space for reasons of transparency. These are difficult contradictions to navigate.
Parliament cannot make a private citizen sue his own brother; that is a choice for a private citizen to make. And yet, you are asking for us in this Parliamentary House to make a decision about a private act.
You want to strengthen the standing of Singapore. When you stand up in this House, are you weakening it? Are you generating confidence in the public sector and the public servants and the public sector officers who try to make the system work? All of them have an understanding of what it means to separate the public and the private; this is part of their professionalism, their expectations.
You want public transparency and yet you expect the Ministers cannot post on Facebook when allegations come in, when fake news come in, when misinformation comes in. We are not allowed to post on Facebook to counter this? We leave those allegations and misinformation and disinformation out there? We have to decide what it is we want out of this process.
We all want for Singapore to be stronger and a big part of that is going to be taking a position on whether our system of governance, our system of Government and our Parliamentary democracy are correct. Not that there are no problems. Not that there have been no mistakes. The problems and the mistakes are there. But the question is, do we have a system that can detect it, that can deal with it and to prevent it from happening again?
Are you trying to bring down this House? You should not. You should stand by the values of this House. You should accept that this is a good place and the right place to bring these issues out to have a debate. And if there are allegations, make them. If there are facts to substantiate these allegations, bring them here. And if it is appropriate, further action can and should be taken. But no one has said this. No one has been able to substantiate this. There are some things that WP and all the other MPs agree on. That this is something that really should go away and back into the private space because there are no substantive allegations on the issues of the abuse of power.
I also share Mr Low Thia Khiang's sentiments about the bright red line between the public and private space. This is the essence of good Government and good governance. It is exactly the key issue that the public and the private space must be separated. But everything we have heard so far is detail after detail, document after document, attempt after attempt, in order to achieve that separation. You can say it is separated but it is the actions and the deeds that you take in order to make that separation real, make yourself accountable, that are far more important. We have had a detailed explanation of how the Prime Minister has done exactly that.
I agree with Mr Low Thia Khiang's sentiment that we should end this now or as soon as possible. How? A suit is not going to end this now. A Select Committee is not going to end this now. \"End this saga now\" is a very nice throwaway sound bite. I am sure it will come up in the headline. But how can you follow that up by asking for the saga to then be protracted by a whole bunch of other mechanisms? End this saga now because you are satisfied because you have not been able to bring any evidence to bear. End this saga now by standing up here and saying that you are satisfied with the explanations that have been given, that you understand the process of governance and Government and Parliamentary democracy.
Then, there will be a strong bright line. Then, our system will be stronger and we can move on with our lives, and we can move on with all the other things that we need to do.
This process is ugly, it is disquieting, it is upsetting. If it was easy and if it was fun, it would not have to be brought here in Parliament. I suppose Government is not there to just deal with the nice things. The Parliamentary debate, the idea of the contest that we have in our speeches and in our discussion that politics itself is contestable, that the issues brought before this House are to be contested over and that we must be rigorously applying ourselves to that contest in order to get the best possible outcome for the people that we serve and for Singapore. That is an important part of what has got us here today, and what will take us forward and make us a resilient and stronger system to withstand any further shocks, allegations and problems that surface.
But that requires that we engage in this and that we believe that this contest is useful, that we believe that iron sharpens iron, that we believe that when we stand in this House, we are doing something worthwhile and not abrogating and abdicating our responsibility to somebody outside, that we are not elected by the people and throwing the problem back to the people. We have to solve and make decisions and analyse the facts on their behalf and hold ourselves accountable to them.
Of course, the proverb is only half correct − Proverbs 27:17, \"Iron sharpens iron, as man sharpens man\". So, it is always inappropriate to quote a clause out of context or quote only half a paragraph. Because if you try to sharpen iron against iron, both get blunted and a lot of heat is generated. Iron is sharpened against stone. The stone against which we have to sharpen our positions and our thoughts and achieve some clarity on where we are as politicians, as parties, as individual Singaporeans, is a combination of the law and our Constitution as represented by you, Mdm Speaker.
In combination with the will of the people, we have to sharpen our iron against the will of the people and their expectations. But most importantly, we have to do so against our pride in ourselves as representatives of this Parliamentary democracy. Our pride in ourselves as instruments of our democracy and our governance, we must try as hard as possible to contest this space, to do right by Singapore and by Singaporeans.
And if having tried as hard as possible to find the problem, to find some fact, to find some weakness, there is none, then surely, we should acknowledge that. Surely, that is the service that we do to the values of this House and the values of Singapore and the issues before us that we have to provide some resolution to. It is contingent upon us to do that. And that is how, we need, as a House, to close this matter over the next day. [Applause.]
Mdm Speaker:\tMs Chia Yong Yong. Mr Low Thia Khiang, I would prefer clarifications to be taken after all the speeches, please.
Mr Low Thia Khiang: Okay, Madam.
Ms Chia Yong Yong (Nominated Member): Mdm Speaker, please allow me to begin first with a quote from a 17th century writer Thomas Fuller: \"Be you ever so high, the law is above you\".
Let me share a second quote attributed to Mr Lee Hsien Yang:
\"Let us not mince words. Singapore's social compact under Lee Kuan Yew was − civil liberties may be curtailed, but in return your government will respect the rule of law and be utterly beyond reproach.\"
And, indeed, Mr Lee Kuan Yew himself had also spoken many times on the rule of law in Singapore, and on how our laws reflect the traditional Asian value system which places the interests of the community over and above that of the individual.
In particular, when he spoke at the Opening of the Singapore Academy of Law in 1990, he stated in the context of land acquisition that his Government puts communitarian interests over those of the individual. He added, \"These were contrary to the rights of the individual upheld in English jurisprudence. But because our people shared our values, they supported and abided by our legislation.
If the Government had failed to establish the basis for political stability and social cohesion, the rule of law would have become an empty slogan in a broken-back Singapore. But we have succeeded, and the rule of law today in Singapore is no cliche.\"
I quote Mr Lee again, \"I am often accused of interfering in the private lives of citizens. Yes. If I did not, had I not done that, we wouldn't be here today. And I say without the slightest remorse, that we wouldn't be here, we wouldn't have made economic progress, if we had not intervened on very personal matters − who your neighbour is, how you live, the noise you make, how you spit, what language you use. We decide what is right. Never mind what the people think.\"
The rule of law in Singapore. I repeat, \"and I say it without the slightest remorse, that we would not be here, we would not have made economic progress, if we had not intervened in very personal matters − who your neighbour is, how you live, the noise you make, how you spit, what language you use\". If I may add, do I get my house demolished or not? Do I get buried where I choose to be buried? Do we keep the Sungei Road Hawker Zone? We decide what is right. Never mind what the people think.
Why do I begin with these quotes?
Because it is my conviction that in all deliberations, whether now or in the future, whether we are referring to 38 Oxley Road or whether we are referring to Sungei Road Hawker Zone, we must remember that under all circumstances, the rule of law and due process must prevail.
I cannot imagine Mr Lee banging tables and insisting on the demolition of his house. As one who upheld communitarian laws over the interests of individuals, I cannot imagine Mr Lee insisting that his individual interest must prevail over communitarian interests. As one who defended his Government's land acquisition laws, I cannot imagine Mr Lee insisting that the Government cannot acquire his own property. If in life he submitted himself to the rule of law, I cannot imagine him overruling it in death. It remains to be seen as to why the demolition was drafted as a wish rather than a directive or a condition under his will. I do not know. But it remains to be seen. I cannot imagine Mr Lee wanting his will to prevail over that of the communal good. I cannot imagine Mr Lee wanting to be treated above how other citizens are treated. Perhaps, only those closest to him would know the answer.
Indeed, we must give due weight to Mr Lee's wishes and, for that, I see that there is a justification for a Ministerial Committee, but it is also just for us to understand his reasons as to why he made certain wishes known. My own thinking is that it would not be right for us to demolish the house solely because he wished it. It would not have been right. The Mr Lee that I grew up knowing and respecting would not put his personal interests above the interests of his country. There must be due process, we must consider the interests of the country as opposed to the wishes of a family.
We cannot compromise the rule of law. I cannot over-emphasise this. If I could just share a little personal experience. In June 2015, when I was part of the Singapore delegation to the United Nations Convention for Rights of Persons with Disabilities in New York, I was one of the speakers for a Singapore side event on \"Urbanisation and Disabilities\". I shared the Singapore story of transformation: from attap houses without proper sanitation facilities to high standard public housing with accessible features and universal designs; the transformation of our transportation infrastructure into an inclusive and accessible system, now the envy of many other countries; transformation of our underprivileged being provided education, opportunity, professional and social mobility. I shared the transformation of our journey towards acceptance and inclusion.
There were about 120 people in that room. They were from many different countries. They were surprised at what we achieved, and they were inspired that we did it in 50 years. They asked what our formula was. And I shared my personal view. I said there were three factors that were critical: political will, Civil Service buy-in and mutual trust between the public, people and private sectors. Undergirding those three things are, in my view, at least three important co-dependent factors: the rule of law, political stability and economic progress.
Without any of the three, it could not have been possible for us to look after our people or nurture them. Were we not to uphold the rule of law, we would degenerate into political and civil infighting. Were we not to uphold the rule of law, we would not see economic progress to support our social progress. Were we to divert our efforts and our attention to political infighting, we could not have spared resources or attention to care for the underprivileged in our community, to care for our people. So much at stake and what are we doing today?
We are here in Parliament debating serious allegations. We have had so much to deal with − an economy undergoing disruption in Singapore, globally. We have just finished our Committee on the Future Economy (CFE) consultations. There are so many proposals to be implemented. At the national level, we have just finished our Third Enabling Masterplan. So much to be done, so many people to look after − the health of the Pioneers, the health of our children − all these things. How do we educate our young, how do we bring them up with the right values? So much to be done.
On the personal level, we worry for our jobs, our own health, our children's future. We worry about safety, we worry about terrorism. So much at stake, so much to be done, and we are here talking about whether certain allegations against the highest officers in the land are valid or not.
I doubt very much that a debate could resolve this issue. Indeed, I do not think it can. But what I hope we can do today is that we can see for ourselves more clearly that there are certain issues that are none of our business, and certain issues that we need to clear the air. And I hope that by the end of this debate, Prime Minister, you and your Government will give to us the assurance that we can always rely on this Government to uphold and to maintain the rule of law in Singapore because, without that, there is no way we can have the confidence that we would be able to look after our people.
I feel deeply disappointed that, at a time like this, we are not focusing on national issues that matter so much to our people. In as much as we worry about what people think of us, we also need to realise that we ourselves must band together. If people are looking at Singapore and laughing at us, this is the time for us to be together as a people because this is the time for us to show to others that we are not a people to be easily shaken, easily bullied.
I say that this is a time for us to embark on destruction. Let us be one people to destroy − to destroy the divide that splits us as a people; destroy the suspicion that we have towards one another; destroy the memories of unhappiness, of hatred; destroy even partisan differences. This is the time for us to band together and exercise grace and forgiveness; to remember tender moments, happy moments and to remember that that is what our founding fathers would have wanted for us.
I do not know what people a few generations later will think about this debate. I simply hope that when we step out of this House and end this debate today, we will go out remembering that we are not here just to talk about the institutions, our Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister or his Ministers, but we are here debating and deciding on the future of Singapore − a Singapore that was not built by one man, not founded by the sacrifice of one man, but by the sacrifices of generations of Singaporeans. And, for that, I hope that we will not, never, allow that sacrifice to be in vain.
So, I say again, let us destroy the divide. [Applause.]
Mdm Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Madam, I thank the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister for their statements, and I am heartened by the effort and time they have spent clarifying the issues, addressing concerns and erasing doubts people might have. Madam, allow me to seek further clarifications which I have gathered from my residents, civil society activists, as well as feedback on my Facebook page.
Firstly, determining a testator's intent with regard to a property often follows a legal process. The Prime Minister did not challenge the will and it was granted probate from the Court. Many questioned what then is the role of the Ministerial Committee with regard to the will? According to Deputy Prime Minister Teo, and as he mentioned earlier, the Committee's interest in Mr Lee Kuan Yew's will is simply to help them understand his thoughts regarding the house. Many are confused as to what it is that requires further understanding, and does the Committee not accept the will as the official expression of Mr Lee's last wishes?
Secondly, there may be a conflict between the role of the Ministerial Committee and the process and powers set out in section 11 of the Preservation of Monuments Act. Section 11 states that \"the Minister may, after consulting the Board, make a preservation order to place any monument under the protection of the Board.\" The \"Board\" here refers to the National Heritage Board. There is no provision in this piece of legislation about taking advice from the Ministerial Committee. How will evidence gathered and decisions taken by the Committee influence the processes set out in section 11? Would the Minister and NHB be in any way bound by opinions or findings by the Committee? At this point, is NHB also concurrently studying about whether to preserve the house? If the plan is to conserve the area, then, similarly, section 9 of the Planning Act states, \"Where in the opinion of the Minister any area is of special architectural, historic, traditional or aesthetic interest, the Minister may approve under section 8 a proposal to amend the Master Plan to designate the area as a conservation area.\" There is no mention of the role of a Ministerial Committee here in this piece of legislation as well.
Thirdly, as explained earlier, I understand the Committee is studying and listing options. But would not the factors this Committee is using, including public sentiments, change in the future? What then is the point of setting up this Committee now and making recommendations now? Things would definitely change in two to three decades. Family members' views might change as well.
Fourth, can the Prime Minister clarify under what circumstances are Ministerial Committees convened? Are there written rules and procedures governing the setting up and functions of such committees?
Lastly, can the Prime Minister or Deputy Prime Minister clarify whether the same emphasis was placed on other important buildings like the National Library? There has been much talk on social media about this, and I suppose the question really is, how do we decide what to preserve or conserve and when do we set up Ministerial Committees for these decisions? Minister Lawrence Wong spoke about this earlier, but can I confirm if Ministerial Committees were set up for previous important buildings as well?
Beyond all these questions, I appreciate that this is not an easy issue to resolve and definitely not one with straightforward answers. The community is divided in their views. Last Friday night, I had two meetings and this issue was brought up in our conversations in both meetings. At the first meeting, the consensus was to demolish. The second meeting, the consensus was not to demolish. They did not support demolishing the house as they felt we have so little heritage left in Singapore that we should preserve or conserve whatever heritage we have left.
Ultimately, it is easy to understand why we should demolish. It was part of Mr Lee's will. It is perhaps harder to understand why we should not demolish, and can the Deputy Prime Minister take this opportunity to further explain and provide details on what exactly is the heritage value and why an option to preserve or conserve the house should be considered?
In conclusion, Madam, whatever decision we make or options we list, the key is to continue to be transparent about it, and perhaps the most important part is to also be transparent about the process of making the decision or options. It really is not an easy issue to resolve and, as such, I hope, like many Members of this House have suggested, that we set up a Select Committee to look into this and find a way forward.
Mdm Speaker: Mr Png Eng Huat.
Mr Png Eng Huat (Hougang): Madam, I am not here today to debate on how the last will of Mr Lee Kuan Yew was made or who drafted it. I am not even bothered why the current owner of 38 Oxley Road would want it demolished as soon as possible. These are really none of my business. These are private matters for the Prime Minister to settle with his siblings and they do not concern the state.
I was not a bit affected by this issue until when other Ministers started to weigh in on the matters. The whole episode then took a cringing turn, and allegations of abuse of power began to flow in. That is when the real embarrassment starts. Why are Ministers taking sides in a private dispute on a house that is still legally in the hands of a private individual?
In recent statements made by Ministers on social media, the fate of 38 Oxley Road seems to hinge on whether the house should be demolished completely according to the will of Mr Lee Kuan Yew or preserved, in whole or in part, as a political heritage. One can easily infer from the tone set by these Ministers that the Government is tending towards the latter option, and that, sadly, will drag the Government into the picture to decide on the fate of 38 Oxley Road, in the guise of public interest. Madam, if this Government had not had the slightest interest to take sides and form a secret committee to explore other options for the house in the first place, none of these would have happened.
Some Ministers seemed to allude to the sanctity of the house from a historical context and that it deserves preservation. Some Ministers had commented that many important meetings and critical decisions on the future of Singapore took place at 38 Oxley Road. While that is not a far-fetched statement since it is the birthplace of the only ruling political party in Singapore since 1965, what other roles did the house play in our march from Third World to First? What official and history-making decisions and declarations affecting Singapore were made in the basement of this house, other than it had always been the private abode of Mr Lee Kuan Yew and Mdm Kwa Geok Choo? Did the Cabinet of the day hold its first post-1965 meeting at Oxley Road? Did the Cabinet meet regularly at the house rather than at the old Parliament House or Istana?
One thing is very clear to me − a political party was founded in the basement dining room of 38 Oxley Road, not modern Singapore. Modern Singapore was thrust into existence, not by its own free will, on 9 August 1965, under circumstances that are well documented in our history books, and 38 Oxley Road hardly gets a memorable mention anywhere. As the Prime Minister has said earlier, this is just an old house.
Thirty-eight Oxley Road probably holds so much intimate and private memories for Mr Lee Kuan Yew and Mdm Kwa Geok Choo that none of us in this Chamber, maybe with the exception of the Prime Minister, should even attempt to try to understand or question why they would want their house to be demolished immediately after they are gone. From the accounts given by the Prime Minister today, the fate of the house is really a family matter and it should not be outsourced to the Government to decide.
I wish to put on record that I do not support the effort or intention of the Government to gazette 38 Oxley Road for whatever reasons. A reported poll on 23 December 2015 indicated that 77% of the people said they would want to see Mr Lee Kuan Yew's wish for the house to be carried out, although I am of the opinion that such a poll is not even necessary, as this is a completely private matter for the immediate family members to sort out.
Even if the balance of the fate of the house is tending towards preservation in the name of public interest, and the Prime Minister recuses himself in this matter, the buck still stops with him. Surely, the Prime Minister is not a lame-duck commander-in-chief in this matter. He has the power to have the final say, take the whole matter off the Government's hand and resolve it privately or in Court, as he should. The surviving members of the Lee family should not outsource this decision to the Government or any secret committee.
Madam, what is more troubling about this private saga is found in the statement released by Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee Wei Ling in the wee hours of 14 June 2017. The statement contains disturbing revelations and undisclosed facts and allegations of abuse of powers.
As highlighted by Ms Sylvia Lim, Singaporeans woke up in the morning to find out that our newly-appointed AG, Mr Lucien Wong, was also the personal lawyer of the Prime Minister previously. The fact that the Prime Minister and our current AG had a commercial relationship was never publicly disclosed until now. How long has Mr Lucien Wong been the personal lawyer for the Prime Minister? While such a relationship may not allude to anything, a personal and commercial relation between the Prime Minister and the appointed AG should be publicly disclosed in the name of transparency. When I sought the advice of someone from the charity sector about mundane disclosure, this person said, when in doubt, more disclosure is better than less. So, err on the safe side. Could the Prime Minister explain why the public disclosure of his relationship with the AG is not necessary?
Singaporeans also found out the same morning that the wife of the Prime Minister was alleged to have exerted her influence on the Government and Civil Service in a pervasive manner and \"well beyond her job purview.\" Neither the Prime Minister nor his wife has come out to refute the allegation in no uncertain terms.
Dr Lee Wei Ling wrote, and I quote: \"Singapore has no such thing as the wife of the Prime Minister being a ‘first lady'. Lee Kuan Yew was Prime Minister from 1959 to 1990. During those many years, his wife (our mother) consistently avoided the limelight, remaining his stalwart supporter and advisor in private. She lived discreetly and set a high bar for the conduct of a Prime Minister's wife. She would never instruct Permanent Secretaries or senior civil servants. The contrast between her and Ho Ching could not be more stark. While Ho Ching holds no elected or official position in the Government, her influence is pervasive and extends well beyond her job purview.\"
Mr Lee Kuan Yew, in his own words about his relationship with his wife, said, \"I made a point, however, not to discuss the formulation of policies with her, and she was scrupulous in not reading notes or faxes that were sensitive.\"
From both accounts, Madam, it is a given that the wife of the Prime Minister, and for that matter, the wife of any Minister, would have easy access to information and the inner workings of the Government.
While there is a code of conduct to govern Ministers, what safeguards are there to prevent their family members from abusing their positions of influence in their engagement with the Civil Service? The Prime Minister has said that it is the duty of the Minister to correct any abuse of power committed by their family members. Nonetheless, these safeguards should be spelt out clearly so that the core values of the Civil Service would not be compromised. Surely, family members of Ministers and political appointees cannot act with impunity just because they are private individuals and the code of conduct only applies to public officeholders.
So, what are the safeguards for the Civil Service if such family members decide to go beyond their call of duty for all the wrong reasons? So, what prompted Dr Lee Wei Ling to allege that the wife of the Prime Minister is throwing her weight around with the Civil Service? What pervasive influence did she exert that are well beyond her job purview?
In an NHB document released on Facebook, a certain \"Ms Ho Ching\" was listed as a contact person for PMO, and Mr Lee Hsien Yang had alleged that this person is the wife of the Prime Minister, Mdm Ho Ching, of which, she did not deny. So, what official role does the wife of the Prime Minister have in Government that would allow her to act as a contact person for PMO? Would NHB dare to ask the wife of the Prime Minister to show proof that the items on loan were obtained legally? Between state agencies, did they not know that PMO does not have a contact person named \"Ms Ho Ching\"?
And what business did MCI have in photographing and cataloging a private house? Was the Government working on a secret project? These are allegations that need to be addressed.
In my dealings with the Civil Service, many civil servants are neutral and we must protect them from being put into positions of conflict against their values, personal and professional. Does the Prime Minister not agree that these allegations of abuse of position of influence by family members need to be addressed urgently and emphatically in a transparent manner?
Madam, in conclusion, years from now, how do Singaporeans want to remember 38 Oxley Road, a place where Mr and Mrs Lee Kuan Yew once raised their family, or a house where bitterness resides? The choice lies with the family and not with this Government.
Mdm Speaker: Dr Tan Wu Meng.
Dr Tan Wu Meng (Jurong): Mdm Speaker, hearing the stories of families, listening to stories of families from residents, I wanted to share a short story of my own.
I remember one of my last conversations with my late father. He was ill with cancer, not getting better. I was at his bedside visiting him at home. By then, he could not stand up for long. Sitting up was hard. Breathing was a challenge. But he could still talk. We talked for a while. And then he reminded me not to take up too much time with him. Because there were other cancer patients who needed me more as their doctor.
But this story is not unique. It is a story that every Singaporean family relates to in their own way, in their own journey, whether it is other doctors or nurses in our hospitals working to cure illness, to comfort patients, even if it means less time with loved ones who are sick. It is a story that is lived by our teachers in our schools who uplift the lives of young Singaporeans, even though every extra hour at home with their own children would mean one less hour at school with the students they are looking after.
It is a story that will be understood by our Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) servicemen who know that operational readiness and commitment to defence, making that sacrifice is how we deter external threats from intimidating Singapore. And it is a story that will be known by our Home Team officers who leave their children behind when they go on duty − firefighters running towards danger rather than running away as we saw on videos on social media some months back; Police Officers stepping into harm's way so that other parents' children can live and sleep safe at night.
Yet, I am sure many Singaporeans, and many of my residents have told me, they can only imagine how much harder it is for our Prime Minister. Because while Mr Lee Hsien Loong has his family duty as the eldest son, Prime Minister Lee has a duty to Singapore. And Singapore must always come first.
Putting Singapore first means a duty to uphold the rule of law. Because in a fair and just society, the system and laws have to be bigger than any one person or family because no one comes into this world choosing who their parents are, where they will be born, which postal code they will be born in.
That is why the law must apply equally, regardless of your background. And the law of land acquisition does apply equally to the wealthy and famous, as much as to the farmer in a kampung.
This equality of land law is still something very, very rare throughout the world. If we look all around us, across the arc of human history, dispossession, being disadvantaged in the system, is often what happens to the powerless elsewhere.
In other countries, curbs on private property rights very rarely hit those with power, or those who can influence people in power. That is what happens elsewhere. But not in Singapore. And that is why we have to preserve this Singapore principle of the rule of law.
Let me talk about the Ministerial Committee. The rule of law is also about due process. And there are questions to be asked, that my residents have asked, about the Ministerial Committee looking at 38 Oxley Road. My residents, many are not lawyers; they are lay persons. They are wondering, could this task not have been assigned to the Founders Memorial Committee, which was already looking at how to remember our Founders? Could the question have been put to the Founders Memorial Committee earlier?
Some of my residents have also asked, why should this Ministerial Committee be studying Mr Lee Kuan Yew's will? It is going to be very important to find out why exactly was this Ministerial Committee looking at the will, given what has been said online and given the concerns that many of my residents have raised. Like me, my residents are not legally trained. People ask, how does the Ministerial Committee fit in with a layperson's understanding of due process? This needs to be explained thoroughly because the rule of law is not just about due process. It is about public confidence in that process, confidence that the rule of law applies and is applied equally, the confidence that allows people from all walks of life to believe in the system and continue living in it.
Madam, our Government also has a duty to both current and future generations. Mr Lee Kuan Yew had written about Dr Lee Wei Ling continuing to stay at 38 Oxley Road. This could be for many years more. As long as she wants. Indeed, for as long as she lives. Right now, there does not seem to be a need to rush to decide. So, some of my residents asked: what exactly is being asked of the Government in this dispute? They are perplexed. I am perplexed.
Indeed, if 38 Oxley Road were demolished in haste, as Mr Png Eng Huat seems to allude to, it may well mean fewer choices for future governments and later generations of Singaporeans. There is an issue of intergenerational equity here. Just as we have thought very carefully about our fiscal Reserves and how choices made by one generation should not over-commit the next generation, likewise, there is an issue of intergenerational heritage equity that we have to think about as well. Because once the house is smashed and gone, it is lost forever. In SG100, two generations from now, SG100 Singaporeans might want it to stand again − the house or the basement.
So, we should not rush, especially when emotions are high and feelings are raw. We should take our time. Do not rush to decide. Do not rush to tear down what cannot be rebuilt. Do not rush to unmake what can never be made whole again.
The same principle has to apply to the greater house that Mr Lee and the Founders built. A greater house − the home that is Singapore. Our cohesion as one people, our togetherness, our system of rule of law, that fairness and our stature as a shining red dot, hoping to light the way to a better future. A country where citizens can stand tall in the world, proud of what our country stands for. All this is the greater house that is Singapore.
Our founding leaders, our Pioneer generation spent their whole lives building this up. Let us not allow it to be knocked down on a whim.
Singapore is not perfect. In Singapore, the story is always about getting the country better and making the country even better. So, if there is a problem, it matters whether there is evidence, because the evidence helps us find out where we can do better. But likewise, if there is no evidence, let it be known as well that there is no evidence.
If I may say to those who have been alleging abuse of power, those who have been making online allegations: show us the evidence, bring it all out. There is the whole night tonight to post on Facebook. I am sure WP will appreciate it. I am sure our PAP MPs will appreciate it. I am sure our NMPs will appreciate it. I am sure the people of Singapore will appreciate it. If there is evidence, let it all come out before this debate is over. Do not come back later and say there was no chance to have the issue heard, because there are many other things that Singapore needs to deal with − big, big challenges ahead for Singapore.
Mdm Speaker, I am Advisor to the Shipbuilding and Marine Engineering Employees' Union (SMEEU). I have met Singaporeans − brothers and sisters − in the Offshore and Marine sector. We know what the recent oil prices have done to that sector. Husbands, fathers, mothers, breadwinners are wondering if they will still have a job next month. Have the recent events helped our brothers and sisters who are worrying about work?
At our Inclusive Job Fair in Clementi and during my home visits as a constituency MP, I have met middle-aged workers wondering if there will be new jobs available if they lose their existing jobs. Has what happened online, has all that helped our workers?
We see terrorism and extremism around the world. The Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) wanting to set up a province, a wilayat in Southeast Asia, trying to brainwash people through social media from halfway around the world. Has this public dispute, this poison, has it made us safer?
We see world events shaping our environment, shifting the stage that Singapore balances on. Does all this strengthen our place in the sun? Does it help our small and medium enterprises (SMEs) stand tall and proud overseas? Does it help our citizens when they seek opportunities elsewhere and engage with overseas counterparts? Or has it cast a long shadow on our little red dot?
Mdm Speaker, this dispute may be between the flesh and blood of our Founding father Mr Lee. But all of us are sons and daughters of Singapore, the Singapore that Mr Lee and his Pioneer generation built. Not just the country of our birth. Our country, our home, our Singapore. And our Singapore deserves a lot better than what happened at 2.00 am on 14 June this year.
Mdm Speaker, the wheel of history will always turn. It keeps on turning. Each of us, in our own way, can shape the future for the sons and daughters of tomorrow. We cannot change the past. But we must always ask ourselves how we can make things better, so that our grandchildren's generation never find themselves wishing they could turn back the clock and start all over again.
Yesterday is already written. But tomorrow is still ours to shape, our days of present futures.
[Deputy Speaker (Mr Lim Biow Chuan) in the Chair]
So, I hope with all my heart that today's divisions can somehow be reconciled, that the pain and sadness felt throughout so much of Singapore can and will be healed, and that whatever happens, our Singapore, our country, will come through this stronger and better than before. [Applause.]
Mr Deputy Speaker:\tMr Png.
Mr Png Eng Huat:\tMay I just seek a quick clarification from Dr Tan Wu Meng?
Mr Deputy Speaker: You have made a speech earlier?
Mr Png Eng Huat:\tYes.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Okay.
Mr Png Eng Huat: The Member said that I wanted the house to be demolished in a haste. So, which part of my speech did I say that?
Dr Tan Wu Meng:\tMr Deputy Speaker, from my understanding of Mr Png Eng Huat's speech, he seems to adopt a particular view that the value of the house was confined to just one family in a very narrow way, and I wonder if that meant he was suggesting the house had no heritage value for the rest of Singapore. If I may ask, what is Mr Png's position on whether the house should be demolished, and whether he thinks it should be demolished now?
Mr Png Eng Huat:\tActually, I would like Dr Tan to answer first. Which part of my speech says that I want the house to be demolished in a haste?
Dr Tan Wu Meng:\tI believe the Hansard will reflect that my understanding of Mr Png's speech was that he was alluding to a certain point of view. That seems to be quite a possibly natural conclusion to draw from the points he was making. Will Mr Png reply to my clarification as well, please?
Mr Png Eng Huat: I will send the speech later and it will be in the Hansard. In reply to his question, I am not into cult worshipping. So, that answers the Member's question.
Mr Deputy Speaker:\tAll right, we move on. Asst Prof Mahdev Mohan.
Asst Prof Mahdev Mohan (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, today's Sitting is unique in several respects, not least because of the apology by the Prime Minister, for the manner in which a dispute with both public and private dimensions has been aired in the Court of public opinion. His apology was first made a few weeks ago, which was televised and broadcast to all Singaporeans to see, and it was made again today.
We live in an age, Mr Deputy Speaker, when some foreign world leaders make their rounds on talk shows, who use social media to insist that they have nothing to apologise for. In politics, like in law, it is usually the case that to admit fault seems to many to be an invitation to be attacked in return. But a genuine apology to the Government's first and foremost stakeholders − the people of Singapore − disarms. A genuine apology is a gesture of self-humbling, a willingness to be less powerful than one can be. In this regard, I must say, Mr Deputy Speaker, that what comes after an apology is equally, if not more, important.
Today's Parliamentary Sitting aims to set out and analyse truths, not about the validity or invalidity of the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew's final will. After all, a grant of probate was made without protest on 6 October 2015, more than six months ago. Our duty today is to identify and ask questions on behalf of our constituents or, if you are an NMP, our functional groups, regarding the origins of the allegations aired in public.
These allegations have been inimical to Singapore's reputation, and I think they indicate, if nothing else, that the country's leader and his siblings do not speak with one voice.
There are two points I want to make, Mr Deputy Speaker. The first is what process should we choose when we are discussing these questions. And second, it is about participative policymaking.
The fact that the Government endeavours to prioritise the common good that seeks to balance public against private interests, the long term against the short term is clear. It is the way that Singapore has been and, I hope, should always be governed. It is also in keeping with our settled policymaking traditions, as our Deputy Prime Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam has said recently.
But what about, as there is now, when there is a situation of real or apparent conflict, something that Deputy Prime Minister Teo mentioned earlier, which may be seen to be contrary to both Ministerial and Public Service codes of conduct? What then? The Government's answer seems to be perhaps establish a Cabinet Committee and, of course, for the Prime Minister or whichever Cabinet Minister is involved to recuse themselves. That makes perfect sense.
However, even if there is no mystery to the Members of this House as to what Cabinet Committees are − there are Cabinet Committees, there are Cabinet subcommittees, there are Cabinet task forces − there is no mystery behind them, and it is not something that only Singapore has. Many Commonwealth countries have them. In the United Kingdom, which is where we get our own traditions from, there are 10 Cabinet Committees, and there are about 15 Cabinet subcommittees. But even in that grand nation, there has been a push to move away from Cabinet Committees for this precise reason of an allegation of secrecy.
Prime Minister Theresa May disclosed the thematic focus as well as the membership of all her Cabinet Committees which are responsible for the day-to-day decisions made and which are designed to take the pressure off the full Cabinet meeting for every decision that has to be made. But in special circumstances, such as this, which have animated the minds of so many Singaporeans, should we go beyond looking at Cabinet Committees? The process of decision-making, Mr Deputy Speaker, and how this is communicated in the eyes of Singaporeans, are important.
To this end, can I clarify perhaps, was there at any time in which a Parliamentary Select Committee was considered before this Cabinet Committee was actually organised? I understand that a Parliamentary Select Committee would be a Select Committee of MPs, not Ministers. But the difference is, looking at Standing Order 101, it allows for bipartisan representation. That gives a sense that any questions that should be asked could be asked at an early stage.
Standing Order 101 also allows the Speaker, or her delegate, to serve as the Chairman of that particular Committee, even if the Speaker is not a Member of that Committee, giving one a sense of neutrality or independence. If we were to go further, where senior Cabinet Ministers may wish to, in good conscience, recuse themselves from the decision-making process, perhaps Parliament could study whatever mechanisms could be put in place.
We should certainly look to the future, as Senior Minister of State Janil Puthucheary mentioned earlier. If you are looking 15 years into the future, or even further, should the processes also not be refined? What happens if this were to recur again in a different Prime Minister's administration? Can we count on so clearly that that Prime Minister would recuse himself or herself from the decision-making process? Should there not be some form of check, some neutrality? Who can be that neutrality? Where is it going to come from?
A suggestion, for example, has been made, and I would support this proposal as well, whether there should be a Parliamentary commissioner, perhaps not a standing institution, but a Parliamentary commissioner who could, from time to time, engage where there is an appearance of a conflict of interest. Someone who is independent of the Government and the Civil Service to be appointed in precisely this sort of situation, if nothing else, to insulate the Cabinet from an appearance of conflict. Appearances matter to Singaporeans, Mr Deputy Speaker.
When we look at the divide that has formed over what should be done over 38 Oxley Road, we notice a clear divide. As an example, members of the public from institutions or organisations, such as the Heritage Society, feel that acceding to an individual testator's wishes, whoever he or she may be, without undergoing the process administered by our local heritage and planning institutions, may establish an unwanted precedent for future preservation or conservation cases. If we do this now, what about the next case that comes up? That is what they say.
On the other hand, I understand that in a poll conducted by Black Box research, a local market research consultancy, a significant majority of close to 1,000 respondents voted that the house should be demolished in the event a Court were to declare that Mr Lee Kuan Yew was of sound mind, had acted without undue influence, and knew and approved of the contents of that final will. There is this divide.
Of course, these two examples may be anecdotal, they may not be representative examples. But given that as many of us agree in this House that the fate of 38 Oxley has become a matter of public interest, and if it is a matter of public interest, does the Government intend to include the public in some form of consultation?
In the course of the studies which Minister Lawrence Wong mentioned earlier − one study undertaken by NHB, and the other study undertaken by URA − looking at the possibility of preservation or conservation, where can we involve public consultation, where can we get the views of the public? The opportunity for such consultation calls to mind a desire that was expressed during the Our Singapore Conversation dialogues a few years ago, where the report finally concluded that the Government should \"share the reasons behind policies and create or enhance spaces for ongoing interactions\". In short, where possible, participatory policymaking. It bears mention that people can become disenchanted if they feel that any information that they are providing is at the final stages of the process, that their consultation may be piecemeal.
It is clear from our style of Government, from Singapore's style of Government, be it in foreign or domestic policy, be it with most important trade or investment issues, or with arts and culture, that one thing that cuts across all these areas – and I think it is deeply within our national psyche – is national heritage, what we think is important for our identity as Singaporeans. This genesis or heritage story that we have is at the heart of what is going on right now. In this policymaking that we go for, when we think about the processes that we put in place and we also think about how to confront these sorts of disputes in future, what can we do to include Singaporeans in this process?
Finally, what is the larger process that we are looking at? It calls to mind the Heritage Master Plan that was spoken about during the Committee of Supply debate earlier this year. And I understand that the Heritage Master Plan, or at least the first stage, will be released in 2018, and that it will be a five-year plan. Perhaps, it all comes together. If heritage is so important to Singaporeans, and I am sure it is, from everything that we see, from all accounts, then that is the greater debate. It is not about family dispute, as sad as that may be. But what Singaporeans want is to protect their heritage, to protect their sense of identity, to know who and what they belong to.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Murali Pillai.
Mr Murali Pillai (Bukit Batok): Mr Deputy Speaker, I have several questions, all of which are focused on the Ministerial Committee set up to consider options for the house at 38 Oxley Road. They are as follows.
First, why did the Committee find it necessary to seek views from the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew's children to get a clearer sense of his thinking in relation to the house in 2016 when his views, as expressed in his last will, were already made public?
Second, how would such subjective information on his wishes help the Committee in its deliberations to identify the options for the house?
Third, noting the letter dated 27 July 2016 from Minister Lawrence Wong to the executors, in the paragraph which states, \"the Committee will be listing the different options and the implications of those options and setting them out in the context of Mr Lee's wishes\", my question is: was it contemplated that the children of Mr Lee would be approached to provide their own views on these options and, if so, was it conveyed to his children?
Fourth, why did the Committee decide not to disclose its composition of members, save for Deputy Prime Minister Teo and Minister Lawrence Wong, to Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee Wei Ling at the time when they were asked to provide their views about the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew's thinking and wishes in relation to the house?
Fifth, did the Minister for Law advise the late Mr Lee or any of his family members on matters in connection with the house prior to becoming a member of the Committee?
Finally, if he has, why is he of the view that he is not in a conflict of interest position in assuming a position in the Committee that is focused on looking at the options for the house?
Mr Deputy Speaker, it is disappointing to hear some MPs expressing the view that today's debate is pointless. I think it trivialises what has happened today. We have heard the Ministerial Statements made by the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister and robust questions have been posed to both of them and their Cabinet colleagues. I have posed some of these questions and these questions are drawn from the allegations that were made by Mr Lee Hsien Yang as well as Dr Lee Wei Ling. The fact that they are not here does not mean that the allegations they have made outside this House cannot be conveyed as well. So, we have done that. Both PAP MPs as well as Opposition MPs have done the same thing, together with my colleagues who are NMPs.
It is disappointing to hear that they have already prejudged that the debate is pointless. I think we have still not heard the answers from the Ministers, and such conclusions, being prematurely drawn, undermine the confidence in this House. This House is definitely more important than the house at 38 Oxley Road.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Thomas Chua.
Mr Thomas Chua Kee Seng (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Over the past few weeks, Singapore has become the talking point around the world. However, the reason for this undue attention really makes us feel very uneasy and helpless. Some people take this opportunity to utter all kinds of things, hoping that everything would become chaotic. Even more Singaporeans feel most dismayed by this development, not wishing to see the image of our country and the dignity of our leaders tarnished as a result.
Singapore has transformed from a small fishing village into an independent and developed nation, becoming one of the most competitive cities globally. This did not occur by chance, but derived from the far-sightedness of our Pioneer leaders, the citizens' unity and hard work, the Government's diligence and pragmatism, making all efforts to maintain social cohesion and promote economic development.
Presently, the world is not really at peace. Many countries around the world are facing all kinds of problems, and Singapore is no exception. In the past, we have also encountered setbacks, but our people believed that an open and transparent political system and a government which is administratively robust, would enable everyone to overcome difficulties together.
An ancient saying goes that an honest and upright official finds it hard to judge domestic affairs, as every household experiences its own specific problems. I am not making any judgements, but I do love my country and respect our Pioneer leaders even more. In this constantly changing international order, Singapore's economic restructuring has entered a difficult period. Coupled with domestic and external threats from extremist groups, we deeply believe that the Prime Minister and Ministers would continue to put national interests as their top priority.
I recall that two years ago, here in Parliament, I gave an eulogy at a tribute to Founding Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew. I said that \"the most valuable legacy that Mr Lee Kuan Yew has left behind is the nation, system and political ideology that he forged together with his comrades\". We should endeavour to make it even better, enabling the task of nation-building that he had struggled to achieve in his lifetime to flourish.
Over the past five years, I had had the opportunity to get involved in the work of restructuring the Singapore economy, from the initial National Productivity Council, to the Council for Skills, Innovation and Productivity, and to the present Future Economy Council. I am deeply aware that economic transformation is not easy, especially since the global economy is in a state of flux. At this time, it is even more critical for the Government and the people to stay united in purpose.
Fifty years of nation-building have enabled fellow Singaporeans to enjoy the benefits of economic growth and stability in our society. As we carry Singapore passports, we feel a great sense of pride for our country wherever we go. However, during this period, Singapore has become the target of sensational news. We should not carry our Singapore passport in one hand and go around the world to open up our minds or seek business opportunities and enjoy the convenience and respect from every country, and yet, on the other hand, cast doubts and distrust on our country's political system. Even more disastrous is that when other people cast aspersions on our own country, we choose to keep quiet or avoid replying, unwilling or not daring to come forward in defence. This red passport is accepted worldwide because it symbolises the transparency and reliability of Singapore's political system.
If Singaporeans cannot respect ourselves, lose self-respect, lose trust in our own country's political system, how can we expect to earn respect from others?
Some businessmen have complained to me that recently, whenever they meet business partners abroad, they are always being queried about this dispute and are nonplussed about the appropriate way to respond. I think everyone should stand up and bravely defend the dignity of our nation and our leaders. Singaporeans should demonstrate this patriotic spirit.
Mr Deputy Speaker, we cannot allow such propaganda to continue, which would only sow seeds of discord and bring humiliation to our fellow men. Putting national interests above personal honour − this is the most precious value and legacy left behind by Mr Lee Kuan Yew.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Rahayu Mahzam.
Ms Rahayu Mahzam (Jurong): Prime Minister, you had asked that all MPs be candid and ask any questions so as to allow you to clarify matters fully and put to rest any doubt what the allegations of abuse of your powers are and the aspersions cast on the integrity of the system. It is with this spirit in mind that I seek clarification on a few matters.
As a lawyer, I typically extol the advantages of having a will to my clients. It helps your loved ones deal with your assets when you pass on and you can ensure that your wishes are carried out when you are not around. However, I have also seen cases where things go awry and family members disagree on the validity of the will after the individual has passed away. It is, therefore, important that a will is properly drafted and proper independent legal advice is given to the client to avoid any doubt or challenge to the will.
In the circumstances, I find it unsettling that it is not clear who drafted the will. It is odd that we do not know this answer and there are issues as to whether the late Mr Lee was independently advised. Anyone who knows the law would know that you need someone independent to draft the will. Was it done here?
These are serious assertions which may go towards the validity of the will and the propriety of Mdm Lee Suet Fern as a lawyer. The proper forum to challenge a will and raise these issues would be in Court. Prime Minister, you had decided not to pursue this matter in Court. A fight in Court, especially between family members, can be emotionally draining and damaging to the relationship. So, while your reluctance to contest the grant of probate and your initial decision not to challenge the will is understandable, there are, therefore, now questions raised about the appropriateness to now raise these issues before the Ministerial Committee. As the grant of probate has been granted and there is no challenge, the will should be taken as valid and proper. You had, however, in your statutory declaration submitted to the Ministerial Committee alluded to certain questionable circumstances upon which the will was executed. This may appear to be a \"backdoor\" approach in challenging the validity of the will. Could you, therefore, clarify why you found it necessary to affirm the statutory declaration and your intentions in doing so? Why could you not just rely on the words of the will which, in itself, contemplated a situation where the house is not being demolished?
Related to the above, many have raised concerns on the formation of the Ministerial Committee. Prime Minister, it is noted that you had recused yourself from making any decisions on 38 Oxley Road. However, some are still not convinced that the Ministers are able to put aside their deference to you in relation to this matter.
Personally, I am not quite sure what the Ministers need to defer to you on as there is no decision to be made at this juncture, given that Dr Lee Wei Ling is still staying at the house. I am also not clear of the benefits you gain whether the house is demolished or not. However, there is now doubt on the improper use of your powers in setting up this Committee.
I understand and I note from Deputy Prime Minister Teo's earlier explanation that the Ministerial Committee came about as a result of a proposal put up by the Minister of National Development. May I seek a clarification on whether prior to this proposal you had asked or suggested the formation of this Ministerial Committee to be set up? I believe it would help to dissipate any doubt if you could clarify on this matter.
My next question relates to the Deed of Gift entered into by Dr Lee Wei Ling and Mr Lee Hsien Yang with NHB. As highlighted by Minister Lawrence Wong, there were some strange conditions in the Deed, which included the right of the executors to buy back the items for $1 and a display of a partial quote of the demolition clause in the late Mr Lee's will. The much-quoted demolition clause has two parts; the first part expresses the late Mr and Mrs Lee's wish that the house at 38 Oxley Road be demolished. The second part showed that Mr Lee had, in fact, contemplated the situation when the house could not be demolished. The Deed had only asked for only the first part of the will to be prominently displayed to the public.
Given that the conditions appeared strange, may I know why NHB proceeded to accept the terms and proceeded with the exhibition? Should you also not have a more rigorous process to check whether or not there was a consent of all the beneficiaries obtained? Was there a proper process in place to vet the terms of the Deed and consider whether it was appropriate to enter into the Deed with the Lee siblings? I have also found it disturbing that Mdm Lee Suet Fern was involved in this decision, and may I just seek clarification on the rigour in the process in determining the suitability of entering into this Deed with the two of them. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, allow me to say a few words in Malay.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The issue concerning 38 Oxley Road has caused unease among Singaporeans. The integrity of the leadership and system of Government are being questioned. There appears to be a slight loss of faith in the Government that was elected by the people. This is very sad and will have serious implications on our country's international standing. I truly hope that all the questions raised can be answered fully so that there will be no more lingering doubts about the transparency and integrity of the Government. And I also hope that after this debate, all of us can fully focus on the efforts to prepare our society for our future challenges.
(In English) In the past few weeks, the integrity of the system and leadership has been called into question. Even the PAP MPs are not spared as our ability to put aside our deference to the Prime Minister and ask questions on behalf of our constituents are also put to question. Recently, many I spoke to have expressed their wish that there be closure to the matter. Upon listening to Senior Minister of State Janil Puthucheary's speech as well as some of my other colleagues, it reminded me that the closure on whether or not we achieve this is up to us Singaporeans. As my Parliamentary colleague Dr Tan Wu Meng said, \"If we have any questions, any queries, Internet is still open. It is up to us to just put up the questions and allow the Prime Minister to address these concerns. In particular, if Dr Lee Wei Ling or Mr Lee Hsien Yang claims abuse of power, I would ask that they be more specific and put it up for Prime Minister Lee to answer them and not say later that they were not given the opportunity to put up their part of the story.\"
I believe the Prime Minister and the Ministers will do their best in addressing the questions and I hope that the questions raised can be answered as thoroughly as possible so that any concerns of abuse of powers are allayed. But at the end of the day, it is up to us to place our faith and trust on the leaders that we have elected to do right by us.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Leon Perera.
Mr Leon Perera (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, imagine, if you will, a public-listed company where two ex-employees have made allegations on Facebook of abuse of power by the CEO. The Board of Directors meets. It decides to convene an extraordinary general meeting (EOGM) of shareholders to debate the allegations. While waiting for this EOGM, individual directors rebut the whistleblowers' claims or the purported whistleblowers' claims on Facebook. However, no one − no independent director, no special auditor, no consultant, no member of management, no Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) or law enforcement officer − has met and interviewed the two self-styled whistleblowers to ask them for proof, to interrogate their claims and investigate their veracity.
Instead, at the EOGM, the CEO rebuts the Facebook posts. He then asks for a vote of shareholders to decide if he should step down. No independent investigation of the claims made, just settled by debate after hearing one side of the story. Would such a company be deemed to have met best practices of corporate governance? Would such a company be seen to be beyond reproach?
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this analogy, while imperfect, does illustrate some of the dilemmas this House faces in discussing this matter. It is the process we follow to resolve this issue that I will focus on in my speech.
I shall not speak on the issue of what should be done to the house at 38 Oxley Road or what the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew wanted for his house, questions on which the WP does not adopt a Party position, as my colleagues have explained.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, abuse of power and the integrity of our public institutions are serious issues and they are the crux of the matter today − not the house, not the will, not the affairs of the family.
The allegations of abuse of power that have been made include, among other things: the abuse of a Ministerial Committee to pursue a personal agenda; the improper use of a document obtained in a public capacity in private capacity; allegations of intermeddling and appropriation of items without the permission of the estate by the Prime Minister's wife; allegations of the influence of the Prime Minister's wife on governmental functions; allegations of the Government surveilling and harassing the accusers, turning their lives into \"an Orwellian nightmare.\"
The Prime Minister has acknowledged that this controversy has damaged the reputation of Singapore for institutional probity and Singaporeans' confidence in the Government.
If allowed to fester, these allegations will damage Singapore even more in the weeks and months ahead. They must be decisively addressed, the truth established and appropriate follow-up actions taken in respect of the events and incidence themselves as well as any systemic issues that need to be attended to, to prevent a recurrence of similar incidences in future.
Whatever happens today and tomorrow in Parliament − whatever attacks are levelled against the accusers, whatever compromises are suggested, whatever admissions of error or wrongdoing are made − we cannot dismiss such allegations without allowing to the accusers a public platform to defend and expand on their views, share their evidence and be cross-examined, a public platform where all can see justice being done.
Otherwise the matter may never be put to bed. The conclusions made in this House in the wrapping-up speeches after this debate may simply be rebutted on Facebook the next day with reference to fresh information.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I fear that today, in an attempt to be made to close the issue and move on, without that proper process of fact-finding that gives the accusers a chance to state their case and be cross-examined, if we do that today or tomorrow, the accusations will continue. The Facebook posts may continue. The erosion of public and international confidence may continue.
In fact, in his Facebook post of Thursday, 29 June, Mr Lee Hsien Yang stated, \"We have begun to show evidence of his misuse of his position and so on. Note the choice of the word \"begun.\"
Can anyone seriously maintain that we can properly and finally put these allegations to rest once and for all simply by debating amongst ourselves in this House today? Nor should we settle for a debate today that ends on the question: do you have confidence in the Government or not, are you calling for the resignation of key figures or not? If not, then let us move on.
It is my view that this should not be the way to deal with these allegations. No one should be asked, \"Do you want the Prime Minister to resign, do you have confidence in the current Government, yes or no?\" without the benefit of a fact-finding process that allows the accusers to testify and be cross-examined, together with other persons of interest.
This is not a time for calls of \"are you for me or against me.\" To those who might think to make such a call today or tomorrow, I ask you: why are you afraid of a proper, public fact-finding process that allows the accusers to testify and be cross-examined? What are you afraid of?
I will now speak about some issues related to the allegations of abuse of power.
Deputy Prime Minister Teo said that the Ministerial Committee on 38 Oxley Road was convened to explore options. There is an established process for gazetting a building as a national monument or some equivalent of that. Why were the established channels not used in this case? I believe other MPs have spoken about this as well. Now, it might be argued that perhaps this case is not like others, because deference needs to be shown to the wishes of the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew.
However, if that is the stance of the Government, why was a non-transparent Ministerial Committee chosen as the right organisational form for resolving this? Why not some kind of independent panel with the expertise and resources to perform expert heritage analysis and public opinion sensing? A panel that would not be seen by anyone as potentially compromised by the fact that its members directly report to an individual who has personal ties to the matter at hand.
Even more importantly, the Ministerial Committee seems to have focused primarily on revisiting the issue of the wishes of the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew as expressed in his last will. I believe several Members have spoken about this already. The Committee wrote to Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee Wei Ling on this question and asked if they would file statutory declarations on the same. The Cabinet Secretary made a statement on this. The Prime Minister released portions of his statutory declaration relating to this. Senior Minister of State for Law Ms Indranee Rajah released several Facebook posts on this.
Surely, the proper platform to challenge the late Mr Lee's will would have been in Court. In fact, other than revisiting the issue of what the late Mr Lee wanted, there would appear to be little evidence available to date of any other work done by the Ministerial Committee in respect of work streams, such as heritage impact assessment, public opinion sensing and so on.
Why did the Ministerial Committee and other PAP politicians focus so much on the issue of what the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew wanted? Why was the machinery of Government applied to take up a position on a private family matter of a will which had never been litigated in Court? Is opening questions about the late Mr Lee's will without going to the Courts the legitimate business for the Government of Singapore as opposed to being merely a legitimate concern for one individual member of that Government in his individual capacity?
In the past, the process of independent fact-finding favoured by members of the PAP was suing for defamation in Court and that is certainly one way to resolve this matter definitively. My colleague MP Pritam Singh has eloquently argued for an additional method which is a Parliamentary Select Committee, a call to which I agree and a call to which I think several other Members have also expressed some degree of support today.
Such a Committee would have the advantage of leading a process that could determine the facts and recommend follow-up action to Parliament. The follow-up action could relate to the incidents at hand and it could also relate to systemic changes the Committee may propose to curtail the ability of future officeholders to abuse their powers or to clarify any grey areas in the current rules that may have enabled this unfortunate series of events to occur, to prevent their recurrence.
The Committee's independence would be underscored by the presence of non-PAP MPs on the Committee. In fact, in his message on 19 June, the Prime Minister specifically highlighted that non-PAP MPs would be able to question him in Parliament today. A Parliamentary Select Committee merely builds on that institutional recipe of multi-partisanship that the Prime Minister himself positively alluded to but extends it to include a process of fact-finding involving public hearings and cross-examination of the individuals who have laid these issues before the nation, together with other persons of interest.
The truth would out. If the claims are baseless, the accusers will lose credibility in a very public way. If there is a basis to their claims, that can be acknowledged and followed up. I would note on this point that several Members of the House today have posed questions quite literally to Mr Lee Hsien Yang. How do we envisage Mr Lee Hsien Yang is meant to properly and in an institutional form respond to these questions that have been posed and asked today and he is not here to respond to them?
In conclusion, Mr Deputy Speaker, Singapore is strengthened, not weakened when we follow a rigorous, independent process to deal with such allegations. Singapore is strengthened, not weakened when we not only do the right thing but we are seen to be doing the right thing by giving the accusers a right to make their case, be cross-examined and rebut replies.
At the dinner table two days ago, when we discussed this issue in my family, my daughter asked me, \"Daddy, why are they ensnaring us in their family quarrel?\" My answer to her was, \"I'm not sure. But there seem to be some serious national issues that need to be addressed. We will have to hear all sides out.\"
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, let us have a Parliamentary Select Committee process with televised hearings on the issues of abuse of power, or some other form of public, interrogative fact-finding with the accusers present, to finally put this matter to bed.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Extension of a Sitting","subTitle":"In Parliament","sectionType":"OS","content":"Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. Pursuant to Standing Order No 2(5)(d), I propose to extend the time of this day's Sitting beyond the moment of interruption for a period of 30 minutes.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"38 Oxley Road","subTitle":"Debate on Ministerial Statements","sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]
The Senior Minister of State for Finance and Law (Ms Indranee Rajah): Mr Deputy Speaker, many Members of Parliament (MPs) have asked what this dispute is about. That is a very good question. On what to do with the house in the future, the Committee is studying a range of options. What is so wrong about that?
Deputy Prime Minister Teo has said that he personally would not support options at either end of the range. At the one end, preserving the house for visitors to enter and see, which would be totally against the wishes of Mr and Mrs Lee. On the other hand, demolishing the house and putting the property on the market for new private residences.
Initially, Mr Lee Hsien Yang said, he had \"not thought beyond demolition\". If that is true, he could not have ruled out redevelopment. Then, he later said that before the Ministerial Committee was formed, he had offered a memorial garden. So, it appears that he had thought beyond demolition, earlier. He did not make it clear if a garden is still his position now.
After I pointed out the four possible options for the property, including the fact that demolition clears the way to appeal for redevelopment, Mr Lee Hsien Yang now says that he has no \"inclination\" to develop the house for profit. \"Inclination\" is a word that leaves a lot of room for change of mind.
Why is he being so careful? If he changes his mind, then the land is potentially worth a lot. Why does Mr Lee Hsien Yang not just rule it out categorically?
But let us take his statement at face value and see what else Mr Lee Hsien Yang said on Saturday. His exact words were \"preservation of the house would be trampling on Mr Lee Kuan Yew's values, and it would be an affront to these same values to develop a luxury \"LKY\" condominium\". Well, is not that exactly the same thing that Deputy Prime Minister Teo had said, leaving aside the bit about values? In other words, no total preservation and no development?
If that is the case and if he is saying exactly the same thing as Deputy Prime Minister Teo, where is the dispute? Both agree that the extreme ends of the range are out. So, if the Ministerial Committee is studying the intermediate options within the range, what is wrong with that? Nothing has been decided. How can studying these options be an abuse?
On the will, the concerns of Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee with the Ministerial Committee and all the allegations appear to have been triggered by questions on the will. Why are they so concerned? We know from the facts disclosed that issues have been raised with regard to the will and who drafted it.
If it was drafted by Mrs Lee Suet Fern, then an issue arises because she is the wife of Mr Lee Hsien Yang and his share of the estate was increased under the last will. Under our law, the lawyer drafting the will is required to be independent. As our Court of Appeal has said, \"the preparation of a will involves serious professional responsibilities which solicitors must uncompromisingly observe and discharge\". So, if the lawyer has an interest in the will, the lawyer must make sure that the person making the will gets independent advice.
Some have said, \"But Mr Lee was a very good lawyer. He was Cambridge-educated. Are you saying he did not know what he was signing?\" No one is saying that at all. That is not the issue. The issue is whether he received independent advice as the law uncompromisingly requires. And we do know that Mr Lee had consistently in his lifetime taken independent advice − for his lawsuits and for his first six wills. So, the issue of whether he was independently advised is a serious issue.
However, it is not for the Ministerial Committee or Cabinet to decide on this issue, nor is the Ministerial Committee or Cabinet attempting to do so.
Deputy Prime Minister Teo has already explained that the Ministerial Committee looked at the will as part of trying to understand Mr Lee's thinking on the matter. The terms of the will, insofar as they relate to the house, would be relevant to that. The siblings provided different views on the drafting of the will. Each party was given the opportunity to comment on the other side's views, as is only fair. You cannot hear one side without hearing the other. But the Committee is not conducting an investigation, and Deputy Prime Minister Teo made it clear that it is not for the Committee to decide whose claims are valid. It is simply trying to understand, as best it can, what were Mr Lee's wishes. So, really, there is no basis for all these allegations that have been levelled against the Ministerial Committee.
Mr Png Eng Huat read out a catalogue of allegations from the Internet. Is he associating himself with these allegations, or simply regurgitating them? If he is adopting them, then please put forward some specific evidence. Mr Png also referred to allegations that improper influence had been asserted over civil servants. This is a very serious allegation, not only against Ms Ho Ching, but also against the Permanent Secretaries and senior civil servants as well. There are clear rules within the Civil Service to guide the conduct of public officers.
Mr Png referred to the cataloguing of Mr Lee's items. MCI had explained this last week. The involvement of MCI photographers is in line with MCI's policy of supporting former Prime Ministers and Presidents after they leave office. After Mr Lee's passing, MCI photographers were deployed to take photos of various personal and official items belonging to Mr Lee at 38 Oxley Road. This was done for the purposes of national archival and documentation. Similar photographic recordings were done during Mr Lee's lifetime, of his study at home, and of the basement dining room.
If there are any specific instances of alleged impropriety beyond that, these should be identified, rather than making general unsubstantiated allegations. The Government takes this very seriously. There are stringent rules in place and serious consequences for those who have been found to have contravened the rules.
I move now to conflict of interest. Questions about alleged conflict on the part of the Attorney-General (AG) were asked. The laws and rules on conflict are very clear. These rules on conflict will be observed. The AG and Deputy AG Hri Kumar will not be involved where there is any conflict. They have abided by the rules of conflict, and there is no basis to suggest that either the AG or the Deputy AG has not observed those rules.
An example of how the rules work would be when lawyers move from AG's Chambers (AGC) to the Bench and vice versa. So, take, for example, former Deputy AG Tan Siong Thye, who was from AGC. He recuses himself from any AGC-related matters, now that he has returned to the Bench. Likewise, the Chief Justice, in relation to any matters he handled when he was at AGC.
Similar rules apply in private practice as well. If a lawyer moves to a new firm, he observes the rules on conflict. He does not involve himself in his new firm on matters which his old firm had acted for.
This has been debated before, in relation to the appointment of the AG and Deputy AG.
Mr Lucien Wong, we have already referred to his credentials previously. He was the senior partner of the largest law firm in Singapore. He is widely acknowledged as the top legal mind, consistently recognised as one of Singapore's best, and his appointment was welcomed by the Bar.
The Law Society has called him \"a formidable and creative legal mind\" with \"proven management skills\", a \"practical track record\" and a \"skillset uniquely equipped to deal with the evolution of the changing legal environment in Singapore\". As a lawyer of almost 40 years' standing, Mr Wong would have had thousands of clients. There is no reason why this should be an excuse for us to pass him over and choose a less qualified candidate.
Similarly, Mr Hri Kumar is amongst one of the top six to seven litigators in Singapore today. If you look at the people from within the Service who have been appointed to key positions − the Deputy AG and the Solicitor-General as well − these are young, some of them in their 40s. We hope that, in the future, from among their ranks, someone can become AG.
Mr Wong's appointment as AG was decided after a thorough and rigorous process. The Prime Minister consulted the Chief Justice and the Chairman of Public Service Commission and the incumbent AG on the appointment. The Council of Presidential Advisers (CPA) unanimously advised that the President concur with the appointment; and the President, acting in his discretion, also supported it.
It is also not unusual for the AG to be known to the Ministers or the Prime Minister. Members will recall that the Law Minister, Mr Edmund Barker, was very successful, one of our founding fathers, and was an old friend of Mr Lee Kuan Yew, and a partner in Lee & Lee. This did not prevent him from being a good Law Minister.
With respect to past judicial appointments, these have included lawyers who acted for Mr Lee Kuan Yew, such as Mr Joseph Grimberg, or who worked in Lee & Lee, for example, Justice Lai Kew Chai, and Mr Andrew Ang, who is currently on the Bench. All were or are well-respected members of the Bench.
Former Chief Justice Yong Pung How was an old friend of Mr Lee's from Cambridge. He is credited with modernising the Singapore Judiciary during his time on the Bench.
In these roles, all of them observed the appropriate conflict rules. Ultimately, the most important considerations are the quality, character and the integrity of the individuals involved, and that is the hallmark of our system.
And, indeed, in many first-world countries, the AG is even a sitting member of parliament or a politician. In the United Kingdom, the AG is a Cabinet minister. Similarly, in Australia.
Our system is based on a slightly different model. But as I have said before, it goes too far to suggest that AGC officers must not have previously had any links with any Ministers or political party.
On the questions about alleged conflict regarding Minister Shanmugam, Mr Low Thia Khiang's comment on him being Mr Lee's friend − well, being a friend of Mr Lee Kuan Yew does not disqualify him from doing Cabinet work. This includes being in the Ministerial Committee to give views.
The Committee's role has already been explained.
Mr Low alluded to Dr Lee Wei Ling's comment that Minister Shanmugam was a \"changed person\". Well, she has said many things about many people, including the Prime Minister, members of Cabinet and others. Singaporeans will look at the facts and reach their own conclusions.
On the issue of whether Minister Shanmugam is somehow in a position of \"conflict\", he has explained his position publicly on 17 June. In 2011, some members of the Lee family had approached him for his views about various options for the house. He shared some thoughts and suggestions with them. However, he also made clear to them that legally, the Government had the full power to gazette or acquire based on historical significance, and that many Singaporeans, including Ministers in Cabinet, were likely to take the view that the house should be preserved. He told them that this was also his strong personal view. At that time, Minister Shanmugam was already a Cabinet Minister. He was not consulted as a lawyer and did not advise them as clients.
Mr Lee Kuan Yew had spoken with other Cabinet Ministers about the house as well. It would be absurd to suggest that they can all no longer participate in Government work because they had spoken to him, or some family member about the house.
This is really a red herring, intended to divert attention away from the real issues.
And so, we come back to the key point. What is this dispute really about? The Ministerial Committee is not making any decisions. It is putting up a range of options for Cabinet to look at. Nothing needs to be decided now. Indeed, nothing can be decided now as Dr Lee is still living in the house. That might take 20 to 30 years. Therefore, the house cannot be the reason for the dispute.
The trigger for all the allegations by Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee appear to be something else. Whatever it is, there is no reason to drag Singapore and Singaporeans through this dispute. That is contrary to Mr Lee Kuan Yew's values.
Mr Leon Perera gave the analogy of a company and its shareholders and he asked why the whistleblowers are not being interrogated by the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB). That is the wrong analogy. If something is really wrong, then the correct thing for the whistleblowers to do is to go to CPIB and file a report. That is the way it should be done if you think that there is something wrong. Or if anyone else thinks that something is wrong, you can file and lodge a formal report. The CPIB cannot be expected to look into unsubstantiated allegations.
On the Ministerial Committee, Mr Leon Perera may wish to look again at the Deputy Prime Minister's speech today where he explained the role and the terms of reference of the Ministerial Committee.
So, what do we have at the end of the day? At the end of today, we have had one full day of debate. Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee Wei Ling have made plenty of allegations, but we have not seen any substance and no evidence. In Parliament, no one has said that there is any evidence of abuse. I am sure that the MPs have all looked carefully through the allegations. In fact, Mr Low himself had said that the siblings had presented no evidence.
To me, that is most significant because it shows our people that these allegations are just that − allegations. [Applause.]
Mr Deputy Speaker:\tMs Sylvia Lim.
Ms Sylvia Lim: Mr Deputy Speaker, I have three clarifications for the Senior Minister of State. First, she told the House that the AG and the Deputy AG have been observing the conflict rules in their functions. I would like to ask her categorically whether she is saying that the AG and the Deputy AG Mr Hri Kumar are not involved in advising the Government on matters concerning the Lee estate.
The second clarification is that the Senior Minister of State mentioned the fact that there have been friends of Ministers who have been appointed to various Organs of State – and I think she mentioned the Judiciary is one of them – does she not agree that for the AGC, what we are faced with now is not the Judiciary where there is security of tenure, where Judges are appointed and secured until age 65, but we have an AG now who is on a short-term contract of three years? That puts a very different complexion on things.
The third clarification is: does the Senior Minister of State agree or not agree that it is desirable to have distance between the AGC leadership and the Government, which was what was believed by some former Ministers, including Prof Jayakumar, or have standards changed?
Ms Indranee Rajah: On the first question, the short answer is that the AG and the Deputy AG are not advising the Government on any matters in which they have previously been involved. In other words, whatever it is that they may, in private practice, have advised people on, when they come into the AGC and if it impacts on those areas, then they would not advise on it.
So, if the Member's question is, for example, is Mr Lucien Wong advising the Ministerial Committee on 38 Oxley Road, the answer is no. For the very simple reason that in AGC, there are other officers.
So, this is not a difficult thing. All lawyers know this. If you had acted on something, and you happen to change organisation or go somewhere else, and there is a conflict, you recuse yourself. It is very simple. It is not a difficult thing to do, and lawyers do it in practice all the time. The AG and Deputy AG are observing these rules. I can assure Ms Sylvia Lim that the rules of conflict are being observed.
On the other point, Ms Sylvia Lim said it is different from the Bench where there is security of tenure but in AGC there is no security of tenure which puts a different complexion on things. It does not put a different complexion on things. All lawyers, good lawyers, understand their duty, which is simply this: if you are in a position of conflict, you do not act, you recuse yourself.
As to whether it is desirable to have distance, the correct question really is, the officers of AGC, do they act independently? In other words, if there is a conflict, do they stand aside? Do they apply their minds to this without fear or favour? Do they do their duty? And the answer to those questions is yes, they do act independently, they apply their minds and they carry out their duties without fear or favour. So, in short, the officers in the AGC, whether it is the AG, Deputy AG or anyone down along the line, all observe proper rules of conduct.
Mr Deputy Speaker:\tMs Sylvia Lim.
Ms Sylvia Lim: Sir, two follow-up clarifications for the Senior Minister of State. Is she saying that the Deputy AG, because he may not have acted on the Lee estate in some capacity in private estate, is now free to advise the Government on such matters, from the Government's perspective? Is that what she is saying?
The second clarification is that the Senior Minister of State did not answer directly. She said I asked the wrong question about whether there should be distance between the AGC and the Government because the critical question to her was the officers act professionally and independently. But this is really quite a different take for even Prof Jayakumar. If you read what his interview goes into, he says that he may occasionally have working lunches with the AG but it is important to have the appearance of distance. You cannot get too close to these people because people might assume that there will be some compromise. So, I think it is the appearance itself that is important, not just, in fact, whether people think they are able to act independently. The appearance when you are too close to somebody, it does not create a good feeling.
Ms Indranee Rajah: Mr Deputy Speaker, I have already answered the question. If there is any matter on which the AG or Deputy AG have acted on when they were in private practice and, if that same matter comes up when they are in AGC, they obviously cannot advise the Government on it and they will not do so.
With respect to the other matters, I have already explained. There have been instances before when either the AG or Judges may have been close friends with Ministers or anyone else, but that has not deterred them from doing their duty. I understand what Ms Lim is saying. She is saying actual conflict and, sort of, appearances. In terms of any actual conflict, I have already stated the position quite clearly. They know their duty and they will carry out their duty. They will not act where there is any conflict of interest.
And as far as appearances go, if the Member has any specific allegation of that, please highlight it. Because as far as I can see, there has been no form of impropriety, appearance or otherwise.
Mr Deputy Speaker:\tMay I remind Members that we are not debating on the role of the AG or the Deputy AG. So, please confine your clarifications to matters which Senior Minister of State Indranee Rajah has said. Mr Low Thia Khiang.
Mr Low Thia Khiang: Deputy Speaker, first of all, the Senior Minister of State seems to suggest that I said there is no evidence. That is what she said. I said scattered evidence.
Secondly, on the conflict of interest, it seems to me that the Senior Minister of State said that so long as there is a conflict, you stand aside. But the question then is, how would the member of public or anyone else know, whether in such a particular case, I mean, the AG stands aside or does he not stand aside? Thereby, my question is: important appointments like such, even the Minister for Law or senior judges and so on, the public perception of its independence and impartiality is important. Is it not important or is it important?
Next, if there is a question of doubt, then what should the Government do?
Next, a point of clarification actually on a point of order that I wish to clarify with the Deputy Speaker. I heard the Senior Minister of State's speech earlier on. She seems to be attacking Lee Hsien Yang and imputing some character or motive. He is not here in the House to answer. Is that against Standing Order?
Mr Deputy Speaker:\tSenior Minister of State, do you want to respond to the point of order?
Ms Indranee Rajah:\tThe second question?
Mr Deputy Speaker: That Mr Low has said that you were saying something against Mr Lee Hsien Yang.
Ms Indranee Rajah: Mr Low must be mistaken. All I did was point out that there were certain allegations made against the Government. I stated our position on that. And there is nothing at all that prevents Mr Lee Hsien Yang from responding if he wishes to, publicly. All I am doing is stating the Government's position on various issues.
On the second part, on appointments, as I had said earlier, when the AG was appointed, the Prime Minister consulted the Chief Justice, he consulted the Chairman of the Public Service Commission, as well as the incumbent AG on the appointment. Due process was observed and there is absolutely nothing wrong with the current appointment of the AG.
On conflicts of interest, I have already answered that. It is not necessary for me to repeat it again.
Indeed, it is only Mr Low and Ms Sylvia Lim who keep raising this issue. There is no basis for any concern that the AG has not acted in a manner that is entirely proper.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Adjournment of Debate","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"Mr Deputy Speaker: Whip.
The Government Whip (Mr Chan Chun Sing): Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move, \"That the debate be now adjourned.\"
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Resolved, that the debate be now adjourned − [Mr Chan Chun Sing.] (proc text)]
Mr Deputy Speaker: Resumption of debate what day?
Mr Chan Chun Sing:\tTomorrow, Sir.
Mr Deputy Speaker \tSo be it.
","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.\" – [Mr Chan Chun Sing.] (proc text)]
Adjourned accordingly at \t7.11 pm.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Lease Extensions for Older Residents in Lorong 3 Geylang Homes","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"24 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Law whether the Government will allow older residents at Lorong 3 Geylang whose home leases will expire in less than five years to extend their lease or provide rehousing assistance to this group of residents.
Mr K Shanmugam: There are 191 private terrace houses at Lorong 3 Geylang. They sit on land parcels that are on 60-year leases. The 60 years will expire on 31 December 2020.
On 20 June 2017, the Singapore Land Authority (SLA) announced that the land occupied by these 191 private terrace houses will return to the state when the current leases expire. The land is slated for future public housing. As a general policy, leasehold land will return to the state when the lease expires. This allows the land to be rejuvenated to meet the new social and economic needs of Singaporeans.
SLA is committed to helping owners, especially those still occupying their units, through the lease expiry process. Each owner has been assigned a dedicated SLA officer, who will help guide them through the process over the next three-and-a-half years.
On 20 June 2017, SLA officers went house to house to introduce the dedicated officers and hand out a set of Frequently Asked Questions. SLA has also scheduled a personal session with each household to directly answer their questions and this will take place over the next two months. Owners who need help in the transition can approach their assigned officer.
Most of the current owners of the 191 units have moved out and are letting out their units to foreign workers and other occupants who use them for religious activities. Based on agencies’ records, only 33 units are still occupied by their owners. They have various options, if they do not already have alternative housing. They can buy a Housing and Development Board (HDB) flat or private property, rent on the open market or live with their family members. For elderly owner-occupants, there are also existing schemes which will help them in their transition, including the short-lease 2-room flexi flats.
During the personal sessions with the owners, SLA will check with them on their relocation plans and explain the various options available for those who require rehousing. For those who plan to buy an HDB flat, SLA will liaise with HDB and help with their applications.
HDB plans to launch 14 Build-to-Order (BTO) exercises between now and December 2020. In addition, HDB will also launch during this period seven Sale of Balance Flats (SBF) exercises, where the units are completed or near completion. Eligible households have many options and time to book an HDB flat before their leases expire, especially if they apply for a BTO flat in the non-mature estates.
For those who face financial difficulties and have no other housing options, SLA will work with HDB to help in their application for a public rental flat. There is sufficient time for the owners to apply for the public rental flat.
For the owners who face difficulty transitioning to public housing due to existing rules/policies, they may let their dedicated SLA case officer know. HDB is prepared to exercise flexibility for Singaporean households who require assistance. They will not be left without options.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Telepharmacy Project","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"25 Mr Seah Kian Peng asked the Minister for Health what is the outcome of the telepharmacy project first piloted in 1997 and whether such services, including that of allowing medical consultations by video, can help to lower costs and improve convenience to the public.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Telepharmacy can improve productivity and convenience for customers. It is regulated by the Health Sciences Authority (HSA) to ensure that providers put in place the necessary controls and safeguards.
Since the first pilot in 1997, the Ministry of Health (MOH) and HSA have expanded the scope of telepharmacy services. For example, pharmacies were allowed in 2009 to provide prescription-only medicines through telepharmacy. Previously, this was only allowed for non-prescription medicines.
To date, 146 retail pharmacy outlets are offering telepharmacy services. These include outlets at the three largest retail pharmacy chains, namely, Guardian Pharmacy, Unity Pharmacy and Watsons.
In April 2017, MOH launched a Smart Health Video Consultation platform to enable our public healthcare institutions to provide different services through video consultation. These include a new model of telepharmacy service at KK Women's and Children's Hospital and Tan Tock Seng Hospital.
HSA will continue to review the regulations for telepharmacy services to keep up with technological changes and provide better service to patients. We also welcome opportunities to collaborate with care providers and retail pharmacies to co-create new solutions in this area.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Lessons for Singapore from Fire Tragedy at Grenfell Tower in London (KIV for texts of withdrawn PQs from Karimah)","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"26 Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) what preliminary lessons can be learnt from the fire tragedy at Grenfell Tower in London that occurred on 14 June 2017; and (b) what measures have been or will be put in place to reduce the risk of a rapid and lethal fire in high-rise buildings in Singapore, particularly those built in the 1970s and 1980s.
Mr K Shanmugam: I will respond to Ms Sylvia Lim’s questions. But as Mr Saktiandi Supaat, Mr Zainal Sapari and Ms Sun Xueling have also asked related Parliamentary Questions for subsequent Sittings, I will take the chance to address them holistically in our response. Note: Notices of related Parliamentary Questions by Mr Saktiandi Supaat, Mr Zainal Sapari and Ms Sun Xueling for later Sittings were subsequently withdrawn.
The fire at Grenfell Tower in London highlights the importance of robust fire prevention and protection measures in safeguarding lives and property.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat and Ms Sun Xueling have raised concerns about the safety of building construction materials, including the use of claddings. Claddings are typically used on the external walls of buildings for weather protection or aesthetic purposes. Under the Fire Code, all claddings that are used in buildings have to meet the stringent Class \"0\" industry standard such that, when ignited, the fire will not spread along the surface.
When the London Fire Brigade releases its investigation report on the Grenfell Tower fire, the Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) will study these findings and assess if there is a need to make changes to fire safety regulations in Singapore.
SCDF has in place a regime that seeks to ensure that fire safety works comply with regulations. The registered architect or professional engineer, also known as the Qualified Person, or QP for short, is responsible for ensuring that building materials conform with the prevailing Fire Code. In addition, an independent Registered Inspector will have to inspect the building to ensure that all fire safety requirements have been met. It is only after this is done that SCDF will issue a Fire Safety Certificate allowing the premises to be used or occupied.
Carrying out or allowing unauthorised fire safety works is an offence under the Fire Safety Act and building owners can be fined up to $200,000 or face an imprisonment term of up to two years, or both. SCDF will also take action against the registered professionals if they fail to carry out their duties properly.
Ms Sylvia Lim asked about fire safety measures for high-rise buildings. Under the Fire Code, all buildings are required to put in place fire safety provisions, such as fire hose reels, exit staircases and emergency lightings.
All high-rise buildings are required to have additional fire safety provisions, such as fire lifts. SCDF defines high-rise buildings as those that are above 24 metres in height, which is about eight to 10 storeys tall. This is similar to the definition used by the United States’ National Fire Protection Association.
Super high-rise residential buildings that exceed 40 storeys in height require at least one refuge floor for every 20 storeys. These refuge floors have to be fire resistant for at least two hours and serve as a temporary holding space for evacuees during a fire incident while the firefighters put out the fire.
SCDF conducts weekly firefighting and rescue exercises for high-rise non-residential buildings, in addition to other exercises at different locations throughout the year. The simulated scenarios allow SCDF officers to familiarise themselves with the various high-rise premises, as well as to validate response plans and procedures.
Ms Sylvia Lim also asked about SCDF's plans to ensure occupant safety in older high-rise buildings. SCDF strictly enforces the Fire Code and carries out regular reviews to ensure that the standard of fire safety in buildings keep pace with developments in the building industry and technological advancements in fire protection systems. SCDF also issues circulars to the industry on amendments to the Fire Code pertaining to new fire safety requirements.
Claddings were not commonly used till the 1980s. Notwithstanding this, since the introduction of the Fire Code in 1974, all buildings have been required to only use claddings of Class \"0\" standard. All old buildings built with non-compliant cladding would have to comply with the prevailing Fire Code once they carried out alteration and addition works. All Housing and Development Board (HDB) residential blocks built in the 1970s also do not use such claddings. In addition, the construction and upgrading works of all HDB residential blocks would have to comply with prevailing fire safety requirements.
Nonetheless, for old buildings that were constructed before 1974 and have not undergone any upgrading works over the years which would have required them to meet prevailing fire safety requirements, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) and SCDF are reviewing legislative amendments to require some of these old buildings to perform fire safety upgrades. In doing so, we will adopt a balanced, risk-based approach.
Beyond fire safety regulations, Mr Zainal Sapari and Ms Sun Xueling also asked about evacuation procedures for residential buildings. SCDF has stipulated robust fire safety measures for residential buildings. Every residential unit is designed as a fire compartment and required by the Fire Code to be equipped with fire-rated entrance doors, walls and floors that help to prevent the spread of fire beyond the unit.
As opposed to large non-residential buildings, such as shopping centres and offices, residents would be familiar with the layout of their own homes and buildings. Hence, the carrying out of fire drills is not mandatory for residential buildings. In the event of a fire, residents should close the door of the affected room to contain the fire and evacuate to safety.
When SCDF arrives at the scene, SCDF will prioritise evacuation of occupants on the floors affected by fire, as well as those on the above two floors affected. If necessary, SCDF may proceed with subsequent evacuation of occupants on additional floors of the building. Residents in unaffected floors will be advised to stay in their respective units, each of which is a fire compartment. Such an approach will minimise injuries or mishaps resulting from the evacuation process.
SCDF actively engages the community to raise their awareness on fire safety procedures through platforms, such as Emergency Preparedness block parties and Emergency Preparedness Days organised across various heartland communities. At such events, residents are taught how to evacuate from a smoke-logged room and extinguish small household fires. We urge everyone to actively participate in such events, to pick up important basic fire safety skills.
For businesses, SCDF and the National Fire and Civil Emergency Preparedness Council (NFEC) have been organising various fire safety workshops and seminars for members of the Company Emergency Response Team (CERT), security officers, employees and trade associations. During these seminars, participants learn about good fire safety practices and also receive practical tips on emergency response skills.
Singapore has a high standard of fire safety. The number of fire fatalities per 100,000 population is among the lowest in the world.1 This is because we take a multi-pronged approach to fire safety. But every single fatality is simply one too many. Therefore, SCDF strictly enforces, and constantly reviews, the Fire Code to ensure the safety of occupants in buildings, as well as conducts outreach and education efforts so that our citizens are well prepared to respond in the event of a fire.
But we cannot afford to be complacent, because everyone has a part to play in ensuring fire safety. From time to time, SCDF uncovers fires that start or spread due to building owners or occupants breaching the Fire Code, such as failing to maintain firefighting equipment or ensuring that exits are not obstructed. SCDF will take firm action in such instances. In some cases, fires were also caused by carelessness, such as unattended cooking in households. In recent years, SCDF has also seen an increase in the number of fires involving the charging of batteries of electric bicycles and personal mobility devices, such as hoverboards. Users of such products should use only approved power adaptors that carry the SAFETY Mark and follow the manufacturer’s instructions on how to charge the devices properly. We have also heard anecdotal stories of building owners and occupants taking fire evacuation drills lightly.
SCDF will do its part and take its regulatory and firefighting responsibilities seriously, but so should all of us.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : SCDF's fire fatality rate in 2016 was 0.02 per 100,000 population. In comparison, the 2015 fire fatality rates in Hong Kong, London, New York and Tokyo were 0.32, 0.41, 0.69, and 0.7 per 100,000 population, respectively."],"footNoteQuestions":["26"],"questionNo":"26"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Government's Benchmark for Annualised Real Rate of Return for GIC and Temasek Holdings","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"27 Mr Png Eng Huat asked the Minister for Finance what is the benchmark set by the Government's investment mandate for the annualised 20-year real rate of return for GIC and Temasek Holdings.
Mr Heng Swee Keat: The Government's assessment of the long-term performance of the Government of Singapore Investment Corporation (GIC) and Temasek goes beyond using one single benchmark. The Government takes into account a number of factors, including the entities' distinct roles, risk exposure and underlying market and investment trends, to make a considered and comprehensive assessment of the entities’ performance. Let me elaborate, starting with GIC.
GIC is the Government’s fund manager. Its mandate is to achieve good long-term returns above global inflation, to preserve and enhance the international purchasing power of Singapore’s Reserves.
GIC invests in a globally diversified portfolio spread across various asset classes. Its portfolio is constructed to take into account a range of possible economic scenarios.
The construction of GIC's portfolio is subject to the Government's risk preference, which is expressed through a Reference Portfolio made up of 65% global equities and 35% global bonds. This is not a benchmark, but an expression of the risk that the Government is prepared for GIC to take in its long-term investment strategies.
On occasion, there may be a difference between the risk exposure of GIC and the reference portfolio. Such an adjustment allows GIC to lower its risk exposure in times of market exuberance. Conversely, GIC may also increase its risk exposure when the opportunity arises. This is part of a disciplined, professional approach to long-term value investing. In recent years, GIC has been concerned with heightened valuations in financial markets and has shifted towards a slightly more conservative portfolio mix to guard against rising volatility.
Therefore, we evaluate GIC's long-term investment performance, not only based on its rolling 20-year rates of return, but also the risk it has had to take in order to achieve these returns. Such comparisons are available in GIC's annual report.
Let me now move on to Temasek. Temasek is not a fund manager, but an investment company that owns its assets. It is an active equity investor that seeks to create and deliver sustainable long-term value for its shareholder, the Government.
One measure that the Government looks at is Temasek's long-term Total Shareholder Returns, or TSR, which measures annual changes to its net portfolio value after adjusting for any capital injections or dividends paid. The TSR must be viewed in the context of Temasek's risk-adjusted hurdle rate, which is a weighted average of the risk-adjusted cost of capital of all its investments. Temasek's risk-adjusted hurdle rate is published in its annual report.
The Government also compares Temasek's long-term TSR with various market indices, such as MSCI, taking into consideration its portfolio mix.
To sum up, the Government's approach is to evaluate the entities’ long-term performance, taking into account risk exposure, underlying market trends and other factors relevant to each entity.
Our view is that our investment entities have performed creditably in challenging market conditions. The Government will continue to take a long-term view and work closely with GIC and Temasek to ensure that they deliver good long-term returns for Singaporeans.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of GIC's Divestment in UBS on Rate of Return for Government's Investment Portfolio","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"28 Mr Png Eng Huat asked the Minister for Finance what is the impact of GIC's reduced stake in UBS on the performance of the Government's investment portfolio in terms of annualised rate of return for five-year and 10-year time periods respectively and how much is the realised loss of the UBS divestment.
Mr Heng Swee Keat: The Government of Singapore Investment Corporation's (GIC's) performance over five- and 10-year periods are published annually by GIC on its website. These figures reflect, in aggregate, both realised and unrealised gains and losses of all investments, including the Union Bank of Switzerland (UBS). Hence, the reduction of GIC's stake in UBS does not, in itself, change these figures. It only changed unrealised losses, which were already reflected in the performance figures, to realised losses.
Mr Png had asked what the realised loss of the UBS divestment was. It is not the Government’s policy to discuss details of specific investment transactions. I would like to reiterate that the investment performance of GIC should not be evaluated based on any single transaction. Rather, the Government’s focus is on GIC's performance on an overall portfolio basis over the long term. While it is disappointing that the UBS deal did not turn out as expected, investing is about taking calculated risks in anticipation of returns. Some returns may materialise, some may not. It is not realistic to avoid any loss for every investment as that would require GIC to be completely risk-averse.
What is more important and relevant is that the overall portfolio delivers creditable long-term returns over and above inflation. As at 31 March 2016, GIC achieved a 20-year annualised rate of return of 4% above global inflation. This includes the investment in UBS.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Complaints by Residents for HDB Flats Legally Rented Out by Homeowners","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"29 Mr Zainal Sapari asked the Minister for National Development (a) over the last two years, what has been the number of complaints made by residents on HDB homes that have been legally rented out by home owners; and (b) whether HDB can consider disallowing these units from being rented out when the landlords are unable to address the issues complained of.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Over the last two years, there has been about 600 feedback received each year on alleged nuisance by the subtenants of Housing and Development Board (HDB) flats. This is a small percentage of about 1% of the 53,000 flats rented out as of end December 2016.
One of the common pieces of feedback received is on noise nuisance. For such cases, HDB will inform flat owners of the complaint and advise them to remind their subtenants to be considerate. In most cases, the flat owners will resolve the matter quickly. If the situation does not improve, flat owners can consider mediation with the neighbour who complained, avail themselves of the Community Disputes Resolution Tribunals, or end the subletting arrangement.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Waiver of Accrued Interest on Resale Levy of HDB Flats","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"30 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for National Development (a) in the past five years, how many appeals have been received by HDB on waiver of accrued interest on the resale levy of HDB flats; (b) whether HDB will assist second-time buyers of HDB flats with the large amounts of accrued interest on the resale levy; and (c) what is the assistance rendered by HDB to these appellants.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Singaporeans enjoy a significant housing subsidy when they buy a new flat from the Housing and Development Board (HDB), or a resale flat in the open market with a Central Provident Fund (CPF) housing grant. They can also buy a second new flat from HDB but, as second-timers, they are no longer eligible for the full subsidy which is meant for first-timers only. Hence, the resale levy is imposed on all second-time buyers of HDB flats.
Under the current resale levy policy which has been in place since March 2006, second-timers pay the resale levy upon the sale of the first subsidised flat or on the collection of keys to the second flat, whichever is the later. There is no interest component.
However, we recognise that there are some second-timers who had sold their first HDB flat before 2006. Under the prevailing policy then, they were subject to a compound interest of 5% per annum if they chose to defer the payment of the levy until they collect the keys to their second subsidised flat. Some of them are now looking to purchase a second flat from HDB but face high interest on their resale levy accumulated over the years.
HDB does not track the number of appeals it has received specifically for a waiver of the accrued interest on the resale levy. However, for appeals to reduce the resale levy payable in general, HDB received about 4,200 appeals from 2012 to 2016, and acceded to 1,729 appeals.
In 2015, we waived the accrued interest on the resale levy payable by elderly second-timers who wished to right-size to a smaller flat. Beyond the elderly, HDB has also been exercising flexibility for other affected second-timers who are in need and will continue to do so. Those who require assistance, such as households who face financial difficulties or wish to right-size to a smaller flat, can approach HDB, and we will see how best to help them.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proposal for HDB Rents to be Based on Per Capita Income","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"31 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for National Development whether the Ministry will consider charging rentals under HDB's Public Rental Scheme based on per capita income instead of the household income.
Mr Lawrence Wong: The Housing and Development Board's (HDB's) public rental rates are calibrated to provide subsidies where they are most needed and to encourage rental households to purchase home ownership flats when they are ready. More than half of HDB's rental households pay basic rents, which are now set at $26 a month for a 1-room flat and $44 a month for a 2-room flat. The remaining households pay higher monthly rents based on their household incomes. The majority of HDB rental tenants have a household size of three or less.
However, HDB recognises that some households do face difficulties paying higher rents, for example, due to medical needs or a large number of dependants. This is why HDB already exercises flexibility to allow tenants to pay a lower rent depending on each household’s circumstances.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"School Counselling for Students on \"Performance-enhancement\" Substances","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"32 Mr Darryl David asked the Minister for Education (Schools) what steps are taken by schools and tertiary institutions to counsel their students with regard to the taking of pharmaceutical products containing modafinil or methylphenidate which are perceived as \"performance-enhancement\" substances.
Mr Ng Chee Meng: Our schools and Post-Secondary Education Institutions (PSEIs) will step up efforts to educate students on the side effects of \"performance-enhancement\" substances and remind them of possible consequences and the need to make responsible decisions.
Our teachers also work with their students to manage their expectations with respect to their performance in schools. They help students with their goal-setting process, where they set appropriate targets and determine actions to achieve them based on sound values. At PSEIs, counsellors are also trained to explore positive strategies with students to manage their school performance.
With our current emphasis on peer support, groups of students are equipped to watch out for their classmates and friends and help those they notice have unhealthy behaviours to think through their decisions responsibly and to seek help or alert a trusted adult.
Schools also work closely with parents to identify students who may be misusing such substances and refer them for counselling or other additional support.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Students Identified by Counsellors or Teachers to be Vulnerable to Extremist Propaganda","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"33 Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked the Minister for Education (Schools) (a) in the past two years, how many students have been identified by counsellors or teachers to be vulnerable to extremist propaganda; (b) what action has been taken to help these students; and (c) whether there are plans to reach out to students to forewarn them of the pitfalls of online radicalism.
Mr Ng Chee Meng: The Ministry of Education (MOE) works closely with the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) to strengthen and safeguard Singapore’s social fabric against the serious threats of radicalisation and extremism.
In schools, teachers and counsellors look out for students who show signs of possible influence of extremist propaganda. If there are concerns, we would take a precautionary approach and work closely with MHA to provide counselling support and ensure close monitoring of such students.
MOE seeks to educate students to be sensitive and socially responsible on racial and religious matters through the school curriculum in Social Studies and Character and Citizenship Education lessons. In schools, cyber wellness education helps students to be more discerning and aware of the negative influences of online information, and to make more informed and responsible decisions. Students are equipped with information literacy to verify the credibility of online content and information sources. Parents also play a crucial role in guiding and monitoring their children’s online activities to ensure that their children adopt the right values and attitudes.
All of us have a part to play in keeping radicalisation at bay. Schools and teachers work in partnership with parents and the wider community to instill the right values in students and to ensure that those vulnerable to the influence of extremist propaganda are detected early and given proper guidance and help.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Safeguards against Possibility of Terrorist Attack Using a Vehicle","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"38 Mr Darryl David asked the Minister for Home Affairs what measures and precautions can be taken to safeguard public areas that have significant congregations of people from the possibility of a terrorist attack using a vehicle.
Mr K Shanmugam: Protecting the public against terrorist attacks that use vehicles is a challenge that security agencies around the world are dealing with.
Over the past year, the Home Team has enhanced our capabilities to prevent and respond to a terror attack. Our response forces are better equipped and organised. We have conducted major counter-terrorism exercises to test our response measures. We have also improved our surveillance and analytics capabilities. We will continue with these efforts.
We recognise that it may not be possible to completely prevent a terrorist attack from happening in Singapore. Individuals who are determined to launch a terror attack can do so even without access to controlled items, such as arms and explosives. The Westminster attack in London was executed with a normal saloon car.
Thus, we are also expanding our efforts to engage the community through SGSecure. This will ensure our society is alert to and prepared for any attack and able to bounce back quickly after an attack.
Specific to the threat of attacks using a vehicle, the public can play an important role by being vigilant near roads in crowded areas. They can save lives by alerting people nearby if they witness vehicles driving unusually, and contacting the Police if they notice suspicious persons or vehicles.
We are also amending the law to ensure business owners of events and buildings take steps to protect them against terror attacks, including those which use vehicles.
The Public Order Act was amended last month to require organisers of events that attract large crowds, or are of higher risk, to put necessary security measures in place. To prevent vehicle-borne threats, organisers may be asked to install physical barriers, screen incoming vehicles, or plan crowded events away from areas that vehicles can access.
For example, for major events involving large crowds, such as the Marina Bay Singapore Countdown, Police will work with various stakeholders to put in place security measures to prevent vehicle attacks. Some of these measures include checks on vehicles seeking entry into the event area, road closures, creating buffer zones between spectators and active roads, as well as installing barriers.
We will also introduce a new Infrastructure Protection Act later this year. This will require new, large-scale developments to incorporate security measures when they are being designed. These may also include measures against vehicle-borne threats. The Act may also require owners of premises to adopt additional protective measures, such as bag or vehicle checks, in the event of a heightened security climate.
These legislative amendments will help protect Singapore against terror attacks by improving security at key events and buildings. They complement the Ministry of Home Affairs' ongoing efforts to improve security response as well as community vigilance and preparedness against terrorism threats.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Potential for Rental Vehicles to be Used in Terrorist Attacks","subTitle":"Educating employees of vehicle rental companies to identify suspicious persons","sectionType":"WANA","content":"39 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Home Affairs in light of recent terrorist attacks whereby rental vehicles have been used, whether the Ministry will consider (i) tightening checks on the identity of persons renting vehicles, (ii) establishing information-sharing with vehicle rental companies and (iii) educating employees of vehicle rental companies on identifying suspicious persons renting vehicles so as to minimise the risk of potential terrorist attacks in Singapore.
Mr K Shanmugam: Countering vehicular terrorist attacks is a challenge that security agencies around the world have to plan for.
The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) is working to enhance timely information sharing between private hire car owners, such as vehicle rental companies and the Police, including information on the identity of persons renting vehicles.
However, checks on the identity alone will not prevent vehicles from being used for criminal purposes, or in terrorist attacks. For example, an unattended vehicle could be stolen and used by persons with ill-intent. The perpetrator can also ask someone else to rent a vehicle. As such, drivers, especially heavy vehicle drivers, and members of the public will also need to be vigilant against such a threat.
The Police have engaged the Vehicle Rental Association of Singapore (VRAS) on these risks and will continue to reach out to more vehicle rental companies and heavy vehicle companies under the SGSecure movement. The Police will share useful tips and lessons with these companies and their staff on how to prevent their vehicles from being used to commit crime or acts of terror.
These include (a) securing the premises where vehicles are stored to prevent unauthorised entry, through measures, such as perimeter fencing; (b) reminding drivers that they should never leave their vehicles, together with their keys, unattended; and (c) notifying the Police immediately if they notice anything suspicious about the drivers, or if vehicles are missing or stolen.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Plans for More Social Service Offices","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"41 Mr Seah Kian Peng asked the Minister for Social and Family Development with regard to the Social Service Office (SSO) (a) whether there are plans to set up more of such offices and, if so, where will these be located; (b) whether the results have met the Ministry's expectations and objectives; and (c) whether the operating procedures, including operating hours, are the same throughout all SSOs.
Mr Tan Chuan-Jin: In 2013, the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) started setting up Social Service Offices (SSOs) in Housing and Development Board (HDB) towns to provide more accessible and coordinated social assistance to Singaporeans in need. The rollout of the full network of 24 SSOs was completed in 2015, and 95% of ComCare beneficiaries now live or work within two kilometres of an SSO. There are no immediate plans to set up more SSOs.
Our SSOs have largely been successful in meeting our broad objectives. Physical accessibility and awareness of ComCare have increased because of the SSOs, and this has made it easier for needy families to seek help.
Aside from providing ComCare assistance directly, SSOs also do ground-sensing and collaborate with voluntary welfare organisations and community partners to identify needs within each HDB town to provide more holistic support for those in need. We will continue to explore better ways to be more client-centric and improve service delivery.
We have established standard operating procedures and guidelines so that there is consistency in service delivery across SSOs. Notwithstanding this, SSO officers are empowered to exercise flexibility for individual cases, such as in the amount and duration of Short-to-Medium Term Assistance provided, so that social assistance is calibrated according to the needs of the household.
With regard to operating hours, standalone SSOs are open on weekdays from 9.00 am to 6.00 pm and closed for lunch from 1.00 pm to 2.00 pm. The four SSOs which are co-located with Workforce Singapore (WSG) and the Employment and Employability Institute (e2i) Career Centres have adopted the same operating hours as WSG and e2i centres. These SSOs close at 5.00 pm on weekdays and remain open during lunch, and on Saturdays from 9.00 am to 1.00 pm.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Trend and Impact of Singaporeans Marrying Foreigners","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"42 Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) what is the trend over the past five years on Singaporean men and women marrying foreigners; (b) what is the impact of this on the future of Singaporean society; and (c) whether any in-depth study has been done on the implications of such marriages.
Mr Tan Chuan-Jin: The proportion of marriages between Singaporean Citizens and Non-Residents declined slightly between 2011 and 2015. Of all marriages involving at least one Singapore Citizen, the proportion of Singaporean Citizens marrying Non-Residents decreased from 30% in 2011 to 27% in 2015. Among these marriages, the proportion of Singaporean men marrying Non-Residents decreased from 80% in 2011 to 75% in 2015, while the proportion of Singaporean women marrying Non-Residents increased from 20% in 2011 to 25% in 2015.
My Ministry studies the outcomes of marriages between Singapore Citizens and Non-Residents regularly and reviews our support measures accordingly. We recognise that these marriages create Singaporean families and are part of our society. As some of these marriages may face unique challenges, we have introduced marriage programmes since December 2014. These programmes help couples in such marriages manage cross-cultural differences as they settle down in Singapore, and strengthen their marriages. They include the Marriage Preparation Programme offered before marriage, and the Marriage Support Programme for newly-weds, which provides information on available community resources and assists Non-Resident spouses in adapting to life in Singapore. In addition, the Friendship Programme supports these couples through family bonding activities, support group sessions, and pairing of volunteers to Non-Resident spouses as \"buddies\".
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures to Increase Security at MRT Stations near Large-scale Event Venues","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"43 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Transport (a) what measures will be implemented to increase security at MRT stations around and near venues which host big events, such as the National Stadium, have heavy pedestrian traffic or are near vital facilities, such as Changi Airport; and (b) whether baggage scanners will be introduced at all MRT stations.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: The Public Transport Security Committee (PTSC), a multi-agency body led by the Land Transport Authority (LTA), constantly reviews security threats to our public transport network and recalibrates the security measures as necessary. Our risk-based approach seeks to strike a balance between ensuring security and facilitating commuter flows and public transport operations.
A multi-layered set of measures is currently in place. The Public Transport Operators (PTOs) engage security guards to patrol Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) stations and bus interchanges. This is supplemented by closed-circuit television (CCTV) surveillance. Police Officers from the PTSC (TransCom), as well as officers from other Police units, such as the Emergency Response Teams and Special Operations Command, also conduct patrols. Security exercises involving the relevant agencies are conducted regularly.
Whenever there are major events taking place near an MRT station, the Police work with the PTOs and LTA to step up security within the MRT station and also the surrounding areas.
During periods of heightened threat, additional security measures may be deployed. One such measure PTSC is considering is the deployment of screening equipment, such as baggage scanners, at MRT stations.
Commuters also play an important role in ensuring the safety and security of our public transport system, by cooperating when stopped for security checks, and by looking out for and reporting suspicious persons and unattended items to the authorities. Members of the public should also not leave their belongings unattended in MRT stations and trains, so as not to cause unnecessary public alarm and inconvenience.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Assessment of Visibility of Pedestrians at Partially-blocked Pedestrian Crossings","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"44 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Transport (a) how does the Ministry assess motorists' visibility of pedestrians at pedestrian crossings that are partially covered by shrubs and bushes; and (b) whether the Ministry has a standardised framework for assessment and subsequent pruning schedules for the safety of pedestrians.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: The Land Transport Authority (LTA) establishes no-planting zones around pedestrian crossings to ensure that motorists have a clear view of pedestrians. The size of these no-planting zones depends on site conditions, such as the geometry of the road and the speed limit. In addition, the National Parks Board conducts inspections at least once a month to make sure that greenery does not block the visibility of crossings.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Complaints on Workmanship Defects in BTO Flats","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"49 Mr Zainal Sapari asked the Minister for National Development (a) what is the number of complaints that HDB has received in 2016 from BTO owners in Punggol with regard to workmanship defects in their flats after the one-year defects liability period; (b) whether HDB makes an assessment on each feedback to determine whether it is a latent defect that has caused problems after the liability period; and (c) whether all new BTO flat owners have a six-year latent defects liability period similar to those of private developments.
Mr Lawrence Wong: For the recently completed Build-To-Order (BTO) projects in Punggol where the one-year defects liability period (DLP) has just expired in 2016, the Housing and Development Board (HDB) received about four cases of feedback on workmanship issues per 1,000 units per month.
When residents move into their flats and report any defects to HDB during the one-year DLP, HDB will arrange for the contractor to carry out repairs. The one-year DLP is an industry-wide practice and is aligned with that for private developments.
If any issue is reported after DLP, HDB will first investigate the likely cause and advise flat owners on the follow-up action accordingly. If the issue is assessed to arise from workmanship of the building contractor, it is considered a defect and HDB may recall the building contractor to rectify it. However, if the issue is due to wear and tear or the flat owner’s own actions, flat owners will be responsible for any rectification works.
The Member has referred to a \"latent defects liability period\". I believe he is referring to the limitation period under the Limitation Act, which sets out how long a developer is legally liable for defects from the time of completion of a project. The duration of the limitation period for latent defects is 15 years. This applies to private developers and HDB. As there are many reasons why defects emerge after DLP, HDB assesses each defect – even those which emerge after DLP – on a case-by-case basis.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Additional Tests for Drivers Aged over 75","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"50 Dr Chia Shi-Lu asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether the Traffic Police will consider introducing cognitive or further tests for drivers who are seeking to renew their driving licences when they are over 75 years old.
Mr K Shanmugam: All holders of car and motorcycle driving licences are required to pass a medical examination when they turn 65 years old and every three years thereafter. A medical practitioner will assess the licence holder’s physical and mental fitness to drive, including reviewing his medical history, vision, hearing and mobility. This medical examination remains suitable for assessing the fitness to drive of elderly who are 75 years or older.
Those holding heavy vehicle driving licences are subjected to a stricter regime. They have to take and pass the medical examination every year after turning 65 years old. The medical examination for those aged 70 and above includes a wider range of physical and mental fitness tests. Their heavy vehicle licences will cease to be valid when they turn 75 years old.
Ultimately, the onus is on the individual to take responsibility for his own safety, as well as the safety of other road users. Licence holders should refrain from driving or riding when they know of conditions that may render them unfit for doing so.
The Traffic Police will continue to monitor the situation and make adjustments to the licence regime for elderly licence holders if required.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Minimum Lease Period Left on a Property for Withdrawal of CPF Monies for Mortgage","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"51 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for Manpower whether CPF Board will review the minimum lease period left for residential properties that a CPF member can apply for withdrawal of CPF monies to finance the purchase or repayment of financing for such properties.
Mr Lim Swee Say: To strike a balance between safeguarding Central Provident Fund (CPF) savings for retirement and housing needs, the minimum lease period for the use of CPF savings has been set at 30 years. This is because short-lease properties depreciate quickly. If sold, it will likely not raise enough proceeds to ensure a full refund of the CPF savings that have been withdrawn.
For properties with a remaining lease of between 30 and 60 years, CPF savings can be used if two conditions are met. Firstly, the remaining lease must cover the youngest buyer at least up to age 80. Secondly, the total amount of CPF withdrawable is subject to a prorated Valuation Limit. The Valuation Limit is set at the lower of the purchase price or property value at the time of purchase.
For example, a 35-year-old member purchases a property with a remaining lease of 50 years. By the time he reaches age 55, the property will have a remaining lease of 30 years, or only 60% of the lease period of 50 years. Hence, the maximum amount of CPF savings he can use will be capped at 60% of the Valuation Limit of the property.
These safeguards ensure that the property has a lease that is long enough to cover the CPF members’ retirement years. In the event that the property is sold, these safeguards improve the likelihood that the CPF withdrawn can be refunded to provide for the member’s retirement expenses. These safeguards also ensure that members do not over-consume their CPF savings on properties that they are likely to outlive.
The Ministry of Manpower will continue to monitor the CPF housing withdrawal rules to take into account increasing life expectancy and changes in the property market. Our aim is to help Singaporeans make prudent housing choices while safeguarding their retirement adequacy.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Mitigation of Stress Levels amongst Healthcare Workers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"52 Ms K Thanaletchimi asked the Minister for Health (a) whether there have been any studies conducted or commissioned to study the stress levels of healthcare workers, especially nurses, allied health professionals and doctors; (b) if so, whether the Ministry is able to share those findings and plans to work with the public healthcare institutions to mitigate the stress effects; and (c) if no study has been conducted, whether the Ministry will consider commissioning such a study as part of workplace safety and health and work-life balance considerations.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Our public healthcare clusters conduct surveys to gather feedback from their employees on workplace stress. Common sources of stress in the hospitals include the fast pace of work, unreasonable demands from patients and their caregivers, and personal issues, such as health or financial problems. Detailed findings cannot be shared because the scale and scope of surveys, as well as the profile of staff surveyed, differ across clusters. While the findings vary across clusters, the findings are shared with relevant staff and are used to develop programmes to support employees in managing workplace stress and maintaining mental well-being.
Employee support programmes that have been implemented range from lunchtime talks and workshops on mental health and stress and emotional management, to staff counselling programmes to help them overcome work stress and personal problems. Some employers also have dedicated hotlines for their employees to seek professional help.
The public healthcare clusters will continue to work closely with the Healthcare Services Employees' Union to improve employee health and well-being at the workplace.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Incidence of Late Payment of Employer CPF Contributions","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"53 Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what is the reason for the 69% increase in CPF arrears due to late payment from 2014 to 2016; (b) what penalties have been imposed on employers for late payment of CPF contributions; and (c) whether the education and deterrence components of CPF Board's approach to ensure timely payment of CPF contributions need to be enhanced.
Mr Lim Swee Say: The amount of Central Provident Fund (CPF) contributions recovered for employees due to late payment increased from $364.2 million in 2014 to $615.4 million in 2016. Over the same period, total CPF contributions also increased from $29.7 billion in 2014 to $35.9 billion in 2016. Therefore, as a percentage of total CPF contributions, late payments were 1.23% in 2014, and 1.72% in 2016. Reasons cited by employers for late payment include cash flow issues due to a difficult business environment and delays in collecting payments from customers, as well as errors made by the employers.
While there has been an increase in the number of late payments in recent years, CPF Board takes timely enforcement actions and imposes deterrent penalties to ensure speedy recovery of late payments. The percentage of employers who have not made good their late payments within one month after the expiry of the grace period for paying CPF contributions2 fell from 3% in 2014 to 1.6% in 2016.
Employers who make late payments have to make good the CPF contribution owing to employees, including a late payment interest charge of 18% per annum. Employers are also given composition fines provided they pay up before their Court hearing. Those who fail to pay up by the Court hearing will be convicted and subject to higher Court fines. In 2016, 3233 employers were convicted for late payment of CPF contributions.
With effect from 2014, CPF Board has increased general penalties to enhance the deterrent effect on employers of not complying with CPF obligations. This includes penalties for late payment of CPF contributions. For first-time offenders, the maximum fine was doubled to $5,000. A jail term of up to six months and 12 months was introduced, as well as a minimum fine of $1,000 and $2,000 for the first offence and subsequent offences respectively. For employers who made good their CPF arrears before their Court hearing, the maximum composition amount was doubled to $1,000.
The Ministry of Manpower and CPF Board have a proactive educational effort to complement the deterrent effect of its enforcement actions. We run the Workright initiative to raise awareness among employers and employees about their obligations under the CPF Act and Employment Act. WorkRight mobile clinics were deployed across 24 heartland locations last year, and WorkRight guidebooks and toolkits for self-rectification were distributed to employers. WorkRight also increased its proactive inspections 10-fold between 2012 and 2016 to more than 5,000 annually. Through its outreach, WorkRight has helped over 21,000 employers better understand their obligations.
We will continue our efforts to increase awareness among employers of their responsibility to meet their CPF obligations so as to ensure timely payment of CPF contributions for employees.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["2 : Employers have a grace period of 14 days to pay CPF contributions after the end of the month for which CPF contributions are due. For example, CPF for the month of June is payable by 14th July. If the last day of the grace period falls on a Saturday, Sunday or Public Holiday, CPF must be paid by the next working day.","3 : Twenty-seven employers had two convictions, bringing the total number of convictions to 350 in 2016."],"footNoteQuestions":["53"],"questionNo":"53"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Consumer Complaints against Premium Rate Telecommunications Service Providers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"54 Mr Yee Chia Hsing asked the Minister for Communications and Information whether the Ministry monitors the incidence of complaints from mobile phone users against Premium Rate Services (PRS) providers and whether action is taken to bar or blacklist errant PRS providers.
Assoc Prof Dr Yaacob Ibrahim: Premium Rate Services, or PRS for short, are value-added mobile content services subscribed via short messaging service (SMS). In 2007, the Info-communications Media Development Authority (IMDA) introduced a PRS Code of Practice. The PRS Code requires providers to publish the terms and conditions of their service, authenticate the user, and ensure that explicit purchase confirmation is received prior to service activation. These safeguards help consumers avoid accidental subscriptions.
Since the Code was introduced, IMDA has taken enforcement actions in 28 cases. The actions ranged from issuing warnings to imposing financial penalties, with the highest being $100,000. Repeat offenders could also have their licences suspended or cancelled.
Apart from the PRS Code, IMDA has required mobile operators to offer a PRS barring service since 2012. Consumers who activate this service will not receive PRS or be billed even if they have accidentally subscribed to PRS.
As such, the number of PRS-related complaints received by IMDA has fallen significantly by 74% over the last five years, from 483 complaints in 2012 to 126 complaints in 2016.
Most of the remaining complaints relate to allegations of being charged for unsolicited PRS. IMDA’s investigations generally revealed that consumers did not read the terms and conditions of PRS carefully before subscribing to PRS.
I urge consumers to pay closer attention to the terms and conditions of a PRS before subscribing to any PRS and to look out for SMS reminder messages highlighting charges payable. Consumers can also activate the PRS barring service for themselves and family members.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Blacklisting Training Providers Who Profiteer from SkillsFuture Programme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"55 Ms Chia Yong Yong asked the Minister for Education (Higher Education and Skills) whether the Government monitors the training providers market to ascertain and blacklist those who profiteer from the SkillsFuture programme by substantially marking up their course fees and, if so, what is the number of those identified and how many have been blacklisted.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: There are many SkillsFuture programmes and initiatives in place. The significant ones, including those structured as SkillsFuture Earn and Learn Programmes, or training that lead to jobs, are delivered by reputable partners, such as post-secondary education institutions, and reputable private training providers, such as 3dsense Media School Pte Ltd in digital animation, Air Transport Training College in aerospace, Hua Mei Training Academy in social work, and so on.
Soon, SkillsFuture Singapore will be launching the SkillsFuture for Digital Workplace Programme, a two-day foundational skills programme to help workers adjust to a digitally rich working environment. In rolling out the course, SkillsFuture Singapore worked with seven training providers which it has strong working relationships with.
For all these programmes, SkillsFuture Singapore (SSG) works closely with training providers to ensure course fees are reasonable.
But as SkillsFuture is also an inclusive movement, there are over 650 private training providers that are part of the SkillsFuture Credit scheme. For these, competition between the training providers helps to keep a check on course fees. In addition, SSG scrutinises the proposed course fees using industry benchmarks to ensure they are reasonable when compared to other similar courses.
SSG will also enforce against any practice of profiteering. Since 2016, SSG has suspended 17 organisations from SSG funding for serious breaches of SSG funding rules, such as false declarations of trainee eligibility or course fees.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proposal for Insurance Coverage for Mental Illnesses","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"58 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for Health (a) whether the Government can explore the provision of insurance coverage for mental illnesses; and (b) what financial support is available for mental health patients when they are unable to work for a prolonged period of time.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Singaporeans with mental illnesses are receiving funding support for their treatments. In 2013, MediShield was enhanced to cover inpatient treatment of psychiatric conditions so as to support the timely and appropriate treatment of mental illnesses. This health insurance coverage remains under MediShield Life today.
Government subsidies are also available to patients receiving inpatient and outpatient mental health treatments and consultations at public healthcare institutions. For Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS) cardholders, subsidies are provided for outpatient consultations at CHAS general practitioner (GP) clinics.
Patients who need to pay for the balance of their fees after Government subsidies and MediShield Life can use their MediSave. Under the Chronic Disease Management Programme (CDMP), MediSave may be used for the outpatient treatment of bipolar disorders, schizophrenia, depression and anxiety. Seniors can further tap on Flexi-MediSave for their outpatient treatment. Those who cannot afford their treatments even after subsidies, MediShield Life and MediSave can approach the medical social workers for MediFund assistance.
Some Singaporeans with mental illnesses may require financial assistance that extend beyond their treatments. They can apply for such assistance under ComCare through the Social Service Offices. Depending on the needs and circumstances of the individuals, the ComCare package could include cash and other types of assistance, such as utilities charges and housing rental fees. Individuals who have permanent mental incapacity can also apply for early Central Provident Fund withdrawal under the Medical Grounds Scheme.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Inter-Ministerial Committee to Enhance Outreach Efforts to Smokers on Smoking Hazards","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"59 Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for Health whether there is an inter-Ministerial committee looking at the different ways to educate smokers on smoking hazards.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: While there is no formal inter-Ministerial committee to oversee the efforts to educate smokers on smoking hazards, the Ministry of Health (MOH) works closely with relevant Government agencies and educational institutions to educate Singaporeans on the health risks of tobacco use and to help smokers quit smoking.
For example, the Health Promotion Board (HPB) works closely with the Ministry of Education and Institutes of Higher Learning to incorporate anti-tobacco messages into the schools' curriculum and co-curricular activities. This is to raise awareness about the benefits of leading a tobacco-free lifestyle and to inform youths on the harms of tobacco smoking. In addition, Student Health Advisors are deployed to some schools to provide support and counselling to students on health issues, including smoking cessation counselling. HPB also organises interactive programmes, such as skits and workshops, to discourage experimentation with tobacco products and teach students ways to refuse offers to smoke. Our outreach efforts have reached out to about 50,000 students in 2016.
HPB launched the \"I Quit\" programme in 2011 and worked with the People's Association and employers to organise roadshows at community events and workplaces to encourage smokers to sign-up for the I Quit 28-Day Countdown smoking cessation programme. HPB also works closely with the Ministry of Defence on smoking cessation workshops to educate Singapore Armed Forces Servicemen on the harmful effects of smoking and encourage them to quit smoking. Smokers can call HPB's QuitLine or access online resources, such as the HPB HealthHub portal, for additional support to quit smoking. In 2016, these programmes reached out to more than 16,000 smokers.
In addition, MOH has mandated graphic health warnings on the harms of smoking on tobacco product packaging since 2004. These are revised on a regular basis to ensure their relevance.
We will continue to press on with anti-smoking public educational efforts and collaborate with the various agencies in this area where necessary.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Crimes and Incidence of Public Disturbances related to Alcohol Abuse","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"60 Dr Chia Shi-Lu asked the Minister for Home Affairs with regard to alcohol abuse (a) what are the number of related crimes and incidences of public disturbances in the last three years; and (b) whether the Government will consider restricting the sale of alcohol to Government-run stores like in the Nordic countries.
Mr K Shanmugam: With the enactment of the Liquor Control Act in 2015, we have taken significant steps to control the supply and consumption of liquor in public places to mitigate public disorder and disamenities caused by public drunkenness. We have restricted the sale of alcohol at retail outlets and consumption of liquor in public places to 7.00 am to 10.30 pm daily. Stricter hours are imposed in the designated liquor control zones in Little India and Geylang.
The result is positive. There is an island-wide decline of public order incidents related to liquor consumption, from 251 cases in 2014 to 135 cases in 2016. This includes offences like rioting, affray and serious hurt.
We, therefore, see no need to set up Government-run liquor retail stores and to only allow such stores to sell liquor. This is best left to the private sector, with the Government putting in place laws to regulate such sales.
The Police will continue to monitor the situation and conduct regular compliance checks on licensed liquor retail outlets.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Building and Maintenance Costs of Multi-storey Car Parks","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"61 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for National Development (a) what is the average cost of building a multi-storey car park and surface car park respectively; (b) what is the monthly maintenance charge for a car park; and (c) what is the average subsidy for each car park if the monthly parking charge is insufficient to cover the replacement and maintenance cost.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Construction costs vary for different car parks built over the years as they depend on factors, such as the prevailing cost of construction materials and site-specific constraints. In general, it costs about three to five times more to build a multi-storey car park compared to a surface car park, on a per lot basis.
On average, general maintenance, improvement and repair costs take up about 20% of yearly car park expenditure. However, parking charges do not cover only maintenance costs. The bulk of expenditure for Housing and Development Board (HDB) car parks comes from building works as well as other operating costs, such as car park management and enforcement. The total costs of building, operating and maintaining car parks have increased over the years because of rising overheads in the construction industry, more capital expenditures for new and existing car parks, and additional repair works required to maintain an increasing number of ageing car parks.
Last year, we estimated that without any increase in car park charges, HDB would incur a deficit of around $100 million annually in the coming years. Even with the revised parking charges, we expect HDB to continue to run a deficit in the coming years.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Long-term Building Maintenance Cost Consideration in HDB Design Planning","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"62 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether HDB design planning considers factors that affect the long-term cost of building exterior upkeep, including (i) accessibility of building features, such as beams and ledges, where high-rise litter may accumulate; (ii) the number of such features in any given HDB block; and (b) whether such features have been incorporated for cosmetic versus structural integrity considerations.
Mr Lawrence Wong: The accessibility and ease of maintenance of common areas, including exterior features, are key aspects that the Housing and Development Board (HDB) considers in the design of its buildings.
External features, such as ledges and beams, are provided for a functional purpose. Concrete ledges or canopies are provided above windows to provide shade and protect flats from rain. For instance, without such canopies, rainwater flowing down the building facade may enter the flats if the windows are open or not closed tightly. As for beams, external tie beams are required in some projects to ensure the structural robustness and stability of the building.
Design-wise, HDB generally ensures that canopies are gently sloped to allow water discharge. In addition, the use of tie beams is minimised, and these are only deployed where necessary.
If a lot of high-rise litter is thrown by residents, it will inevitably accumulate on external ledges and beams. We hope residents can play their part in maintaining the cleanliness of the common areas and refrain from throwing litter out of their windows.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Incidence of Single Unwed Moms Who Adopt Biological Children","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"63 Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked the Minister for Social and Family Development in light of reports that single unmarried mothers have to adopt their biological children to \"normalise\" a family nucleus (a) how many cases have been handled in the past five years; (b) how many of such cases have been rejected; and (c) whether the Ministry will review its policy to help the children of these mothers to enjoy the same rights as that of a married couple.
Mr Tan Chuan-Jin: From 2012 to 2016, my Ministry assessed five applications from unwed mothers to adopt their biological children. One mother subsequently withdrew her application, while the Court granted the adoption order to the remaining four applicants.
Unwed mothers do not need to or benefit more from Government policies and schemes if they adopt their own children. Singaporean children have access to a range of Government benefits that support their growth and development, regardless of their parent's marital status. These include the MediSave grant for newborns, infant care and childcare subsidies and the foreign domestic worker levy concession. In addition, all Singaporean children have access to social assistance, education and healthcare subsidies.
Last year, we reviewed and extended the Child Development Account, or CDA, benefits to children born from 1 September 2016 to unwed parents. Unwed mothers of children born from 1 January 2017 are also now eligible for Government-Paid Maternity Leave. These benefits will support the child’s developmental needs and the parent’s efforts to care and provide for the child. We also introduced the KidSTART programme last year, which will proactively identify low-income and vulnerable children aged six and below. These may include children of unwed parents. KidSTART will help to provide them with early access to health, learning and development support, and monitor their progress during their early years.
Benefits, such as the Baby Bonus cash gift and housing benefits, are meant to encourage parenthood within marriage, which is the desired and prevailing social norm in Singapore. They are not extended even if an unwed mother adopts her own child.
Unwed mothers do adopt their own children, but for personal reasons. Our law places the child's welfare and interests at the heart of an adoption decision. We must not forget that such an adoption is a life-changing event because when an unwed mother adopts her child, the duties, obligations and liabilities of the biological father are terminated. In other words, there is no longer a parental relationship between the child and his or her biological father. The child would also not be able to seek maintenance from the father under the Women's Charter. An unwed mother who intends to adopt her own child may wish to seek legal advice to fully understand the implications of an adoption order.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Cleaning Frequency for Compactors at Bin Centres","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"65 Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) what is the rationale for NEA's requirement for cleaning of the compactor at bin centres to be set at once a month; (b) whether this cleaning frequency is sufficient, especially for bin centres near hawker centres; and (c) whether the Ministry is introducing technology to assist cleaning contractors in managing the hygiene of the bin centres.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The National Environment Agency (NEA) does not set specific requirements for the cleaning of compactors at bin centres. However, our public waste collectors send the compactors to their depots for maintenance and cleaning once a month to ensure that the equipment is in good working condition and maintained in a clean and presentable state.
In addition to the monthly cleaning of the compactors by the public waste collectors, all premises owners are responsible under the Environmental Public Health (Public Cleansing) Regulations for ensuring that their refuse bin centres are kept in a clean and sanitary condition and in good repair. For example, most Town Council cleaners practise daily cleaning of the external surfaces of the compactors. In addition, the cleaning contractors of all hawker centres owned by my Ministry are contractually required to clean the refuse bin centres daily. Similar arrangements are also adopted by the Town Councils for hawker centres owned by the Housing and Development Board.
To ensure better management of the hygiene of bin centres, NEA is working with the cleaning industry to encourage greater use of technology to enhance the productivity and effectiveness of cleaners.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Study on Environmental Impact of Disposable Food Packaging","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"66 Miss Cheng Li Hui asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) what are the results of the tender called in August 2016 to study the life-cycle assessment and environmental impact of disposable food packaging; and (b) whether the quantity of disposable food packaging used has increased in the last three years.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The National Environment Agency (NEA) awarded the study on how different types of disposable food packaging materials compare in terms of cost and environmental impact in September 2016. The study is expected to conclude in the second half of 2017.
Between 2014 and 2016, the amount of domestic waste disposed of in Singapore was around 1.7 million tonnes per year, of which about one-third was packaging waste. Packaging waste includes disposable food packaging. Though the amount of packaging waste disposed of has remained fairly constant over the past few years, the amount may increase with population and economic growth.
My Ministry manages the impact of plastic packaging on the environment through the safe incineration of waste rather than direct landfilling. However, it is important that we also continue to make progress on measures to reduce packaging waste.
While my Ministry recognises that plastic bags and disposable takeaway containers are frequently used out of convenience, we strongly encourage businesses to reduce excessive usage, and consumers to use their own reusable bags and takeaway food carriers. Doing so would help conserve valuable resources and reduce the overall waste volume.
We will continue to work with manufacturers, retailers and environmental groups to encourage consumers to reduce the use of disposable food packaging. More recently, for new hawker centres, such as at Our Tampines Hub, Pasir Ris and Yishun, we have taken the additional step of disallowing the use of disposables for dining in at these hawker centres. We will look into more ways to reduce the use of disposable food packaging based on the results of the ongoing study.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Qualifying Criteria to Build Covered Linkway from Private Housing to Nearest Bus Stop","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"67 Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for Transport (a) what are the qualifying criteria or conditions for a covered linkway to be built from the gates of a private condominium to the nearest bus stop; and (b) in the last three years, how many such covered linkways has the Ministry funded.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: The Government does not fund or build covered linkways from private condominiums to bus stops. Instead, under the Walk2Ride Programme, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) will build a covered linkway from a condominium to a Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) station located within 400 metres, or to a Light Rail Transit (LRT) station or a bus interchange within 200 metres. This linkway may, in some cases, connect with bus stops along the way.
The key condition for the Government to provide such a covered linkway from the gate of the condominium to a major public transport node is that the condominium must provide a sheltered route within its compound from the residential blocks to the gate. This ensures a seamless, sheltered connection the entire way. It would not make sense for the Government to fund a covered linkway from the gate, if the walk inside the condominium is exposed to the weather anyway.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Drop-out Rates at Polytechnics","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"69 Ms K Thanaletchimi asked the Minister for Education (Higher Education and Skills) (a) how many polytechnic students dropped out of their course over the last five years; (b) whether the polytechnics provide a second chance for these dropouts to either take on other diploma programmes which they are more passionate about or resume the course which they have stopped and, if so, whether there have been any success cases; and (c) whether the polytechnics will allow more opportunities for those dropouts who are keen to continue their polytechnic studies.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Over the last five years, an average of 5% of each polytechnic cohort have withdrawn from their course. Should these students like to return to their course of study, polytechnics adopt a case-by-case approach to understand the student’s situation and reasons for course withdrawal before evaluating each case.
For students who wish to pursue another course of study, they may do so via the Polytechnics' Direct Admissions Exercise. On average over the past five years, around 950 students who had formally withdrawn from their courses apply for re-admission to the polytechnics through this route every year. About 40% of these students are successful. As part of the admission process, polytechnics assess these students on their aptitude and interests, allowing them to gain admission by demonstrating their commitment to their new chosen fields.
Apart from providing opportunities for students to return to study, we recognise that students do well and stay engaged when they understand their own interests and aptitudes and pursue courses that they are passionate about. Besides enhancing education and career guidance to help students understand their strengths and aspirations, the polytechnics have also expanded aptitude-based admissions to assess students beyond their academic scores.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Findings of Incident at National Dental Centre where Unsterilised Instruments were Used on Patients","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"70 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for Health regarding the National Dental Centre Singapore (NDCS) incident of instruments used on patients despite not completing the full sterilisation process (a) whether the Ministry has ascertained how the incident occurred and the chronology and decision-making process within NDCS when the incident was discovered; (b) whether the affected instruments could have been recalled faster; and (c) what lessons can be drawn from the incident.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Patient safety is of utmost importance to our public healthcare institutions. We apologise for the lapse at the National Dental Centre Singapore (NDCS) on 5 June and 6 June, which had led to the use of partially sterilised dental instruments.
SingHealth has conducted an investigation and the Ministry of Health (MOH) has received its report on 30 June 2017. The Ministry is reviewing the report and is also conducting its own investigation.
The SingHealth investigation showed that on the afternoon of 5 June, a staff of the Central Sterile Supplies Department (CSSD) of NDCS failed to complete all the steps in the sterilisation process for one batch of dental instruments. The batch of affected instruments were subsequently dispatched to the outpatient clinics at levels 2, 4 and 6 of NDCS.
Around 4.00 pm, another NDCS staff noticed that the sterilisation indicator tapes on some instrument packs had not changed colour, indicating that the sterilisation process has not been completed. She alerted the first NDCS staff as well as her immediate supervisor. An immediate attempt was made to recall the affected instruments. However, not all the affected instruments were retrieved.
On 6 June, before NDCS started operations at 8.00 am, the manager of CSSD checked the sterilisation records and detected the incomplete sterilisation of one batch of instruments on the previous day. She activated the department to retrieve all affected instruments from the clinics.
At 4.00 pm on 6 June, the manager of CSSD reported the incident to the senior management of NDCS. The Director of NDCS immediately activated another round of recalls to ensure that all affected instruments were retrieved. Prior to the start of clinic hours on 7 June, all dental instruments were thoroughly checked and confirmed to have undergone the complete sterilisation process. Additional controls, such as requiring a second person to check that the sterilisation process was completed, were also implemented.
Among the 714 patients who had visited the outpatient clinics on levels 2, 4 and 6 from the late afternoon on 5 June to the end of clinic hours on 6 June, up to 72 could have come into contact with the affected instruments as there were up to 72 sets of the affected instruments that had been used. As the first two steps of the sterilisation process were completed, including thermal washer disinfection which would remove close to 100% of organisms of concern, the risk of infection to patients was assessed to be extremely low.
NDCS dentists began contacting all of these patients on 10 June to inform them of the incident and reassure them on their low risk of infection.
From the findings, the incident originated from human error by a staff. In addition, her supervisor and department manager did not fully recognise the potential impact of the error. As a result, there was a delay in escalating the incident to senior management and up to 72 packs of affected instruments might have been used on patients, before all affected instruments were successfully recalled.
The findings also revealed procedural weaknesses and a lack of vigilance amongst some staff. At various points of the process, from the issuance of the instruments from CSSD, through the receipt of the instruments at the clinics, to the unpacking of the instruments before use on patients, the error could have been detected and an alert raised.
Following the incident, NDCS has instituted immediate corrective measures. Additional independent verifications have been put in place to ensure completeness of the sterilisation process. Clearer work instructions have been disseminated to all staff to ensure that the sterility of the dental instruments is checked prior to use.
NDCS has also audited their sterilisation records in the six months prior to the incident. The records confirmed that sterilisation was completed in all other cases. A check on the sterilisation equipment also indicated that it was fully functioning.
NDCS will strengthen the following: (a) standard operating procedures for sterilisation, handover and use of dental instruments; (b) documentation and inventory accounting process for sterilisation and movement of dental instruments from CSSD to the clinics, and (c) Incident escalation and reporting, recall and risk management frameworks.
In addition, NDCS will institute regular training and competency assessments for all staff involved in the sterilisation and handling of instruments to ensure familiarity with the processes.
Four NDCS staff directly involved in the incident, including supervisors and senior NDCS management, have been found to have fallen short in their level of vigilance and the speed in escalation of incident management. Disciplinary actions have been taken against them. These include warnings, as well as financial penalties.
The Ministry will review the findings of the SingHealth report, as well as our own investigation findings. We will consider if further regulatory actions are necessary. We will also closely monitor the implementation of remedial actions and standards of care at NDCS through regular audits.
While the risk of infection to affected patients is extremely low in this incident, it is a serious breach of the institution’s infection control system nonetheless. Our healthcare institutions need to be more vigilant and have a stronger reporting and incident escalation culture. These will enable us to detect and mitigate any incidents expeditiously. The learning points from this incident will be shared across the healthcare clusters so that we can collectively improve our standard of patient safety and care.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Starting School Later to Allow Students to Sleep More","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"71 Dr Chia Shi-Lu asked the Minister for Education (Schools) whether the Ministry will consider starting schools at 8.30 am or later in consideration of the biological changes in the sleep cycles of teenagers and the long-term health benefits, as recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics and local health institutions.
72 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Education (Schools) whether the Ministry will consider encouraging more schools to start classes later following the recent sleep studies conducted by the Duke-NUS Medical School and Nanyang Girls' High School.
Mr Ng Chee Meng: The preliminary findings from the Duke-National University of Singapore (NUS) Medical School researchers showed that there was a marginal increase of only about 20 minutes of sleep despite a 45-minute delay in school start time. Surveys show that many Singapore students spend time on social media and other online activities before going to bed.
Therefore, the Ministry of Education (MOE) has incorporated the knowledge of sleep hygiene and self-management skills into the Primary School Physical Education curriculum since 2014. Education on the importance of sleep and good sleep habits will also be incorporated into the Secondary School Physical Education curriculum. Parents play a key role in inculcating good sleeping habits and routines in their children from a young age. MOE will also continue to work with schools to monitor the curriculum and homework load.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Help for Women with Post-natal Depression","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"73 Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong asked the Minister for Health (a) among women who had recently given birth, what is the percentage who develop post-natal depression; (b) what subsidised resources are available to women who are diagnosed with post-natal depression; and (c) whether the Ministry will make available free post-partum mental health screening and follow-up care for all Singaporean women regardless of where they have given birth.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: A local study4 conducted by NUH found that the prevalence of maternal depression is about 12% antenatally, and 7% postnatally.
Most pregnant women are managed by the obstetricians during their pregnancy, who play a major role in identifying antenatal and postnatal depression symptoms both in the private and public sectors.
Since 2007, the KK Women's and Children's Hospital (KKH) and the National University Hospital (NUH) have been funded under the National Mental Health Blueprint to provide screening and early intervention for postnatal depression. The NUH Women's Emotional Health Service (WEHS) and KKH's Postnatal Depression Intervention Programme (PDIP) provide depression screening at two to eight weeks postpartum, at no charge, during outpatient postnatal review at the specialist clinics. Under the NUH WEHS, women are also screened antenatally at three time points – registration, trimester two, and trimester three. Both programmes accept patients referred from other hospitals, including private hospitals. Since 2007, both programmes have screened around 80,050 women, and 818 women were subsequently referred to and seen by psychiatrists for further follow up.
Women who are screened positive for depression would be managed by a multidisciplinary team comprising a psychiatrist, case manager and psychologist. The women and their family members will also be given useful contacts and information on managing their emotional health.
Both programmes also provide antenatal talks and classes open to women and their spouses, covering antenatal and postnatal depression, and on keeping emotionally well during and after pregnancy. Through various media platforms, KKH also raises public awareness on postnatal depression.
Patients who require outpatient treatment for major depression and anxiety can receive subsidies for their treatment at our public healthcare institutions. They can also tap on MediSave under the Chronic Disease Management Programme. Needy patients who cannot afford medical treatment can approach the medical social worker at the healthcare institutions for financial assistance.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["4 : Chee, CYI, Lee, DTS, Chong, YS, Tan, LK, Ng, TP, and Fones, CSL (2005). Confinement and other psychosocial factors in perinatal depression: a transcultural study in Singapore. Journal of Affective Disorders, 89(1-3), 157-166."],"footNoteQuestions":["73"],"questionNo":"73"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Fee Collection during Post-health Screening Consultation at Polyclinics","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"75 Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling asked the Minister for Health (a) what is the reason for collecting a fee at the polyclinic when patients receive their health screening results during the post-screening consultation; and (b) why does the practice differ from that of general practitioner clinics.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Patients with normal health screening results may have their results mailed to them and there is no need for them to visit the polyclinics. If they prefer, they can also collect their results at the polyclinics. There is no additional fee charged by polyclinics for the original issuance of the screening results.
For patients who require further evaluation, it is important that the doctor meets with the patient to review the results, address concerns and/or advise on management options. Medication and treatment may also be initiated if necessary. Patients with existing chronic conditions may review their results during their next scheduled appointment at no additional cost, or at a separate sitting, if necessary. A standard subsidised polyclinic consultation fee would apply for Singaporeans and Permanent Residents.
General practitioner (GP) clinics offer different types of health screening and adopt different charging practices. Some package the health screening and post-screening consultation in a single charge, while others charge patients a separate fee for post-screening follow-ups. GPs may also decide that mailing of results would suffice when a face-to-face visit is not needed.
As part of the enhanced Screen For Life (SFL) initiative which will take effect from 1 September 2017, we are extending subsidies to all eligible Singaporeans for recommended screenings at Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS) GP clinics. This is part of our national strategy to encourage health screening and follow-ups, as well as to reinforce the role of GPs in preventive health and chronic disease management. Under the enhanced SFL initiative, eligible Singaporeans will pay a single nominal fee for the screening tests and post-screening consultation where required. Pioneers need not pay.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Penalty for HDB's Home Improvement Programme Contractors Due to Service or Quality Lapses","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"76 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for National Development in respect of HDB's Home Improvement Programme (HIP) (a) whether HDB publishes the names of HIP contractors who have been penalised due to service or quality lapses; and (b) between 2012 and 2016, how many contractors have been awarded contracts for further HIP projects after being penalised for service or quality lapses for earlier HIP projects.
Mr Lawrence Wong: The Housing and Development (HDB) sets quality and service standards for contractors in the execution of Home Improvement Programme (HIP) projects. Based on surveys of precincts which have undergone HIP, at least 90% of residents express satisfaction with the works completed.
From time to time, there are service or quality lapses by the contractors. HDB does not publish the names of these contractors, but it takes strict enforcement action against them. Between 2012 and 2016, 22 contractors were penalised with demerit points, of which seven had an administrative charge imposed on them. Four contractors also performed poorly enough to be restricted from tendering for HDB projects. The tender restriction was lifted only after they showed improvements in performance, and three of them were subsequently successful in tendering for HIP projects.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measurement of Speed of Vehicles in Assessing ERP Charges for Expressway","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"77 Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked the Minister for Transport how does LTA currently measure the speed of vehicles in assessing the ERP charges for an expressway.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: The speeds of vehicles along expressways are measured using both data from sensors on Global Positioning System (GPS)-enabled taxis and traffic monitoring cameras. Electronic Road Pricing (ERP) rates for expressways are reduced when vehicular speeds consistently exceed 65 kilometres per hour (km/hr), and increased when they consistently fall below 45 km/hr. This is reviewed every quarter.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reduction of Breakdown of MRT Train Services","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"78 Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked the Minister for Transport whether any other action can be taken to reduce the breakdown of MRT train services.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: Improving rail reliability is a multi-year effort. It comprises four major elements.
First, timely replacement and upgrading of ageing assets. This applies especially to our oldest North-South and East-West Lines. We have completed the replacement of all the wooden sleepers with new concrete sleepers. We will soon complete the replacement of the third rail system, which supplies power to the trains. We will soon begin the process to replace the ageing power system and the first-generation train fleet.
Meanwhile, we are in the last phase of trials for the new signalling system on the North-South Line. The signalling system upgrade for the East-West Line will be completed next year. Re-signalling is not a simple exercise and similar projects elsewhere had experienced delays and disruptions during implementation. We have to be patient as the Land Transport Authority (LTA), Singapore Mass Rapid Transit (SMRT) and the equipment supplier painstakingly iron out all the hitches in the new system.
Second, build up the expertise of our rail engineers. We have set up the Singapore Rail Academy to augment industry efforts in developing rail expertise and manpower. Through various international advisory panels, we are actively tapping on international experiences and adopting best practices.
Third, reform our maintenance regime. We have introduced process-based Maintenance Performance Standards to address maintenance issues upstream, before delays occur. We have also begun to incorporate predictive maintenance concepts to raise efficiency and effectiveness.
Fourth, step up investment in maintenance and engineering. LTA and the operators have increased their maintenance and engineering manpower significantly. They have also set up Joint Teams to regularly review the reliability performance of individual rail lines, identify the causes, develop targeted solutions and monitor the results.
All these efforts take years to complete and to produce results. We are not yet where we want to be. However, we have seen good progress. The industry key performance indicator (KPI) for measuring rail reliability is Mean Kilometre Between Failure (MKBF), measuring delays exceeding five minutes. It is a demanding KPI and adopted globally.
Last year, I set stretched targets for our operators to work towards an MKBF of 200,000 train-kilometres (km) for 2016, 300,000 km for 2017, 400,000 km for 2018 and 800,000 km by 2020. From January to May 2017, our Mass Rapid Transit trains travelled 387,000 train-km between delays of more than five minutes. This is more than double the performance in 2016 of 174,000 train-km. It has also exceeded my stretched targets. It is a pleasant surprise and is greatly inspiring to our teams of engineers and technicians working in the trenches.
In fact, three out of the five lines have exceeded next year’s target of 400,000 train-km. Among the three, two have exceeded the 2020 target of 800,000 train-km in the first five months of this year. We are determined to be among the best in rail reliability and we will get there. Please continue to give us your encouragement and support.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Civil Lawsuits against Principals and Teachers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"79 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for Education (Schools) over the past three years (a) how many civil lawsuits have been initiated against school principals and teachers in their official educator capacity; (b) what proportion has been initiated by students or parents/or students' next-of-kin; (c) what are the reasons cited for such lawsuits; and (d) whether the Ministry provides (i) legal aid coverage and/or (ii) professional liability insurance for educators who may face such lawsuits arising from their official duties.
Mr Ng Chee Meng: Lawsuits initiated against our educators in relation to their official duties are few and far between. In the past three years, there have only been two such lawsuits, with only one having been initiated by a parent against an educator. That case involved the parent suing the principal of his child’s school for the return of a mobile phone that was confiscated in accordance with the school’s rules.
An educator who faces such a lawsuit may be provided with legal representation in a number of ways. This can take the form of representation by the Attorney-General's Chambers, the grant of legal aid by the Government so that he or she may engage lawyers, or through lawyers engaged by his or her school.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Infusing Technology Subjects in Current School Education System","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"80 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Education (Schools) (a) how can technology subjects be incorporated into the current syllabus of our education system so as to have a future-ready education system; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider making basic coding skills compulsory for secondary school students.
Mr Ng Chee Meng: In our secondary school curriculum, students have the opportunities to offer technology-related subjects, such as Design and Technology, Computer Applications, Computing and Electronics. Design and Technology is a compulsory subject in the lower secondary curriculum whereas Computer Applications is compulsory for all Normal (Technical) students from Secondary 1 to Secondary 4. Over the past few years, we have introduced more technology-related subjects, such as Electronics, Computing, Smart Electrical Technology and Mobile Robotics, which are offered as elective subjects in selected schools.
In these subjects, students learn a range of application software, hardware, programming languages and electronics systems to create prototypes and practical solutions with real-world uses. These emphasise experimentation, encourage innovation and require students to apply their knowledge and skills and select an optimal solution under certain constraints. Students are given opportunities to tinker and investigate the systems to gain better conceptual understanding of the workings of the components in electronics systems. The syllabus of these subjects is reviewed on a regular basis to ensure that it keeps in tandem with technological developments.
However, our secondary school curriculum is still about fundamental concepts and skills, such as problem solving, design thinking, computational thinking and troubleshooting skills.
At lower secondary, there is limited curriculum time to offer a new subject, such as Computing. Hence, our main approach is to enthuse a broad base of students in computing and expose them to possibilities of technology through enrichment programmes and co-curricular activities. Learning to code is part of the Applied Learning Programme (ALP) in 41 secondary schools. In addition, the Ministry of Education also partners the Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) to provide enrichment programmes like the \"Code for Fun\" and \"Lab on Wheels\", which have been well-received by schools. As of March 2016, 117 primary and secondary schools have embarked on the Code for Fun programme, benefiting 34,000 students. There are also a number of secondary schools (33 schools in 2016) with info-comm clubs which tap on the support of IMDA to provide learning in areas involving coding, such as app development and robotics.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Review of MediSave Limit","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"81 Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling asked the Minister for Health whether he can provide an update on the review of the MediSave withdrawal limit of $400 per year for (i) patients with chronic illnesses and (ii) those who require long-term special medication that are not subsidised.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Under the Chronic Disease Management Programme (CDMP), Singaporeans can use up to $400 per MediSave account per year to pay for their chronic disease treatment. Nineteen chronic conditions are covered under CDMP, which accounts for more than 90% of chronic attendances seen at polyclinics today.
The $400 CDMP limit was sufficient to fully cover the post-subsidy bill for nine in 10 subsidised patients with common chronic conditions at public healthcare institutions and participating Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS) general practitioner (GP) clinics. At these institutions, elderly patients aged 65 and above may also tap on an additional $200 Flexi-MediSave each year to help pay for their outpatient treatments.
Patients with higher medical bills for chronic conditions can tap on the MediSave accounts of their spouse, children and parents, up to $400 per family member per year. To illustrate, an elderly patient with a spouse and two children could use up to $1,800 of MediSave per year for his chronic conditions, $600 from his own MediSave account and $400 each from his wife and children. If they still face financial difficulties, they can apply for MediFund at the polyclinics or subsidised specialist outpatient clinics in public hospitals. The Medication Assistance Fund is also available for needy patients who require long-term medication that are not on the Standard Drug List.
The Ministry of Health will continue to monitor the affordability of chronic disease care and regularly review the MediSave withdrawal limits.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Singaporeans who are Eligible for Workfare Income Supplement but Who are Left Out","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"84 Ms K Thanaletchimi asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether there are cases of Singaporean workers who meet the eligibility criteria for the Workfare Income Supplement (WIS) payouts but who have been omitted from such payouts; (b) if so, who and where should these workers make their appeals to; and (c) if there are such omissions, how can the Ministry ensure that WIS payouts reach all eligible workers.
Mr Lim Swee Say: The Workfare Income Supplement (WIS) scheme is designed to supplement the incomes and retirement savings for the bottom 20% of Singaporeans by income percentile, with a smaller degree of support up to the 30th income percentile.
Workers who are eligible for WIS will not be omitted from receiving WIS payouts. However, there were some cases where workers may not have received their WIS payouts. This was mainly because their circumstances had changed after the data cut-off dates. These workers can approach Central Provident Fund Board to reassess their eligibility for WIS. We accept appeals for up to two years after the year in which the work was done, in recognition that some workers may not lodge their appeals immediately.
In January 2017, we implemented several enhancements to WIS, such as paying WIS on a monthly instead of quarterly basis, and increasing the qualifying monthly income ceiling from $1,900 to $2,000. About 460,000 Singaporeans are expected to receive WIS for work done this year. These changes ensured that WIS would continue to provide a meaningful level of support to low-wage Singaporean workers.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Daily Average Total Number of People in Singapore for Past Three Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"1 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Prime Minister for the past three years, what has been the daily average total number of people in Singapore, including residents and non-residents.
Mr Teo Chee Hean (for the Prime Minister): The number of residents and non-residents in Singapore in the past three years, based on consolidated figures as at end June each year, are in Table 1 below. Data on the number of residents and non-residents tracked on a daily basis are not available.
2 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Prime Minister what measures are used to assess and maintain the stability of the Singapore financial system (i) at the level of individual financial institutions, (ii) at a whole-of-system level and (iii) in respect of how policies affecting individual financial institutions can influence system stability through network structure and network effects.
Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam (for the Prime Minister): The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) promotes financial stability in Singapore through microprudential supervision of individual financial institutions (FIs), as well as conducting macroprudential surveillance of the financial system as a whole. The two are related and closely coordinated to provide a comprehensive approach to preserving a stable and sound entire financial system.
In its microprudential supervision, MAS covers all FIs – banks, insurers and capital market players. Only well-managed and reputable FIs are allowed to operate in Singapore. Once admitted, FIs must continue to meet the necessary regulatory requirements and standards. In designing these requirements, MAS draws reference from global standards and best practices, consults industry and other stakeholders, and carries out impact studies. This allows MAS to consider potential spillover effects of regulations on the broader economy and financial system and finetune the regulations as appropriate. This is further complemented by onsite inspections and regular offsite reviews of FIs' operations to check that they are managing their risks properly. In this regard, MAS adopts a risk-focused supervisory approach, paying closer attention to FIs that are more systemically important.
As for macroprudential surveillance, MAS seeks to identify potential financial stability risks arising from global and domestic economic and financial market developments. Like other major regulators, we want to identify these risks before they materialise, so that appropriate measures can be taken to avert systemic problems.
MAS employs a variety of tools to do this. These include (a) a broad suite of indicators to monitor any build-up of risks in the system; (b) model-based approaches to assess systemic risk and policy effectiveness; (c) stress tests to understand how adverse scenarios could affect individual FIs as well as the financial system; and (d) network analysis to assess how financial distress could spread from one FI to others in the system through various interconnections.
These tools help MAS identify common vulnerabilities across FIs and in the corporate and household sectors, as well as the channels by which risks can propagate through the financial system.
MAS has also identified a group of domestic systemically important banks (D-SIBs).5 These D-SIBs are subject to additional regulatory requirements, such as higher capital and liquidity buffers, enhanced disclosure, and recovery and resolution planning, to strengthen their resilience.
MAS is committed to proactive surveillance and robust supervision to safeguard the stability of the financial system in Singapore. The International Monetary Fund's Financial Sector Assessment Programme in 2013 found Singapore's financial sector to be well-regulated and supervised and described the regulatory and supervisory framework as \"among the best globally\".
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["5 : D-SIBs are banks that are assessed to be of systemic importance based on their size, interconnectedness, substitutability and complexity. The following banking groups have been designated as D-SIBs: (a) DBS Bank; (b) Overseas-Chinese Banking Corporation; (c) United Overseas Bank; (d) Citibank; (e) Malayan Banking Berhad; (f) Standard Chartered Bank; and (g) The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation."],"footNoteQuestions":["2"],"questionNo":"2"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Status of Civil Service's Management Support Scheme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"3 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Prime Minister (a) how many officers on the Civil Service's Management Support Scheme have been and are to be transferred to the Management Executive Scheme; and (b) whether the Management Support Scheme will be phased out.
Mr Lee Hsien Loong: Transfers from the Management Support Scheme to the Management Executive Scheme are not compulsory. Serving officers have the option to transfer to the extended Management Executive Scheme or remain on the Management Support Scheme. As of May 20176, 2,465 (42%) of Management Support Officers have transferred to the extended Management Executive Scheme.
While we no longer recruit officers on the Management Support Scheme, it will not be phased out until the last officer transfers out or retires from the scheme. Officers are free to transfer to the extended Management Executive Scheme whenever they are ready. Officers can engage their supervisors and human resource departments on the career pathway that would best fulfil their aspirations before coming to a decision.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["6 : Based on the latest available data."],"footNoteQuestions":["3"],"questionNo":"3"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Noise Mitigation Measures along Stretches of Central Expressway Near Residential Areas","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"4 Mr Sitoh Yih Pin asked the Minister for Transport in view of high noise levels facing residential homes close to and/or facing the Central Expressway, whether the Ministry has plans to add additional noise mitigation measures or sound barriers on these stretches of the Central Expressway.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: We are exploring a number of ways to reduce road noise, such as noise barriers and low-noise road surface mix. Trials on the effectiveness of these measures are underway.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Inclusion of Sennett Estate in Walk2Ride Programme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"5 Mr Sitoh Yih Pin asked the Minister for Transport whether LTA can consider including Sennett Estate in its Walk2Ride programme and build sheltered linkways from the estate to surrounding transport nodes, such as MRT stations and bus stops.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: We will link up Potong Pasir Mass Rapid Transit station and the perimeter of Sennett Estate nearest to the station with covered linkways.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Minimum Safety Standards for Motor Vehicle Repairs and Modification Works","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"6 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Transport in view of the number of fires in vehicles due to electrical and overheating causes (a) how can the Ministry ensure that the quality of work performed in our local car workshops meet the minimum standards for safety; and (b) how can the Ministry ensure the roadworthiness and safety of foreign vehicles entering Singapore as well as local vehicles which have had repairs and modification works done outside of Singapore.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: The owner of a vehicle is responsible for ensuring that it is roadworthy. The Land Transport Authority conducts spot checks on both local and foreign vehicles travelling on the roads. Vehicles that do not meet roadworthiness standards are impounded and the owners penalised under the Road Traffic Act.
In addition, all Singapore-registered vehicles are required to undergo regular inspections and vehicles that fail these inspections cannot be used on the roads. For their and other road users' safety, we strongly advise vehicle owners to use reputable workshops for maintenance and repairs.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on National Electric Vehicle Car-sharing Scheme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"7 Mr Ang Hin Kee asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether he can provide a progress update on the national electric vehicle (EV) car-sharing scheme that is scheduled for rollout in mid-2017; and (b) what has been the take-up rate of the EV car-sharing scheme and the construction status of the EV stations and charging points in the selected HDB towns.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: The first phase of the BlueSG electric vehicle car-sharing programme will commence in the next few months. The services will begin with 125 electric cars and 200 charging points across 50 car parks.
The Land Transport Authority and BlueSG are currently discussing with the various communities on the specific car park lots to install the charging points and to complete the legal documents.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Extension of Bus Service 983 to Cover Keat Hong Close","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"8 Mr Zaqy Mohamad asked the Minister for Transport in view of increased residents in Keat Hong Pride and Keat Hong Crest, whether LTA will consider having bus service 983 routed through Keat Hong Close and, if not, what are the reasons or barriers.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: These are new estates and we are closely monitoring travel patterns there. A rule of thumb is to ensure that there are public bus services within 400 metres of developments, subject to there being a minimum level of ridership.
Meanwhile, Service 983 is accessible within 400 metres from developments at Keat Hong Close. If a shorter walking distance is preferred, residents can walk around 300 metres to take Service 301 and make a same bus-stop transfer to Service 983 along Choa Chu Kang Avenue 6.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Breakdown of Singaporean and PR PMEs in 25th and 50th-80th Percentiles of Basic and Gross Monthly Salaries","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"9 Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan asked the Minister for Manpower as at 2017, what is the breakdown for Singaporeans and Permanent Residents who are professionals, managers and executives in Singapore in terms of the 25th, 50th, 60th, 70th, 75th and 80th percentile of the (i) basic monthly salary (including and excluding employer CPF contributions) and (ii) gross monthly salary (including and excluding employer CPF contributions).
Mr Lim Swee Say: Since 2016, the Ministry has adopted the reporting of occupation data for professionals, managers, executives and technicians (PMETs) instead of professionals, managers and executives (PMEs). This is because the two job categories of PME and associate professionals and technicians (APT) will become less distinct in the future economy.
The breakdown of gross monthly income (including employer CPF contributions) by percentiles as at June 2013 and June 2016, for full-time employed residents7 who are PMETs, is provided in Table 1 below.
Data on basic monthly income is not available.
Table 1 Gross Monthly Income from Work8 (including Employer CPF contributions) of Full-Time Employed9 Resident PMETs, June 2013 and 2016
10 Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Minister for Manpower in the last five years, how many Employment Passes and S Passes have been issued to persons who have previously given up Singapore Citizenship.
Mr Lim Swee Say: From 2012 to 2016, an average of 65 new Employment Passes and S Passes were issued each year to individuals who had previously given up their Singapore Citizenship. Every work pass application is assessed carefully and in consultation with relevant agencies.
A variety of factors is considered including: (a) how much time has elapsed since Singapore Citizenship was renounced; (b) whether the applicant has any ties to another citizen; and (c) whether the applicant had avoided any obligations to the state when he gave up his Singapore Citizenship.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Employment Passes and S Passes Issued to Applicants with Certificates from Degree Mills and Unaccredited Schools","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"11 Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap asked the Minister for Manpower in each of the years from 2014 to date, how many Employment Passes and S Passes have been issued to applicants with certificates from degree mills or unaccredited schools.
Mr Lim Swee Say: Employment Pass (EP) and S Pass applications are assessed based on a combination of factors, including qualifications, working experience and salary.
Before July 2015, for applications that contained qualifications obtained from unaccredited institutions, the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) would disregard these qualifications and the applicants had to meet more stringent criteria in terms of working experience and salary in order to qualify for the EP or S Pass. On this basis, 310 passes were issued in 2014 and 190 in the first half of 2015.
Since July 2015, MOM no longer accepts new EP and S Pass applications that contain any doubtful qualification.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"CPF Education Scheme for Part-time Diploma or Degree Courses at Approved Educational Institutions","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"12 Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap asked the Minister for Manpower whether the Ministry will review the CPF Education Scheme to allow it to be used for part-time diploma or degree courses at approved educational institutions.
Mr Lim Swee Say: The Central Provident Fund (CPF) is primarily for retirement. Monies in the Ordinary Account can be used for housing, and monies in the MediSave Account can be used for healthcare. We introduced the CPF Education Scheme in 1989. Under this scheme, members can use their CPF Ordinary Account savings to pay for their own, children's or spouse's subsidised tuition fees. Only full-time subsidised diploma or degree courses at Approved Educational Institutions are covered.
With increasing life expectancy, we need to make sure CPF members have set aside enough savings in their CPF account to meet their basic retirement needs. Hence, we need to be careful about expanding the use of CPF to allow for more withdrawals to be made, including to cover part-time diploma or degree courses.
Singaporeans who require financial assistance to pay for the tuition fees of their part-time degree courses can consider the Tuition Fee Loan which covers up to 90% of the tuition fees. Those who have taken the maximum Tuition Fee Loan and require further financial assistance can also consider the Study Loan. Together, the Tuition Fee Loan and the Study Loan will cover 100% of the subsidised tuition fees payable. The Ministry of Education also subsidises tuition fees for part-time diplomas and offers bursaries to students who require financial assistance.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Real and Nominal Wage Growth for Singaporeans in Each Decile for Last 10 Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"13 Mr Chen Show Mao asked the Minister for Manpower what was the real and nominal wage growth for Singaporeans in each income decile for each of the last 10 years.
Mr Lim Swee Say: The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) monitors the wage outcome of the workforce by tracking income trends at the 20th percentile10 (low-wage workers) and 50th percentile (general workers). The annual change in nominal and real11 gross monthly income (including employer Central Provident Fund [CPF] contributions) by the 20th and 50th percentile for Full-Time Employed12 Singaporeans, from 2007 to 2016, is provided in Table 1 below.
Table 1 Annual Change (%) in Gross Monthly Income from Work13 (including Employer CPF contributions) of Full-Time Employed Singaporeans, June 2007-2016
14 Mr Pritam Singh asked the Minister for Defence what measures have been undertaken to ensure the security of the medical records of SAF personnel in view of the integration via the Internet of the SAF's electronic medical records system (the Patient Care Enhancement System (PACES)) with the National Electronic Health Record system.
Dr Ng Eng Hen: Two main aspects to ensure security of medical records of Servicemen were taken into account in the design and implementation of the Singapore Armed Forces' (SAF's) electronic medical records system. They relate primarily to (a) the confidentiality of records, and (b) measures to guard against unauthorised access and cyber intrusions. Stringent processes for these two aspects have been put in place, which are aligned with international standards.
First, to ensure confidentiality of records, access to the SAF's electronic medical records system is limited only to medical personnel and selected human resource (HR) practitioners on a need-to basis and the list of authorised users is regularly reviewed. Even then, the level of access is also tiered-based, that is, medical officers as primary caregivers need to and can access detailed medical information, but medics and HR practitioners can access less information that is relevant to fulfil their functions. Regular audits are conducted to ensure that access and the confidentiality of the medical information have complied with existing policies and regulations and benchmarked to the Ministry of Health's practices and standards.
Second, to guard against unauthorised access and cyber intrusions, PACES is only accessible to authorised users from designated terminals at specific Ministry of Defence (MINDEF)/SAF premises. The entire PACES system is also protected by a suite of tools to enhance cybersecurity. When medical information of SAF personnel is required for continuity of care to be shared with other medical institutions using the National Electronic Health Records (NEHR) system, it is first encrypted and transmitted via a dedicated point-to-point connection with system authentication.
The SAF's electronic medical records system is regularly tested for vulnerabilities to update the system's software. In addition, the system is constantly being monitored for any attempted cyber intrusions.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Traffic Summonses Issued for Non-compliance of Yellow Box Rules in Past Three Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"15 Mr Yee Chia Hsing asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) how many traffic summonses have been issued for non-compliance of yellow box rules over the past three years; and (b) whether the Traffic Police can consider the use of traffic cameras to ensure compliance at busy junctions.
Mr K Shanmugam: Between 2014 and 2016, the Traffic Police (TP) issued, on average, about 450 traffic summonses each year to motorists who had stopped their vehicles in yellow boxes and caused obstruction to other road users.
TP has deployed cameras to deter and detect serious traffic offences, such as red-light running and speeding. We do not rule out using cameras for other types of offences in the future, if the need arises.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Higher Penalties for Misleading Claims in Advertisements of Health Products and Services","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"16 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Health whether the Ministry will consider higher penalties for such false and misleading claims in advertisements of health products and services so as to protect the interest of consumers.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The Ministry of Health regulates advertisements of health products and services to protect consumers from false and misleading claims that may put their health at risk.
Under the Health Products Act (HPA), any false and misleading advertisements will be liable to a maximum penalty of $20,000, imprisonment of up to 12 months, or both.
Some health products, including Chinese Proprietary Medicines and Traditional Medicines, are currently regulated under the Medicines Act (MA). The maximum penalty for any false and misleading advertisements under the MA is a $5,000 fine, imprisonment of up to two years, or both.
We intend to amend the legislation to move the regulation of Chinese Proprietary Medicines and Traditional Medicines from MA to HPA. The higher penalties under HPA will apply once the move is completed. We are also reviewing the Private Hospitals and Medical Clinics Act to enhance the regulation of health services advertisements by healthcare institutions.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Compulsory Pre-market Approval for Health Supplements","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"17 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Health whether the Ministry will consider compulsory pre-market approval or licensing of health supplements before they can be imported and sold in Singapore.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The Health Sciences Authority (HSA) applies a risk-based approach in the regulation of different categories of health products. Western pharmaceutical drugs are used mainly by healthcare practitioners in the treatment and prevention of diseases. They are regulated stringently as they are inherently more potent.
Health supplements, on the other hand, are intended for enhancing a person's health. They are not meant to prevent, treat or cure diseases, or alleviate the symptoms of diseases. They generally contain well-established ingredients, such as vitamins, minerals or substances derived from natural sources. As health supplements are generally of lower risk than western pharmaceutical drugs, they do not require approval by HSA before they can be sold locally. They can be purchased over the counter without medical supervision. Our regulatory approach for health supplements is similar to that adopted by the United States, the European Union countries and Japan.
We are mindful that introducing pre-market regulation for health supplements could result in companies passing on the regulatory cost to consumers or forgo introducing products into Singapore which has a small market size, thereby reducing consumer choice.
Nevertheless, importers, wholesale dealers, sellers and manufacturers of health supplements are responsible for ensuring the safety and quality of their products. They must ensure that their products do not contain harmful substances or potent active ingredients used in western pharmaceutical drugs. Dealers must also ensure that product claims are truthful and not misleading, and that product advertisements do not make claims for treatment or prevention of diseases.
HSA has in place a post-market surveillance system to monitor the safety of health products, including health supplements. Our healthcare professionals report adverse events to HSA. HSA also keeps a close watch on safety issues encountered in other countries. In addition, HSA routinely samples health supplements sold here and tests them. Should there be any quality or safety concerns detected, HSA will take the necessary actions, including working with the companies to remove the products from sale or informing the public to stop consuming these products.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Dental Health among Pre-Primary Children","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"18 Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong asked the Minister for Health (a) whether dental health among pre-primary children has improved in the last 10 years; (b) whether HPB's oral care programmes for pre-primary children have been implemented for all early childhood education centres; and (c) whether the Ministry will make available free or subsidised initial dental check-ups for pre-primary children.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The oral health of our 12-year-old children is ranked amongst the best in the world. However, the proportion of Primary 1 children with dental caries had increased slightly from 50.9% in 2007 to 53.1% in 2016, indicating that the dental health of pre-primary children has not improved in the last decade.
Dental treatment for pre-primary children has been provided at nominal cost at Health Promotion Board's (HPB's) School Dental Centre since 1999, and HPB has been conducting oral health promotion in kindergartens and childcare centres since 2002. To address the rising trend of dental caries in Primary 1 children, HPB introduced the tooth-brushing programme with optimally fluoridated toothpaste in 2014, which has reached 1,026 childcare centres (out of 1,279 childcare centres in 2016). Through this programme, HPB aims to raise awareness of the importance of using optimally-fluoridated toothpaste among parents, teachers and children, and inculcate effective tooth-brushing habits in children from young.
Going forward, as an initiative under the NurtureSG Plan, HPB will move upstream to offer free oral health screening for preschoolers aged three to four years, to at least 800 childcare centres by 2019, and 1,100 childcare centres by 2020.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Average Waiting Time at A&E Department at Each Public Hospital","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"19 Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap asked the Minister for Health in each year from 2013, what is the average waiting time at the Accident and Emergency Department of each of our public hospitals for (i) emergency but non-life-threatening cases and (ii) admission to the hospital.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Patients at the emergency departments (EDs) are prioritised and attended to based on the severity of their conditions. All life-threatening (P1) cases are attended to immediately. For emergency but non-life-threatening (P2) cases, the median waiting times across the EDs averaged about 23 minutes, 22 minutes, 18 minutes and 17 minutes in 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016 respectively.
For patients who required admissions, the median waiting time for admission averaged about two hours, 2.3 hours, two hours and 1.6 hours in 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016 respectively.
Our hospitals have protocols to ensure care is not compromised despite high demand for ED services. Even while patients wait at the EDs for admission, medical teams continue to monitor them and institute appropriate investigations and treatments.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Average Waiting Time for New Appointments at Specialist Outpatient Clinics at Public Hospitals","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"20 Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap asked the Minister for Health in each year since 2013, what is the average waiting time for new appointments at Specialist Outpatient Clinics at the public hospitals.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Specialist Outpatient Clinic (SOC) waiting times for new appointments vary across hospitals and across specialties within each hospital. The median waiting time for new, non-urgent subsidised appointments at Specialist Outpatient Clinics (SOCs) has fallen slightly from 29 days in 2013 to 27 days in the first quarter of 2017, despite an increasing patient load across all hospitals (see Table 1 below). Patients with more urgent conditions, such as suspected cancers and cardiac conditions, are fast-tracked for their appointments.
21 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Health (a) what is the cause of the lapse leading to use of the partially sterilised instruments on patients at the National Dental Centre (NDC) in June 2017; (b) what are the procedural weaknesses in the NDC's process for ensuring that instruments are fully sterilised before use; and (c) what measures have been taken to ensure that similar lapses do not occur again.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Patient safety is of utmost importance to our public healthcare institutions. We apologise for the lapse at the National Dental Centre Singapore (NDCS) on 5 June and 6 June, which had led to the use of partially sterilised dental instruments.
SingHealth has conducted an investigation and the Ministry of Health has received its report on 30 June 2017. The Ministry is reviewing the report and is also conducting its own investigation.
The SingHealth investigation showed that the incident originated from human error by a staff, who failed to complete all the steps in the sterilisation process for one batch of dental instruments. In addition, her supervisor and department manager did not fully recognise the potential impact of the error. As a result, there was a delay in escalating the incident to senior management, and up to 72 packs of affected instruments might have been used on patients, before all affected instruments were successfully recalled.
The findings also revealed procedural weaknesses and a lack of vigilance amongst some staff. At various points of the process – from the issuance of the instruments from the Central Sterile Supplies Department (CSSD), through the receipt of the instruments at the clinics, to the unpacking of the instruments before use on patients, the error could have been detected and an alert raised.
Following the incident, NDCS has instituted immediate corrective measures. Additional independent verifications have been put in place to ensure completeness of the sterilisation process. Clearer work instructions have been disseminated to all staff to ensure that the sterility of the dental instruments is checked prior to use.
NDCS will strengthen the following: (a) standard operating procedures for sterilisation, handover and use of dental instruments; (b) documentation and inventory accounting process for sterilisation and movement of dental instruments from CSSD to the clinics, and (c) incident escalation and reporting, recall and risk management frameworks.
In addition, NDCS will institute regular training and competency assessments for all staff involved in the sterilisation and handling of instruments to ensure familiarity with the processes.
While the risk of infection to affected patients is extremely low in this incident, it is a serious breach of the institution's infection control system nonetheless. Our healthcare institutions need to be more vigilant and have a stronger reporting and incident escalation culture. These will enable us to detect and mitigate any incidents expeditiously.
The learning points from this incident will be shared across the healthcare clusters, so that we can collectively improve our standard of patient safety and care.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Competitiveness and Health of Singapore's Wafer Fabrication and Semiconductor Industry Cluster","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"22 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (Industry) (a) whether he can provide an update on the competitiveness and health of Singapore's wafer fabrication and semiconductor industry cluster; and (b) what measures are being taken to maintain and enhance the competitiveness of wafer fabrication in Singapore versus other competing global locations for fabs.
Mr S Iswaran: Singapore has a well-established semiconductor cluster, with leading global firms in Integrated Circuit (IC) design, wafer fabrication, as well as assembly and testing, supported by an ecosystem of equipment vendors and suppliers. Between 2011 and 2016, the manufacturing output from our semiconductor cluster grew at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 4.3%14. Singapore continues to be an attractive location for high-value semiconductor manufacturing activities. For example, last September, Micron opened its expanded 3D NAND flash memory fabrication facility in Singapore, an investment totaling S$5.4 billion that will create 500 new skilled jobs.
New end-applications, such as industrial Internet-of-Things and autonomous vehicles, will continue to drive strong demand for semiconductors and present growth opportunities for Singapore. Under the Research Innovation Enterprise 2020 (RIE2020) Plan, we have set aside S$3.2 billion for Advanced Manufacturing and Engineering to support key industry sectors, including Electronics. The Government has also been partnering companies in the adoption of advanced manufacturing technologies to increase productivity. For example, Infineon recently announced a S$105 million investment to transform its Singapore manufacturing facility into a Smart Factory, with automated guided vehicles to transport chips across the facility.
The Government will continue to support our workforce to acquire the relevant skillsets to benefit from the new job opportunities. For instance, we are working closely with the industry, trade associations and unions to co-develop a Skills Framework for the Electronics industry, which will map out career pathways, job roles, requisite skills and wages. This framework will facilitate skills recognition and support the design of targeted training programmes for skills and career development.
These efforts are part of our Industry Transformation Map (ITM) to strengthen the competitiveness of the Electronics industry. The Electronics ITM will be launched later this year.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["14 : Nominal growth; based on Economic Development Board Census of Manufacturing Activities."],"footNoteQuestions":["22"],"questionNo":"22"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Cigarette and Tobacco Smuggling in Singapore","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"23 Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef asked the Minister for Finance whether the Ministry can provide an update on the situation of illicit cigarette and tobacco smuggling in Singapore, especially in the last three to five years.
Mr Heng Swee Keat: Strong enforcement efforts and close interagency collaboration have kept the contraband tobacco situation in Singapore in check.
From 2014 to 2016, the number of contraband tobacco offenders, which includes smugglers, peddlers and buyers, fell by 16% from 24,840 in 2014 to 20,751 in 2016. Non-cigarette offenders made up less than 5% of those caught.
In the same period, the amount of duty-unpaid cigarettes seized by the Singapore Customs fell by 7% from three million to 2.8 million packets.
Singapore Customs will continue to work with other enforcement agencies, such as the Singapore Police Force and the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority to deter the buying and selling of contraband tobacco. We will also continue to actively engage the public to raise awareness on this issue.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Cases of Homeless Persons Who Choose to Remain Homeless Instead of Going to a Shelter","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"24 Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) from 2011 to 2016, what is the number of cases of homeless persons who choose to remain homeless instead of going to a shelter; and (b) what is the procedure for handling persons who choose to remain homeless.
Mr Tan Chuan-Jin: The Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) does not track the number of persons who choose to remain homeless instead of being admitted into shelters.
When MSF receives information on persons who may be homeless, we initiate contact with these persons on the ground to offer assistance. Those assessed to be homeless and in need of immediate shelter are admitted into shelters. They may also be referred to Social Service Offices and Family Service Centres for financial and employment assistance or to address family issues. Some decline assistance or have alternative accommodation options with family and friends. Others may have homes of their own but choose to sleep in public because of family disputes or other considerations.
MSF and our partners in the community will continue to identify and provide support to homeless persons where needed.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"HDB Dwellers Concurrently Owning Private Residential and Commercial Properties","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"25 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for National Development (a) how many current HDB dwellers concurrently own one and more than one private property respectively with a breakdown into residential and commercial private properties; (b) of these HDB dwellers, how many of them are servicing both the HDB housing loan and private bank loans; and (c) whether the Ministry will consider allowing only those who have completed paying the HDB housing loan fully to invest in private residential properties.
Mr Lawrence Wong: As at 30 April 2017, about 54,300 Housing and Development Board (HDB) households, or less than 6% of all HDB households, concurrently own private properties. Of these, the vast majority (about 80%) own only one private property. By property type, close to 80% of these households own just residential properties, while the remainder own commercial properties (such as shop houses, hawker stalls and warehouse spaces) or a combination of both.
Among HDB households which concurrently own private properties, about 7,100, or 13%, are servicing their HDB housing loans. HDB does not have data on whether these households have outstanding bank loans on their private properties.
Nonetheless, there are existing measures to safeguard financial prudence and prevent individuals from over-leveraging when they purchase properties. For instance, an individual with an outstanding HDB loan will be subject to a higher cash downpayment and a tighter loan-to-value limit when he borrows to purchase a private residential property. Additional Buyer’s Stamp Duty will also apply to his second and subsequent property purchases. In addition, he will be subject to the Total Debt Servicing Ratio framework, which requires a financial institution to take into consideration his total outstanding debt obligations when assessing his loan application. This ensures that the borrower’s total monthly debt repayment obligations do not exceed 60% of his monthly income.
We will continue monitoring the market closely and will review the necessary measures as conditions evolve.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Sharing of Repair Cost for Water Leakage from Upper Floor Flat","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"26 Ms Foo Mee Har asked the Minister for National Development whether there should be a cap on the number of times a lower-floor flat is obliged to share the cost of repair for water leakage from the upper-floor flat within a specific time period.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Under the Housing and Development Board (HDB) lease, the repair of leaks in the party structure is a joint responsibility between upper- and lower-floor flat owners. When there is a leak, both upper- and lower-floor flat owners would need to liaise with each other to investigate and carry out repairs. In most cases, issues concerning leaks can be amicably resolved when flat owners exercise mutual understanding and cooperate with one another.
There is no cap on the number of times upper- and lower-floor flat owners are obliged to share in the cost of repair for leaks due to wear and tear. However, if the cause of the leak at the lower-floor flat is due to renovations carried out at the upper-floor flat, the upper floor flat owner will be fully responsible for rectifying the leak and bearing the full repair cost.
For ceiling leaks caused by wear and tear, HDB may also offer assistance to flat owners to repair and co-share the cost of repairs under the Goodwill Repair Assistance Scheme. Under this scheme, HDB will pay 50% of the ceiling leak repair cost. The remaining 50% is then shared equally between the upper- and lower-floor flat owners.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Use of Community Improvement Projects Committee Funds for Construction of Bicycle Sheds and Double-tier Bicycle Racks","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"27 Ms Foo Mee Har asked the Minister for National Development whether the Ministry will consider setting aside special Community Improvement Projects Committee (CIPC) funds to support the construction of bicycle sheds and double-tier bicycle racks to support the increasing number of bicycles in HDB estates.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Currently, Community Improvement Projects Committee (CIPC) funding is allocated to Citizens' Consultative Committees (CCCs), which have the flexibility to decide which projects to prioritise, based on local needs.
Apart from infrastructural and recreational facilities, such as covered walkways, footpaths and playgrounds, CIPC funds may also be used for the provision of bicycle sheds and double-tier bicycle racks.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Conversion of Landed Properties for Student Accommodation","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"28 Mr Sitoh Yih Pin asked the Minister for National Development whether the conversion of two or more landed properties for student accommodation with related services by a single operator should be classified as non-residential use akin to the running of a student hostel and, if so, whether URA will consider regulating such business activities within private estates in view of the inconveniences caused to other residents.
Mr Lawrence Wong: The Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) maintains guidelines on the use of any premises as a student hostel. For example, sites which are located in estates safeguarded for landed housing are generally disallowed from being used for student hostels. Any party who wishes to operate his premises as a student hostel must first obtain planning permission from URA for this use.
But private homes can be let out for rental to students so long as the use of the home fully complies with URA's planning guidelines on residential use. These guidelines, which include a minimum duration of stay and a cap on the total number of occupants per home, are intended to prevent disamenity to neighbouring residents resulting from problems, such as overcrowding and the frequent turnover of tenants.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Allowing Private Property Owners to Purchase HDB's 2-room Flexi Flats for Owner Occupation without Need to Dispose of Private Property","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"29 Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked the Minister for National Development whether HDB will allow owners of private property to purchase HDB's 2-room flexi flats strictly for owner occupation and without the need to dispose of their private property.
Mr Lawrence Wong: New Housing and Development Board (HDB) flats are heavily subsidised. With finite resources, the Government has to prioritise such housing for those who need them more, such as first-time homebuyers and households who cannot afford private housing.
Private property owners are, therefore, generally not eligible to buy new HDB flats. Nonetheless, to facilitate housing monetisation, we allow elderly private property owners aged 55 and above to buy new 2-room flexi flats on shorter leases of between 15 and 45 years. They will have to dispose of their private property within six months of taking possession of the flat.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Estate Upgrading Programme for Private Estates","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"30 Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Minister for National Development whether and, if so, when the Government will be calling for proposals for new projects under the Estate Upgrading Programme for private estates.
Mr Lawrence Wong: It is the intention of the Government to continue to invite nominations for the Estate Upgrading Programme (EUP). The date for new nominations has yet to be determined. There are currently 17 ongoing EUP projects from various Batches island-wide, with the most recent under EUP Batch 9 being awarded their consultancy tenders just last month.
We would like to complete some of these ongoing projects first, before calling for new nominations. This will allow us to devote the requisite resources to better manage the new projects.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Drowning Cases Involving Recreational Users at Public Beaches","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"31 Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap asked the Minister for National Development (a) in the past five years, how many cases of drowning involving recreational users at public beaches have been reported; (b) what are the measures in place to ensure the safety of recreational users at public beaches; (c) how does the Ministry determine the number and distribution of rescue floats at beaches; (d) how many lifeguards are actively on duty along public beaches at any given time; and (e) what is the rationale for not having permanent beach patrols and lifeguards at public beaches.
Mr Lawrence Wong: There have been 11 drowning fatalities involving recreational users at public beaches over the past five years.
Efforts made to help keep swimmers safe include signs in prominent locations to advise beach users about the dangers of swimming in open water. Lifebuoys are deployed at highly visible locations not more than 300 metres apart. There are also patrols at beaches with a high volume of swimmers, like Palawan Beach. There are at least 14 patrol officers on duty each day at these types of beaches.
More broadly, the Government has taken steps to equip children with basic water safety skills. For example, the Ministry of Education (MOE) requires all primary school pupils to take part in the SwimSafer programme as part of the Physical Education syllabus. This is done in partnership with SportSG.
That said, safety measures cannot be 100%. We urge all recreational users to remain vigilant while swimming in open water. Parents should also closely supervise their children at beaches at all times.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Safeguards to Ensure Recycling Companies Adhere to Proper Recycling Protocols and Procedures","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"32 Mr Darryl David asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources what safeguards does NEA have to ensure that recycling companies contracted to remove and treat recyclable waste actually adhere to the proper recycling protocols and procedures.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Under the National Recycling Programme (NRP), public waste collectors (PWCs) are required to provide a blue co-mingled recycling bin at every Housing and Development Board (HDB) block and landed residential property.
The PWCs are contractually required by the National Environment Agency (NEA) to ensure that the recyclables in the blue bins are properly collected and sent for recycling. These requirements include the use of dedicated trucks to collect recyclables, separately from general waste, and marking these trucks accordingly.
NEA monitors the recycling trucks to ensure that collected recyclables are sent to Materials Recovery Facilities, which sort the co-mingled recyclables for further processing. Each truck is equipped with a Global Positioning System (GPS), and Radio-Frequency Identification (RFID) technology is used to record collection from individual bins. As a further safeguard, these recycling trucks are prohibited from entering the incineration plants, where general refuse is disposed of.
NEA imposes financial penalties on the PWCs if they fail to meet contractual requirements, including failing to collect recyclables according to schedule and failing to collect recyclables using a separate dedicated vehicle.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Regulations and Licensing Requirements for Trade Fairs","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"33 Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources whether regulations for trade fairs and their licensing will be reviewed and updated.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Under the Environmental Public Health Act (EPHA), no one is allowed to stage any temporary fair without first obtaining a permit from the National Environment Agency (NEA). This is to ensure that all fair operators put in place measures to address potential public disamenities and public health concerns, such as cleanliness, food hygiene and waste management. For example, fair operators must have contracts with a licensed cleaning contractor to clean the fair site and a licensed waste collector to ensure adequate waste collection arrangements, while proper supporting facilities, such as washing facilities, must be provided for food stalls. The fair operator is also required to obtain written approvals from the relevant Government agencies and landowners. In addition, the fair operator is responsible for ensuring that the fair operates within the period that it is licensed and that the set-up of the stalls within the fair is in accordance with the approved layout.
Besides issuing permits to the fair operators, NEA licenses the individual operators of the food stalls in temporary fairs to ensure that the food sold is prepared hygienically and safe for consumption. All food handlers need to be registered with NEA and pass the mandatory Basic Food Hygiene Course.
NEA will take firm enforcement action, including the cancellation of food stall licences, against anyone found in violation of EPHA.
Our schemes and policies are regularly reviewed to ensure their relevance. I would like to assure the Member that we monitor the situation closely and will introduce regulatory changes, if need be, to safeguard the environment and ensure public health.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Indiscriminate Use of Pest Poisons by Pest Control Companies","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"34 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) what measures and regulations are in place to prevent pest control companies from placing and using hazardous bait, such as poison, in such a way that the safety of other wildlife and vulnerable members of the public could be harmed; and (b) whether the Ministry can enforce stronger rules to prevent the indiscriminate use of pest poisons.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Vector control operators are regulated by the National Environment Agency (NEA) under the Control of Vectors and Pesticides Act (CVPA). All personnel involved in vector control work have to undergo mandatory training in the safe handling and use of pesticides before they are licensed or certified by NEA. For instance, vector control personnel are trained to only dispense rat bait in rat burrows or in tamper-proof bait stations which other animals cannot easily access.
Apart from regulating vector control operators, NEA also regulates the use of pesticides to ensure that they do not pose any public health concerns. NEA's evaluation of pesticides is done in accordance with the World Health Organization Pesticide Evaluation Scheme (WHOPES) and only pesticides that are approved for use by NEA can be sold in Singapore after they are registered, labelled and classified properly.
My Ministry takes a serious view of the indiscriminate use of pesticides and will take enforcement action against any vector control operator and vector control personnel who infringe the regulations. Any person caught conducting vector control work without a licence shall be liable to a Court fine of up to $20,000, or imprisonment for up to three months, or both. NEA may also suspend or cancel the registration of any vector control operator or the licence of any vector control personnel in cases where there are serious breaches of its licensing conditions.
These penalties have proven to be a sufficient deterrence. Over the past five years, there have only been six incidents that required enforcement actions to be taken against vector control operators or personnel. Hence, there is no need to put in place stiffer penalties to prevent the indiscriminate use of pesticides.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Introduction of GCE \"O\" Level Computing Subject in all Secondary Schools","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"35 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Education (Schools) whether the Ministry will consider (i) offering the new GCE \"O\" level computing subject in all secondary schools and (ii) introducing this subject earlier in the secondary school curriculum at Secondary 1 or 2.
Mr Ng Chee Meng: The number of secondary schools offering GCE \"O\" level Computing (formerly known as Computer Studies) has increased from 12 schools in 2016 to 19 schools this year, with another four more schools joining in 2018. This has provided more opportunities for interested students to take on Computing as a formal subject at upper secondary levels.
To support the offering of GCE \"O\" level Computing in more secondary schools, the Ministry of Education (MOE) has been training more computing teachers since 2015. MOE is monitoring the take-up rate of the subject to ascertain the demand from students and determine if the subject should be introduced in more schools.
It should be noted that admission to Computing-related courses in polytechnics and universities does not require GCE \"O\" level Computing. Hence, students without GCE \"O\" level Computing background are not disadvantaged when applying to such courses after secondary school.
At lower secondary levels, there is limited curriculum time to offer a new subject. Our main approach is to enthuse a broad base of students in computing and expose them to possibilities of technology through enrichment programmes and co-curricular activities. Learning to program is part of the Applied Learning Programme (ALP) in 41 secondary schools. In addition, MOE also partners the Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) to provide enrichment programmes like the \"Code for Fun\" and \"Lab on Wheels\", which have been well-received by schools. As of March 2016, 117 primary and secondary schools have embarked on the Code for Fun programme, benefiting 34,000 students. There are also a number of secondary schools (33 schools in 2016) with infocomm clubs which tap on the support of IMDA to provide learning in areas involving coding, such as app development and robotics.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proportion of Singapore Citizens, Permanent Residents and Foreigners at Local Autonomous Universities","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"36 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Education (Higher Education and Skills) for each of the years from 2011 to 2016, what proportion of students at each local autonomous university are Singapore Citizens, Permanent Residents and foreigners respectively, with a breakdown of undergraduate and postgraduate student population in each case.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: University places are planned first and foremost for Singaporeans, in line with the cohort participation rate target of 40% by 2020. A small proportion of places are then provided for international students as they add diversity and vibrancy to the university and enhance the educational experience for Singaporean students.
Over the past five years, international students have formed not more than 15% of the undergraduate intake at our publicly-funded universities. Permanent Residents have comprised about 5% of the intake. In 2016, the numbers stand at around 10% and 5% for international students and Permanent Residents respectively.
At the postgraduate level, the nationality profile of students is not planned for, unlike undergraduate programmes, but depends on applications. On average, 32% of the intake across the various postgraduate programmes each year were Singaporeans. Permanent Residents and international students comprised another 5% and 63% of intake respectively.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures to Ensure Students Are Relevant to Future Economy on Graduation","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"37 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Education (Higher Education and Skills) what is being done to ensure that our students will be relevant to the future economy when they graduate.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Across the post-secondary education institutions (PSEIs), graduate employment outcomes continue to be strong, with around nine in 10 graduates securing employment within six months of their graduation. This is because the Ministry of Education (MOE) and the PSEIs work closely with industries to regularly update curriculum and pedagogy to ensure that students are equipped with relevant knowledge and skills when they enter the workforce.
In terms of curriculum, PSEIs frequently engage industry representatives to stay abreast with the latest development in industries. PSEIs engage industry practitioners to undertake a good part of the teaching. They are also involved in the work of the Sectoral Tripartite Committees, which drive the development and implementation of Industry Transformation Maps.
In terms of pedagogy, there is an increased emphasis to balance acquisition of academic knowledge and practical skills, especially through learning by doing. For instance, a large majority of PSEI students already go for internships. We have also rolled out the SkillsFuture Earn and Learn Programme and the Work Study Degree Programmes, which are modelled upon work-learn apprenticeship programmes in countries like Germany and Switzerland.
The employability of students is very much related to their competence which, in turn, reflects their aptitude and enthusiasm for the discipline they have chosen. PSEIs have also strengthened education and career guidance (ECG) efforts to support students in making informed decisions on their career aspirations. Students have access to a wide range of resources, such as information on industries and growth prospects, as well as ECG counsellors or career coaches, to guide students on career preparation and skills upgrading opportunities. PSEIs are also increasingly moving towards aptitude-based admission that takes into account the students' strengths and interests.
MOE also requires all our PSEIs to measure employment outcomes of their graduates annually and publish the results. This helps students make informed choices and focus the PSEIs on the industry relevance of their courses. From this year, the requirement will be extended to private education institutions offering degree qualifications.
Students are also encouraged to continually upgrade their skills, even after graduation, to stay responsive to a rapidly changing workplace. PSEIs are expanding the range of short, skills-based courses they offer. Together with the programmes offered by private training providers, these broaden the learning opportunities for working adults to upgrade and deepen their skills.
Collectively, these initiatives contribute to an education and training system that is responsive to industry needs and ensure that individuals remain relevant to the future economy.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Steps to Retrain Workers with Requisite Skills to Secure Jobs in Next 10 Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"38 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Education (Higher Education and Skills) in light of the recommendations by the Committee on the Future Economy, what further steps will be taken to retrain workers to ensure they have the requisite skills to secure jobs in the next 10 years.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: To help Singaporeans better prepare for the future, we will be focusing on three areas within the SkillsFuture movement.
First, we will increase the range of training programmes available for workers to stay employable. The Post-Secondary Education Institutions (PSEIs), namely, the Institute of Technical Education (ITE), polytechnics and Autonomous Universities (AUs), include lifelong learning as part of their core mission and have developed more flexible, bite-sized and industry-aligned modules targeted at adult learners. This is in addition to the efforts of private training providers. Later this year, we will also launch the SkillsFuture for Digital Workplace programme to equip Singaporeans with foundational digital literacy skills in key areas, such as understanding of data, technology and cybersecurity, as well as cultivating a mindset for change and innovation.
Second, we are enhancing our efforts in education and career guidance to help Singaporeans make informed decisions regarding skills development, training and jobs. Specifically, we will launch two initiatives, namely, MySkillsFuture and the SkillsFuture Engage. MySkillsFuture is a one-stop online portal offering a suite of tools and resources that will enable Singaporeans to understand labour market information, search for jobs and training programmes, and chart their skills development and career pathways. Under SkillsFuture Engage, we will deliver career and training advisory to Singaporeans at the community level, including guiding them to use MySkillsFuture portal, and choosing the right training programmes and careers.
Third, PSEIs are working closely with the Ministry of Manpower and Workforce Singapore to expand the Professional Conversion Programmes. These programmes help mid-career adults to undergo skills conversion and move into new occupations or sectors that have good prospects and opportunities for progression.
We will continue to build on SkillsFuture efforts to enable Singaporeans to learn through life and continually upgrade their skills. We encourage Singaporeans to make the best use of the various programmes and initiatives.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Students Taking Polytechnic Route to University","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"39 Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for Education (Higher Education and Skills) (a) in the past three years, what is the trend of students entering polytechnics versus junior colleges; (b) what percentage of polytechnic graduates has gained admission to local universities; and (c) whether there are plans to make more university places available for polytechnic students.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: In the past three years, the proportion of Primary 1 cohort admitted to polytechnics and junior colleges (JCs) has been about 47% and 28% respectively.
The proportion of polytechnic graduates gaining admission to local universities has been increasing, in tandem with the expansion of university places to raise the university cohort participation rate. As a number of polytechnic graduates enlist in National Service after graduation, or choose to work before furthering their studies, we would not have the latest years' figures on the proportion of the cohort that gained admission into university until a few years from now. However, if we compare the number of university places taken up by polytechnic graduates and the size of the polytechnic graduating cohort in a given year, this ratio was 25 polytechnic graduates in the universities to 100 polytechnic graduates, up from 23 to 100 in 2014.
The profile of students admitted to the universities will continue to depend on student interest and quality. Whether you take the JC or polytechnic route, admissions to universities are based on merit and open competition among students.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null}],"writtenAnswersVOList":[],"writtenAnsNAVOList":[],"annexureList":[{"annexureID":705,"sittingDate":null,"annexureTitle":"Annex to Ministerial Statement by the Prime Minister (Handout 1)","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20170703/annex-handout 1.pdf","fileName":"handout 1.pdf","sectionType":"OS","file":null},{"annexureID":706,"sittingDate":null,"annexureTitle":"Annex to Ministerial Statement by the Prime Minister (Handout 2)","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20170703/annex-handout(2).pdf","fileName":"handout(2).pdf","sectionType":"OS","file":null},{"annexureID":707,"sittingDate":null,"annexureTitle":"Annex to Ministerial Statement by the Prime Minister (Handout 3)","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20170703/annex-handout(3).pdf","fileName":"handout(3).pdf","sectionType":"OS","file":null},{"annexureID":708,"sittingDate":null,"annexureTitle":"Annex to Ministerial Statement by the Deputy Prime Minister (Handout)","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20170703/annex-handout(4).pdf","fileName":"handout(4).pdf","sectionType":"OS","file":null}],"vernacularList":[{"vernacularID":1803,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Lee Hsien Loong","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20170703/vernacular-Lee Hsien Loong(1).pdf","fileName":"Lee Hsien Loong(1).pdf"},{"vernacularID":1804,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Ms Sun Xueling","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20170703/vernacular-Sun Xueling(1).pdf","fileName":"Sun Xueling(1).pdf"},{"vernacularID":1805,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Zaqy Mohamad","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20170703/vernacular-Zaqy Mohamad(1).pdf","fileName":"Zaqy Mohamad(1).pdf"},{"vernacularID":1806,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Er Dr Lee Bee Wah","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20170703/vernacular-Lee Bee Wah(1).pdf","fileName":"Lee Bee Wah(1).pdf"},{"vernacularID":1807,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Thomas Chua Kee Seng","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20170703/vernacular-Thomas Chua(1).pdf","fileName":"Thomas Chua(1).pdf"},{"vernacularID":1808,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Ms Rahayu Mahzam","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20170703/vernacular-Rahayu Mahzam(1).pdf","fileName":"Rahayu Mahzam(1).pdf"}],"onlinePDFFileName":""}