1 Mr Leon Perera asked the Prime Minister (a) how many of the official websites of Ministries and Statutory Boards meet the WCAG 2.0 or other international standards for website accessibility by persons with disabilities (PWDs); and (b) what steps will be taken to ensure that Government websites are accessible to PWDs to the fullest extent possible.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Communications and Information and Education (Dr Janil Puthucheary) (for the Prime Minister): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0 is the international standard for making web content more accessible to persons with disabilities (PWDs). It is adopted by various governments around the world, including Singapore. WCAG guidelines include the ability to resize websites' text without assistive technology, ensuring a minimum colour contrast ratio and providing captions for videos.
Our Government websites are required to satisfy the WCAG 2.0 requirements. The websites of agencies are audited for compliance against the standards. Over the past three years, 90% of the agencies' websites audited complied with the WCAG 2.0 requirements. Those which did not comply were required to improve their websites to the standards within several months.
During this financial year (FY) 2017, we will enhance the digital standards for our Government websites beyond WCAG 2.0, as we continue to raise their level of inclusivity and usability for more users. For example, we will incorporate the new Singapore Standard SS618 by the Standards, Productivity and Innovation Board (SPRING) Singapore, \"Guidelines on User Interface Design for Older Adults\", that aim to further enhance the online user experience of our websites, such as having audio captions in large font.
For citizens, including PWDs who need further help to transact online, or who do not have Internet access, Citizen Connect Centres (CCCs) have been set up at various Community Centres/Clubs to assist them in this regard. In addition, some of the CCCs have features, such as elderly-friendly touch screen interfaces and height-adjustable kiosks, for wheelchair users.
Mr Speaker: Mr Leon Perera.
\tMr Leon Perera (Non-Constituency Member): I thank the Senior Minister of State for the very clear reassurance. Just a very quick clarification. I take it that 100% of the Government and Statutory Boards websites are compliant with this standard. Can we infer that from the Senior Minister of State's answer? At the present point in time, 100% of Government and Statutory Board websites are compliant with the WCAG 2.0 standard?
\tDr Janil Puthucheary: Mr Speaker, Sir, it is hard to be absolutely sure that 100% of every single webpage in the public sector is compliant at this point in time, because there are continually updates, that is, new pages, new sites, new services, just as some sites are taken down.
The audit is ongoing. On a cyclical basis, we will get through all the agencies' websites. Over the last three years, 90% were compliant and those that we detected that were not compliant, they became compliant. I have a reasonably high assurance that almost all our Government websites are compliant. If there are any that the Member comes across that are not compliant, please direct them to us and we will help to ensure that they become compliant.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Development of New Digital Identity System","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"2 Ms Tin Pei Ling asked the Prime Minister whether he can provide an update on the progress of the new digital identity system development in Singapore and how the Government intends to scale up on the use and applications of biometric elements.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Communications and Information and Education (Dr Janil Puthucheary) (for the Prime Minister): Mr Speaker, Singaporeans have been increasing their volume of online transactions with both the Government and private companies. It is essential to have a secure digital identity system to protect the integrity of these transactions. Our current digital identity system relies on the SingPass with 2-Factor Authentication. The next step is to develop a mobile software token-based authentication system. We will also remove the inconvenience of repeatedly entering the same data on multiple forms by expanding the MyInfo service for more digital services. These will take place in the first half of 2018.
Beyond security and convenience, our larger goals include enhancing the efficiency of our enterprises and business processes. A fully functioning national identity system and e-payment platform will enable the delivery of more innovative services to a wider client base at lower cost. For example, there would be less need for counter services and the processing of paper forms. The National Digital Identity (NDI) will create opportunities for new business models.
To realise these outcomes, we need the public and private sectors to collaborate and to develop the appropriate industry standards. We have started consultations with several industry sectors, and plan to conduct trials for value-added services with the participation of companies. These services include digital signatures and document vaults. This will be developed in 2019.
We are also exploring various forms of biometric technologies, such as facial recognition, to enhance the security for identification, authentication and authorisation. We are particularly interested in form factors that make it convenient for the elderly, the young and the disabled to use and benefit from NDI. A Smart Nation must serve all segments of the population.
Mr Speaker: Ms Tin Pei Ling.
\tMs Tin Pei Ling (MacPherson):\tMr Speaker, I have to declare that I am from a relevant industry, that is, the financial technology (fintech) industry. I would like to ask two quick questions. Firstly, with the increase in applications with biometric elements, how will this affect the current public services and systems, as they transition over? Secondly, may I ask whether some of the services or applications, such as PayNow, will be open to the private players to build on, such as through opening up of application programming interfaces (APIs)?
\tDr Janil Puthucheary: Mr Speaker, I thank Ms Tin for her questions. With respect to the first issue about the transition into biometric systems, for any of the transitions, we are not aiming for nor planning a complete cut-over. So, whatever solutions and processes that are in place, it will be a gradual phased transition. For any given platform, service, product or process, there is likely to be a transition phase where there will be multiple pathways. You should be able to use various ways to authenticate and verify identity. You will have that parallel process for some time. So, it will be a very phased transition. This will also allow us to make sure that whatever new solutions we put in place are robust, user-friendly, effective and we would be able to update the technology over time. It also requires us to put in place some discipline about how we design our solutions to make sure there is significant interoperability among the standards.
This feeds into the second question that Ms Tin asked. The various systems, including PayNow, are designed to be interoperable. We want that interoperability to extend into the private sector as far as possible. Private sector players would, of course, have to then comply with the various regulations that we impose. Effectively, it is in the private sector. The banks are private sector players and they are riding on PayNow.
So, we do expect and hope that more and more of our Smart Nation platforms will extend out from the public sector to the private sector.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Fines for Restaurant Management When Patrons Flout No-smoking Laws","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"The following question stood in the name of Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng –
3 To ask the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) what is the rationale for the policy of only penalising the management of food establishments when patrons flout the no-smoking regulation; and (b) why is there no accountability expected of those who intentionally commit smoking offences despite reminders by the food establishment staff, management and other patrons.
\tDr Lily Neo (Jalan Besar): Question No 3.
\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): My Ministry's long-term goal is to prohibit smoking in all public areas except at designated smoking areas. This is to protect non-smokers from the harmful health effects of second-hand tobacco smoke.
The National Environment Agency (NEA) actively conducts inspections and patrols to ensure compliance with smoking prohibition regulations. Persons caught smoking in areas where smoking is prohibited, such as in shopping malls and food shops, are liable for a maximum fine of $1,000. In 2016, about 19,000 tickets were issued to smokers for smoking in prohibited areas, including more than 2,600 tickets issued to those found smoking in food establishments.
As smoking is prohibited in more than 32,000 premises, it is not possible for NEA to watch over every location. It is also not possible for our officers to respond immediately to every report of smoking in a prohibited place before the smoker finishes his cigarette. The operators and managers of smoke-free premises, therefore, have a legal duty to stop patrons from smoking or to request patrons to leave the premises if they refuse to stop smoking. In cases where the patrons do not stop smoking or leave the premises, the operator or manager of the premises could seek assistance from NEA. In 2016, NEA took about 400 enforcement actions against the operators and managers of premises who had not fulfilled their duty under the law.
While my Ministry will continue to enforce against any person who smokes in a smoking prohibited place, I would like to urge all smokers to be considerate when smoking in public places and to smoke only in permitted areas so as not to cause disamenities to others.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Tripartite Standards for Employment of Term Contract Employees","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"4 Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong asked the Minister for Manpower (a) how many companies have currently adopted the Tripartite Standards for Employment of Term Contract Employees; (b) what percentage of all resident term contract employees do these companies account for; (c) whether the companies who signed on to these Standards are audited or reviewed for compliance; and (d) how will these Standards be further improved in the future.
\tThe Second Minister for Manpower (Mrs Josephine Teo) (for the Minister for Manpower): Mr Speaker, the Tripartite Standard for the Employment of Term Contract Employees was launched just two months ago. Since then, well over 400 employers have adopted the Standard, accounting for more than 28,000 or 17% of all resident term contract employees.
Instead of relying on audits, the Standard spells out clearly verifiable actions that employers commit to undertake and relies on employers' self-assessments of their ability to comply. If their employees experience any difficulty arising from non-compliance with the Standard, they can report to The Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices (TAFEP), which will contact the employer to clarify their practices or to change them, so as to meet the Standard.
Our current focus is to increase the number of employers adopting this Standard. We will also consult with our tripartite partners at an appropriate time to review the Standard so as to ensure it remains relevant.
Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Daniel Goh.
\tAssoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong (Non-Constituency Member):\tI would like to ask the Second Minister whether there are any review mechanisms that are available to the Ministry to review the standards, in terms of compliance by companies and, at the same time, whether there are any mechanisms to give some sanctions to the companies that fail the standards or have to be removed from the standards because they did not comply.
\tMrs Josephine Teo: Mr Speaker, the short answer to the Member's first question is yes. TAFEP is the administrator of this Standard and TAFEP is the one that will reach out to companies. TAFEP is also the party that coordinates positions taken by the Labour Movement, that is, the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC), as well as the Singapore National Employers' Federation, to see if there are good opportunities and reasons to adapt the Standard or adjust it based on changing needs.
The Member asked if there are sanctions. We have to understand the reason for having the Tripartite Standard against the backdrop of the other schemes that are in place is to try and promote progressive workplace practices.
Firstly, there are laws. To supplement the laws, there are also tripartite guidelines that the employers are expected to adhere to. Those ensure that employees are able to enjoy basic rights. At the same time, on the other end of the spectrum, which is completely voluntary, we have tripartite advisories. These basically give encouragement to companies on the types of practices that we would like to see more of.
The Standard is somewhere in between. The Standard gives the companies an incentive to sign up. Because by signing up to the Standard, they will be able to demonstrate to the prospective employees or jobseekers in a very visible way what they are committed to do. And so, there is a natural incentive for companies to sign up, provided the Standard is not so onerous and burdensome that it becomes so hard for them to reach. What goes into the Standard has to be very carefully calibrated.
The Tripartite Standard Framework has just been launched, in fact, two months ago, at the same time that we launched the Standard for Term Contract Employees. In just two months, more than 400 companies with about 17% of the resident Term Contract Employees base is not bad. So, we will push for more.
Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Daniel Goh.
\tAssoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong:\tI thank the Second Minister for the reply. Just a quick query. She said that there is self-assessment that is being done by the companies in terms of compliance to the Standard. Would these self-assessments be submitted to the Ministry so that there is a record of the annual self-assessments being done by the companies so that there is a track record that could be used if there are any complaints made by Term Contract Employees?
\tMrs Josephine Teo:\tThe intent of self-assessment is to make it easier for the companies. So, we do not want to load them unnecessarily with administrative work. If, however, they have employees who look at what the company has declared and say that, \"This is quite different from what they actually practise\", then, what we do is to encourage the employees to let TAFEP know. TAFEP will engage the employers and then we can have a conversation with the employers as to whether they are carrying out what they promised to do.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Grant for Companies to Offset Cost of Hiring Temporary Staff for Pregnant Employees","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"5 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Manpower whether his Ministry will consider setting up a grant that companies can apply for to partially offset their cost of hiring one temporary staff member for each female employee entering their second trimester of pregnancy until their employee's child turns two years old.
\tThe Second Minister for Manpower (Mrs Josephine Teo) (for the Minister for Manpower): Mr Speaker, to make our workplaces more family-friendly, employers, supervisors and co-workers should support working mothers during pregnancy and parenthood. As the requirements of each company and needs of the workers may differ, we do not prescribe how the support should be provided. One main way is through flexible work arrangements (FWAs). To encourage companies to implement FWAs, we provide the Work-Life Grant of up to $160,000 over four years per company.
Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.
\tMr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Mr Speaker, I thank the Second Minister for the reply. A lot of our focus is on providing support during the maternity leave period. I am just wondering whether we can provide more support before and after. Secondly, in a lot of the dialogue sessions that I have, the feedback is really about this kind of discrimination at the workplace. So, I wonder if the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) can conduct a study into this so that we can come up with some solutions and recommendations.
\tMrs Josephine Teo: Mr Speaker, Mr Louis Ng's comment brought to mind two instances that I encountered not too long ago. One was the case of a food services company, a very well-known company that has got a significant presence in Singapore and quite a lot of employees. The person whom I met from this company is, in fact, someone who is on a Term Contract. Why is this person on a Term Contract? She is providing relief for the duties of a permanent, regular employee who is with child and is unable to handle all of the work at the same time and so, needs a little bit of support. What this company has done is to bring on board this Term Contract employee so as to allow the pregnant employee to have a greater ability to cope with the twin challenges of work and also the pregnancy. That is one example.
Another example that I came across was an accounting services firm. This is not a very big firm. It provides accounting and corporate secretarial services. The nature of the work is such that, actually, they have got significant representation of women in their workforce. The owners of this practice are themselves very family-friendly. They wanted to be able to support their employees. But they did find that in their circumstance, the continued interaction with the customers is very important. In fact, even if they were to bring on board someone to relieve the duties or to help this person carry out the work, it does not quite satisfy the customers.
So, they were creative and they found an alternative solution. They took advantage of the Work-Life Grant and they put in place a system that is known as double robotics technology. What this equipment allows the company to do is to bring the clients to the office, and even though the staff is working from home, they are actually able to interact with each other, speak, look at each other's facial expressions, talk about the project that is being worked on and how to move forward, and they can do so using technology.
The point that I am trying to highlight is that actually there are very many different needs of companies that we cannot predict in advance, and we have to leave it to the companies to specify and to design interventions that work for them. This is the reason why when we draw up the Work-Life Grant, we make it quite broad. We do not overly prescribe, we do not say you must do only this or do that, we tell them the grant is available to them, they put up a proposal and we will take a look. If it seems to make sense to what they are hoping that it would achieve for their employees as well as for their business, then we would like to be able to support it.
I would also like to share with Mr Louis Ng that since the Work-Life Grant was launched, we have had well over a thousand companies which have signed up. They are making good progress.
Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.
\tMr Louis Ng Kok Kwang:\tI would like to ask the Second Minister on the second point of the study, because, really, during the dialogue sessions, a lot of people are raising that this form of discrimination does happen at the workplace. In fact, this Parliamentary Question is filed on behalf of one of the working mothers who was pregnant and faced this discrimination. So, I am just wondering whether we can launch a study about this, so that, again, we can find what is happening on the ground and come up with some solutions.
\tMrs Josephine Teo:\tIf there is a party that would like to get involved in the study, MOM is happy to work with this party to see how we can support it.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Egg Freezing Procedures at Public and Private Hospitals","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"6 Miss Cheng Li Hui asked the Minister for Health (a) over the last three years, how many egg freezing procedures have been carried out at our public and private hospitals respectively; and (b) how prevalent are the risks of the procedure, such as infection and bleeding.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Health (Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan) (for the Minister for Health): Egg freezing is currently only allowed either as part of an in-vitro fertilisation (IVF) procedure for married women, or for women diagnosed with medical conditions, such as cancer, for which the treatment may damage or destroy their ovarian functions.
At present, the Ministry of Health monitors the number of IVF cycles carried out, rather than the egg freezing procedures conducted. From 2013 to 2015, an annual average of 2,700 and 1,400 fresh IVF cycles was carried out respectively in public and private assisted reproduction centres.
Based on estimates from licensed centres conducting IVF, complications from over-stimulation of ovaries, which could result in abdominal pain and vomiting in severe cases, occur in less than 1% of the cases. Likewise, the risk of infection and bleeding is low, with a prevalence of less than 1%.
This is consistent with the low prevalence of operative risks conducted overseas. Studies overseas indicate that the prevalence of complications from over-stimulation of ovaries ranges from 0.1% to 2%, and that of infection and bleeding at about 1% of cases.
Mr Speaker: Miss Cheng Li Hui.
\tMiss Cheng Li Hui (Tampines):\tI thank the Senior Minister of State. I have just one supplementary question. In view of the prevalence of family planning, will the Ministry once again consider allowing egg freezing for young healthy women with no medical needs? Singapore is a premier healthcare service provider in the region and countries like the United States, Australia, Thailand and Malaysia allow this. So, I hope that our health policy can reflect the changing trends and allow this with proper counselling.
\tDr Amy Khor Lean Suan: I thank the Member for the supplementary question. As the Member has rightly noted, social egg freezing is currently disallowed in Singapore and there are various reasons for this.
Whilst the medical risks can be addressed through regulation as well as enhanced public education and counselling of potential users, there are social and ethical implications that have to be considered carefully. Couples may delay marriage and parenthood thinking that egg freezing would assure them that they can have a child later on in life when they wish to conceive.
Age-related fertility issues actually affect both men and women. The best way to ensure having a healthy child, really, is when couples are relatively young and healthy. Nonetheless, we note the feedback that we have received. We are currently carefully considering the implications of allowing social egg freezing. We are monitoring international developments in the field of social egg freezing. We will review our position, taking into account the experiences of countries that have implemented this, as well as, of course, the proper safeguards that we need, for instance, the regulatory framework, to ensure or safeguard patients' safety should social egg freezing be allowed, as well as social and medical implications, and the prevailing societal norms and culture.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Compulsory Neo-natal Insurance for IVF","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"7 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Health whether the Ministry will consider making neo-natal insurance for IVF compulsory at the point of a positive pregnancy blood test rather than at the point of embryo transfer.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Health (Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan) (for the Minister for Health): The Assisted Reproduction Programme (ARP) insurance scheme provides protection against possible high costs in neonatal bills incurred by babies conceived via in-vitro fertilisation (IVF). This is in recognition of the higher risks and costs that these babies potentially face at birth. For example, couples undergoing IVF run a higher risk of multiple pregnancies, and this may result in the premature birth of babies who may need neo-natal intensive care.
Couples are currently required to purchase ARP insurance at the point when they enroll for IVF. This makes the insurance premiums more affordable for all couples using IVF.
The Ministry of Health (MOH) is currently reviewing this policy. If the requirement to purchase insurance is deferred to a later stage, such as upon successful pregnancies from IVF, the risk pool will be smaller and the insurance premiums higher.
Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.
\tMr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon):\tI thank the Senior Minister of State for saying that we are going to review this. One, what is the timeframe of this review? Second, it is not just the time you sign up for the IVF insurance, but I am also wondering whether we can get more companies to offer this neo-natal insurance because, at this point, only one company offers it. If we can get more companies, then, obviously, the pricing might improve as well.
\tDr Amy Khor Lean Suan: The ARP insurance scheme was awarded via open tender to Great Eastern in 2011. The Ministry of Health (MOH) has decided that there is no need to have more than one provider currently because the pool is relatively small. In 2016, there were about 3,500 policies. But we will review this as necessary, going forward.
With regard to the review of our ARP insurance policies, the conditions and criteria, we are looking at them and several issues. We will come to a decision in due course.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures to Deter Bullying in Schools","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"8 Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong asked the Minister for Education (Schools) (a) how prevalent and serious is bullying in our schools; (b) what preventive measures are undertaken to minimise and detect bullying; (c) whether our teachers are trained to handle bullying incidents; and (d) whether students involved in bullying and who are victims of bullying are given counselling care.
\tThe Minister for Education (Schools) (Mr Ng Chee Meng): Mr Speaker, based on a student perception survey conducted by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) in 2015, about 10% and 20% of our 15-year-old students reported that they had experienced some form of social and verbal bullying respectively. Physical bullying was less prevalent at about 5%. This is quite similar to the Ministry of Education's (MOE's) findings and other local studies.
MOE does not tolerate bullying in any form and every child has a right to feel safe and secure in our schools. When students misbehave or make mistakes, schools will discipline and educate them so that there is learning and it will not be repeated. School staff will also counsel students who are involved in bullying as well as those affected by it.
Our school personnel have been trained to give attention to and address hurtful behaviours. Teachers are provided with training in classroom management strategies and positive classroom culture. There are resources which provide information, strategies and good practices to instill good discipline.
Through Character and Citizenship Education, students learn social skills, empathy, respect and awareness of the effects of mean actions on others. They also learn coping strategies, relationship management and help-seeking skills. Schools also actively create a positive and supportive environment for all our students. They have strengthened peer support by equipping students with relevant skills, such as befriending and active listening. The peer supporters will alert and seek help from their teachers when they observe situations that affect the safety of their classmates.
Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Daniel Goh.
\tAssoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong (Non-Constituency Member):\tI thank the Minister. There seems to be growing instances of people posting video recordings of bullying online which affect the students, the schools' reputation and the teachers' reputation, too. So, how does the Ministry respond to this? How will it do so in future?
\tMr Ng Chee Meng: Mr Speaker, the use of handphone in the classroom is actually prohibited. So, while the act is prohibited, the upstream measures that I have described actually are more important − teaching students how to cope with bullying behaviours, taking positive action to deal with those negative behaviours. And then, overall, in the classroom, how do you teach positive social behaviours like empathy for others, learning to care for others, beforehand? So, proactive measures are what we are doing in schools, and this would be the emphasis.
Generally, our students are well-behaved. Incidents in our schools in terms of bullying are very few and have been relatively stable.
Mr Speaker: Ms Chia Yong Yong.
\tMs Chia Yong Yong (Nominated Member): I would like to ask the Minister for his clarification on the Ministry's definition of \"bullying\". At which point in time does the child's mischievous prank become bullying, and the kind of support that are given to students who have been thus identified, and, of course, how they are identified?
\tMr Ng Chee Meng: Mr Speaker, bullying is defined as persistent behaviour intended to cause hurt, distress or humiliation. It can be physical, verbal or psychological in nature. Cyberbullying is defined as any behaviour performed through electronic or digital media by individuals or groups that communicate hostile or aggressive messages intended to inflict harm or discomfort over time against a victim.
Because a post can be seen by many people and be easily reposted by others online causing hurt to victims, we understand that this is a growing area of concern and the schools are dealing with this.
In terms of support, the schools have put in place bullying prevention and intervention measures, such as providing accessible channels for safe reporting of bullying cases, investigating and following up promptly on reported cases, and, as I was saying in reply to Assoc Prof Daniel Goh earlier, adopting an educational approach to help all students, including bystanders, to learn from the incidents and prevent further bullying. These are the different support measures.
Mr Speaker: Dr Intan Mokhtar.
\tDr Intan Azura Mokhtar (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Speaker, my question to the Minister is: for those students who have committed acts of bullying, are there also initiatives to involve their parents in the counselling process of the bullies themselves, not just the victims? And further upstream, are there initiatives to involve parents in character-building and values-in-action education of students in schools?
\tMr Ng Chee Meng: Mr Speaker, students' parents, depending on the cases, if severe enough, would be called in by the schools, so that they will do the post-incident counselling together with the students. In severe cases, parents and child will be with the school to look at how the incident can be dealt with and how follow-up actions can be taken together − by the school, the student and the parents.
Beyond that, we are also in touch with stakeholders in the community. Organisations, like the Children's Society, are also in touch with our schools to extend further help and general education to students and parents.
Mr Speaker: Mr Leon Perera.
\tMr Leon Perera (Non-Constituency Member): Just two supplementary questions regarding bullying. Is there right now a national hotline that children who are bullied can call up? Because, understandably, some children may have reservations about approaching their teachers, friends and parents. Is there a national hotline, and is there awareness of that hotline among all the schools? I believe the Minister mentioned the Singapore Children's Society. I believe there is one such hotline. So, I just want to clarify if there is awareness of that hotline across all schools. That is the first one.
Secondly, if that is the case, then does MOE analyse the data from this hotline − aggregated and anonymised data − to see if there are certain patterns? For example, are there more bullying complaints reported from a certain school and, if so, then should an intervention be done with the teachers of that school, that sort of thing?
\tMr Ng Chee Meng: Mr Speaker, there are different avenues for our students to do the reporting. And especially for bullying, where oftentimes it is local, the best way to deal with it is through the peer network, teacher network, counselling network and so on.
Where there is a hotline, that would be a useful medium as well. At the moment, I do not have the data on the patterns of the hotline reporting, and if the Member would like to file a Parliamentary Question (PQ) on that, then we can give the Member more details on the patterns, if there are any.
But on the whole, bullying, as I have mentioned in the PQ reply, has been stable and managed. Physical bullying is less than 5%.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Enrolment of Primary 1 Students Based on Distance and Parents' Ties with Schools","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"9 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for Education (Schools) (a) on average over the last three years, what has been the percentage of Primary 1 school children who have successfully enrolled in their parents' alma mater; (b) of these children, what proportion has stayed more than eight kilometres from their schools; and (c) whether the Ministry will consider modifying the enrolment criteria to include both consideration for school ties and distance between the school and residence to ensure shorter commutes for these young children.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Education (Dr Janil Puthucheary) (for the Minister for Education (Schools)): Sir, the number of applicants admitted at Phases 2A1 and 2A2 has remained fairly stable over the past three years at around 12% of the Primary 1 cohort.
Out of all successful applicants at Phases 2A1 and 2A2 in the past three Primary 1 registration exercises, less than 15% stay more than eight kilometres (km) away from their schools. So, they form less than 2% of the total Primary 1 cohort.
The current Primary 1 framework does recognise the need to consider school ties and home-school distance together, as priority is given to those who live within one km of the school, followed by those who live between one km and two km, and then only those who live more than two km from the school.
Mr Speaker: Mr Gan Thiam Poh.
\tMr Gan Thiam Poh (Ang Mo Kio): I thank the Senior Minister of State for the comprehensive reply. From my personal experience, we do have cases where the residents actually stay next to the school and could not get a place. So, would there be a further review probably to look at the distance, in other words, those who stay nearby will get the priority? Would there be any possibility for the Ministry of Education to review and look at all these cases?
\tDr Janil Puthucheary:\tSir, I thank the Member for the question. There is always going to be a need to balance out the availability of spaces for proximity as well as to make sure that parents have some opportunity to send children to their alma mater or if the sibling is already in that school and the family has relocated. So, there is always going to be a balance that we have to strike between these varying needs. We will always be tracking the data around Primary 1 admission very, very carefully.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Enhancing Fail-safe Redundancy in Internet Networks Given Digital Push with Smart Nation","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"10 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for Communications and Information (a) how much fail-safe redundancy is designed into (i) Singapore's domestic broadband Internet networks and (ii) offshore Internet connectivity; and (b) whether there are plans to enhance system redundancy in light of the growing dependency on Internet access which will arise from the Smart Nation initiatives.
\tThe Minister for Communications and Information (Assoc Prof Dr Yaacob Ibrahim): Mr Speaker, I thank Dr Tan Wu Meng for his question. He has raised an issue that is important to both my Ministry and the Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA), which is the resilience of our international and domestic Internet connectivity.
Sir, let me start with Singapore's international Internet connectivity. Singapore is a major Asia Pacific hub for submarine cables. We currently have 19 cable systems that connect us directly to more than 33 countries. We have multiple direct connections to key hubs, such as China, Europe, Japan and the United States, which enhance the resilience of our international Internet connectivity.
We have benefited from this resilience. The recent episode where our Internet links remained intact, despite damage to submarine cables caused by typhoons in Hong Kong and Macau in end-August 2017, is a good case in point. The fact that we had sufficient diversity and redundancy in international Internet connectivity enabled us to reroute traffic through undamaged cables. In contrast, Internet connections in a number of countries in the Asia Pacific were disrupted.
Nonetheless, Sir, it is important that we continue to find ways to improve the redundancy and diversity of our international Internet connectivity. We will continue encouraging new submarine cables to land in Singapore, especially if they will provide Singapore with alternative connectivity routes to key hubs. To do so, IMDA will work with relevant Government agencies and submarine cable operators to incentivise the landing of submarine cables, ensure sufficient landing resources, protect submarine cables from damage in our busy shipping lanes, and route cables to avoid disaster-prone areas.
Let me now turn to our domestic broadband Internet connectivity. Broadband Internet services are offered by multiple operators over multiple networks. These include the Nationwide Broadband Network, mobile networks and operators' own fixed-line networks. This diversity reduces the risks due to reliance on a single set of infrastructure and makes our domestic broadband Internet connectivity more resilient.
My Ministry and IMDA regularly review and put in place measures to enhance the resilience of our broadband Internet services. One key measure is the Telecom Service Resiliency Code, which was last updated recently in 2016. It aims to ensure that operators of key telecommunication infrastructure invest in and enhance the resilience of their networks against service disruptions. Other measures include IMDA's requirements for key fixed and mobile operators to conduct regular audits on their network designs, operational processes, business continuity planning and associated infrastructure and facilities. We will work closely with the industry to ensure that these regulations remain appropriate, effective and up to date.
Sir, in conclusion, my Ministry and IMDA recognise the importance of ensuring that our domestic and international Internet connectivity is diverse and robust. This is all the more critical as we strive to become a Smart Nation and Digital Economy. We will continuously monitor and review our policies and regulations to achieve this goal.
Mr Speaker: Dr Tan Wu Meng.
\tDr Tan Wu Meng (Jurong): I thank the Minister for his comprehensive reply. I have two supplementary questions, please.
Firstly, I recall, in 2006, an earthquake near Taiwan damaged regional undersea cables and, for some time, Singapore Internet users had difficulty with overseas telephony and even broadband Internet access. Does our current planning consider potential major natural disasters, besides typhoons, for example?
Secondly, I was wondering whether at the national level there are ongoing table-top exercises to look at the impact of disruptions to Internet infrastructure that extends beyond just a single Internet service provider so that we can explore for potential systemic factors that individual service providers on their own might not have considered?
\tAssoc Prof Dr Yaacob Ibrahim: Sir, on the first question, as I have said earlier, we will continue to learn. In fact, we have learnt from the previous incidents so that we can enhance the resilience of our network. Following the Taiwan earthquake in December 2006, our operators have ensured that not all cable systems pass through the same earthquake-prone areas near Taiwan and Japan.
Secondly, some of our operators have made their cable network design more resilient to cable cuts by connecting the Southeast and East Asian countries in a ring manner which allows traffic to be rerouted via the unaffected part of the cable system when one part is cut. In other words, we learn, study and see where the points of systemic risks are and how we can overcome them.
On the Member's second question as to whether or not we conduct table-top exercises, what IMDA does is they work with the operators to ensure that, first, their own network must be resilient; and, secondly, the overall connectivity, and the possible systemic effects of one network over the other are also addressed. So, IMDA works very closely, firstly, to make sure that they implement the code that I mentioned earlier. Secondly, we ask them to do regular audits and IMDA will then take a global view across the entire sector to ascertain any risk at the network level.
So, we continue to explore this because we know that the systems will be getting more complex and a fourth operator is about to come in. So, we have to make sure that connectivity remains resilient.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Big Data Sandbox for Singapore","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"11 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for Communications and Information (a) what is the progress on the initiative to roll out a big data sandbox in Singapore; (b) what is the prevalence of local businesses making use of big data to increase their competitiveness; and (c) what measures will be implemented to encourage more local businesses, especially the traditional ones, to integrate big data in their business strategies.
\tThe Minister for Communications and Information (Assoc Prof Dr Yaacob Ibrahim): Sir, data science and artificial intelligence (AI) technologies can help companies use raw data to make better business decisions. Unfortunately, many local companies are not taking advantage of this potential. A study done by the Committee on the Future Economy showed that about a third of businesses have not adopted data analytics and about 80% have not adopted AI. Many of these businesses said that they lacked awareness and the expertise to harness data science and AI or were concerned about breaching data protection regulations.
Sir, the Government is addressing these barriers to adoption. First, we are making it easier for our small and medium enterprises (SMEs) to deploy such solutions. The Info-communications Media Development Authority's (IMDA's) SMEs Go Digital programme gives SMEs access to proven digital solutions to grow their businesses. These solutions come embedded with capabilities, such as data analytics, cybersecurity and data protection. Over time, IMDA intends to raise the standards of these solutions with new technological capabilities, such as AI.
Several SMEs have successfully taken advantage of these solutions. Let me share with Members one example. Poh Kim, a video retailer, has deployed Ishikawa's video analytics solution to analyse its customer traffic, so as to optimise its operations and improve its marketing efforts. These have helped Poh Kim to increase its revenue by 10%. So, I encourage Members to check out our #SMETowkay series showcasing SMEs, including Poh Kim Video, which have benefited from going digital. SMEs can contact their nearest SME Centres for advice on their digital needs.
Second, Sir, we are bringing companies together to realise the value of sharing data. IMDA established the Data Innovation Programme Office (DIPO) on 1 April 2017 to champion this effort. DIPO has made encouraging progress. For instance, it is working with the industry to scope problem statements through industry-led Data Collaboratives. These Data Collaboratives are essentially partnerships among businesses where the businesses identify a common business problem and share data with one another to solve those problems. IMDA is finalising the implementation details and will announce these when we are ready.
Finally, Sir, we are reviewing our regulations on data sharing. There appears to be a misconception amongst businesses that the Personal Data Protection Commission (PDPC) prohibits the sharing of personal data. This is inaccurate. I would like to take this opportunity to highlight the Guide to Data Sharing that PDPC released on 27 July this year. This Guide seeks to provide clarity to businesses on how they can share personal data within and between organisations. The Guide also introduced a regulatory sandbox for personal data that exempts businesses from certain obligations under the Personal Data Protection Act under specific circumstances.
Mr Speaker: Mr Saktiandi Supaat.
\tMr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): I would like to thank the Minister for the answer. I have two or three supplementary questions, but these are short questions.
First, with regard to the role of the big data sandbox in my question earlier, can the Minister elaborate more about the progress of the initiative? I think the Minister mentioned briefly, but maybe he could share a bit more on the progress.
Second, I have heard of the Go Digital programme and I laud that programme. A lot of the SMEs are looking forward to that and more should take up that programme. But one area that may need to be looked upon, and maybe the Minister could share on this part, is about the exchangeable business intelligence in the future. For example, the 10% or 20% that is taken up, the extent of exchangeable business intelligence that they can use to enhance their profitability, in terms of consumer behaviour and consumer actions that they can take.
Finally, in terms of costs, in the future, with the big data sandbox, can the Minister share a bit more whether there are cost issues with regard to SMEs and regulations? Will there be an increase in costs as well from that?
\tAssoc Prof Dr Yaacob Ibrahim: Sir, as to the first question on the data sandbox, as I have mentioned earlier, we are sorting out the details and when we are ready with the details, we will announce them. But certainly, we want to go forward in creating that platform to allow companies to come together and share data. So, as I have mentioned in my reply, once it is ready, IMDA will announce the details.
I think for the next three questions, they are all inter-related.
First, the SMEs Go Digital programme, by and large, has been quite successful. I have personally visited many companies, small SME companies. The solutions are not deep-tech, they are really simple solutions. And the most important thing is for us to prove to the SMEs that it will benefit them.
I have visited a cleaning company, a security company, a construction company and all of them are basically happy with the solution. So, what IMDA wants to do is to develop proven off-the-shelf digital solutions that can then be deployed and scaled to other companies. I agree with the Member that this is a good effort, and we will continue to push this.
The Member mentioned about business intelligence. I had mentioned in my reply that within the solutions that we offer, we have also embedded within it the use of data analytics, cybersecurity and data protection, and we hope they can tap on that.
In the SMEs Go Digital programme, there are many levels. Some companies are just starting off and, therefore, they need some basic solutions. Some are more advanced. The more advanced companies which have already deployed digital solutions, if they want to go into analytics, AI, or business intelligence, we will work with them. Sir, one of the key programmes under the SME Go Digital programme is the Tech Hub that we have started. Within the Tech Hub, there will be experts who can offer advice to the companies on how they can use what they have deployed, to basically further raise their business profitability by leveraging technology.
Cost will always remain a concern and that is why the current programme is highly subsidised. We work together with the SMEs. But we believe that, over the long run, if they are able to prove that it is profitable for their business, we hope they will be self-funded. The real task of the Government is to prove to the companies that going digital is the way to go for them, not just to stay relevant, but to be profitable in time to come.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":" Healthier Food without Higher Food Bills","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"12 Mr Chong Kee Hiong asked the Minister for Health (a) what are the main reasons for many healthier foods to be more expensive than unhealthy foods despite healthier foods requiring less processing than unhealthy foods; and (b) whether there will be public education campaigns to (i) help people understand and manage their calorie intake, (ii) increase public awareness of lower sugar choices in the food types commonly consumed by Singaporeans and the problems of artificial sweeteners and (iii) educate consumers on how to eat healthier without incurring higher food bills.
\tThe Minister of State for Health (Mr Chee Hong Tat) (for the Minister for Health): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Health Promotion Board (HPB) introduced the Healthier Choice Symbol (HCS) to help consumers identify healthier food products. Ingredients and food products labelled with the HCS logo − this is the red pyramid − have been well-received by consumers. In a 2015 survey by HPB, 70% of Singaporeans recognise the HCS logo and have used it to make healthier food choices. The market share of HCS products has also increased from 15% in 2012 to 18% in 2016. There are currently about 3,500 food products with the HCS logo, spanning 70 food and drinks categories.
There are ways to eat healthily without buying expensive food. For example, we can eat in moderation and we can choose foods with less oil and salt, or drinks with less sugar or, even better, no sugar. The National Trades Union Congress (NTUC) Foodfare sells its pre-packaged drinks with the HCS logo at $0.10 cheaper to encourage more consumers to choose these healthier options. HPB has developed lower-cost healthier recipes which are shared with the community through partners, such as the Diabetic Society of Singapore, TOUCH Community Services and NTUC SilverACE.
HPB has also introduced the Healthier Ingredient Development Scheme (HIDS) and the Healthier Dining Programme (HDP) to support industry players to provide healthier ingredients and products to increase the supply and variety of healthier food options for consumers.
Since December 2016, HDP has been extended to hawker centres and coffee shops, where lower-calorie meals are tagged with a \"lower in calories\" label. HPB has also implemented various public education initiatives, such as the calorie literacy initiative My Healthy Plate and the Eat Drink Shop Healthy Campaign, to reward consumers when they choose healthier options.
On artificial sweeteners, there is consensus amongst international health authorities and medical professionals that such sweeteners can be used as part of a balanced diet to help a gradual shift away from high sugar food and beverages. However, the sale of artificially sweetened food and beverage (F&B) is not allowed in schools in Singapore as we want to prevent children from developing a habit of consuming sweet-tasting food and drinks from a young age. This complements our healthy meals programme in schools which promotes the drinking of plain water.
There is now a growing variety of healthier sugars available for product formulation, such as those derived from natural sources like beetroot. They do not increase blood sugar levels as much as conventional sugars like sucrose and fructose. The Ministry of Health (MOH) is working with the F&B industry to explore the use of these natural sweeteners as part of their product innovation.
We will continue our efforts to raise public awareness and foster a supportive environment for consumers to make healthier F&B choices, and to keep Singaporeans healthy and active.
Mr Speaker: Mr Chong Kee Hiong.
\tMr Chong Kee Hiong (Bishan-Toa Payoh): I thank the Senior Minister of State for his reply. Very often, we go to stores and we find items that are labelled with \"low sugar content\" cost more than those with \"normal sugar content\". To the general public, they do not understand why items with low sugar, which is healthier, which they want to choose, but it costs more. The simple thinking is that low sugar means put less sugar, so it should cost at least the same, or not much higher.
I have seen items that are, for example, \"normal sugar content\", cost, say, $3 and the one with \"low sugar\" costs $4. The price difference is quite a lot. So, if we want to encourage people to move to a healthier diet, could MOH educate the public on why there is such a big difference?
\tMr Chee Hong Tat: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not familiar with which product Mr Chong is referring to, but based on the information that we have, there is a range of different healthier products, including house brands, that are offered by supermarkets that need not cost a lot more and, sometimes, can be very competitive, compared to the other brands that are available in the market.
So, this is one way of helping consumers to be able to have options, including healthier options, to help them to make healthier F&B choices. But Mr Speaker, I want to go back to what I mentioned in my main reply earlier that, eating healthily, there are many different ways of doing so. For example, it is about choosing the amount we eat, deciding on how much we want to eat, eating in moderation.
It is also about how we prepare the food, such as if we steam, compared to deep fry. If we use less oil, less salt, less sugar, less sauces, all these are steps which we can take to prepare healthier food options.
We are also working with our research institutes to look at how the food is prepared as it can also make a difference to the glycemic index. This is a way of measuring, after we have consumed the food, how quickly our blood sugar level will rise. For food with lower glycemic index, there will be a smaller increase in the blood sugar level.
What the studies have found is that if we prepare our food, for example, if we cook the rice, leave it to cool and reheat it later, the amount of resistant starch in the rice will go up, and this helps to lower the glycemic index. So, for the same type of rice, the same amount of rice, we can actually lower the glycemic index by preparing it in a different way.
Other things that they have found include adding, for example, a little bit of chicken stock, or a small amount of healthy oil to the rice will also help to lower the glycemic index.
How we eat the food also makes a difference. Before we begin our meal, if we consume some proteins, for example, clear chicken stock or a glass of unsweetened soya bean milk before we eat our main meal, these will also help to lower the glycemic index of the meal. Or eating it with vegetables, not just the rice alone, and with protein.
So, there are many, many different ways that we can educate consumers and give them more information to help them to make healthier choices.
Mr Speaker: Mr Chong Kee Hiong.
\tMr Chong Kee Hiong:\tI should have been clearer. I was referring to the same brand of kaya. Identical brands. The only difference is which one is less sugar. The actual price is $2.95 versus $3.95 for the one with the lower sugar content.
\tMr Chee Hong Tat: Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank Mr Chong for his clarification. I do not know which brand of kaya he is referring to. I myself like kaya. But because it is quite sweet, I try not to eat too much of it. I think that is one way of making a healthier choice, which is to consume less of it. When we spread the kaya on the bread, do not spread it so thickly. That will be one way of helping to lower the amount of sugar that we consume.
I am not familiar with the brand that Mr Chong mentioned. But sometimes, the reason why certain types of healthier food cost more on a per unit basis is because there is lack of scale. So, when we produce it and there are inadequate economies of scale, the merchant finds it difficult to price it at a very competitive level. We see this happening with healthier cooking oils, with wholemeal bread. During the initial phase when the healthier products are being introduced, it will have to go through this phase where consumers are getting used to it, and the demand is not quite picking up during the initial phase. So, during this period, the lack of scale then leads to prices being higher on a per unit basis.
I do not know if this is the reason for the particular brand of kaya that Mr Chong spoke about, but this is a general observation that we see for different types of food products. With scale, the merchants are able to lower their per unit cost and this can then be passed through to consumers, in terms of lower prices.
Mr Speaker: Given the Senior Minister of State's passion for healthy food, the least we can do is to take heed of his advice at the tea break later.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Requirement for Third Party Administrators to Adhere to Singapore Medical Council Ethical Guidelines","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"13 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Health (a) whether the Ministry tracks the number of medical professionals who currently have agreements with third party administrators (TPAs) and, if so, how many of such medical professionals are there; and (b) whether the Ministry can consider requiring TPAs to adhere to practices which are consistent with the Singapore Medical Council ethical guidelines or other regulations which bind all doctors working with TPAs.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Health (Dr Lam Pin Min) (for the Minister for Health): Mr Speaker, Sir, Third Party Administrators (TPAs) provide a wide range of intermediary services to healthcare providers, doctors and employers. These include the management of employer medical benefits and claims administration. The Ministry of Health (MOH) does not have the number of healthcare providers or doctors who have arrangements with TPAs.
MOH does not regulate TPAs or their business arrangements today. The Singapore Medical Council's (SMC's) Ethical Code and Ethical Guidelines (ECEG) provide guidance on appropriate fee arrangements between doctors and TPAs so as to ensure that patients' interest and welfare are protected. The SMC has statutory powers to take action against medical professionals who violate these guidelines.
Mr Speaker: Mr Dennis Tan.
\tMr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Non-Constituency Member): I thank the Senior Minister of State for his reply. Yes, I do understand the current position, which I think has also been enunciated in past Parliamentary Question replies. I have this concern which I would like to address to the Senior Minister of State. There are concerns about TPAs driving up healthcare costs. Please let me quote from a Business Times article and I will just quote from the relevant extracts, \"Health Economist, Phua Kai Hong, is of the view that third party healthcare financing, which includes insurers, TPAs and medical concierges will drive up Singapore healthcare costs in the long term, as they capitalise on the existing information gap between patients and doctors.\" Given there is a free market here, Dr Phua said, industry players will continue to take advantage of this asymmetry, unless relevant, regulatory and appropriate laws are in place to regulate the sector and improve transparency.
Would the Senior Minister of State agree with me that we should, therefore, have some form of regulatory control over TPAs so that they will approach all issues with a similar mindset expected of the doctors working with the TPAs and we can then better minimise conflicts between business and professional ethical concerns?
\tDr Lam Pin Min: I would like to thank Mr Dennis Tan for the supplementary questions. Like I have mentioned before, MOH does not regulate TPAs who do not provide medical services directly. Those who do will be regulated under the Private Hospital Medical Clinics' Act. However, MOH acknowledges that the TPAs' fee arrangements may have an influence on the doctors' behaviour which can impact the charges and patient care.
While doctors are currently regulated by SMC to ensure that such TPA arrangements do not lead doctors to overcharge or compromise care, MOH will continue to monitor the situation and consider if further actions will be necessary to protect the well-being of the patients and also to prevent the escalation of healthcare costs. Indeed, we have been engaging the TPAs as well. In fact, prior to the implementation of the revised ECEG, MOH, together with the three professional bodies, have engaged major TPAs to highlight the principles and the spirit of the ECEG. They have been advised to provide more clarity in the contracts and how the fees charged must reflect the complexity of the work done by them. I am happy to say that the majority of the TPAs understood the intent of the ECEG and has since revised the contract so as to not violate the ECEG.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Rationale for 75% Support Level from Households in Neighbourhood Renewal","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"14 Mr Png Eng Huat asked the Minister for National Development (a) what is the rationale for requiring 75% support level from eligible households for the Neighbourhood Renewal Programme (NRP) where residents do not need to co-pay; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider setting a timeline for the calling of a tender for NRP works when the NRP for the precinct is announced.
\tThe Second Minister for National Development (Mr Desmond Lee) (for the Minister for National Development): Mr Speaker, the Neighbourhood Renewal Programme (NRP) emphasises the active engagement of residents in shaping their living environment. The requirement to have at least 75% support from residents before NRP proceeds provides certainty that the proposed improvements meet the needs of the majority of residents. It also promotes a sense of ownership for the proposed improvements and enhances residents' sense of belonging to their neighbourhood.
The recommended timeline for calling of tender for NRP works is within 12 months from announcement. This has been communicated to all Town Councils which carry out NRP.
In practice, however, the time taken varies from one project to another, and may not fall within the recommended timeline. Factors that could affect the calling of tender include the size and complexity of the project, consultation processes adopted by Town Councils, and the extent of feedback and suggestions received from residents. As far as possible, Town Councils should expedite the NRP process where possible.
Mr Speaker: Mr Png Eng Huat.
\tMr Png Eng Huat (Hougang): Just one supplementary question. Would the Minister consider reviewing the 75% support level? Because the awareness of NRP is already achieved through 100% direct mailing to the houses. We also have two exhibitions, the Public Consultation and Consensus Gathering. We also have house visits. Furthermore, the NRP plan would have undergone multiple reviews even by the Housing and Development Board and then also taken into consideration the wish list from the Town Councils, residents, Members of Parliament, the Residents' Committees. So, that plan itself is almost like optimised for that precinct. So, would the Ministry consider reviewing that 75% requirement, even 50%? Because when we do house visits, a lot of residents asked us why they still need to vote when they do not need to pay for this external thing. They also said that they were also not consulted. For example, they do not need to vote whether they want the silver zone or—
Mr Speaker:\tCan we keep this succinct, please?
\tMr Png Eng Huat:\tSo, could the Minister review that?
\tMr Desmond Lee:\tMr Speaker, I thank the Member for his suggestion. As I said earlier, the requirement to achieve at least 75% support from residents for NRP is to ensure that residents, or the majority of the residents, indeed support the proposal. Getting the residents aware of the project through direct mailers, exhibitions, community consultation is but one important part of that process. Getting feedback and ultimately persuading residents that this plan benefits them is best evidenced through residents' support for the proposal.
If you reduce or do away with the poll requirement, then the question is how certain are we all that these facilities, indeed, are welcomed, or are needed by the residents? Even though the residents do not have to pay for these improvements, they relate to that immediate lived environment and I think they ought to have a say.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Sensor-activated Alarm Systems in HDB Studio Apartments for Elderly","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"15 Ms Sun Xueling asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether the Ministry will consider piloting the installation of sensor-activated alarm systems in HDB studio apartments for the elderly or in new HDB flats catered for the elderly; and (b) what will be the estimated cost increase for such installations.
\tThe Second Minister for National Development (Mr Desmond Lee) (for the Minister for National Development): Mr Speaker, the Housing and Development Board (HDB) has been working with partner agencies and solution providers to explore the use of suitable elderly monitoring and alert systems to monitor the safety and well-being of elderly HDB residents. For instance, a trial is ongoing at Yuhua involving residents who have purchased the Elderly Monitoring System (EMS), a smart system that automatically sends notifications and alerts to the next-of-kin of the elderly when irregular behavioural patterns are detected at home. Other options include wearable devices with panic buttons.
HDB will study the outcome of this trial as well as the cost and business models for installation of such system before deciding on the next steps.
Mr Speaker: Ms Sun Xueling.
\tMs Sun Xueling (Pasir Ris-Punggol): I understand that some Executive Condominium (EC) developers also have some of these products and suites available but the purchase by residents have been low. I think the cost is about $6,000 to $8,000 for such applications. It does not sound very expensive compared to the overall cost of the housing unit. So, would the Minister share if this phenomenon is due to it being an opt-in kind of a function or is it because residents are not educated and do not think that such a product is usable or friendly enough for use?
\tMr Desmond Lee: Certainly, for the trial taking place at Yuhua, HDB has helped to subsidise the cost in order make the take-up for the trial more prevalent. But nevertheless, we find that not all residents, and certainly not all elderly residents, felt the need to subscribe to this. This, in part, relates to their personal choice and their own assessment of their personal mobility and caregiving needs. So, finding scale and getting economies of scale would be very helpful in making such a project in any estate a success.
Currently, HDB is looking at working closely with the Pioneer Generation Office, hospitals and the physiotherapists to identify seniors who would most greatly benefit from such an EMS system. Even after that, you need to talk to their families to get the sense of whether there is someone that the system can auto-dial to and alert, or whether their neighbours who would respond or there are service providers who are monitoring the system and to be able to respond.
So, cost is one. But these things can be worked out through various packages and, ultimately, it is awareness and it is about whether the seniors' caregiving arrangements and caregivers find value in having such a system as a protective factor for them.
Mr Speaker: Mr Leon Perera.
\tMr Leon Perera (Non-Constituency Member):\tJust a supplementary question to the Minister. Has the Ministry considered this technology that is quite widespread, I believe, in Japan, which is attached to the hot water pot? It monitors the frequency at which an elderly resident consumes hot water. When they do not consume for a while, it sends a short message service (SMS) alert to their next-of-kin. Apparently, this is widely used in Japan, it is very economical. And is that being considered to be something that can be pushed out here?
\tMr Desmond Lee: Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for his suggestion. There are a variety of systems out there in the market, as well as a whole suite of projects that technopreneurs and researchers are working on. Not only is HDB working on this, but we are also looking and working with vendors out there in the market to see what we can put together as an offering to residents and then they find, together with their family members, the most optimal device.
There are some which are attached to their wrists and they can then press if there is an issue. Some are attached to phones or part of a phone app and if it detects a sudden drop in height, it will send out an alert message. Other products we have seen involve motion sensors that would monitor movements within the flat and if there is no movement for a certain period of time, a few hours or so − of course, you must teach the machine when a person is or is not at home − it would then be able to alert people.
So, the whole suite of options, whether it is worn, pulled, motion detected or attached to a hot pot, it is the whole range that we are looking at.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Childcare Centres at Places of Employment","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"16 Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) how many places of employment provide childcare centres on their premises currently; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider encouraging companies of a certain staff size to provide onsite childcare facilities for their employees.
\tThe Minister for Social and Family Development (Mr Desmond Lee): Mr Speaker, as of June this year, there are about 470 workplace childcare centres located in commercial premises, Government buildings, industrial estates and other places of work. These centres make up about a third of all childcare centres in Singapore.
Many factors, aside from just staff size, determine whether an employer would consider setting up a childcare centre at the workplace. These include the profile of employees, the employees' preferences in the location of childcare services, the location of the workplace and business viability of the centre. Employers would want to take all these factors into consideration.
To facilitate and encourage developers and employers to set up workplace childcare centres, we have put in place various measures and schemes.
The Community and Sports Facilities Scheme, for instance, provides bonus gross floor area to developers who set aside space in commercial buildings for childcare centres. Another is the Enhanced Workplace Childcare Centre Scheme, where eligible workplace centres may receive a furnishing and equipment grant as well as a development grant to cover the costs of converting space in workplaces for childcare use. In addition, for new commercial developments, the Early Childhood Development Agency has worked with the Urban Redevelopment Authority to require the developer for selected Government Land Sale sites to provide space for childcare centres.
While the Government supports the setting up of workplace childcare centres, we note that many parents would still prefer childcare centres near their homes as well. As such, the Government will continue to ramp up the number of childcare places island-wide, mostly at new Housing and Development Board residential developments. Parents can look forward to over 40,000 new full-day preschool places by 2022.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures to Handle Accidents where Passengers Fall onto MRT or LRT Tracks","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"17 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Transport what measures are in place to handle accidents where passengers fall onto MRT or LRT tracks in terms of (i) educating commuters on what they should do in the event of such an accident, whether they are victims or bystanders and (ii) the safety protocols that rail operators are required to conform to if such incidents occur.
\tThe Second Minister for Transport (Mr Ng Chee Meng) (for the Minister for Transport): Mr Speaker, the safety of commuters is our top priority. To prevent passengers from falling onto the tracks, we have installed screen doors on every Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) platform. We are also installing safety barriers on all Light Rail Transit (LRT) platforms. Works for the Bukit Panjang LRT have been completed, and that for the Sengkang-Punggol LRT will be completed next year.
In the unfortunate event that a passenger falls onto the tracks, the passenger should immediately alert anyone nearby. Fellow commuters can raise the alarm by pushing the brightly coloured emergency stop plungers located at every platform to stop the trains from entering or leaving the platform. This will simultaneously alert the station's Passenger Service Centre and the Line's Operations Control Centre. When alerted, rail operators will immediately shut off traction power to the trains and dispatch trained personnel to the scene to provide assistance and first aid until the Singapore Civil Defence Force arrives.
Currently, rail operators are required to inform commuters about safety practices through prominent signs and regular announcements at train stations. The Land Transport Authority (LTA) and the rail operators will do more to raise commuters' awareness. LTA and the Singapore Mass Rapid Transit are also jointly trialling the use of video analytics to alert train operators to incidents on the tracks.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures to Optimise Outpatient Appointments and Unified Appointment Tracking System for Polyclinics and Restructured Hospitals","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"18 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for Health whether the Ministry will study the implementation of a unified appointment tracking system for polyclinics and restructured hospitals to facilitate appointment rationalisation and reconciliation.
19 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for Health (a) whether the Ministry studies the median and 90th percentile number of outpatient appointments per patient, stratified by age; (b) what measures are in place to optimise the number of outpatient appointments as part of holistic healthcare; and (c) whether elderly patients with multiple outpatient appointments can have them converged on the same days where possible to reduce caregiver stress and repeat blood tests.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Health (Mr Chee Hong Tat) (for the Minister for Health): Mr Speaker, Sir, may I have your permission to take Question Nos 18 and 19 together?
Mr Speaker:\tYes.
\tMr Chee Hong Tat: Singaporeans have access to outpatient services at different institutions, including polyclinics, national centres and hospitals within our public healthcare system. The Ministry of Health (MOH) does not have data on the median and 90th percentile number of outpatient appointments per patient stratified by age. There are patients, including the elderly, with multiple medical conditions who make multiple visits to more than one institution over a period of time.
Our public healthcare institutions have put in place systems to allow patients to schedule their outpatient appointments together where possible because we understand this will be more convenient for patients. For example, patients can do their blood tests and X-rays during the same visit.
Our hospitals have also started to consolidate Specialist Outpatient Clinic appointments from different specialties so that patients need to make fewer visits. At Tan Tock Seng Hospital and the National University Hospital, for example, some patients have their care consolidated under one doctor. At the Singapore General Hospital, diabetic patients visiting the Diabetes and Metabolic Centre can make appointments for related specialties and services, such as podiatry, eye, orthopaedic surgery, on the same day. As I have mentioned earlier, this is with the intent of bringing about greater convenience and better care for our patients.
Mr Speaker, Sir, I agree with Dr Tan Wu Meng that more unified or harmonised appointment systems will benefit patients. We will be piloting more of such systems across institutions within our healthcare clusters to facilitate better appointment, rationalisation and reconciliation. MOH will also study the next step of harmonising appointments across our three healthcare clusters.
Mr Speaker: Dr Tan Wu Meng.
\tDr Tan Wu Meng (Jurong):\tI thank the Senior Minister of State for his answer. If I may also ask: will the Ministry explore involving our primary care practitioners in the community as well? So, the Family Medicine physicians, the general practitioners, the intermediate and long-term care sector as well as the nursing homes, as part of this data sharing, so that all stakeholders can have a better overview of each patient's journey so that caregivers and patients can have a smoother, more seamless experience.
\tMr Chee Hong Tat:\tMr Speaker, Sir, I thank Dr Tan Wu Meng for his supplementary question. Indeed, the services that we provide across the different parts of the healthcare system are something that we need to better coordinate from a cluster point of view. We have what we call Regional Health Systems which start from even before primary care. It starts from health promotion and keeping people healthy. So, that is right at the beginning, upstream. Primary care, the acute care in hospital, the step-down care, community hospitals, home care, community care, long-term care, so, that whole spectrum is coordinated through our Regional Health Systems and now we have three clusters. That is why I mentioned earlier that we will work through our clusters to reach out to not just the public healthcare institutions, but also our partners in the private sector and in the community.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Mandatory Installation of Smoke Alarms in Newly Built Homes","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"20 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Home Affairs with regard to home smoke alarms which must be installed in all newly built homes from June 2018 (a) who will be responsible for maintaining the alarms, especially in rental flats, to ensure that the detectors and batteries are working; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider connecting these alarms to a central alert system since many of our elderly have vision and hearing problems and may not notice alerts from the alarms.
\tThe Second Minister for Home Affairs (Mrs Josephine Teo) (for the Minister for Home Affairs): Mr Speaker, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) has not announced the mandatory installation of home fire alarm devices (HFADs) but let me provide some background why MHA is studying the idea.
In 2016, about 70% of fire injuries are from residential fires, compared to about 40% 10 years ago. HFADs can help to minimise the number of fire injuries or fatalities in residential fire. HFADs are standalone devices that are not connected to any central alert system. The purpose of an HFAD is to provide early warning to the occupants in the event of a fire, so that they can quickly extinguish the fire or swiftly make their way to safety before the fire escalates.
In the United States, a 2015 report by the National Fire Protection Association found that the fatality rate arising from residential fires in homes with HFADs was 40% lower than those without HFADs.
The Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) has been encouraging home owners to install HFADs. There are several HFAD models available in the market that cater to different user needs and requirements. Residents who have vision and hearing problems may consider models with additional features, such as alerts via vibrating pads or visual alarms. Developers who install such systems should, likewise, be mindful of the needs of their property users.
Fire safety is everyone's responsibility. As with other fire safety provisions within homes, such as fire extinguishers or fire-rated doors, generally, the owners and occupiers are responsible for ensuring that the HFADs are kept in good working condition.
We note the Member's concern about rental tenants and the elderly. SCDF will take into consideration feedback from advisers, including Ms Pereira, before finalising the details of the scheme.
Mr Speaker: Ms Joan Pereira.
\tMs Joan Pereira (Tanjong Pagar):\tI thank the Second Minister for her reply. Would the Ministry consider instituting maintenance checks as well as battery replacement or repairs for the alarms, especially for rental flats and our studio apartments, given that our elderly may not always know how to check and it may be dangerous for them to do the maintenance check or replace batteries?
\tMrs Josephine Teo:\tMr Speaker, from my understanding for these home fire alarm systems, the battery life usually can last about 10 years. Maintenance, as I also understand, mainly involves pressing a button to test if there is still battery life left which then means that the alarm ought to be functional. Among SCDF, the Housing and Development Board and the People's Association grassroots, I am quite sure we can work out a good approach to maintenance. So, let me give Ms Pereira the assurance that this is something that SCDF considers very carefully and we will take the feedback from the advisers and incorporate it into the design of the scheme.
Mr Speaker: Er Dr Lee Bee Wah.
\tEr Dr Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon):\t Mr Speaker, Sir, I have one supplementary question for the Second Minister. I was consulted on this recently and I was told that it will only be installed in the rental flats that have elderly residents, not in all the rental flats. But then rental flats, people shift in and out, so I would like to ask the Second Minister: will she consider installing in all rental flats?
\tMrs Josephine Teo:\tThe short answer is yes.
Mr Speaker: Order. End of Question Time.
[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":"Cross-Border Railways Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"to provide for the construction, maintenance, operation and regulation of cross-border railways between Singapore and Malaysia in accordance with bilateral railway agreements, and to make related and consequential amendments to certain other Acts\", (proc text)]
[(proc text) presented by the Second Minister for Transport (Mr Ng Chee Meng) (for the Minister for Transport); 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":"Staying United Against the Terrorism Threat","subTitle":"Motion","sectionType":"OS","content":"Mr Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move*, \"That this House fortifies Singapore's resolve to stay united against the threat of terrorism by reaffirming the core values of multiracialism and social cohesion and calls on the Government to continue (a) promoting vigilance and resilience among Singaporeans to deter and overcome terrorist attacks; (b) preventing the spread of radicalised teachings which promote violent extremism; and (c) investing in multiracialism as the best socio-weapon to defeat the ills that terrorism seeks to sow\".
[(proc text) *The Motion also stood in the names of Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar, Mr Murali Pillai and Dr Tan Wu Meng. (proc text)]
Sir, the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) may have powerful weaponry; the Home Team may have sophisticated arsenal, but our nation's best artillery against a terror attack is multiracialism. Multiracialism is the bedrock, the foundation that will neutralise and defeat the ills terrorism seeks to sow.
We have effective, professional and responsive uniformed teams working to keep us safe − the Singapore Police Force (SPF), the Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF), working together with SAF, working in turn with the Internal Security Department (ISD) and the Security and Intelligence Division (SID). But terrorism is not a fight they are to battle against alone. Every Singaporean has a role to play. Why the need to debate this now? There are three reasons: first, we face a regional threat; second, we face a global threat; and third, we have been specifically targeted.
Let me deal with the regional threat first and, with your leave, Mr Speaker, may I display some slides on the light-emitting diode (LED) screen?
Mr Speaker: Yes, please. [Slides were shown to hon Members.]
Mr Christopher de Souza: Thank you. Terrorists are returning from Syria and Iraq to Southeast Asia. Misguided, they form terror cells which seek to influence others. It is estimated that in the next two years, about 200 terrorists would be released from prisons in the region. They could return to terrorist leanings after their release. Reports have shown that the Marawi conflict has generated potential terrorists, adding to the regional threat we face.
But this threat is not just regional. The threat confronts the globe. In fact, every single inhabitable continent in our world has suffered a terror attack since the beginning of this year alone, 2017.
In Fort Lauderdale, Florida, a man shot and killed five people at the airport. That was January 2017. Just last night, we heard news of a possible terror attack in Las Vegas, 59 people tragically killed.
In Manchester, an explosion killed 22 children, youths and adults at an Ariana Grande concert. That was May 2017. Again, just over the weekend, in Marseille, France, two women were stabbed to death.
In Jakarta, two explosions at a busy bus station killed three police officers and injured 10 people. That was May 2017.
In Melbourne, a woman was taken hostage, two men were shot, and three police officers injured in the line of duty in June of this year.
In Colombia, South America, an explosion at a shopping centre killed three women and injured 11 others.
And in Mali, West Africa, five people were shot at a tourist resort in June.
So, should we move on the assumption that an attack will never happen to us? I do not think so. Rather, we must prepare now.
In 2016, plans to attack Singapore were avoided and foiled. Terrorists from Batam planned to launch a rocket attack on Marina Bay Sands in August 2016. The Straits Times reported that there was an Arabic publication circulated last October that identified two entities here, the Singapore Exchange and a port, as targets as part of a wider bid to damage American and Western interests. In a separate report by the Jakarta-based Institute for Policy Analysis of Conflict, those heading the Marawi network had urged militants on Telegram to attack targets in Singapore, Thailand and Japan.
For these three reasons − one, our region is facing a heightened threat; two, the threat is global; and three, our country has been explicitly targeted − we need to promote vigilance and resilience.
According to a report on \"Risk and Resilience\" for the Department of Homeland Security in United States (US), pre-event activity is key to resilience. It places importance on the capacity to anticipate, plan and prepare to cope with threats. An important aspect of this pre-event activity is being vigilant.
Why is this so? In London, recent attacks involved vans being driven on pedestrian walkways and knife attacks. It happened in very public areas, accessible to pedestrians and vehicles. Low cost, highly visible, possibility for lone-wolf operations, vulnerable targets, are dangerous concoctions.
These attacks are very difficult to prevent. Without concrete bollards on every crowded street, checks on every bag carried on the Mass Rapid Transit (MRT), restriction on the sales of all kinds of knives ─ even kitchen knives ─ this would be near impossible. As Minister K Shanmugam has said, \"You can't turn the entire city into a garrison.\" No matter what interventions the state puts in to try to prevent a terrorist attack, it is very likely that the first responders will be the citizens on the ground.
Therefore, it is not just for the specialist forces or the Police to be alert to such threats. The possibility of a terror attack needs to be ingrained in the consciousness of everyone. It should not cripple us in Singapore with fear. Rather, that consciousness should help us to know how to spot suspicious activities and how to react to them in a calm and systematic fashion.
Firstly, there is a need to identify the threat. The signs of suspicious persons, articles and vehicles have been disseminated through the SGSecure App and other means. But knowing the signs is not enough; we need to instil the culture of vigilance that will cause people to look up, observe their surroundings and know how to make a judgement call. That judgement call includes following instructions in the SGSecure App, which are \"Run, Hide, Tell\".
But what to tell is also important. How well we are able to respond to the terror attack would very much depend on how we, the first responders, cooperate with the Police by giving information through the SGSecure app. Information communicated is crucial. Hence, according to the SGsecure guide, we should TELL. T-E-L-L. T for the total number of attackers, E for equipment or weapons being carried, L for look of attackers, and L for location of attackers ─ where they are now and moving towards.
Our response as citizens will be crucial in order for the response from our uniformed staff to be even more effective. It could be a vehicle marauding through the crowd on a footway, or a knife-wielding group of men in a crowded restaurant. The attackers could be a moving target. It is our duty as citizens of Singapore to help report suspicious activity before the threat materialises.
If the threat is so well-disguised and an attack does occur, then we should provide as accurate information as we can through the SGSecure app. To be truly secure, all of us − very Singaporean − has a part to play to be vigilant.
It is also important that Singaporeans work synergistically with the uniformed forces in the face of a terror attack. Equally, the uniformed services − Home Team and SAF − will need to work synergistically with each other. Very interestingly, Australia amended their laws this year to allow military deployment alongside police personnel after a terror incident has been declared.
A synergistic response is needed. Singapore is increasing exercises and trainings between the Home Team and SAF as well as between the Home Team and the citizenry, through local Emergency Preparedness days. But a look at how other countries are planning their responses to terror attacks may be useful for Singapore's policymakers.
For example, in Hong Kong, the Standing Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear Planning Group meets regularly to formulate contingency plans and procedures for threatened or possible attacks, including terror attacks. It is made up of specialists from various departments and agencies, such as the hospitals, laboratories, police force, civil aid service and fire service. It is a multidisciplinary team on call, 24 hours a day, to assess threats and give advice on the spot.
In Australia, the Prime Minister Malcom Turnbull wanted personnel from the defence force to be placed within law enforcement agencies to assist in coordination efforts. We could study the Hong Kong and Australia models to assess what best practices we could import into Singapore's anti-terror regime.
Another key strategy to secure resilience against the psychology of fear that terrorists seek to sow is to promote unity in the aftermath of a terror attack. How we respond to a terror attack is important. A response using Home Team and SAF military hardware is key but let us also realise that Singapore and Singaporeans must win the psychological battle. Our unity will ensure we are victorious over any ill the attacks seek to incite. That is why communication is very important.
According to SAFE-COMMS which was commissioned by the European Union, a key message should be, \"We will not allow terrorists to spread fear and horror and gain the upper hand.\" The next message is, \"We know what we are doing\", then the next message is, \"All those affected will receive all the support that they need.\" The basic principles are rapid restoration of confidence and security, transparent trust-building information policy, calmly competent yet sensitive treatment of all those that are directly and indirectly involved, leadership with integrity and credibility, and decisive action.
The message of social connectedness and hope is important, especially in the aftermath of an attack. In December 2014, a lone gunman held 17 hostages at a cafe in Sydney for more than 16 hours. Two hostages eventually died. Within a few hours of the attack, a hashtag campaign entitled \"I'll Ride With You\" went viral on the Internet. Australians stood together with their Muslim brothers and sisters.
The point is, we need to win the psychological value. It is not just the day itself, but the day after the attack.
How will we act? How will we move ahead? We do not point our fingers but hold hands and stand united together against terror. But to do so, we need to prepare now. How? A first step now could be to prepare posters and other paraphernalia to send such messages quickly and visibly.
These are some of what the residents in the constituency I serve, Ulu Pandan, organised in terms of banners. These are day-after banners. They have been printed, they are in the Community Centre, ready to be put up at locations throughout the constituency should there be an attack. \"We are one people, one nation, one Singapore\", \"Deny terrorism a victory, let's stay united\".
The four hands of our races ─ Singaporean Chinese, Malay, Indian and Eurasians ─ protecting our precious Singapore, holding it together. Red and white chosen ─ the colours of our flag. \"No to disunity\", \"Terrorism will not win\". These messages displayed the day-after are what Singaporeans can see and will stir them to say, \"Yes, we are in this together\", \"Yes, it will be okay.\"
So, first, we need to promote vigilance and resilience amongst Singaporeans to deter and overcome terrorist attacks. And that was the first part of the Motion. Allow me, Sir, to move on to the second point, that we need to prevent the spread of radicalised teachings which promote violent extremism.
There were 18 radicalised Singaporeans arrested in the past two years, compared to 11 in the preceding years. Let us study that statistics: 18 in the past two years, compared to 11 in the preceding seven years. To take the appropriate action, we have a range of laws that may be applied. We only need to look to the recent terror attack on London Bridge in Borough Market to see why muscular laws which gives police proactive and pre-emptive powers are important.
The Independent reported that Scotland Yard acknowledged that the ringleader of the terrorist who carried out the London Bridge attack was known to the police and MI5 for extremism before he went on his rampage of murder and maiming. The British Broadcasting Corporation reported that the ringleader had previously appeared in a Channel 4 documentary about the presence of violent extremists in British cities. In the end, that ringleader led a rampage which killed eight people and injured 48 others in an attack at London Bridge in Borough Market on 3 June this year.
In Singapore, the laws must not work to hinder investigation. When pre-emptive detention is necessary, we must act and administer it. We cannot have our hands tied behind our backs. More so, in light of what the Minister for Home Affairs shared just three weeks ago. Minister K Shanmugam said that before the Islamic State militant group came on the scene, authorities assessed it will take about two years for individuals to become radicalised. But now, some individuals may be radicalised in as little as one or two months. The rate of being influenced has decreased from 22 months, not to 20 months, not to 12 months, but to two months. Our laws in Singapore must facilitate early action, pre-emptive action, to reduce the possibility of terror threats.
Laws are important. They are important tools. Our laws do help deter the spread of radicalised teachings, which promote violent extremism. And with the changing nature of terrorist attacks in the world, the shorter period for radicalisation, we may need to review our laws to ensure that they are flexible enough, that they are robust enough, to mitigate against and ameliorate the morphing nature of terror attacks.
Allow me, Mr Speaker, to go through the Acts and, by so doing, hopefully get across to those who wish to do us harm that we have the requisite laws to act pre-emptively and swiftly.
For example, under section 7 of the Public Order Act, the Commissioner of Police may refuse to grant a permit if he is of the view that the proposed assembly or procession may glorify the commission or preparation of acts of terrorism, whether in the past or future.
A different raft of laws targets the action of spreading violent extremism. These can be found in the Penal Code and the Sedition Act. Section 267C of the Penal Code makes it an offence to distribute or possess documents or communicate electronic records that incite violence. The Sedition Act makes it an offence to commit an act which has a seditious tendency. Seditious tendency is defined to include \"promot[ing] hostility between different races or classes of the population of Singapore.\"
When the need arises, there is the Internal Security Act (ISA). For instance, section 20 empowers the Minister to prohibit or set conditions regarding the possession of documents that contain any incitement to violence.
But, to add real value, the laws should also aim to assist the detained and help rehabilitate them. Rehabilitation and reintegration are important strategies to stem the spread of such violent extremism.
This makes crucial the work of organisations, such as the Religious Rehabilitation Group (RRG). Its mission statement expands on the importance of rehabilitation to the detainee: \"Rehabilitation seeks to counter detainees' ideological misunderstanding of religion and help them come to terms with the fact that they have been misled.\"
It was reported that the restriction order of one of the former members of Jemaah Islamiyah (JI) was allowed to lapse; he is no longer required for further supervision under the restriction order regime. This is not the only example. ISA detainees can be released from preventive detention and put on restraining orders after they are shown to have made progress in rehabilitation and no longer pose a security threat that requires preventive detention. Therefore, we have an arsenal of laws to empower pre-emptive action, preventive detention, leading to rehabilitation and, hopefully, reintegration. The laws are effective and noble. But laws alone cannot offer Singapore's complete counter-offence to terrorism.
Multiracialism is the best socio-weapon to defeat the ills terrorism seeks to sow. What does terrorism seek to sow? Terrorism seeks to sow division, disunity, discord.
Terrorism is not the problem of a single race. It is not the problem of a single religion. Terrorists come in all forms. Look at Anders Behring Breivik. In 2011, he committed Norway's worst attack and was convicted of mass murder and terrorism offences. At that time, it was the world's deadliest terror attack by a lone gunman. Many of his victims were teenagers on a recent summer retreat.
Besides the shooting rampage on the island of Utoya, he planted a bomb in a van in Oslo's city centre. In total, 77 people were killed. He was a self-declared fascist, who held strong anti-Muslim sentiments. What he did was detestable, horrid and inhuman.
There can be no room for violent extremism in Singapore. Violent extremism is an affront to humanity. Therefore, acts of violence, such as those acts towards all vulnerable communities in the Rakhine state, should stop. To see children suffer like that grates against humanity.
In the case of terror attacks around the world, people of different races and religions have shown through their actions and courage that they will not condone violence and the killing of the innocent.
In July this year, Channel 4 News ran a documentary on a group of Christians in Mosul who were rescuing Muslims from the fire of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) snipers there. They risked their lives to save innocent Muslim people. Let me give another example. It was reported by Channel NewsAsia on 5 August that during the fighting in Marawi, a Muslim villager chose to stay put in his house and put his own life in danger, even when his friends and relatives begged him to vacate it. Why did he choose to stay? Because he had people he was protecting there. Who? Christians. They had run out of food and he helped them escape from the militants' rampage.
Terrorism is an affront to all of us, regardless of race or religion. And so, we can and need to have a collective counter-offence to it. How? By continuing to strengthen multiracialism and social cohesion in Singapore. We need to view our multiracialism as an asset, a muscular asset.
Sir, allow me to share what my view of multiracialism is. Different ethnic communities define their identity in different ways which may change over time. Multiracialism does not mean we give up our ethnic identity which is informed by race, our culture and upbringing and, to an extent, by our religious beliefs. It is not about everybody becoming the same. Multiracialism is about appreciating diversity − diversity in race, language, religious beliefs and, at the same time, being loyal to our duty we have as Singaporeans, that is, the duty to advance Singapore and Singaporeans.
In fact, multiracialism makes Singapore a multiskilled, multitalented and multifaceted country. Within Singapore, our population can lean on the different skills, thought processes, talents and languages of the people from the different races who live in Singapore. When foreign governments visit Singapore, explore trading opportunities and collaboration, our multiracialism becomes an immediate asset. Foreign governments, trading partners and tourists can relate to the cultures within Singapore which may be present in their own home countries. That is an asset.
Internationally, when Singapore Government leaders and businessmen visit China, Indonesia, Malaysia, India and many other countries, we are able to connect with them. Why? Because cultures are understood well and sometimes shared. We offer those whom we visit and with whom we trade a multiracial Singapore − multicultured, multiskilled, multitalented. It is a previous asset.
For me, multiracialism is not an academic issue. Singaporean Eurasians are multiracial in our very genetic makeup and believe in Singapore's multiracialism to the core. We do not want to discard the English, Portuguese, Dutch, Burmese and the Indian influence in us but, at the same time, we have a duty to Singapore. We are multiracial in the very core of our identity but, at the same time, profess fierce loyalty to Singapore. Over the centuries, in terms of ethnicity, we have become an amalgamation of many races, including Dutch, English, Portuguese, Ceylonese and Burmese. One cannot divide us and put a bit of us back into the different countries our ancestors came from. We have no homeland but Singapore. This is it. Our duty is to Singapore and her future. So, being part of the Eurasian race, I can understand what it means to be culturally aware of ethnic heritage and all the richness it offers but, at the same time, being completely focused on being Singaporeans first and foremost. This is my experience of multiracialism.
I hope we will all aspire towards retaining cultural identities coupled with a strong duty to Singapore. Terrorism seeks to destroy unity. It seeks to disunite communities, make us point fingers at one another, become factious. But with a cohesive spirit and multiracialism, we can defeat the ills terrorism seeks to sow.
That multiracialism is a strength can be illustrated in tangible ways. Look at sports. In the 2007 Southeast Asian (SEA) Games, women's 4x100-metre relay, Wendy Enn, Shanti Pereira, Dipna Lim-Prasad and Nur Izyln Zaini became the first local women's team to go under 45 seconds, cutting the national record from 45.51 to 44.96 seconds. Each runner's race did not matter. Rather, what mattered to them was the RACE Singapore had to win. What mattered was the mission − advancing Singapore's flag on the track. Working together, they broke the national record.
Growing up, when I was playing lots of hockey, I had Chinese, Indian, Malay, Punjabi, Eurasian teammates. When we played against teams from other countries, our teams used to communicate on the pitch in different languages − Malay, English, Mandarin, Punjabi, Tamil, Hokkien. Sometimes, using very colourful verbs and nouns, best not repeated, especially here. The other teams were confused at hearing this collage of languages. We used our multiracialism and multilingual ability as assets. Diversity was a strength for our team. What mattered most to us was whether Singapore was up against the opponent on the scoreboard.
Singapore has been recognised as a multicultural society and that has also been independently recognised as a strength. According to the Gallup World Poll 2016, Singapore ranked top out of over 140 countries for tolerance of ethnic minorities. According to the 2015 Legatum Prosperity Index, Singapore ranked the highest among 142 countries where people feel that their country is tolerant of ethnic minorities. In an article in September 2017 in the Asian Tribune, the author cited the Singapore Government as having recognised \"the importance of maintaining and fostering racial harmony\" and that it had implemented policies and safeguards to that end.
Multiracialism does not come naturally. Left to itself, people tend to gravitate along racial lines. In France, after the Charlie Hebdo attacks on 7 January 2015, it was reported that the then Prime Minister Manuel Valls identified 64 ghettos in major cities where significant portions of the population were being left behind economically, marginalised into ethnic enclaves. When there is an unfamiliarity among ethnic groups, lack of social cohesion exists. The unfortunate consequence is a sense of distrust among the races. So, multiracialism does not come naturally. We have had to work hard at it and we need to continue to work hard at it. It is an aspiration, an ideal that we strive and need to continue to strive towards. It is a long work in progress. So, what have we done to move towards our aspirations?
When it comes to housing, the Housing and Development Board's (HDB's), Ethnic Integration Policy (EIP) programme ensures that there will be racial diversity in each block of HDB flats. People of a different race, of a different religion, live next to one another. There is some familiarity, a platform for social integration through interaction, transcending ethnic boundaries. There is a kampung family.
Another important pillar is the Inter-Racial and Religious Confidence Circles (IRCCs). They bring leaders of the different religious, ethnic and community groups together to build friendship and trust. Their good work had brought all of us of different races and religions together and has greatly contributed to furthering our ideal of multiracialism. This picture was taken at the reappointment ceremony of our constituency's IRCC this year. All of us, the races, Chinese, Malay, Indian and Eurasian, and many religions were present and represented at that table, cutting a cake together, symbolising the re-appointment of the IRCC. That was a very meaningful ceremony, possibly only in Singapore. I think all of us do ceremonies in each of our constituencies. What I mean by \"only in Singapore\" is that this type of ceremony happens only in Singapore.
In conclusion, Sir, terrorism is an affront to the Chinese community, it is an affront to the Malay community, it is an affront to the Indian community, it is an affront to the Eurasian community. It is an affront to Singapore and her values.
This photo is significant. These are our anti-terror frontline task force patrol officers. Armed, ready. Look closely. They are a multiracial group of men. Multiracialism is what terrorism seeks to destroy. But in Singapore, it is that same strong multiracialism that will be used to defeat the ills terrorism seeks to sow. That way, we secure for ourselves a happy irony. In the very face of the threat, we deploy a united multiracial force.
So, I ask this House, do we let terrorism divide us? Or do we say no, not on our soil. When an attack vests on our shores, will Singapore shut down in fear? No, Singapore will not. We will respond as one united people. And that way, Singapore will win. [Applause]
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Dr Intan Mokhtar.
Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for this opportunity to speak on this important matter.
The threat of terrorism and the risk of radicalisation and extremism cannot be underestimated nor taken for granted. With advancements in technologies and increasing global connectivity, terrorist and separatist cells are emboldened and have more convenient platforms to recruit similar-minded individuals to fight their cause, no matter how insidious that cause may be, usually made under the guise of seemingly religious or cultural grounds.
The new Infrastructure Protection Bill that we passed yesterday is testament to the Government's resolve in ensuring that we continue to strengthen our security measures and minimise risks and threats, in light of the recent spate of terrorist attacks. However, fighting terrorism goes beyond legislative enactments and enforcement.
Some may think the onus and responsibility of looking out for such threats lie within the individual or those closest to the individual. However, just as fighting crime and ensuring public safety is a shared responsibility which requires a common effort and resolve, so is the threat of terrorism and the risk of radicalisation and extremism.
Sir, let me first speak on the first two foci: to promote vigilance and resilience, and to prevent the spread of radicalised teachings.
The work of addressing and mitigating the threat of terrorism, radicalisation and extremist ideologies have traditionally been done by the RRG, first set up in 2003. While RRG has been instrumental in rehabilitating Jemaah Islamiah detainees and their families, as well as ISIS supporters more recently, the work of rehabilitation is correction after the fact.
There is a need to work further upstream in preventing radicalisation at its core, before it can even evolve into extremist ideologies or acts of terrorism. And this upstream work cannot just be the effort of asatizahs or Islamic religious scholars and teachers alone. In fact, there is a need to work across religions, races, cultures and even languages in tackling these threats upstream.
First, I would propose involving as many first points of contact as possible, be it through our grassroots movement, Family Service Centres, Social Service Offices, non-government organisations (NGOs) and voluntary welfare organisations. Volunteers and officers in such organisations are in frequent and direct contact with Singaporeans on a daily basis.
They ought to be trained to pick up tell-tale signs or potential problems which may escalate into situations of an individual being radicalised or, worse, committing acts of terrorism, be it religiously motivated or otherwise. Some tell-tale signs could include being reclusive or withdrawn, spending too much time online, developing sudden changes in views or perceptions or behaviour, or developing intense frustrations or having anger management issues.
Upon the detection of such worrying tell-tale signs, these first points of contact should make referrals to the RRG or other certified counsellors for further assistance and follow-up. The call has always been for families and friends to look out for such tell-tale signs, but families and friends may not always be impartial or neutral enough or may not always be quick enough to inform the relevant authorities for follow-up help. Hence, we would need many other first points of contact to manage this better.
Second, I would urge the Government to support initiatives where some of our youths are trained to be youth ambassadors and youth leaders, to mitigate the threat of radicalisation and extremist ideologies through youth activism. Our youth ambassadors or leaders are the ones to lead our youths on meaningful engagements and socially constructive projects that build communities and not partake in missions or causes that tear down communities. They are also the ones who are trained to pick up tell-tale signs of the possible threat of radicalisation and extremist ideologies among their fellow youths, before these evolve into acts of terrorism.
These youth ambassadors and leaders are in constant touch with other trained counsellors and members of the RRG to help refer other youths who may be at risk of being radicalised. There is a need to work closely with our institutions of higher learning (IHLs) in the training of such youth ambassadors and leaders, and in supporting their socially constructive projects, such as Roses of Peace or Youth Ambassadors of Peace, appointed by several of our Muslim organisations.
Third, there is also a need to seek the involvement of significant others in promoting vigilance against and mitigating the threat of radicalisation and extremism among our youths. An important group of significant others is made up of our teachers, in both our mainstream and secular, as well as religious, educational institutions. Just as some teachers are trained as psychological counsellors in many of our mainstream schools, we would also need teachers to be trained as first points of contact to identify students or youths who are being radicalised or may be at risk of developing extremist ideologies or being involved in acts of terrorism. These teachers would work closely with the RRG, the Ministry of Home Affairs or other Government agencies that would be able to follow up with these students or youths, such as getting in touch with their parents or families, counselling them, enrolling them in rehabilitative programmes, or getting them involved in meaningful and socially constructive activities to redirect their ideas, energies and focus. At this point, Mr Speaker, Sir, please allow me to continue in Malay.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The involvement of educators and religious teachers in countering the threat of radicalism, extremism and terrorism amongst our youths is very important and necessary. Just as how some teachers from mainstream schools are trained to become counsellors to help students who may be stressed or have personal problems, we also need religious teachers in our madrasahs who are trained to help our students and youths who may be at risk of being radicalised. These religious teachers can refer such students or youths to the right persons for further assistance.
At the same time, we should also encourage our religious teachers to be more active in sharing their knowledge and views about the context of multiracial and multi-religious life in Singapore with our youths, especially through the social media platforms. We do have religious teachers who are active in social media in order to engage our youths, like Ustaz Mizi Wahid and Ustaz Irwan Hadi. But I hope that the number of such social media-savvy religious teachers will increase. They have the potential to become positive influencers who can shape the views and perceptions of our youths.
Here, I would like to welcome the establishment of the Islamic College of Singapore under the ambit of the Islamic Religious Council of Singapore (MUIS). Around 1,000 of our students are currently studying in Islamic educational institutions overseas and, in the context of an increasingly uncertain global security situation, I believe that having an Islamic College in Singapore will open opportunities for our students to further their studies in Islamic education at the post-secondary level within our shores. I also hope that our Islamic College will become a symbol of Islamic education and scholarship that is excellent, progressive and inclusive, and able to become a renowned global Islamic institution.
I would also like to touch on the third item of this Motion, that is, investment in our pillars of multiracialism and multi-religious life, to defeat the threat of radicalism and terrorism. We should continue our efforts to uphold multiracialism and multi-religious life in Singapore, not only to achieve racial harmony, but also in our efforts to counter the threat of radicalism, extremism and terrorism. These efforts should continue at all levels and by every person, and not only by the Government or religious teachers and educators.
(In English): Mr Speaker, Sir, please allow me to continue in English. Each individual plays an important role in our efforts against the threats of radicalism, extremism and terrorism. At the same time, there is another endeavour that we need to partake in, that of ensuring that we do not swing to the other extreme of allowing any form of stereotypes or deep-seated biases to develop against any particular race or religion.
For instance, we need to work together to prevent Islamophobia, racial stereotypes or racial profiling against the Malays, or religious suspicion against the Muslims, from ever influencing the way we deal with one another, just because of the atrocities committed by ISIS, Al-Qaeda or other terrorist groups who claim to act on the Islamic faith. And we cannot allow Muslims to feel apologetic for what these terrorist groups, which proclaim to carry out their heinous acts in the name of Islam, have done. As a Muslim, I abhor their actions and I refuse to be associated with them, and I refuse to feel apologetic for all they have done, for they do not represent me or the faith that I believe in and uphold.
What we have nurtured here in Singapore − inclusivity and trust based on multiracialism and multiculturalism − are very precious. We must continue to work and do good together, and we need to continue to be sensitised to the needs of others, especially the minorities among us. And here, when I speak of the minorities, I am not just referring to those of race and religion alone; I am also referring to those of abilities and which happen as a result of social constructs, be it cognitive, communicative and so on.
As we progress as a nation, let us strengthen the bonds that exist among us, continue to be inclusive and magnanimous, and make sure we do not leave anyone behind, stranded or paralysed because of their race, religion or abilities.
\"The beauty of the world lies in the diversity of its people\". Let us continue to uphold multiracialism, multiculturalism and inclusivity, for it gives us fortitude as a people. Mr Speaker, I support the Motion.
Mr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.
Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, the Workers' Party supports the Motion. The spectre of terrorism has been with us for slightly over 15 years since the bombing of the Twin Towers on 11 September 2001. Many of us remember the shocking revelations of Al-Qaeda-inspired plans to attack foreign embassies and commercial establishments in Singapore with truck bombs, and the arrests of some members of the JI terrorist organisation in Singapore shortly thereafter.
More than 15 years later, Singaporeans may be surprised to know that, even up to today, there is no internationally agreed upon definition for terrorism. One reason for this is the objection of groups and communities fighting for nationalist or separatist causes as a result of being disenfranchised or excluded by the state.
In other cases, some communities have to face up to a state that uses overwhelming force to punish an entire people or ethnic group because of the acts of a disproportionately small number. We are already seeing this scenario allegedly play out in Myanmar where more than half a million Rohingya Muslims have been forced to abandon their villages, fearing more violence against them by the state. Such atrocities are fertile ground for terrorism, and some acts of terror undertaken by oppressed people do not lend themselves to simple understanding or even condemnation. At times, the reality of any multiracial country hosting different communities, races and religions, including Singapore, is that atrocities in lands far away from ours will affect our people and pull at our heartstrings and our identities, too.
This prospect has taken on a whole new dimension with the advent of social media. Even though we are one people as Singaporean citizens, many of us host other identities and even biases, alongside our status as Singaporeans, regardless if we are a minority community or in the majority.
In the 1980s, the ISD stepped in to prevent the Singapore Sikh community from taking their support through Sikh religious institutions for an independent Sikh homeland in Punjab too far. Most historically, in the war years, many Chinese in Malaya contributed and supported the resistance against the Japanese Imperial Forces through China and in Southeast Asia. Muslims are deeply affected when innocent Palestinians die in reprisal killings carried out by the Israeli state.
While all these examples are not directly comparable, the point is that no matter what our race or religion, many of us do feel a deep sense of outrage when our kinsmen or women are bullied or wantonly killed anywhere in the world. The reaction is only human. But add religion to the mix, and feelings can cut to the bone.
As a multiracial nation, we are susceptible to this reality of contested identities and even more so now, as our population grows in size and newer Singaporeans join our ranks. However, whether we are Singaporeans by birth or by choice, we are all invested in the well-being of this country, in all aspects. We have to acknowledge that we pay allegiance to the President, our flag and to the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, a Constitution that makes it the duty of any government to look after the interests of racial and religious minorities in Singapore. And so long as we do, our first loyalty is to Singapore and our way of life, which includes the well-being of families and friends regardless of race, language or religion. This must be so, and we must never relegate this first loyalty under any circumstances.
To that end, I have observed ordinary Singaporeans, local NGOs and institutions, and even the Prime Minister in some cases, being openly supportive of humanitarian initiatives in some of the most politically tense and fraught regions of the world. The tragedy in the Rakhine state in Myanmar is not without controversy. But as a Singaporean, I was deeply moved to read of the Singapore Buddhist Federation and all Buddhist institutions strongly supporting the call by MUIS to raise funds to provide relief to victims of the tragedy. As a Singaporean, I identified with the call of the Buddhist community and it made me proud to be a Singaporean.
Mr Speaker, a common sense of humanity is a very power adhesive to fortify our social cohesion and multiracialism against the reality of terrorism. And it is this common humanity that we will have to call upon to deal with the type of terrorism we see today.
The advent of ISIS has inspired a new generation of extremists who find no compulsion using armed violence in any form against anyone. Catalysed by developments in the Middle East and the rapid advancement of mobile technology, in particular, the prospects of self-radicalised and outwardly unsuspicious Singaporeans joining the ISIS cause have infused a dangerous new dimension to terrorism. Well-equipped and well-endowed security agencies have nothing substantive in their arsenal to prevent a determined, lone wolf attacker from going on a knifing rampage or hijacking a truck and mowing down innocent people waiting for a bus, for example.
This could well happen in Singapore. For example, a successful ISIS terrorist strike in Singapore falsely carried out in the name of Islam will test our social cohesion and resilience as one people. The Malay/Muslim community will come under the spotlight. Some extremist Muslims, particularly those overseas, may even celebrate such an attack, seeding more doubt against the entire Malay/Muslim community in Singapore.
The ubiquitous nature of the social media will see some viral commentary which may prove hard to ignore, affecting the morale of the country and precipitating senseless reprisals, not all of which may be physical acts of violence. Avoiding the Malay/Muslim community and the desire not to have anything to do with them are equally, if not, more damaging, because turning on the Malay/Muslim community is the magic pill ISIS seeks to legitimise their narrative, one of oppression against Muslims.
In the event of an ISIS atrocity, all Singaporeans, regardless of race, language or religion, must stand up to defend and protect the Malay/Muslim community from vilification. To reiterate, to turn on any community, let alone the Malay/Muslim community, would be to blindly walk into the playbook of the terrorists who seek to divide Singaporeans and justify their cause.
A few days ago, as the Workers' Party Members were discussing this Motion, Mr Low Thia Khiang recalled conversations with his constituents and friends of some Chinese Singaporeans being shielded from violence by their Malay friends and neighbours who invited them to stay in their homes with family members during the racial riots in the 1960s. We will have to harness such examples of our common humanity to get on with our lives in the advent of a terrorist attack in Singapore. Such stories serve an important unifying purpose, as is the pursuit of knowledge on matters pertaining to faith in the context of a multiracial society.
I do appreciate that not all stories are comfortable to discuss, but they do need to be shared because a sense of perspective, even if it is the Government's perspective, can be critical. Some years ago, but less so now, in the course of house visits, I hear allegations about the Government discriminating against the Malay community in the banning of the call to prayer or azan over loud hailers, a policy introduced many years ago. When I share that some of our Chinese friends occasionally raise concerns about the Government reserving land for Chinese temples within industrial estates, unlike mosques, which tend to be centrally-located within our communities and with good transport links, the conversations suddenly take on a very different complexion. Views which originally started out as outright discrimination by the Government start to moderate.
When one hears the azan walking around Jalan Sultan today, one realises that there can be nuance to policy decisions. And there must always be scope for nuance in policy decisions.
This is one reality of living in a multiracial country, the inevitably uneven nature of give-and-take in matters of race and religion, a matter to which I will come back to shortly.
Members of this House would agree that HDB living and urban living in general, with the races co-existing cheek by jowl does increase the prospects of interracial misunderstandings to take place. They are usually innocuous, such as a shift worker trying to get some sleep or a student studying for exams, just as your Malay neighbours are hosting a marriage or your Chinese neighbours are carrying out funeral rites at the void deck or of your Indian neighbours pounding spices. Just as often as we hear complaints in our HDB estates of open burning of joss paper and the illegal parking of vehicles by congregants of various faiths at temples, mosques or churches which spill over outside, we also hear of neighbours who are comfortable amongst one another and can rely on one another in times of need, exemplified in not just the food or greetings they share, but the willingness to be race-neutral, open-minded and communicative, traits which are vital to living in a multiracial society. All Members of this House would have experienced this in the course of their grassroots work.
I do appreciate that things can get more complicated in the workplace. But race or religion should never be reasons not to hire or to discriminate against someone. Chauvinistic behaviour, an attitude of superiority, an intolerance exhibited by superiors or co-workers at the workplace where we spend a large part of our day-to-day lives, will permeate not just into our attitudes but into the values we pass on to our loved ones.
This damages the quality of our multiracialism and we must be mindful of passing on our prejudices and biases. In the same breath, workers of any race must recognise that we all must strive to do our best, not just in words but in deeds. A can-do spirit, a positive work ethic and a common sense of mission aligned with the needs of your company or organisation can actually play a pivotal role in teaching racists about the futility and irrelevance of holding on to racist attitudes.
Some Singaporeans might have to leave a job because of latent or even perceived discrimination, but whatever the bad experience, leave the prejudice or the racism you have experienced behind too, for not all five fingers are the same.
Mr Speaker, it is clear a certain degree of tolerance is critical to living in a multiracial society like Singapore. It is a testimony to Singaporeans and the sort of people we have moulded ourselves to become over the last 50 years, that we have come to live in peace with one another in spite of the occasional hiccup, which is not unusual for a multiracial society. To that end, I see our multiracialism not just as a constant work in progress, but a glass that is half full, as opposed to half empty. To live in peace and harmony, it is imperative everyone practises some give-and-take and accept that for multiracialism to succeed and thrive, we must move forward with a live and let live attitude with respect to our racial and religious differences.
On this note, I would like to acknowledge the real and optical comfort the presence of members of the Inter-Religious Organisation (IRO) have communicated to many Singaporeans when they appear at various events. The Government should look at how the good work of the IRO can be further enhanced and communicated in newer ways to better reach out to the next generation of Singaporeans and represent the common grounds Singaporeans must cherish and protect.
To conclude, Mr Speaker, for tolerance to flourish, we must take the initiative as Singaporeans to learn more about and increase our knowledge and understanding of one another's faiths and practices. This process must come from the bottom up, from within each Singaporean, and it is just as important as any movement to prepare Singapore for a terrorist attack. In doing so, we will unwittingly but crucially facilitate a deeper and more respectful understanding of one another and, by extension, strengthen our social bonds and the quality of our multiracialism. Such an outcome will not only serve to inoculate Singapore against the negative fallout of a terrorist attack, it will represent the sort of society we strive to be and determine the Singapore we wish to leave behind for our children and our children's children.
Mr Speaker: Ms Sun Xueling.
Ms Sun Xueling (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Mr Speaker, I was at Gardens by the Bay. I marvelled at the boldness and imagination to create giant man-made trees in the middle of the city and to create a wonderful garden where plants of various species could be housed, tended to with great care to let them flourish. I recall that when plans for the Gardens were first unveiled, I had thought how unreal it was. But now, when I see the happy faces of families and visitors there, I have no doubt that the endeavour has paid off.
It occurred to me that what we have in Singapore is somewhat similar to our Gardens by the Bay. With boldness and imagination, we had economically transformed Singapore and, with the ideals of a multiracial and multicultural society in mind, we created social policies to bring about equal opportunities for our citizens regardless of race, language or religion to flourish and co-exist peacefully together. Our diverse cultures are like the diverse exotic flowers at Gardens by the Bay.
There is nothing preordained about our economic transformation. We created what we did not have. Land was reclaimed to build more housing and specialised industries, technology to recycle and desalinate water. And we attracted investments to create jobs we otherwise did not have. Similarly, there is nothing preordained about the social harmony among our citizens of different races and different religions. According to a Pew Research Center study released in 2014, Singapore is the most religiously diverse country in the world, compared to the 233 territories and countries studied. As the incident in Charlottesville, US, and in the Rakhine province of Myanmar and in various suburbs in France show us so vividly, in countries where there are racially and religiously diverse populations, when interracial or interreligious issues are not handled well, there can be bloodshed and chaos in society.
Our Government has taken a practical and unbiased look at what drives communities. While nurturing each community, our Government is cognisant of what outcomes may naturally arise, given inherent preferences and motivations, and takes actions through social policies to ensure that the delicate balance among different communities is maintained and trust built.
For instance, our towns are multiracial from the onset by deliberate design through our EIP. In Punggol recently, I welcomed three religious organisations to my constituency. Recognising the need to have places of worship to serve their respective communities, the mosque, temple and church each set up their places of worship in Punggol, a new town. They are located within 500 metres of one another. They each serve their congregants but they are close enough to one another for their congregants to see one another and to know one another if they make the effort to do so.
Would it have happened naturally if the Government had not put it into the town plans? It is natural for members of a community to want to group together. This is instinctive and understandable. But there could be downsides as communities can end up being segregated. So, while providing spaces for communities to practise their ways of life and religious worship, social policies have also been needed to create more common space through town planning in this case to bring communities closer together.
As individuals and as communities, we also can, through our own efforts, reach out to build bridges across communities. But we also need a system to support individual and community effort to nurture, guide and also protect. In this example, town planning provided a conducive environment for congregants of different religions to get to know one another. Grassroots organisations then proactively reached out to all three religious organisations to do good for the community together.
Does the Government's practical and realist approach make the policies any less aspirational? Like our young, we all wish for a progressive and equal society. But just wishing for it will not make it a reality. Recognising human nature, natural tendencies, objectively distinguishing causes from outcomes, and then taking action, step by step, to strengthen and protect what has been created may bring us closer to realising the ideals our nation aspires to.
Recently, we have seen growing religious extremism in many countries around the world which heightens tensions and differences among communities. Local grievances and regional conflicts provide a rallying cause, which charismatic preachers can leverage on. Racial and religious fault lines are fertile ground for domestic political exploitation.
Singapore is not immune to these factors. Extremist ideologies are also finding their way to our shores via online platforms, carrying persuasive but dangerous messages. Such influences accentuate differences, create walls among different communities and isolate groups. How do we address this? Is it by looking at the social harmony we currently enjoy and assuming that all is well? Or is it to continue investing in multiracialism so that it becomes the best socio-weapon against threats to the cohesion of our society?
We have to be careful not to be lulled into just saying the pretty words by not wanting to point out realities which may be inconvenient. In Hokkien, they say, \"Mai zou pai nang\", that is, \"do not be the bad person\", and allude to higher aspirations of multiracialism while leaving the work to others to do, and offer no practical solutions. Because if we all do that, then, we may inadvertently dismantle what has brought us here and discourage those who have contributed and are still contributing to our social harmony.
Our local religious organisations are mostly members of our IRCCs, volunteers who make up our RRG, and religious leaders who have pushed for the Asatizah Recognition Scheme to be made compulsory. Was it an ideology that the Minister Mentor had asked rhetorically in Parliament as recently as in 2009 over a debate on our founding tenets of multiracialism and multiculturalism? No, it is an aspiration, he remarked in return. Will we achieve it, he asked again. \"I do not know,\" the Minister Mentor said, \"We have to keep on trying\".
We have to, so that our people, regardless of race, language or religion, can flourish in our unique garden city where there is always sufficient nutrition for everyone. Perhaps, individual care unique to their backgrounds, but always safe where no weeds can harm them. Our garden will be more beautiful and a greater wonder to all through its diversity. Mr Speaker, I would like to now continue in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Last month, I attended a very special event. It was proposed by the Punggol grassroots organisation, organised by the Al Islah Mosque, and attended by the local Catholic church and Buddhist temple. They did charity work together by delivering daily necessities to the residents and giving blessings. The theme of this event was \"Blessing in Harmony\". The decision to do this was jointly made by the three religious organisations, because they felt they shared a common cause.
I remember we came up to one flat with a cross hanging on its door. We naturally turned to the Catholic priest who then went up to knock on the door. A Chinese lady opened the door. She was Catholic but she can only speak dialect. The priest, however, can only speak in English. They made many gestures and tried to communicate but still failed. Luckily, there were people from the temple and the grassroots organisation who could speak dialects. They stepped forward to help with the interpretation. Both the priest and the lady were very happy, and we were also very happy seeing that.
I was touched. I think perhaps this scene can only be seen in Singapore. Here, the distance between the different religions and races can be very small. Although we are different, we can still support one another and be inclusive.
Integration does not mean homogenisation. We are not looking for uniformity. However, we can respect and accommodate one another.
Mr Lee Kuan Yew once said: \"I do not expect the Government to assimilate everyone. I will not even try because that would be a meaningless attempt. …However, I would say integration is possible. Our integration is based on shared values, attitudes, language and, ultimately, a common culture.\"
We look forward to what Mr Lee had envisioned. We also need to act. We know that religious and racial harmony does not come out of the blue. Instead, it needs to be nurtured by our efforts, bit by bit.
Biologists say that living beings have a natural tendency to protect genes similar to themselves. Human beings also have a natural tendency to prefer one's own race. If this natural tendency is not developed properly, racial divide will occur, and racial divide is the beginning of ethnic confrontation and conflict.
The US has always been troubled by the race issue. The racial conflict in Virginia in August this year resulted in three deaths and dozens injured. If we take a look at the deeper issue, we can see that the long-time separation between the whites and the blacks has sowed the seeds for racial confrontation. Ethnic issues in other parts of the world are roughly the same. Separation creates misunderstanding, misunderstanding leads to confrontation, and confrontation leads to bloodshed.
The solution is to bring the distance closer.
The Singapore Government has been bringing the distance closer all these years. For example, EIP allows residents of different races to live together. Another example is to implement English education but, at the same time, keeping the mother tongue. This enables various races to communicate better and avoid misunderstanding and estrangement.
Racial harmony is not the work of the Government alone. In fact, we can all play a part. As long as we can take a small step forward when dealing with Singaporeans of different races and religions, show respect and understanding, we will then generate positive energies.
Just like during the Al Islah event, people from the temple and the grassroots organisation take a small step forward to help people from other religions and races. This one small step can change a lot.
Human beings also have another natural instinct, and that is love and tolerance. Love and tolerance allow us to love and help one another beyond race, religion and border. Love and tolerance are not just a slogan. It must be reflected in our actions. From the interreligious and interracial event which our local mosque has organised, we see love and tolerance.
Singapore's Malay/Muslim organisations have been playing an important role in preventing extremism and promoting racial harmony. For example, recently, leaders from the local Muslim community urged that the accreditation of asatizahs be made compulsory. Against the background that overseas terrorist organisations are spreading extremist thoughts, this initiative is very timely and will help guide local Muslims in the right direction. In addition, the RRG has also made active contributions to preventing extremism. The step taken by the local Muslim community has prevented social divide and made the distance between people smaller.
In order to maintain Singapore's racial harmony, we must act and continue to improve our system, so that we can create a common space among different religions and races. Let us work hand in hand and do good together.
When everyone takes one small step forward, the distance between us will become smaller. We will be more united, and we will be safer, too. Racial harmony begins from each one of us. A small step from one person will be a big step for the society towards social harmony. This is my aspiration. Let us work together!
Mr Speaker: Mr Faisal Manap.
Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, Sir, I will deliver my speech in Malay.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, I support the Motion and would like to make some suggestions towards the effort to strengthen social cohesion so that Singaporeans of all races and religions can stand strong together, with one voice, and prevent, combat and defeat the scourge of radicalism and terrorism together.
Sir, news about terror attacks have become commonplace over the past decade. It has frequently been reported that terror incidents taking place, either by certain groups or by individuals, were committed by those who have been influenced and lured by radical ideologies. Many experts who monitored and observed this situation have concluded that the scourge of terrorism and radicalism cannot be easily countered and stopped, and it is highly likely that this situation will persist in the future.
The question is, what makes a person become so influenced by radicalism until that person becomes so caught up in it and dares to commit acts of terror, killing innocent lives and destroying public property? How can someone's mind be able to accept that there is nothing wrong with committing acts of terror that are based on the justification of achieving change and justice?
Sir, we all know that the process of radicalisation usually involves the use of religious doctrines and politics to manipulate minds so that these individuals see terrorism as a way or approach that is acceptable and, in fact, some feel that it is compulsory in order to achieve an objective. This process is usually used by hardline extremists who submit to certain religious or political ideologies. Hence, the best way to counter such radical elements is by inculcating authentic religious values, knowledge that strengthens one's character and also community and national values amongst Singaporeans.
Sir, in Singapore since the early 2000s, we have seen cases of radicalism that involve Singaporeans related to the use of religious doctrine. We have seen how JI and ISIS have misused Islamic teachings to manipulate and radicalise the minds of individuals and, hence, influencing them to turn towards violence and terrorism by claiming that this is meant to uphold truth and justice.
In Singapore, preventive and rehabilitative steps have been taken and implemented to counter religious ideologies that are radical or extremist in nature. The establishment of RRG is a measure to implement educational and rehabilitative processes for individuals who are lured and influenced by radical beliefs. Local religious teachers and Islamic scholars have stepped forward, worked together and contributed their time and energy voluntarily to help rehabilitate individuals who were taken in by radical propaganda. I would like to take this opportunity to put on record the appreciation to all religious teachers as well as Islamic scholars who have worked hard, patiently and sincerely in this effort.
The introduction of the Asatizah Recognition Scheme (ARS) is another effort to ensure that religious guidance being delivered is in line with our context of Singaporeans of different backgrounds living together and, at the same time, prevent any teachings that are based on violence and radical ideologies.
Both initiatives, the RRG and ARS, showed that it is important and necessary to have efforts that inculcate fundamental and authentic religious values to counter and prevent radicalism and extremism in religion.
Sir, there is an English proverb: \"prevention is better than cure\". Prevention is a very effective way to counter the scourge of radicalism. Efforts for upstream intervention should be done by inculcating relevant knowledge to counter the wave of radicalism, a scourge that is haunting the global community.
Here, I would like to suggest that efforts to inculcate religious values at a young age should be done through the national education system. This can be done by reintroducing the Religious Knowledge (RK) subject in secondary schools.
Sir, I admit that Singapore is a secular nation and that my suggestion to reintroduce the RK subject is contrary to secular values, but I feel that this step is necessary. This is because the scourge of terrorism, globally as well as in Singapore, has shown that religious doctrine has been used to radicalise individuals. I believe that the inculcation of authentic religious teachings at a young age through the national education system is a more effective method in the effort to prevent radical religious thinking. We should be open to make slight adjustments and changes if the situation calls for it, in order to guarantee social cohesion and the prosperity of the nation.
Sir, apart from the RK subject, I would like to suggest that Psychology be introduced as a component of the science subject in secondary schools. Why Psychology? Earlier, I shared how extremists and terrorists manipulate minds in the effort to radicalise an individual. The manipulation of minds is done by planting perspectives and perceptions that are prone to accept and allow such propaganda that is presented to them. I feel that such manipulations can be countered by learning Psychology.
Psychology is a field of science pertaining to the mind and behaviour. It covers subjects like human development, social behaviour and the cognitive process, including knowledge about perceptions. A person who is equipped with knowledge of Psychology will likely be able to develop an awareness of himself or herself, as well those around him or her.
Psychology is also very relevant in the current context, not only to counter the manipulation of minds in relation to radicalism, but also for other social ills that arise from the usage of social media. We have seen many situations where conflicts arise in social media due to different perspectives and perceptions about current issues and sensitive issues. Often, it descends into insults, through the use of inappropriate words and phrases. I believe that, with a knowledge of Psychology that is obtained in school, this will enable one to have an open mind, because the person understands that it is natural for different perspectives and perceptions to exist, and we should practise mutual respect when encountering such differences. As the Malay saying goes, \"we will have dark hair, but we have different hearts\" which, in English, means, \"we can agree to disagree\".
Aside from imparting religious values and learning psychology, the inculcation of community and national values is also important. In our country, the inculcation of community and national values is done in schools through the National Education subject. This move has been applauded and has been very beneficial.
Sir, I am of the view and belief that the amalgamation of these three aspects, namely, religious values, learning Psychology, as well as community and national values, is a necessary combination in our efforts to strengthen the existing social cohesion. This is because this combination can produce individuals who possess positive characteristics who are proud of their identity as Singaporeans, and this will further enhance efforts to strengthen social cohesion in Singapore.
Mr Speaker: Mr Desmond Choo.
Mr Desmond Choo (Tampines): Mr Speaker, as a racially and religiously diverse society, Singapore has a mix of fault lines and differences that can divide people and tear our society apart. The racial riots of the past are a grim reminder of what it can be like if there is no mutual trust and understanding among different societal groups. We have developed a Singaporean approach that worked for us. Although it is not perfect, we have enjoyed decades of peace and harmony. Singapore has been fortified but not impregnable.
In late 2015, I attended a seminar called \"Celebrating Humanity, Faith and Love\". It was organised by Jamiyah Singapore, held in Soka Association in Tampines, and attended by Muslims, Buddhists, Christians, Taoists and Freethinkers. I stood at the rostrum and could not help but marvel at the miracle that we have created. A week ago, I attended the 100th Anniversary of the Sheng Hong Temple and it was well-attended by leaders of Singapore's major faiths. We are probably one of the few places in the world where this can happen regularly, celebrated widely, and perhaps even taken for granted at times. We have forged a common space where Singaporeans can practise their faiths freely. This freedom is precious. Ironically, because we are a successful example of a multicultural society, we are on the terrorist hit list.
Terrorism threatens to rip our hard-earned social fabric apart. Extremists can then lay claim that multiculturalism just does not work. The chaos and destruction from a successful terrorist attack in Singapore will drive wedges right along our fault lines. Will we unite and overcome the challenges together as one Singapore, or will we crumble and fall apart?
The ties that we have nurtured during peaceful times can hopefully endure such a test. Even though we have differences, I believe that what divides us pales in comparison to what unites us. However, this is something that we should not take for granted, especially when terrorism is almost at our doorstep. It is imperative that we strengthen our bulwark against these winds of evil.
We have certainly made much progress through our many emergency preparedness programmes. Yet, videos and posts online continue to show that unattended bags or items in public spaces were often ignored and unreported. This reminds us that we have our work cut out for us. How can we further scale our efforts, especially in schools and workplaces?
The social media is an important battleground that must be won. Social media has a critical role to play in times of crisis. It can be an agent in uniting or dividing us. I would like to ask if we can have a group of social media influencers who can be roped in as \"first responders\" on social media in times of crises. In the event of such an incident, these \"online first responders\" could be the first ones to put out their thoughts and, hence, lead discussions in a productive manner. If there are groups that try to spread falsehoods or rumours online that can confuse the public in times of chaos, these \"first responders\" could help Government agencies spread the correct messages to resolve the issue.
I will next touch on fighting hate speech and extremist thinking. Incidents in other countries have shown a growing trend of extremist thinking. We must not allow our people to be influenced by these unhealthy trends which will create fear and suspicion among different races and religions. We must not only counter these perceptions online but also in our private lives daily. It can be when a family member makes a careless remark to us, or when a friend circulates such messages through WhatsApp or other means of communication. We must stand up to such seemingly innocent but are really soft approaches of spreading division and disunity. We have a duty, both moral and national, to not participate in spreading such messages. This is our Singaporean duty.
With regard to hate speech online, the European Union (EU) has said that it wants tech giants like Facebook and Twitter to do more in cracking down on hate speeches online by providing automatic deletion technology and other ways to prevent hate speech from being propagated online. Could we also look into whether we will call for the same provisions from such companies? While Singapore has laws to curb hate speech, such legislation may not be the only or the best way to deal with such matters.
The safety and security that we have enjoyed for many decades are not something that came about by chance, but it is a result of hard work over a long period of time. The Government's strong and consistent enforcement of the law, a dedicated and capable Home Team and SAF, and the forward-looking social policies have kept terrorism at bay. We have been fortunate thus far to be spared from terrorist attacks. The threat is real and we must all play our part in being vigilant in our daily lives. I support the Motion.
Mr Speaker: Ms Thanaletchimi.
Ms K Thanaletchimi (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, for more than five decades, Singapore has created a multiracial and multi-religious society not by chance but by choice, delicately balancing meritocracy with multiracialism. Since young, through education, every Singaporean has been continuously reminded that the peace and stability that we enjoy should not be taken for granted. Today, we often hear the word, \"terrorism\", both offline and online. There are a number of incidences, including the recent attacks in London, reminding everyone that there is a need not only to be vigilant but also a pertinent need to be resilient.
I welcome the SGSecure initiative. It is vital for all of us to look out for security threats and to know how to respond to such threats. We should acknowledge that terrorism is not far away and it can come to Singapore in both physical and psychological forms. We should not think of it as \"if it happens\", that is, if terrorism comes to Singapore, but rather think of it as \"when it happens\", what do we do? Are we prepared to confront it or hide behind the veil of fear and trepidation?
Our Singapore workforce constituents comprise a combination of local and migrant workers. Hence, it is not only important to inculcate the value of multiracialism and multiculturalism among Singaporeans, but also to the migrant workers from various countries.
In the case of the healthcare industry, other than the Singaporean Core, the industry is supplemented by migrant workers from the Philippines, Myanmar, China, India and many other countries. With such diversity in the workplace, it is pertinent to place emphasis on workplace integration and management of diversity. There should be platforms for the employees to understand the local culture, and this should be an integral part of the organisation, such as during employee orientation.
For example, I would like to quote some positive examples from Khoo Teck Puat Hospital. As the President of Healthcare Services Employees' Union (HSEU), I have attended as an invited guest to their festive celebrations, such as Chinese New Year, Hari Raya Puasa, Deepavali, to mention a few. I am so heartened and impressed by the efforts put in by the management of all levels, including doctors, to integrate their staff from various cultural backgrounds. It is strongly supported by the Chief Executive Officer and the Senior Management staff. The event is designed in a manner that the audience understands the rationale as well as the practices of each culture. The entire event, including the emcees and performers, are employees of Khoo Teck Puat Hospital. The organisers, who are employees themselves, take a deep interest in trying to understand the cultural practices and translate them into easily comprehensible acts or performance to the audience, that is, their diverse employees.
For instance, during the period of Ramadan, non-Muslim employees were encouraged to fast for one day so that they can participate in the fasting process with their Muslim colleagues and, at the same time, understand the reasons for doing so. In this case, it is beyond theory but also in action, showing the unique practices of each culture. In fact, at this year's Hari Raya Puasa celebration at Khoo Teck Puat Hospital, our hon Parliamentary Secretary, Mr Amrin Amin, was the special guest at the event. He can concur that the kind of enthusiasm, high spirit and atmosphere of gotong royong amongst the staff of all races and nationalities dressed up in the traditional Malay outfits were, indeed, highly commendable.
The above example is an illustration of how organisations can weave in the workplace integration efforts as part of their staff inclusiveness in the social setting. In fact, I fully support the launch of the Community Integration Fund by the National Integration Council in September 2009 to support organisations in implementing ground-up integration initiatives. I urge that more organisations should step forward to tap on this fund, not only to lessen the financial burden of these events' costs but, essentially, with the altruistic objective of promoting inclusivity and social well-being amongst employees. In addition, I personally feel that the organisers need to put in dedicated time to design the programme in a style that the audience can capture the essence of workplace integration and harmony.
As we go through the major economic transformation, it is vital that we focus on both the hardware and the heartware so that our social fabrics at workplaces are strengthened. Similar to how we treat health and safety as an important value and culture at our workplaces, likewise, workplace integration and harmony must be regarded and treated with equal importance for Singapore's progress, not only in today's global climate, but also for tomorrow.
While we place great emphasis on workplace integration and inclusion, it is of paramount importance that we always stay guarded against the potential threat that confronts us, be it in the community or at the workplaces, and be better prepared to confront the threat and overcome the fear. Companies must be better prepared with contingency plans or business continuity plans in the event of being succumbed to terrorist acts. The employees must be trained to be conscious of their surroundings and be better prepared to identify potential dangers, such as strange behaviours of their fellow employees or strangers loitering at the workplace. There must be an independent channel for staff to raise alert should there be a likelihood of threat, and that companies must be willing and be prepared to deal with such alerts.
Workplaces must continue to maintain harmony, and it is the corporate social responsibility of every employer to do so. In the event such threats should happen despite much vigilance, companies must have the means to deal with the recovery to attain the normalcy state swiftly. For this, it is crucial for companies to have professionals who could better address the psychology of employees who are affected. Incidences at workplaces should not divide a society or stigmatise people based on race, religion or nationality. We need to preserve harmony and industrial peace, as societal disruption is a perfect recipe for a country's downfall.
Therefore, I would urge the Government to encourage and, where required, mandate the following to prepare workplaces better to confront terrorism.
First, regardless of multinational companies (MNCs) or small and medium enterprises (SMEs), companies should be urged to perform SG Secure drills or at least tabletop exercises minimally once a year. Companies must be well-connected and work with various Government agencies, such as the Singapore Civil Defence Force, Home Team, as well as healthcare institutions at a geographical cluster level.
Second, companies must be encouraged through tax rebates or incentives to set up mental wellness or mental health counselling sessions for employees who are undergoing stress, depression or psychological challenges. The availability of professionals, such as psychotherapists, psychologists and professional counsellors, will certainly be of great help in identifying individuals who are much affected, both mentally and behaviourally, so that early intervention will certainly defuse potential explosive threats from taking place. It will also prevent such vulnerable individuals from being preyed upon by terrorist cells.
Third, we must ensure that workplaces are better prepared to provide first-aid or first line rescue, such as cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), and be equipped with automated external defibrillator (AED) devices. When incidents happen, the workers have only themselves to help one another until rescue comes. Companies must invest in this effort to train their employees for the possible eventuality. Companies should also encourage their employees to support blood donation and be prepared to do so when called upon.
Lastly, the relevant Ministry to continue to promote workplace integration and the use of the available funds for companies to establish a framework that includes sustainable diversity management programmes and promote the establishment of \"Diversity Ambassadors\" to ensure unity in diversity and to propagate the message of workplace integration and workplace harmony. The unions in the unionised companies can partner this effort.
Mr Speaker, Sir, in conclusion, I would like to commend the Government for its effort to bring about SGSecure and its resolve to make it pervasive both in the community and at the workplaces. The challenge is to sustain the effort and, essentially, to remind ourselves that the threat is constant and psychological preparedness is key. With this, I support the Motion.
Mr Speaker: Mr Alex Yam.
Mr Alex Yam (Marsiling-Yew Tee): Mr Speaker, Sir, terror has many faces, many names and many causes. It has no nationality, race, religion, language nor gender. Terror has been around for many centuries. But perhaps none has been more potent or devastating than those who have espoused their warped cause, falsely and illegitimately, in the name of religion in recent times. Yet, we must make an important distinction. Terrorism cannot claim to represent any particular religion, it has nothing to do with religion, it is plain and simply born out of warped human fundamentalism.
Islam, like all mainstream religions, is a religion of peace. Yet, various groups like Al-Qaeda, ISIS, all claim the right to inflict wrongs and inflict it on their Muslim brothers and sisters and establish an Islamic Caliphate, which they promise will be heaven on earth, but it is more like hell.
Mr Speaker, I am not a Muslim myself and I do not claim to be a subject matter expert. But from what I have read and learnt from my Muslim friends, Islam does not support terrorism. Islam calls upon Muslims to submit to the will of God. Yet, terrorists have misappropriated the words of the Quran for their own agenda. Their actions are completely at odds with the message contained in the Quran.
Fundamentalism, therefore, has no place in our present world. Adherence to a strict, literal interpretation of scripture does more harm than good to mankind. And just because we can pick and choose and memorise particular verses from the Quran, the Bible, the Torah and any other religious text does not make us religious at all. Religion, in fact, provides all of us with a pathway to be better human beings. Fundamentalism, on the other hand, leads one towards the corruption of the human soul.
In the Friday sermon on 29 September at all mosques in Singapore, MUIS did the right thing by explaining that verses contained in the Quran should not be tweaked for convenience and for setting of an alternative agenda. This is a very apt reminder under the present circumstances where a Singaporean, reported to have been recruited by ISIS, is misleading Muslims in Singapore and in the region with false statements to follow his path of terror. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, they say. This terrorist, who was neither religiously inclined nor formally trained, was infused with deviant thoughts and teachings while in the Middle East. But, if we consider this very carefully, he is but one of the many Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Buddhist or Hindu youths who are now being influenced by deviant teachings widely available on social media and the Dark Web.
It is, therefore, incumbent upon all Singaporeans to be on a look-out to report family members, friends and individuals who display signs of having been radicalised in their thoughts and actions. They will be doing not only themselves and our nation a favour but also the affected individuals as well.
Betterment of society is the key word and I am glad that MUIS, in the same sermon on 29 September, preached that Muslims will continue to contribute to the prosperity and development of the community that they are living in.
Singapore is blessed that it has enlightened Muslim leaders who are in sync with the larger good of the community. Their enlightened and progressive approach to many issues, such as organ donations, the Milk Bank, cord blood donations, only serves to strengthen our social fabric.
Keeping Muslims informed and ensuring that their need for proper and religious knowledge is not compromised as well, MUIS introduced the ARS last year. To this end, registering religious teachers to ensure proper qualifications and training, and within the context of our multiracial and multi-religious society, is a welcome move. One can only imagine the havoc that can be created by self-serving rouge teachers.
The ARS' emphasis on contextualising around a multiracial and multi-religious societal core is also an important development. I hope that other religious communities in Singapore would also be able to mould their own religious teachings in the same way. Ultimately, deviant teachings serve two purposes: to turn the follower against the world and the world against the followers. Feeding the cycle of hate and fundamentalism only makes the world a far more restive and tense place, where every action can spark the tinder box of suspicion and violence.
Mr Speaker, Sir, multiracial and multi-religious Singapore was a hard-fought prize that is to be treasured by all Singaporeans. But even after more than 50 years of nationhood, this is still fragile. This calls for all of us to think very hard. The Prime Minister, in his recent Kopi Talk, highlights this concern aptly.
The social cohesion and racial harmony that we are enjoying now are not a given. It needs nurturing; it needs tender loving care because harmony, Mr Speaker, Sir, is not a luxury for Singapore. It is an absolute necessity for our very existence as a nation, as a people. So, how do we go about nurturing racial harmony among Singaporeans? By getting them more involved and interacting with Singaporeans of all races and religions. Schools could take a greater lead in this by encouraging students to interact with students of other races not just on the surface, but more in-depth and an understanding of the cultures and traditions and what motivates them. This really needs to start at a young age.
Our leaders have also been emphasising Singapore's potential as a prime target for terrorists. We talk about \"when\", not \"if\". Minister Shanmugam's recent statement that there is still some way to go for terror preparedness among Singaporeans is also worrying.
The SGSecure movement is already a year old. Yet, a recent Sunday Times poll shows that four in five Singaporeans are not prepared for the eventuality of a terror attack. Preparation for any eventuality has been a way of life for Singapore. A good example of this is our concept of Total Defence. It focuses on five key areas − military, civil, economic, social and psychological. Many of my fellow hon Members have mentioned different aspects of this. So, these five key areas have stood us in good stead over the years but how prepared will we be for the actual event, when it happens? How strong will be our social fabric? So, we need to focus also a lot on psychological preparedness which needs a lot of work.
We talk about unity in diversity in Singapore. It sounds very nice, warm and fuzzy but, in reality, it is a concept that needs lots of practice to make perfect. We have to admit that even in Singapore, casual and sometimes even overt racism is still an ugly fact. Religious chauvinism is also becoming part of our landscape, yet this is often hidden away in the relative safety of inner sanctums. It is these that we must be weary of. It is quite one thing to be proud of what you believe in and quite another to use that pride to deride another's beliefs. Casual racism and religious chauvinism are just one step shy of hate speech.
For many of us in this Chamber, as members of the majority race, it may seem hard to comprehend. Some people have asked me why I have constantly worn a lapel pin of the Singapore flag. I have done this since I was in university. I studied in the United Kingdom (UK) and it was in the university overseas that, for the first time, I was not the majority race. It was also the first time I experienced what it meant to be a minority. It was not violent, it was not always in your face, but it was always there lurking.
Regardless of my actual surname, to many of the shopkeepers in town, I was a Ching, Chang and Chong and they never did it with any sort of malice, it was always with a smile. It almost seemed normal to them.
Regardless of my actual nationality, I have been called a communist from the mainland or a boat boy from Saigon. And regardless of my faith, I was a papist practising popery in the Anglican heartland. Again, none of this was in your face, but it was always there. People spoke about you. It was always slightly percolating beneath the surface. I found comfort in the community in church but I did not retreat away.
To be honest, I was angry when I first experienced this, but I was encouraged to do something positive about it. And so, I ran for the Students Union as the Ethnic Minorities Officer, won the seat and then served on the Chaplaincy reaching out to other minorities. And because of those experiences, I also started wearing the flag as a visible sign to others and also a reminder to myself.
Today, back here, in Singapore, I belong to the majority race. I still wear the flag as a reminder that there is much work for us to do. How do our brother and sister Singaporeans from minority races cope because I am sure they faced the same difficulties I did overseas and, perhaps, even to a deeper level because it is not violent, it is not always in your face. It is not always apparent but it is there.
I have also discovered that the worst that we can do is to retreat into our own false security of our small racial and religious circles. Because it is only when we reach out that we can reach in to strengthen our own identities. We can have pride in who we are, but it is in the sharing and learning of others' cultures and practices that we can fully appreciate our very own. The strength of our own conviction should not come from the denigrating of another's.
Mr Speaker, we have come a long way as a nation, a nation that almost should not exist in some people's books. Yet, we do and we thrive. But we must not pay lip service to the harmony that we enjoy, our multiculturalism and multiracialism, because terror can strike at any point. We are buffeted on all sides by deviant thoughts, we are drawn towards the seductive call of separatism, of living apart from others. But I also see in Singapore a horizon filled with bright lights. If only we work hard at it.
While our very existence as an oasis of harmony is also the reason for us to be targets but it is also our harmony that will bind us closer together should something happen because we are Singapore. As One People United, we can weather any storm. So, Mr Speaker, Sir, I support this Motion wholeheartedly and I pledge to do my own small part so that all of us can stay united against any threat.
Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Daniel Goh.
Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, this is an important Motion that touches upon the state of foundation of our nation. Multiracialism is the bedrock for our nation. When we were trying to get out of the colonial mess of divide and rule, using race to split the people in Malaya, our founding patriots in the 1950s pledged on unconditional multiracialism to bring peace and security to our land. The image of \"Merdeka\" that is burned into my mind is the image of the four main races linking arms in solidarity and marching forward.
More than anyone else, the late S Rajaratnam had been the one who defined our foundational multiracialism in the 1960s. He saw the four main races of our nation as four independent circles brought together by history, now overlapping in terms of social bonds, cultural practices and political and economic interests, creating a common space in the middle of the overlap that could be called truly and uniquely Singaporean. The task of our multiracial nation-building was to keep working at enlarging that common space.
In the 1980s, because society was becoming very individualistic and uneven competition was leading to some groups being left behind in education and employment, the emphasis shifted to bolstering community bonds and identities. Self-help groups, namely, the Council for the Development of the Singapore Malay/Muslim Community (Yayasan MENDAKI), the Chinese Development Assistance Council (CDAC) and the Singapore Indian Development Association (SINDA), and later the Eurasian Association, were founded. Cultural preservation became a key thrust. The consciousness and appreciation of our cultural heritage was promoted.
Then, in the 2000s, there was another shift. One speech that I like to quote in my own academic papers is that of Minister of Community Development and Sports Yaacob Ibrahim's speech at the Wee Kim Wee Seminar on cross-cultural understanding. In that speech, he mapped out what he saw as the third phase of the evolution of our multiracialism. He called this phase, multiculturalism. Multiculturalism is about mutual respect and understanding. It is also more than mutual respect. Multiculturalism is also about us Singaporeans adopting and modifying cultural values and practices from one another so that we become more like one another and yet, still diverse.
Minister Yaacob used food examples, of course. He said, \"When a Malay colleague of mine invited me to his home to have a steamboat dinner, my understanding of what it means to be Malay in Singapore had to be updated. When I visit Komala Vilas with my family and tuck into the vegetarian food, the crowd there is truly varied and Singaporean.\"
This 2003 speech on multiculturalism is important, given the historical context. It came in the wake of the 9/11 attacks in New York and the arrest of the JI members in Singapore.
Multiculturalism signalled to Singaporeans and the world we would not adopt reactionary approaches that could lead to backlash, we would not stigmatise any particular community and turn neighbours on neighbours with suspicion and phobia. Instead, we would fortify our multiracialism foundations to promote inclusivity, harmony and cross-cultural dialogue. The IRCCs were founded then as a significant innovation to build trust across communities, to invest in social capital development through dialogue and friendship, so as to be ready for any adverse event threatening our cohesion.
The situation is not too different today, except that terror is now cellular and social mediatised, harder to detect and more unpredictable. It is tempting to turn the institutions and social capital Singaporeans have built up into security instruments to counter terrorism. But I would like to sound a warning. We should not weaponise multiracialism. Multiracialism is our foundation and we do not rip up our foundation to build defensive walls. Multiracialism gives us the firm ground for us to stand and fight extremist threats to our nation; we do not tear up our ground to use as stones.
A weaponised multiracialism is a double-edged sword. It will heighten racial thinking and we will risk unintended consequences. A weaponised multiracialism will not only hold back progress to our post-racial aspiration. It can also turn xenophobic and be used against the many migrant communities and cultures that have come to our shores.
A weaponised multiracialism can cause race consciousness to feed on itself, leading people to judge one another on the basis of race, making us ask one another and ourselves: what makes a Chinese-Singaporean Chinese, whether a Malay-Singaporean is Malay enough, when an Indian-Singaporean is acceptable as family and leader?
Indeed, we need to strengthen our foundation and invest in multiracialism. But how? There is much to learn from the past, even as we celebrate the present and prepare for the future. Returning to the 2003 speech by Minister Yaacob, we should start to think about the next phase of evolution of our multiracialism. We need to build on the inclusive multiculturalism that was adopted in the 2000s to deepen it. As Minister Yaacob said in 2003, the evolution did not happen by design but by choice. We have to be careful not to over-engineer the evolution, or we cause multiracialism to become irrelevant or, worse, cause people to lose faith in multiracialism. We have to look at the choices we have now on the ground.
So, what choices do we have on the ground? What choices are being made by our grassroots multiracial institutions on the ground? There are three examples I would like to highlight. The first is the growth in the number of collaborative tuition centres operated by the four self-help groups to help students of all races, which is an acceleration of the collaborative tuition programme started in 2002.
The second is the Ministry of Education's (MOE's) strategic partnership with the four self-help groups to operate 30 student care centres for students of all races which was announced in August 2015.
The third is the recent initiative by the four groups to set up the pilot self-help group centre in January next year to run race-neutral workshops and enrichment programmes to cater to everyone.
The name \"self-help group centre\" is actually an oxymoron. The centre will become a mutual support centre, where Singaporeans of different races seek to help one another to overcome their difficulties in life. It is no longer communal self-help as we know it. It is mutual support. The self-help groups are fast becoming mutual help groups. This captures the movement on the ground, the choices that Singaporeans, originally caught up in their orientation towards their own community, are making. Singaporeans are choosing to forge trans-racial ties, that is, creating social bonds that transcend racial identities. And Singaporeans are choosing to engage in intercultural exchange and, that is, doing cultural practices across ethnic lines. Multiculturalism is becoming interculturalism.
In this respect, I would like to suggest that the Government could help to catalyse these trans-racial, intercultural collaborations by providing three things: one, space, funds and administrative support; two, special cohesion grants; and three, synergies in the public education sector.
First, space, funds and administrative support. When I read about the self-help group centres in the news recently, I was thrilled. This initiative converges with the Workers' Party General Election (GE) 2015 manifesto proposal to set up multicultural help centres to house the race-based self-help groups, so as to provide mutual help and educational support to all underprivileged children in every town. The setting up of multicultural help centres in all Community Hubs would be more beneficial to the Singaporeans needing help than to rent out public grassroots spaces to private tuition centres.
Our proposal also goes further to call for the IRCCs to be enhanced to operate as programme providers at the multicultural help centres. We also proposed a coordinating secretariat be set up within the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth (MCCY) to help oversee the work of the centres. This coordinating secretariat could transform Community Development Councils (CDCs) into regional offices for multicultural programme resources and services. This would greatly extend the impact and reach of the inclusive and collaborative multiculturalism being pioneered by the self-help groups.
Second, special cohesion grants. One of the problems that groups promoting collaborative multiculturalism face is the lack of knowledge of innovative methodologies for cross-cultural exchanges. Another problem is the lack of knowledge of content materials, such as best practices and case studies of successful cross-cultural collaborations to solve community problems, that could be used for the workshops and enrichment programmes. Cultural studies is an important field of study that would increase the capacity of the self-help groups to collaborate with one another, but cultural studies is still an underdeveloped academic field in Singapore. The Government could step in to provide special cohesion grants to fund collaborative mutual learning trips and cultural studies research projects involving collaboration between the universities and the social sector.
Third, synergies in the public education sector. One of the reasons for the success of multiculturalism in diverse, migrant societies is the emphasis on multicultural practices and pedagogy in schools. Teachers are the frontline officers in this effort. They could inspire students to multicultural values or cause cynicism reinforcing racial thinking. National education programmes can only do so much with its content-rich approach. Teachers are the real-life role models for students. Teachers should receive special training in multicultural pedagogy so that they can better engage students from different backgrounds and bring together them for effective cross-cultural interactions. Schools can also work closely with self-help groups in their multicultural help centres, so that multicultural practices would not be limited to performances and food but involve real-time collaboration to tackle real-life issues.
Mr Speaker, Sir, 15 years ago, the Government recognised the evolution of multiracialism to multiculturalism, the third phase in our march forward to becoming a strong and united nation. We have built up important institutions and a rich cache of social capital since. Today, as we confront extremism, as we always have, I hope the Government will resist the temptation to weaponise multiracialism as instruments to counter terror. Multiracialism is only effective for countering extremism when it is not treated as a measure and means to counter extremism, but respected as an end in itself, the good that defines the essence of who we are as Singaporeans.
We need to look to the ground to see the features of the next phase of evolution of our multiracialism. Interculturalism appears to be the coming fourth phase and the Government would do well to facilitate its development. Deepen the trans-racial collaboration and intercultural interactions, and we would be one step closer to our post-racial aspirations.
Mr Speaker: Minister Yaacob Ibrahim.
The Minister for Communications and Information and Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs (Assoc Prof Dr Yaacob Ibrahim): Mr Speaker, societies around the world face serious threats from ideologies that profess faith but preach hate and violence. Extremism in the name of religion and race has brought fear and death in its wake.
But just as dangerous are exclusivist beliefs and segregationist practices that result in communities not only staying apart from one another but making no effort to understand one another. These are societies in which the views of one community about the other are informed only by stereotype or prejudice. On the surface, all may appear calm and peaceful, sometimes for years. But when groups segregate themselves from others, social harmony is easily lost and hard to recover. So, when a crisis hits, when a terrorist attacks, or when times are tough, such societies can fall apart.
The extremism of ISIS has also spawned another monster, that of Islamophobia, in the West. Far-right groups in the West are gaining political ground by openly campaigning against Muslims. A few prominent religious leaders in the US have openly accused Islam of being a religion of violence.
So, Singapore is faced with a triple threat of extremist and radical ideology, segregationist beliefs and practices, and Islamophobia. All of us, regardless of race or religion, must squarely face and defeat this trifecta of disunity and not let it take root in Singapore. As a country founded on multiracialism where all races live together in mutual respect and equality, this is a threat to our very existence as a nation.
As a minority in a plural society, our Malay/Muslim community and its leaders are acutely aware of the challenges. Racial riots defined the fears of our founding generation. Our community's Pioneers saw clearly the importance of a united and strong society, where all communities are well-integrated.
Earlier this year, during my annual Hari Raya function with community leaders, I emphasised how the Malay/Muslim community has faced evolving challenges with resolve. In the aftermath of 9/11 and the uncovering of the plot of JI members planning terror attacks in the region and at home, there was intense scrutiny of the community. Yet, the community and our religious leaders rallied together to tackle this threat, along with the rest of Singapore society.
Over the past decade, our community has enhanced the capabilities of our religious teachers, or asatizahs, strengthened the curriculum of our madrasahs and revamped the delivery of part-time religious education to meet the needs of the community. We have the RRG, initiated and led by senior asatizahs who volunteered themselves as counsellors to help rehabilitate and reintegrate radicalised individuals. We launched the Harmony Centre@An-Nahdhah mosque in Bishan and supported inter-faith dialogues. To live out the ideals of Islam as a religion of peace, we created the Rahmatan Lil Alamin Foundation, or Blessings to All Foundation, to aid universal humanitarian causes to bring aid to Muslims and non-Muslims alike.
The emergence of ISIS-inspired ideologues and extremists and their methods of operation have magnified the challenge ahead of us. Their sophisticated use of the Internet, coinciding with the ubiquity of Internet access, influence and corrupt the impressionable and gullible. Similarly, such contents help plant the seeds of doubt and fear in non-Muslims.
The security agencies have put in tremendous efforts to safeguard our country against terrorism. They have stepped up vigilance and, in recent months, have issued detention orders to radicalised individuals who planned to travel to Syria to fight for ISIS. But beyond law and enforcement, ultimately, it is a battle for the hearts and minds of all Singaporeans, whether Muslim or non-Muslim.
The Malay/Muslim community, on our part, has stepped up efforts to address this triple threat to our social cohesion and national security. Allow me, Sir, to highlight the key thrusts of the community efforts.
One major thrust of our community efforts is to develop a corps of religious leaders and teachers who provide the community with sound guidance and who can counter dangerous ideologies.
Our asatizahs can act as a bulwark against extremist and segregationist ideologies. They play a key role in guiding our local Muslims in practising their faith in accordance with the context of a multiracial and multi-religious Singapore. Last year, reflecting on the views and concerns raised by the community, MUIS and the Singapore Islamic Scholars and Religious Teachers Association (PERGAS) decided to make ARS mandatory. This meant that all existing and aspiring asatizahs and Islamic Education Centres and Providers (IECPs) must register with the Asatizah Recognition Board, headed by MUIS and PERGAS, before they can teach Islam in Singapore. Central to the ARS status is the need for all asatizahs to abide by a Code of Ethics, which includes not denigrating any racial or religious group.
Anyone who crosses the line will be dealt with decisively. One example is Rasul bin Dahri, a Singaporean preacher who is not ARS-recognised but published books on Islamic doctrine. In June this year, his books were prohibited under the Undesirable Publications Act, as they contained extremist views under the guise of \"religious guidance\". This action, Sir, shows that we have zero tolerance for individuals and publications that promote ill-will among different groups.
To date, we have more than 3,000 ARS-registered asatizahs and Quranic teachers, as well as 174 IECPs. MUIS encourages these asatizahs to continuously upgrade themselves, under the Continuous Professional Education (CPE), and organises various training platforms, including modules on \"moderation in religion\", counselling workshops on developing engaged families and learning journeys to the RRG.
Many of our asatizahs receive their training in renowned overseas Islamic universities. MUIS, together with the Nanyang Technological University (NTU)-S Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS) Studies in Inter-Religious Relations in Plural Societies (SRP) has developed a two-week programme \"Islamic Thought in Context: Living in Plural Societies\" to familiarise returning graduates with the need to contextualise religious doctrines for Singapore.
While we have all these programmes in place, we want to do more to develop future religious teachers steeped in Islamic learning able to inculcate sound religious values that are appropriate for our unique Singapore context. So, I am glad that MUIS has started looking into the development of a Singapore Islamic College. With this, our community will be able to train a new generation of asatizahs here. At the same time, MUIS will strive to learn and adapt best practices from the best Islamic universities in the world to our local context.
Mr Speaker, Sir, developing religious leaders alone is insufficient. Effective community engagement is urgent and important. To do so, we need to tailor programmes that cater to the different segments of the community.
MUIS has strengthened its part-time religious programmes to include lessons that inoculate our youths against extremist influences. The aLIVE programme, an acronym for \"Living Islamic Values Everyday\", is an age-appropriate and interactive class for children aged nine to 16. For the working adults, MUIS has designed ADIL, or Adult Islamic Learning, which includes modules about the universal Islamic values and ethics, such as mutual respect between among communities.
To address the serious concern of online radicalisation, MUIS has started parenting seminars to advise parents on issues, such as authenticating online Islamic content and dealing with digital addiction among children and youths. MUIS has also developed and distributed an info-kit on \"Resilient Families: Safeguarding Against Radicalism\" to help parents identify tell-tale signs of a person who may be at risk of radicalisation and how parents can respond should such a situation arise.
Earlier on, Sir, I touched on the establishment of RRG in 2003 to rehabilitate radicalised individuals. RRG has, over the years, expanded its role in building social resilience. RRG has organised briefings, forums and dialogues to educate both Muslims and non-Muslims about key Islamic concepts that have been perverted by terrorists and extremist groups. RRG has also published content online to explain and debunk the fallacies of ISIS ideologies. It also offers over-the-phone counselling through its RRG helpline. RRG also launched a Resource and Counselling Centre at Khadijah Mosque in Geylang to provide training and resources to RRG counsellors, asatizahs and members of the public who are interested to do research on extremism. RRG has hosted over 1,500 visitors, ranging from foreign delegates to students and community groups.
To complement the good work of RRG, MUIS is setting up an Asatizah Youth Network (AYN). The recent arrests of radicalised Singaporeans have highlighted how family and friends could see how a loved one was becoming radicalised, but not refer these individuals for help. We have a number of our asatizahs who have a strong online presence and have youth-centric programmes that appeal to the young. We want to work with them so that they can serve as the \"first line of response\" to guide these youths seeking answers and address incipient leanings towards problematic ideologies. The more serious cases will be referred to RRG for rehabilitation.
As for the general public, from time to time, MUIS prepares Friday sermons, as Mr Alex Yam has noted, specifically to educate the community on the threats of ISIS and radical ideologies. Topics include dispelling the notion of the call for armed jihad, condemning ISIS and how it is undermining Islam, and emphasising moderation in Islam. MUIS also works with RRG in conducting pre-sermon talks covering themes, such as cyber wellness, building resilience against extremist and exclusivist ideologies, and the importance of looking out to save friends or family who may be falling under the influence of radical ideology.
Mr Speaker, Sir, what I have just shared are some of the many efforts that the Malay/Muslim community has embarked on. It has been a difficult and challenging journey for my community. As Deputy Prime Minister Tharman recently said at the NTU Majulah Lecture, \"growing up as a minority is different from growing up as a majority…never pretend that it's the same\". Sometimes, the majority does not know what it feels to be a minority community. And for the Malay/Muslim community, this sense of being misunderstood is deeply felt, having been in the spotlight for quite some time. It is not a pleasant experience when your religion and your religious orientation are under constant scrutiny. But we persevered.
When other faith communities stepped forward to lend support to our struggle, it gave us comfort that we are not in this alone. So, while Muslims have come under scrutiny in recent times, Singaporeans recognised that it is not only our community's battle, it is everyone's battle. So, I was glad, like Mr Pritam Singh, when our Singaporean Buddhist brothers recently stepped forward to lend support to Singaporean Muslims who felt a sense of anguish for the situation in Rakhine state in Myanmar. They did so, despite sharing a common faith with the majority in Myanmar.
Each and every one of us is a part of Singapore, and we are interconnected in many different ways, linked through history, living side by side in our neighbourhoods, schools, workplaces, recreational activities and, sometimes, through marriage. These connections are the social glue that binds us together as a nation.
We all sing the same national anthem and hold our right fist to our hearts when reciting the pledge. These, and many other experiences of being a Singaporean, must mean something to every one of us, especially when the going gets tough for a member of the Singaporean family. We must all work together to ensure that we preserve a cohesive Singapore society. We can defeat extremism, exclusivism and Islamophobia and other threats only if we feel for one another and do whatever we can to tackle these challenges. We require a Team Singapore approach that must become our way of life.
We must build friendships and strong bonds among different communities. With solid foundations of mutual understanding and respect, different communities will stand by and help one another. Through the good work of our community organisations, the grassroots and the IRCCs in every constituency, religious and community leaders regularly come together to network and collaborate on projects that help members of different communities work together for common causes.
Nevertheless, we need more individuals to step forward in and outside of social media to reach out to as many as possible. New media and the anonymity it lends have led to individuals denigrating other religions or sowing discord among communities over the Internet, inadvertently or otherwise. We need netizens to speak up with moral clarity against injustice and stereotypes, and those who promote hatred and intolerance.
Earlier this year, I met Noor Mastura, co-founder of Interfaith Youth Circle, who organises inter-religious dialogues and engagements in safe spaces to better understand one another's religions and traditions. Last year, I met Muzakkir Samat, who co-edited a book \"From Walden to Woodlands\", an interfaith anthology of poetry about nature in Singapore. I understand that the Nanyang Confucian Association in Singapore has organised three Chinese-language forums on \"Confucianism and Islam\" earlier this year and in June last year to raise the level of understanding of Islam in the Chinese community. The Singapore Buddhist Lodge donates rice to mosques annually before Ramadan to be cooked for the breaking of fast and distributed to needy families. Sir, I commend these efforts. We need more to step up and reach out across the boundaries of race and religion.
The Government can and must deter wrongdoing with laws, and we can support with resources and advice, but we need good people, like Noor Mastura and Muzakkir Samat, to come forward to take action and build bridges across communities. We need Singaporeans to make racial and religious harmony happen in the everyday, through the friendships that are forged in school, in the workplaces and at play, and the deeper understanding that can happen when we try to discover and appreciate a little more about beliefs and customs different from our own. It is through the sum of all these efforts that we can become a stronger, more resilient and more harmonious society. Sir, allow me to continue in the National Language.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, the global community is currently struggling with extremism that threatens our harmony and social cohesion. At the same time, we face certain groups which adopt exclusivist practices and isolate themselves, to the point that when a crisis occurs, it will result in divisions within society. The extremist influence spread by ISIS has also resulted in Islamophobia which points to Islam as a religion that propagates violence. We, in Singapore, are not immune to such threats. As a small country that is multi-religious and multiracial in nature, we have no choice other than to strengthen our country's resilience.
As a minority in Singapore's plural society, the Malay/Muslim community and its leaders have always steadfastly upheld the principle of solidarity where all communities integrate well. The dark chapter in our history, when racial riots took place prior to Singapore's Independence, was a lesson for our Pioneer leaders. When we were tested with the 9/11 incident and the terrorist plot by JI in this region, including Singapore, our religious leaders and community stood together with the rest of Singapore to overcome those challenges.
Now, the influence of ISIS has created new threats, especially through the manipulative use of social media to influence Muslims, and also to sow fear and suspicion in non-Muslims. Although security agencies have enhanced enforcement measures, this is not enough. Every Singaporean, whether Muslim or non-Muslim, has a role to ensure that terrorist ideologies do not spread here.
Over the past few years, the Malay/Muslim community has enhanced efforts to contribute towards Singapore's resilience, especially in two areas of strengthening religious leadership and forging a more comprehensive community engagement. In the effort to strengthen religious leadership, it is important that our religious teachers are empowered to guide the community in practising religious teachings that are appropriate to our context of multiracial and multi-religious life in Singapore.
Earlier this year, ARS was made mandatory, and all asatizahs who wish to teach here must register themselves and abide by the ARS' Code of Ethics. Currently, MUIS is working hard to establish an Islamic College in Singapore in order to produce even more religious teachers who can support this objective.
In addition, we are also increasing efforts to enhance community engagement through programmes that are appropriate for all ages. Apart from further improving the quality of part-time religious programmes, MUIS has reached out to parents so that they are more aware when they evaluate religious content and cyber addiction in their children. In fact, other organisations also play a role to counter terrorism. For instance, RRG has done a lot to engage Muslims and non-Muslims through community programmes as well as by providing information online. To complement RRG's efforts, MUIS is forming a network of asatizahs and youth groups so that they will become the first line of response for young people who are seeking answers about religion and those at risk of being influenced by dangerous ideologies.
Mr Speaker, the Malay/Muslim community cannot act alone in the effort to counter extremist ideologies and terrorist influences. We must work together with the Government and all Singaporeans to defeat the triple threats of extremism, exclusivism and Islamophobia. This effort must continue in order to further strengthen understanding and mutual respect among all races and appreciate our differences. The biggest victory is when we stay united in the face of any challenges. More individuals should step forward, whether online or in the real world, to fight prejudice and intolerance towards one another. Only by doing so can we progress towards a stronger, more resilient and more harmonious society.
Please allow me to conclude in English.
(In English): Mr Speaker, Sir, we should take heart in what we have achieved so far. If we stand together as one, we will keep Singapore, our home, safe and secure for all of us and for the generations to come. So, let us continue helping one another, reaching out to one another, and be a blessing to everyone around us. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Motion. [Applause]
Mr Speaker: Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 4.35 pm.
Sitting accordingly suspended
at 4.15 pm until 4.35 pm.
Sitting resumed at 4.35 pm
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]
(Motion)
[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]
Mr Liang Eng Hwa (Holland-Bukit Timah):\tMr Speaker, in Mandarin, please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I would like to thank Mr de Souza for this Motion to call for Singaporeans to stay firm and fight the threat of terrorism together.
The current threat level is at the highest and our security forces are staying vigilant all the time to prevent terror attacks from happening in Singapore. However, terror attacks in other countries have become unpredictable, like the many lone-wolf attacks that had happened in Europe and the US.
We know it is impossible to have 100% security assurance. We may well already be in the situation whereby it is not a matter of \"if\", but \"when\". We must be fully prepared for the day when a terror attack eventually happens.
What is equally important is the preparedness at the people's level. We should be prepared at the psychological level and build resilience and mutual trust among different races. We need to focus on how to cope with the \"Day after\" effect and recover quickly and resume our normal life as fast as possible.
For the past 50 years, we have been fortunate in that we have not experienced any serious racial or religious conflicts. This is due to the continuous efforts of the Government as well as people of the various races. Most Singaporeans recognise the importance of living in harmony and social stability. Hence, they respect and tolerate one another, mind the sensitivity of different races and respect the differences.
But we also know that Singapore's social harmony and resilience have not really been tested by a major incident. Should a terror attack in the pretext of race or religion happen and result in large casualties, can we continue to maintain racial harmony and not be mired in racial tensions? This would be the real test.
Since Independence, be it legislation, governance or policies, the Government has spent a lot of energy on formulating forward-looking policies to build a harmonious multiracial society. We have integrated multiracialism as part of our country's core values and enshrined it into our pledge, the Constitution and the state institutions, such as the Presidential Council for Minority Rights (PCMR) and the Presidential Council for Religious Harmony (PCRH) under the President. We have also introduced the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act to strengthen the legal framework to ensure social harmony.
We put in place EIP for HDB estates. In order to have enough representation of minority groups in Parliament, we have implemented the Group Representation Constituency (GRC) system. Recently, we also introduced the Reserved Presidential Election system to make sure that, every now and then, there will be a President from the minority groups. We have self-help groups for different ethnic groups to create a caring and harmonious multiracial society. Of course, we can further strengthen our legislation and policies, such as focusing on solving upstream problems. But we also know that it is not enough to rely on policies and laws alone to build strong and long-lasting trust and a harmonious relationship. We need to further strengthen the relationship among different races by working harder in the communities, schools and workplaces to build mutual trust and confidence.
Fortunately, our Pioneers had the firm belief that a multiracial Singapore must be built upon strong social harmony. By setting up the People's Association (PA), we have created grassroots organisations which can bring together residents and promote a harmonious relationship among people of different backgrounds. The purpose of grassroots organisations is to build more common spaces in the community, facilitating residents of different races to have more opportunities to interact and build rapport.
Promoting integration and harmony does not mean that we will neglect our own cultural heritage. We will continue to promote the culture of different races and this will help different races to appreciate and understand one another's culture. Seeking consensus while allowing differences is a sustainable way to bring different races together and make our multicultural society attractive. Based on this, we can deepen our interactions. During the engagement and the interaction process among different races, we can adopt light-hearted ways that are close to people's daily life to build rapport and trust.
In recent years, I noticed that while we have a stronger awareness of tolerance and the need to respect one another's differences and sensitivities, we have become more reluctant to discuss issues concerning race and religion at the personal level. In fact, many people do not know how to talk about these issues with friends or neighbours. They are worried that if they say something inappropriately, they may offend friends of a different race or religion. If this situation continues, or people only say politically correct things, not only will it not help build the trust, but hinder the efforts to build a long-lasting bond. A strong, long-lasting bond is, in fact, the key to whether a society can withstand a major incident.
We should create more opportunities and an environment whereby Singaporeans can have sincere and candid discussions concerning race and religion without much inhibition. Grassroots and other community organisations have provided a very good platform. We should make good use of these platforms and expand the scope of interaction, plan engaging and interesting dialogues to deepen understandings amongst us.
I am pleased to see that Singapore has enlightened and well-respected religious and community leaders. They continuously contribute to the country and our unity. What is more, they all know the importance of the overall interest of the country and speak out when necessary. They also condemn terrorism without hesitation to protect our harmony. Although what they say may be criticised or even attacked by their own community, they do not shirk. This has demonstrated our community and religious leaders' courage and faith.
I would like to thank leaders of the Muslim community and the whole community for their efforts and contribution to Singapore's peace and harmony, and their very firm stance against extremism. For example, the Asatizah Accreditation Scheme under MUIS is very commendable. This scheme stipulates that asatizahs must register with MUIS. This is to make sure that their teachings can help the community practise their faith in a way that is suitable in our multi-religious society.
Just now, I listened to Dr Yaacob's speech. I can imagine the stress and challenges faced by our Muslim community leaders. In Parliament, we often see Mr Masagos and Dr Yaacob speaking up on sensitive policies that could affect the Muslim community. They do so to defend Singapore's multiracialism. Their stance is firm and they have never shirked.
Building a harmonious society is an endless journey. We should see this as something that can enrich our lives, broaden our views, and a unique Singapore way of life. The key is to promote unity in a natural and sustainable way and not to see it as a burden. We already have a strong foundation. Going forward, we need to continue to build our multiracial society in an organic and sustainable way. I believe this little red dot will be able to withstand the test by demonstrating our unity and resilience at critical times.
Mr Speaker: Mr Murali Pillai.
Mr Murali Pillai (Bukit Batok): Mr Speaker, Sir, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate. First, I would like to congratulate the hon Member for Holland-Bukit Timah Mr Christopher de Souza for introducing this Motion to this House. I fully agree with the points that he made in his speech and I support the Motion.
The specific focus in my speech is on two overlapping areas identified in the Motion: preventing the spread of radicalised teaching that promotes exclusivity and violent extremism; and investing in multiracialism to inoculate ourselves against the ills of extremism and terrorism.
One preliminary point which I want to discuss first though is: what exactly is meant by \"multiracialism\" as a policy? The common refrain is that we forge a common life whilst we preserve our own separate heritage and identity. How does that play out? Does that mean that we are required to put Singapore ahead of our own individual backgrounds and heritage?
It may be useful to refer to the objectives of our founding fathers who embarked on this journey of multiracialism. The late President Yusof bin Ishak, in his first Address in this House in December 1965 upon Singapore's Independence, said as follows:
\"The four months since 9 August have given us time to take stock of our bearings, time in which to push emotions into the background for a calm and realistic appraisal of the new opportunities which Independence offers us, the greater authority to bring about what we have always thought necessary, a tolerant society, multiracial, multilingual, multi-religious, welded ever closer together by ties of common experience into a satisfying society, satisfying for both the indigenous peoples and those of migrant stock…Needless to say, the more extreme any community is about one race, one language and one religion, the more likely it is to arouse counter chauvinism amongst the other communities to the detriment of all.\"
So, from the start, we see the implementation of multiracialism as a social weapon to ensure peace, prosperity and stability in our country. I heard my learned friend, Assoc Prof Daniel Goh's worry about weaponising multiracialism. I understand his concerns but I would not be too worried because, really, the reference to multiracialism as a social weapon is a call to arms on the part of the people to put in their energies to invest in multiracialism as a policy that will bring peace to our country.
I also wish to highlight an excerpt of Mr George Yeo's speech at the inauguration of the Association of Muslim Professionals in 1991. He said as follows:
\"We use the term 'multiracialism' so often that we sometimes forget what it means. It does not mean that in becoming Singaporean, we deny our heritage…That is not acceptable. Part of the essence of being Singaporean is the right to retain our separate ethnic character. But that right carries a corresponding duty to accept that others of other races also have the same rights.\"
This is not a theoretical musing. A good understanding of the underpinnings of multiracialism policy will help us formulate the responses we need to make as a society to issues pertaining to extremism and terrorism. I will now proceed to deal with some of these issues.
On the topic of preventing radicalisation through radicalised teachings and other modes, means or methods, it may be useful to take a step back and understand what are the contributing factors that promote radicalisation. I wish to highlight three.
One, socio-economic factors − not being able to improve economically and being trapped in the poverty cycle. The late Mr Lee Kuan Yew recognised this when he stated in his first National Day Rally speech on 8 August 1966. He said:
\"If groups are left behind either on the basis of language, race, religion or culture, and if for these groups the line of division coincides with the line of race, then we will not succeed in our long-term objective of a secure future.\"
Hence, the importance of always ensuring social mobility and preventing a permanent underclass in appearing in our society, especially along racial lines.
Two, power of radical ideology expoused by charismatic idealogues focusing on exploiting unhappiness amongst a group of people, often leveraging on social media, too.
Three, presence of oppressed communities in the world, especially along racial and religious lines. The hon Members who spoke before me also highlighted this point. This provides the fuel to the ideologues.
In the context of the recent incidents of Singaporeans being radicalised, we have seen our Malay/Muslim community working very hard to rehabilitate the persons involved and prevent the spread of deviant teachings leading to radicalisation. Their efforts are very commendable.
In particular, I wish to acknowledge the laudable work of the RRG to rehabilitate persons who have become radicalised through deviant teachings. Over the years, we have seen that RRG has even upped the scale of resources. They have set up the Resource and Counselling Centre and a hotline and mobile app to allow better access to the religious teachers. They have also embarked on reaching out to young people through the Internet.
I note that the RRG teachers and academics are mostly Malay and English-speaking. Given our experience of the language backgrounds of the persons arrested under the ISA in Singapore, there may be a case to expand the group to include people speaking in other languages, such as Tamil, Malayalam and Bengali.
In the book, Majulah, 50 years of Malay/Muslim Community in Singapore edited by Mr Zainul Abidin Rasheed and Mr Norsharil Saat, there was an interview published of Habib Hassan, the Imam of Baalwie Mosque and an esteemed member of IRO. I have the pleasure of knowing him personally. He said that there is a need to reject teachings that seek to divide Muslims and Muslims, and Muslims and non-Muslims. In particular, he highlighted there should be no problems in wishing Hindus \"Happy Deepavali\" and Christians \"Merry Christmas\".
He also saw a need to evolve a Singaporean model of religious teachings which excludes Middle Eastern culture and politics. I am sure Members of this House will also applaud the concrete steps that have been taken within the Malay/Muslim community to prevent radicalisation.
We need, however, to recognise that members of other races have a responsibility, too. My learned friend, Dr Intan Azura, also spoke about this. The question arises: why? I start with the definition of \"multiracialism\" as a concept in Singapore, because while we have a right to identify ourselves, based on our ethnic background, we also have a duty to recognise and strengthen the bonds and preservation of a common space with members of other races. That is the quid pro quo. People are not born terrorists; they undergo a process of radicalisation and buying into violent extremist ideology.
This is where members of other races and religions have a common duty to reach out to all people of all races, actively promote inclusivity and a sense of common destiny. As Mr Christopher de Souza said, we live and die here.
We have a duty to respect, understand and accept and have a keen interest in one another's culture as well. This would be a more holistic response to the trend of radicalisation. All racial and religious communities have a responsibility in preventing radicalisation.
I now move on to my second area: promoting multiracialism as an instrument against terrorism. On this point, it is noteworthy that across the world, there is a trend of voting towards the Far Right. You see that in Germany. Recent polls last month showed the Far Right getting more influence, receiving 13% of the popular vote.
While people in Singapore got startled by this, actually, this was predicted in a Pew Research survey published last year in the UK Daily Express on 12 July 2016. It was entitled \"EU nations rejecting multiculturalism − the ISIS effect\".
More than 50% of people interviewed by the survey felt that the incoming migrants and refugees increased the likelihood of terrorism in their country. And this caused the rise of the right-wing parties. We have had similar trends in other countries, such as in the UK and US. This is exactly what ISIS wants: divide multiracial communities, sow discord and hatred amongst these communities. For that reason alone, it is not difficult to understand why Singapore is a target.
Singapore faces the same danger of populism, majoritarianism, intolerance and racial chauvinism. This is not empty talk. In the 1960s, communal extremism was commonplace in Singapore. President Yusof Ishak referred to them in the same speech I drew this House's attention to earlier. He pointed out that within 10 weeks of Independence, the communalists were advocating a change in the status of Chinese language because of the large Chinese majority in Singapore, even though Chinese was already one of the four official languages. In June 2017, the hon Minister for Home Affairs mentioned that internal surveys show that opinion is hardening against Muslims. It is not realistic to assume that communal extremism will not rear its head again in Singapore. The danger of Islamphobia, in particular, is real. We need to ensure politics of responsibility within Singapore when it comes to multiracialism.
Currently, across this House, multiracialism is accepted as a pillar of our society and I am heartened by my hon friend Mr Pritam Singh's support of this Motion on behalf of the Workers' Party. Even in relation to the debates on the Elected Presidency issue, both sides of the House acknowledged the wisdom of having Presidents from different races, from time to time.
We have other institutionalised time-honoured practices, too. For example, the bilingual education policy, the four official languages with Malay as the National Language and English as the working language, and the GRC concept, which I say, has the laudable effect of also promoting the emergence and acceptance of multiracial political parties.
However, there is no guarantee that what is happening in Germany, the UK, US and elsewhere may not happen here. It is the duty of all responsible Singapore political parties to embed in their deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) to resist the temptation to dabble in populist politics, to disavow racial and religious politics, take responsibility when it comes to issues that may potentially give rise to racial and religious tensions.
Transparency is the key. Platitudes, in themselves, are insufficient. We must demonstrate in deed and commitment. The People's Action Party has made its stance very clear in this regard. It does not take the current harmonious situation for granted. It always strives to work to strengthen harmony among the races. And the recent amendments to the Constitution providing for the reserved election for the Elected President is one good example, even though it may be made possibly with a loss of goodwill for the short term.
It is also good to ensure that legislative responses to extremism and terrorism are settled now before any serious act of terrorism occurs. We have a sound framework of law to deal with major terrorist incidents today. My learned friend Mr Christopher de Souza outlined these pieces of legislation earlier.
I laud the introduction of a good number of Bills in Parliament to further ready ourselves, the latest being the Infrastructure Protection Bill 2017 that was passed yesterday. We may want to come to a consensus now on how to deal with any remaining issues, for example, as Mr Desmond Choo said, curbing hate speech and teachings via social media. The passing of the German Network Enforcement Act in June 2017 will enable the authorities to require social media companies to remove hate speech from their platforms. Perhaps, we could consider a similar model in Singapore.
The other area is to deal with obligations to report against a person who is suspected to be a terrorist. In the context of spousal communications privilege as provided for in the Evidence Act, or the right against self-incrimination if the disclosure will also expose the reporter to criminal liability, it would be good to delineate the responsibilities, clarify the obligations, so that everybody knows what is expected of them.
We should avoid a reactionary approach like what happened in the US and UK after the 9/11 incident where pieces of legislation were passed with little scrutiny and debate. This exposes the society to a danger of what exactly the terrorists want us to be.
In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, in preparation for my speech, I had a discussion with Prof Bilveer Singh of the National University of Singapore. He has widely written on terrorism issues. He provided me with an analogy which I want to share in this House.
He said that Singapore is like a multiracial house built on a foundation of CMIO \"bricks\". I would modify it. I would say it is CMIEO \"bricks\", that is, Chinese, Malays, Indians, Eurasians and Others. As a result, we have a Singapore that is peaceful, strong and successful. Take out any one brick, the house's foundation will weaken and stand to be destroyed.
It is this foundation of CMIEO \"bricks\" that we will have to depend on to weather the effects of extremism and terrorism. We also depend on our uniformed services − the SAF, the Home Team − who are ever ready to protect our countrymen any time any day. For that, our nation owes them a huge debt. I strongly support the Motion.
Mr Speaker: Mr Leon Perera.
Mr Leon Perera (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for the opportunity to speak on this Motion and I thank the hon Member Mr Christopher de Souza for moving this Motion, which is timely and worthy of support.
Sir, Singapore has not faced a terrorist attack in recent times. Will it happen one day? Probably yes. How will it affect Singaporeans? How will it affect Singapore, the idea of our nation? Peering at the future from today, we cannot see clearly because the future is always moving, always buffeted by the choices that we make today.
I was born in a 3-room flat. I still remember clearly: Block 74, Commonwealth Drive, even though we later moved to a flat in Telok Blangah. I still remember a few things incredibly clearly. We had a common corridor. The kids who lived on that corridor − and in those days there were lots of children around − would play on that corridor together. We would run into one another's flats and spend time there playing and then coming out and running into someone else's flat.
One neighbour, who happened to be Chinese, was good at cutting hair. She would cut people's hair for a small fee, but, for us, she would cut our hair for free, the neighbours who lived on the corridor. I still remember going to her house to cut my hair. I have such a clear memory of this because once there was an Ultra-man television (TV) show playing on the TV while she was doing that.
Another memory was that all the children running around downstairs playing with lanterns in our pyjamas during the Mid-Autumn Festival. Back then, children wore pyjamas and did not shy away from wearing them outside the house. I also remember enjoying lots of good Malay food during Hari Raya.
Do children still play in the common corridors these days and mix among different races? I have two children. They still do sometimes. They play football with our neighbour's son and sometimes they play on their scooters. But, in truth, not as much as I did back in the 1970s.
As I grew up in Singapore, my experience was not much different from other Members of this House. I was very fortunate to rarely experience anything like a sense that I was excluded. I know that not everyone maybe as fortunate. In the workplace over the decades, there were times when race issues emerged. But those times were extremely rare. Once, early on in my career, I wanted to hire someone of a particular race and a colleague told me that they had had bad experiences with employees of that race. I went ahead to hire this person anyway. That employee turned out to be outstanding and got promoted twice. But such incidents were extremely rare.
Mr Speaker, Sir, terrorists of the kind we most fear seek to turn races, religions, cultures against one another. When we fight among ourselves, they win. This we all know.
Multiracialism is the surest defence against terror. It is the ultimate goalkeeper.
Multiracialism is part of the Singapore pledge which we take as schoolchildren, to be united regardless of race, language or religion. This is one of the most important parts of the pledge. I feel this because when I talk to residents on house visits and outreach, when I look at postings on the Internet, many, many people use the language of the pledge many, many times − that particular bit of language − to express that urge, that aspiration to go beyond race. Regardless of race. At one market outreach last week a resident recited these words several times, emotionally, his voice rising each time.
Regardless of race then. Can we set race, religion, culture aside completely? Are we perfectly unconscious of race? No. The rising number of inter-ethnic marriages may be a sign of progress − may be − but that should not make us complacent. There is no complete race blindness, just as there is no complete equality of opportunity for all citizens. Not in Singapore and not in any country. And there will always be − always − a minority of people for whom attachment to their own identity crosses that line into a close-minded mistrust of others. Such minorities exist in every country.
But do the majority aspire towards a Singapore, regardless of race? In my experience, the answer to that question is a resounding yes today. But we must entertain the possibility that it may not be a resounding yes tomorrow. And the question is how can we nurture, cherish, grow, entrench our multiracial society?
Let us start from where we are. Our schools, workplaces, army camps, playgrounds are the crucibles and also the testing grounds of race relations. Multiracialism succeeds or fails in these places. Multiracialism in the common corridors is just as important as multiracialism in the corridors of power.
The topsoil of multiracialism in Singapore has many colours. Our Singlish. Our shared festivals. Our shared food culture and love of one another's ethnic foods, and this is very important in Singapore's context. Our coffee shops and hawker centres are where all these things come into play. That is the topsoil.
The bedrock underneath that topsoil is beliefs and attitudes. Our willingness to see one another as equal human beings deserving of the same respect we seek for ourselves, our willingness to give and take, to negotiate differences and not to escalate and amplify every single thing.
Many Singaporeans ask if this structure is as strong today as it was when I played in the common corridor in the 1970s. But rather than dwell on that subject, I want to focus on the future tense.
How can we strengthen multiracialism going forward? We have today talked about aspects of policy. That is important. In concluding my speech, I would like to talk about some principles that I feel we should hold onto tightly when we formulate, debate, review, replace, evolve policies, projects and initiatives towards multiracialism.
Firstly, we should focus on real everyday issues. Not that symbols are not important, but I would like to humbly and respectfully offer the opinion that real, everyday issues that affect the day-to-day lives of Singaporeans are more important. For example, in school and at work, we do not all start running the race from the same starting line. And the labour market is not 100% free of prejudice of any kind. That is as it always has been, in Singapore and in every country. But what we do about that is our choice. What we do to level up, correct for the inequities of birth and, in so doing, harness all the talent we have. Those are deliberate choices we make as a society. What is at stake is victory or defeat against divisions of class and race, which intersect in complex ways. Let us focus on fighting the real battles which are more important than the cosmetic ones.
Secondly, what public figures say matters. We do not want to be complacent about race relations. But implying at every turn that there is a deep, seething primordial tribalism waiting to break out at any time goes too far. It risks creating a self-fulfilling prophecy. Such speech can legitimise the thoughts of the minority who are inclined towards bigotry, a minority that exists − let us recall − in every society and among all races. \"See, how I feel is the natural state of human beings,\" they may say. And then the minority may influence the majority, one day replacing it. In speaking of the dangers of getting race relations wrong, let us not go too far and fall into the trap of legitimising and empowering that which we fear.
Thirdly, yes, we should not permit − we should never permit − irresponsible racist speech and acts. Civilisation depends on the existence of some boundaries. I want to be absolutely clear about that. But we should never draw these boundaries so tightly that responsible discussion of race issues cannot take place in any public platform. If that happens, people will be cut off from information. They will not be able to form an educated opinion. This will make them more, not less, vulnerable to ignorant and divisive views available on the Internet or in the coffee shops or elsewhere.
Between the extremes of barring all public discussion of race except behind closed doors and the other extreme of allowing any kind of speech about race however irresponsible and hateful, there lies a middle ground − the middle ground of responsible, rule-bound public speech about issues of race. Let us embrace that middle ground.
Fourthly, let us not use the very real danger of racial strife to reach for authoritarian, heavy-handed solutions at every turn. In Yugoslavia under Tito, and Iraq under Saddam Hussein, there was little of the sectarian strife that broke out after those leaders were gone. But at what price was that peace achieved? We can repress racial tension with the weapons of an authoritarian state. But if we go too far in this, we compromise other values in our pledge. We are a people regardless of race, language and religion to build a democratic society. Let us remember that. Let us strike a balance.
Lastly, as we go forward into the future, as future Parliaments consider new policies towards multiracialism in decades to come, let us always remember the physician's oath set down by Hippocrates of ancient Greece − first, do no harm. Whatever we do in the multiracialism arena should always make things better, not make things worse. Our cures must never be worse than the disease.
Mr Speaker, Sir, we have more work to do. But we must do the right work, do it well and do it as one people. The day may come when we are all tested. And if that day comes, I am confident that that test will call forth the strength and unity of all Singaporeans. That strength, that steel that was forged in our hawker centres, our schools, our army camps, our workplace pantries, our void decks and yes, our common corridors − that steel will prove stronger than any attacker. We will defend our democratic society regardless of race language and religion. And we will give the gift of multiracialism to future generations of Singaporeans yet unborn. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Motion.
Mr Speaker: Dr Tan Wu Meng.
Dr Tan Wu Meng (Jurong): Mr Speaker, I am glad to hear there is actually a lot of common ground in this House today – both sides of the House, Members of the Government bench, the non-Government bench, the Nominated Members, the Non-Constituency Members. Because we do agree that the threat of terrorism is a very real one and that our defences have to go beyond prevention and rescue. Not just the day before. Not just the day when the attack happens. We also have to strengthen our social fabric for afterwards. For the day after.
And that is why I am glad to hear there are lots of agreement that we need to deepen and strengthen our multiracialism in Singapore. Some see it as a socio-weapon, a steel that helps us stand against those who would divide us. Some see it as defence against globalised forces that would corrupt and poison our society.
I see it, first and foremost, as a strength and aspiration. A strength born out of love. Love that Singaporeans share for the dream of a multiracial society. A dream that was audacious 50 years ago in the early days of Singapore's existence. A dream that in many countries seems further and further away. A dream that recognises that we are all not perfect, we are all imperfect but that we still believe that we can grow closer to a more perfect union of our people.
It is also the love that a child feels for their friends and playmates of different races, religions and cultures. Children meeting in the void decks of our HDB estates, playing, dancing, learning together. Seeing diversity as something interesting and fulfilling to learn from, without seeing it as a difference.
It is also the love that neighbours feel for one another, when they grow closer over the years. That sense of friendship, wanting to grow the shared common space. Giving, rather than taking. It is a sense of trust and closeness.
During my walkabouts in Clementi, I met Mdm Esah, one of our Clementi makciks. She had a young toddler with her, a young Chinese boy, one year old.
Puan Esah shared that she was helping babysit her neighbour's child during the day because the parents were busy. I was deeply moved by this story, because it is a message of trust and harmony where neighbours of different races trust one another with their children. It is a message that this is your life and mine. I trust you with my flesh and blood. I trust you with my future.
But this closeness and friendship and trust, they do not happen spontaneously. It requires a whole of Government effort. It needs a whole of society. Because we know that, in other countries which have taken a free market, laissez-faire, hands-off approach to racial harmony, the outcomes have been very, very unhappy. We saw that in the banlieues in France. We saw that in Ferguson, Charlottesville, in the US.
And that is why I am very glad that the Member speaking before also agrees that it is possible for social markets to fail, that we must never give in to the approach of free-market fundamentalism in social markets. It is for similar reasons that in Singapore, we have our EIP, so that children of different races grow up as neighbours and friends from young. It is why we have the PCMR to scrutinise Parliament's legislation so that the majority does not discriminate against the minority.
It is why we have GRCs, to guarantee that minorities will always have representation in Parliament, guarding against failure in political markets, socio-political markets, so that every political party, as Mr Murali had said, if they want to mount a serious campaign nationally, they have to be multiracial and cannot play only to one race. Because the reality around the world is that, even when the finish line is the same, some have had to walk further and longer just to get to the start.
Recognising our human imperfections, we can understand why there is a hiatus-triggered reserved Presidential election, so that children from every race have a fair chance to see a President from their own community, at least once in a generation.
The earliest date another reserved election may be triggered would be in the year 2041. By then, my children will be all grown up. I am sure they will have kids of their own by then − my grandchildren. And I hope that by then, we would have elected a minority candidate as President in an open election.
Mr Speaker, there is a quote attributed to Sir Winston Churchill: \"We shape our buildings; thereafter they shape us\". And this matters in our urban design. It is something that I am glad that the preceding speaker, Mr Leon Perera, agrees with. It is something I have also been writing about in the TODAY newspaper since 2013, something I raised in my maiden speech last year and in the Budget Debate this year. We have to look at urban design and shared common spaces. For instance, in some of the newer HDB developments, there are fewer shared spaces for activities.
Some precincts − 2,000 units; one pavilion. Void decks, very small, very narrow. Big sky gardens, but not quite the same. Because when the void deck gets smaller, it can become devoid of interaction. Children squeeze through, rather than playing. Seniors passing by, rather than chatting, spending time together in that shared space.
So, I call upon the Government to study whether our newer estates will continue to have enough shared common spaces for unstructured, informal interaction. These design choices can be revenue-neutral, but it makes the difference between a place of transit and a place of friendship and fellowship.
But multiracialism cannot be up to the Government alone. It starts at home. It starts with each of us. We should encourage our children to learn about the cultures of other races. Not because of National Education, not because of an examinable subject, but because it is interesting and part of growing up in multiracial Singapore.
We can also all learn a little bit of the mother tongues of different communities. In Clementi − and I would say that our Clementi residents are very, very special and exceptional − many of our uncles and aunties know a little bit of Malay. I have met pakciks and makciks who speak a little bit of Hokkien. I have even met a Chinese resident in Clementi who can converse in fluent Tamil. All this helps people feel closer and grow closer together. It matters because our lived experience shapes our racial harmony. It protects against wrong impressions that could arise from social media. It also ensures a single incident, if it occurs, will not colour someone's perception of other communities for life. Mr Speaker, if I may continue in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, Sir, our Malay community and MUIS have resolutely declared openly that Singapore's Muslims are against extremism. The Government established the RRG in 2003 with the aim of rehabilitating self-radicalised individuals and to further understand the whole process or self-radicalisation.
As the saying goes, \"a close neighbour is better than a distant relative\". In our HDB estates, neighbours are from different races, religions and background. Since Independence, we have been living together harmoniously and peacefully for decades, and racial harmony is cherished and recognised by everybody. However, this kind of harmony does not come naturally, nor by chance. If we look back in history and look at the other countries' experience in recent years, we can see that racial conflicts and confrontations are happening again and again.
Our national pledge reflects our people's aspirations for and emphasis on racial harmony. We must take concrete actions to fulfil our pledge. Otherwise, even if we recite it a thousand times, it will be nothing but empty talk. Our racial harmony does not come easy. This is something that we should be proud of, cherish and defend.
In the past few decades, many economists have realised that a total free market or laissez-faire approach is not necessarily a good thing. In the social market, there is also the risk of market failure. The so-called invisible hand of the free market may not necessarily be effective in creating an ideal society, particularly, in the aspects of racial harmony and social cohesion. This is why we have the EIP, PCMR and the GRC system to uphold multiracialism in our society.
In recent years, we see that many HDB estates do not have enough shared common spaces. In some of the new HDB estates, the void decks are small and narrow, which will hamper the arrangement of community activities and also limit the opportunities for interaction among the neighbours, particularly, the young children. If the younger generations are deprived of the opportunities to know friends from other races, the consequences can be serious. If our kids can only get to know the other races through the media, particularly, social media, then their understanding of the other races will be very shallow. Then, how are we going to foster meaningful relationships and build true racial harmony in Singapore?
As such, I must say that racial harmony is not the responsibility of MCCY alone, and counterterrorism is also not just the responsibility of MHA. Maintaining racial harmony is the responsibility of the whole Government, and it is also the responsibility of every citizen and every family.
Although it is said that we must have a nation before we can have a home, we can also build our nation at home. We should try our best to create opportunities for our children to make friends with children from other races, whether it is through extra-curricular activities or participation in activities in the HDB estates or community centres. We should endeavour to create opportunities for children to learn and play together.
We can also promote racial harmony through languages. The mother tongue enables the younger generation to understand their own community's culture, history, tradition and customs. Likewise, if we learn the languages of the other races, we will be able to understand one another better and our friendship will be deepened.
Mr Speaker, Sir, racial harmony is the prerequisite for the unity of our people and the continuous development of our nation. The racial harmony that Singapore enjoys can be said to be our national treasure. Let us continue to put in a concerted effort to strengthen racial harmony and fight extremism. Mr Speaker, Sir, allow me to say a few words in Malay.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, in July, the Clementi Community Centre (CC) organised a Hari Raya dinner. We had many friends from different races who came. We sat together at the table. We ate a lot, and we chatted a lot.
In June, Clementi CC held a ceremony for new citizens. We had a demonstration on how to weave ketupats. The new citizens learned about Singapore's multiracial society.
Through activities like these, that is, activities with friends from different races, by learning other cultures and other languages, we can strengthen our racial harmony. Mr Speaker, I will continue in English.
(In English): Mr Speaker, our multiracialism is the foundation of our past and present. It is key to our future. It is what keeps Singapore together today. It is what will keep Singapore together the day after an attack happens. It is what will keep Singapore a beacon to the world. We must strengthen it for today, for our children and their children.
Mr Speaker: Ms Rahayu Mahzam.
Ms Rahayu Mahzam (Jurong): Mr Speaker, Sir, I remember a conversation I had with a friend over dinner a few years back when reports of ISIS first came out. He expressed his concerns and asked why Muslims are not doing anything about it. At that juncture, I could not help but feel defensive. I explained to my non-Muslim friend that the terrorists are extremists and their actions do not represent the true teachings of Islam. I felt a tinge of frustration as he pushed on further and asked why true Muslims were not explaining the correct teachings to these terrorists.
I must have sounded a tad bit annoyed as I sought to distinguish myself, my community and my religion from these extremists. I told him I do not know these people, I do not understand their psyche and it was unfair to put the burden on Muslims alone to resolve this issue with regard to the terrorists.
In the wake of news reports and the development of ISIS, I saw many Facebook postings of Muslim friends condemning the terrorist attacks but also expressing similar frustrations of having to explain to non-Muslim friends that the terrorist actions were not aligned with Islamic teachings. The frustrations soon turned into concern as we started seeing acts of violence against innocent Muslims all around the world.
Islamaphobia was manifested in varying degrees and there was fear that the same would happen to Singaporean Muslims. As the days passed and the terrorist attacks continued, it became apparent that anger and distrust against Muslims also grew. The Muslims also, in effect, became victims of the actions of the extremists who claim to fight in the name of the religion.
I said in my speech during the Budget Debates last year that I have faith that, in general, the non-Muslim community in Singapore knows that Singaporean Muslims strongly reject terrorism and the misguided ISIS actions. I added that non-Muslims should have no reason to distrust or be resentful of Muslims here. That was a year ago, and we have since heard of several Singaporeans who were radicalised and have been detained because of their associations with ISIS as well as the one who had been featured in the ISIS propaganda video.
Despite my initial frustrations of having to defend my religion and my community to fellow Singaporeans, I truly appreciate the fear and the stress that are aroused by the non-stop terrorist attacks in other places, especially now, as the influence of ISIS has come to our shores.
I am worried about the attitudes that would develop against Muslims in Singapore, the impact on the practice of the religion and daily life. I worry that the tudung-wearing Muslim woman will be discriminated against when she seeks employment. I worry a Muslim is less trusted because of his faith. The fear and the distrust are understandable, especially if you do not know anything about the religion and have not had any significant interaction with anyone who practices the faith.
We need to counter the distrust and I believe the way to do this is to build the relationships among the different communities in Singapore. I, therefore, fully support the call to invest in multiculturalism as a socio-weapon to counter the discord which terrorism seeks to sow. We must continue to provide platforms for meaningful interaction among people of different races and religions.
Our children must be taught to accept and embrace the diversity within our community. This is easier said than done. At the grassroots level, for example, it is not always easy to get representation from people of different races to participate in various activities. I believe some small changes can be and has been made. Have halal and vegetarian food options. Avoid prayer times or avoid the time slots when people go to church when you organise activities. Open up festivities to people of different races. For example, invite Chinese and Malays to Deepavali celebrations. Improving the activities to meet the needs of the residents is always work-in-progress.
As a member of the management committee of OnePeople.sg (OPSG), I also see the hard work put in to promote multicultural integration. OPSG was founded by various self-help groups together with CDCs and PA. The education and training programmes, programmes to engage community to build capabilities to promote racial harmony as well as the resources – matters which Assoc Prof Daniel Goh had alluded to earlier – are actually things that we are already doing. We need to continue to do this and to work hard to create meaningful platforms for people to interact.
What is key is that we realise that we all play important parts in this work and we should continue to work together to build the bonds among us. Mr Speaker, allow me to continue my speech in Malay.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Every day, we hear reports about terror attacks all over the world, who claim to fight in the name of religion. Their actions have, in fact, sullied the name of Islam. One rotten apple spoils the whole barrel. Non-Muslims who may not understand this sacred religion will certainly feel afraid and do not believe the true teachings of Islam and its followers.
I think that Muslims in Singapore can play an important role in sharing and spreading accurate information about Islam. We should not just stand still and instead should try to correct the perceptions of others towards our religion. This does not mean having debates and organising lectures, but I think we can portray the beauty of Islam through our daily interactions and relations with those from other religions. We can do this at work, in school and by involving ourselves in social activities, for instance, at the CCs. Many of us have already done so and I encourage more to join in this effort.
Recently, there have been concerns about some Muslims in this region who are thought to display extremist characteristics from the way they practise their religion. I would like to highlight the example of a laundrette in Muar, Johor, where the owner provides washing machines for customers, tried to obtain halal certification for his detergent and only allows his machines to be used exclusively by Muslims. The incident resulted in a harsh rebuke from the Johor Sultan who felt that it was contrary to the principles of harmony and solidarity in that state.
This reminded me of the lessons I learnt in a religious class organised by PERGAS a few years ago. I still remember Ustaz Hannan Hassan, who taught me at that time, and the knowledge he imparted had a significant impact on me. Islam is a religion based on logic and intellect; a religion that requires us to think. It is a religion that is appropriate at any place and time. We should adapt our religious practices based on our situation and context. Knowledge about what is permissible or forbidden is important, but what is more important is knowledge about moral values, ethics and the reasons behind any religious ritual that we perform.
Therefore, I truly hope that Muslims in Singapore will continue to enhance their knowledge, constantly try to engage people from other religions and work hand in hand to defeat terrorism.
(In English): In conclusion, I wish to state my support for this Motion. I have faith that if we stay true to our values as a multicultural, multi-religious Singapore and take effort to nurture our relationships with one another, we will be able to stay strong in the face of any challenges.
Mr Speaker: Mr Gan Thiam Poh.
Mr Gan Thiam Poh (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Speaker, in Mandarin, please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Since Independence, building together a multiracial, multi-religious, multicultural and inclusive society has always been the foundation of Singapore's nation-building.
Founding Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew stated clearly in the declaration of Independence what is the foundation of Singapore. \"This is not a Malay nation, this is not a Chinese nation, this is not an Indian nation. Everyone will his place: equal; language, culture, religion.\"
Singapore is a multiracial society. Every race has its own language, culture, religion and values. All the races form a big family called Singapore. It is a Singapore for all Singaporeans. We can all see the efforts over the years to build a Singapore for Singaporeans.
From the national anthem played at the radio and TV stations, reciting the pledge in schools, the National Day Parade, GRC system, to the Reserved Presidential Election system and EIP, all these are constantly reminding Singaporeans the importance of unity and multiracialism. To build a Singapore for Singaporeans is the responsibility of every Singaporean.
Different races must co-exist peacefully. The majority race cannot bully the minorities. Every race must tolerate one another, develop consensus while accommodating differences, leverage different strengths and allow a hundred flowers to bloom.
Bilingualism enables Singaporeans to communicate with a common language while maintaining their mother tongue and helps develop multiculturalism in Singapore. Using English as the common working language will not only enable various races to communicate equally with a non-mother tongue language but also facilitate communication and business dealings with the international community and people from other countries.
Using English as the common communication medium is not because of its superiority but because it is convenient, used widely and practical. As the Founding Prime Minister had said, English is something that no particular race enjoys an advantage, hence all the races can communicate equally.
People say we are like a rojak, but we are a plate of healthy, delicious and popular rojak. I think the Health Promotion Board (HPB) can use this as our slogan for Healthy Food Choice. The establishment of IRCCs is a very good community scheme. The IRCC in my constituency plays a very important role. It has helped many residents to resolve their misunderstandings and contributed greatly to racial harmony in the community.
In fact, in my constituency, there were some disputes involving residents of different races. The consequence of these disputes can be big or small. If they are not solved promptly, consequences can be severe.
I remember one afternoon at one void deck, a group of Malay residents were having a wedding ceremony. At another corner, there happened to be a Chinese resident who was conducting a religious ritual with a puppet show. The loud noise from the puppet show disturbed the Malay wedding. The Malay residents had mistaken the nearby Chinese ritual for a funeral, hence they showed tolerance and constraint. However, they hoped that the Chinese resident can lower the volume so that the wedding can go ahead.
I happened to be visiting the area so I helped them understand each other. I was pleased to see that after some discussion, both parties demonstrated the spirit of mutual support and understanding. The two ceremonies were able to proceed smoothly. In the end, they even congratulated each other. Everyone was happy.
Many of us would have encountered situations, such as frictions caused by neighbours burning joss paper. Through the IRCC, I have also helped two neighbours resolve a dispute caused by the Indian family burning incense. They eventually reached mutual understanding.
From these incidences, my grassroots and I believe that we still need to continue to promote the understanding of the culture, faith and customs of other races through multiple channels, strengthen mutual trust and respect, and deepen our community bond.
Just like my Parliamentary colleagues, I often organise various activities to bring residents together to build rapport and social cohesion. Among all these activities, I noticed that the durian party is a good one. Different races can gather and enjoy durians together. The durian is not just a diplomatic tool. Minister Ong just conducted Durian Diplomacy when he visited China recently. The durian party is a good activity to bond residents. The durian has become a common language, regardless of language, race and religion.
We cannot afford to be complacent, lose vigilance or take for granted our current achievements, stability and peace. Because if we are not careful, the mutual trust and tolerance we have built over the years can crumble overnight. Only by working together can we prevent extremism from destroying our racial harmony and prevent the terrorists from taking any chance to undermine the peaceful co-existence of different races.
I suggest that the Government continue to strengthen national education, organise inter-religious, interracial exhibitions in various constituencies so that people can better understand one another's culture and customs. This will also be a very good opportunity for new immigrants to understand Singapore's multicultural and multi-religious society.
Let us continue to build a caring, loving, supportive and inclusive society. We must stay united, regardless of race, language and religion to build a fair and just Singapore.
(In English): Singaporeans must continue to work together to build an inclusive and compassionate community. We must be considerate and tolerant of the little differences which make our cultures so rich and unique, bearing in mind that we have more in common and share more similarities than differences. We can only progress by helping one another. The able caring for the less able, and those blessed with more must share with those who are less fortunate, regardless of race, language or religion.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Time Limit for Minister's Speech","subTitle":"Suspension of Standing Orders","sectionType":"OS","content":"The Government Whip (Mr Chan Chun Sing): Mr Speaker, may I seek your consent and the general assent of Members present to move, \"That the proceedings on the item under discussion be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No 48(8) to remove the time limit in respect to Minister K Shanmugam's speech.
Mr Speaker: I give my consent. Does the Whip have the general assent of hon Members present to so move?
[(proc text) Hon Members indicated assent. (proc text)]
[(proc text) With the consent of Mr Speaker and the general assent of Members present, question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Resolved, \"That the proceedings on the item under discussion be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order 48(8) to remove the time limit in respect to Minister K Shanmugam's speech.\" − [Mr Chan Chun Sing.] (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Staying United Against the Terrorism Threat","subTitle":"Motion","sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Debate resumed (proc text)]
The Minister for Home Affairs and Minister for Law (Mr K Shanmugam): Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank Mr Christopher de Souza for moving this Motion. I thank Members for their views. Many constructive suggestions have been made, which my Ministry will study. I also thank the Members from the Workers' Party, many of whom have made very constructive suggestions and we will look at them.
I will set out the types of threats we face, our response, and what the Government and the community can do.
First, what are the types of terror threats that we face? If you look at world and regional events − Marawi, Rakhine in Southeast Asia and, of course, the Middle East, these attract would-be fighters and others who feel angry. If you look at the Southern Philippines, if the situation is not dealt with, it could become an operating base for fighters from the Middle East, who would go from this region and, eventually, they would then radiate out back into this region again, well-trained with fighting skills.
And that can take the problems in this region to a level very different from what it has been up to now. This general situation has been made much worse by the mixing of politics and religion in this region and the rise of politicians and religious leaders who openly advocate intolerance.
So, quite frankly, Sir, the direction, the trajectory of where this region is going is quite worrying. And sometimes I wish we can be more frank and share with the people of Singapore what we know. But both foreign policy considerations and security considerations make it very difficult to let everyone know what it is that we are facing. That is one type of threat: regional situation, world events.
The second is the release of radicalised prisoners. Mr de Souza spoke about it. Laws in this region and some countries allow prisoners to be released even before they are de-radicalised. They are free to plot and are capable of inflicting harm.
The third type of threat that we face, of course, is self-radicalisation. It happens in Singapore as well. Three Singaporeans have gone to the Middle East. You saw one of them recently in the video. Two of them brought their families. The number detained under the ISA has increased, as Mr de Souza pointed out. Since 2015, we have also picked up over 40 foreign workers, domestic helpers included, who have been radicalised online by ISIS propaganda.
There have been several calls for Singaporeans to copy attacks using vehicles, knives and day-to-day implements. We do not say much about this, but it is there. I do not know how many Members realised but, last year, we picked up someone who was intending to go off to the Middle East to fight. He was a driver of a large dump truck.
The fourth aspect of the problem is divisive preachings. It is an insidious threat which seeks to divide society along racial, religious lines and I will say more about it later.
In the context of these threats, what is our response? I will share three aspects.
First, deterrence and protection. I call it the kinetic aspect. How would the Police respond? What are the operational responses to terror attacks? We have spoken about it frequently. So, I do not intend to go into details. I think most Members will know. Secondly, yesterday, Parliament passed the Infrastructure Protection Bill. It hardens our infrastructure, our buildings. There is a cost to be paid and that cost is imposed on us by the terrorists. So, we have no choice. That is the first aspect of response.
The second is the community response, both to help prevent an attack and when an attack occurs, to deal with the aftermath. The community must, first of all, be made aware of the threats, to the extent that we can make them aware of it. They have to be prepared, know how to protect themselves, and must be able to mobilise the rest of the community and protect the community as a whole. And after an attack, we need to also mobilise people, make people come together to stand united. This is the key objective of SGSecure.
SGSecure was launched by the Prime Minister about a year ago. Today, we have nearly one million devices with the SGSecure app. Our officers have knocked on more than 400,000 houses. We have spoken with 220,000 households, about one in two. Members of Parliament who do house visits will know that ratio. We have had 38 Emergency Preparedness Days around Singapore in different constituencies, 16 Crisis Response Exercises in neighbourhoods, and visited and spoken at more than 160 schools.
All this was done within a year. I think the SGSecure team has done an outstanding amount of work, working with our partners − PA, the Ministry of Manpower (MOM), the Ministry of Communications and Information, the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth and the Ministry of Defence. But much more needs to be done and has to be done. In the context of speaking about communities, how do we deal with workplaces?
Ms K Thanaletchimi spoke about this, the importance of ensuring that companies are ready. I agree. We are trying to do so. We have enhanced the bizSAFE framework to help businesses be prepared in the case of an attack. We are encouraging companies to develop contingency plans if their premises come under attack. We have arranged for Safety seminars. We use the Safety and Security Watch Groups. This is focused on the members and employees. Last week, Deputy Prime Minister Teo launched the SGSecure Guide for Workplaces. By early next year, 150,000 of these guides would be sent out to workplaces. It is a partnership with MOM. MOM is taking an active role in this.
Third, social media influencers. Mr Desmond Choo spoke about the importance and need for influencers to be part of the first responders when an attack happens. We entirely agree. MHA and MCI are engaging high profile influencers to reach out to different segments of the community when an attack happens.
Next, we have to also consider building resilience in the community. After an attack, society needs to pull itself together and stay united. Mr de Souza called this \"winning the psychological battle\". This is the key part of SGSecure's work. Several Members have made this point − a united community is a key factor in defeating terrorism.
If you look at other countries, recent experience shows, once there is a terrorist attack, then there is heightened suspicion among communities. In the current climate, that almost inevitably means Islamophobia. London police collected data after the London Bridge attack this year. They noted a fivefold increase in Islamophobic attacks.
If you try and strengthen trust after an attack, it is too late. We need to strengthen cohesiveness and our unity now, do what we have been doing and add on to it. As Members have emphasised, this means going back to one of the fundamental principles of our society, which is multiracialism.
Let me spend a little bit of time because this is, in some ways, the essence of what I am going to say. Let us recall what Mr Lee Kuan Yew said at Independence, \"We are going to have a multiracial nation in Singapore. We will set the example. This is not a Malay nation; this is not a Chinese nation; this is not an Indian nation. Everybody will have his place: equal; language, culture, religion.\"
Moving, inspiring, determined. That was the Singapore we worked for. That is the Singapore we want, and that is the Singapore we must work for.
It is useful to consider in context Dr Martin Luther King's famous \"I have a dream\" speech. That speech, as many Members might know, was made in 1963, two years before Mr Lee spoke, but I think we can save it in the same timeframe. To quote a few key parts of that speech, Dr King said, \"I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the colour of their skin but by the content of their character. I have a dream that one day little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls and walk together as sisters and brothers.\"
Dr King said this in America where a Judge had said, in 1965, \"Almighty God created the races White, Black, Yellow, Malay and Red, and he placed them on separate continents... The fact that he had separated the races shows that he did not intend them to mix.\" This was from a Judge in 1965. In Dr King's America of 1963, he had to speak what he spoke about as a dream.
Mr Lee, in Singapore in 1965, spoke in determined tones as to what Singapore will be. It was a vision for which we were thrown out of the Federation. Fifty years later, it has become more of a reality. It is a reality we have worked for these 50 years. It is not a perfect reality, but we are on the right path. It is worth recalling this history, as we note the troubled race relations across the world.
We do not in Singapore have movements titled, \"Black Lives Matter\" or counter movements \"Blue Lives Matter\". Because for us, All Lives Matter. Terrorism, radicalisation, extremism, these challenges have to be met with the same dedication and resolve by us affirming the fundamental principle − multiracialism.
Sir, how far can we go in this direction? Mr Murali Pillai made some good points on this. We often hear this suggestion: why do we even need to talk about race? Can we not just say we are all Singaporeans? Or as the late Mr Rajaratnam said: let us have a homogenous Singaporean race.
I will make three points in this context. First, what is behind the ideal, the desire to do away with racial identity and create a single identity? Can that be achieved? Second, what is the reality of racial identities today? And third, how can we deal with them?
First, this idea of trying to do away with our individual racial identities. Can this be achieved? Many have thought this not possible. For example, Du Bois said, and I quote: \"he who ignores or seeks to override the race idea in human history ignores and overrides the central thought of all history.\" Mr Rajaratnam would, of course, have been aware of this when he formed his own views. And Mr Rajaratnam took a different view. A noble ideal.
Looking at current trends, the kind of centrifugal forces that society is facing, including Singapore, online, there are different pulls and pushes. I think many will agree it is going to be challenging to achieve a homogenous race of Singaporeans in the near term. What we can realistically achieve is a strong national identity, a Singaporean identity, which will overlay our separate racial, religious identities, and that framework can create a vibrant society.
Second, what is the reality of race relationships today? Let me again, in this context, quote President Obama as to how he had seen it during his own journey. And I quote: \"The emotions between the races could never be pure… whether we sort out our demons or salvation, the other race would always remain just that: menacing, alien and apart.\" I quote this to show that even in a country that is often held out as the model of democracy, this is how a successful African-American, a future President, saw race relationships at one point in time.
For us in Singapore, I think it is safe to say, we have generally moved quite far from seeing another race as \"menacing, alien and apart.\" That is the measure of our success.
How have race relationships changed in the US in the course of the Obama Presidency? In a New York Times/CBS News poll in April 2009, a few months after he took office, 65% of Americans regarded race relations as generally good. This was 100 days after President Obama's inauguration. Of them, 59% of African-Americans, and 65% of white Americans thought race relationships were good.
The same poll, done seven years later, July 2016, last year, 69% of Americans believed race relations were generally bad; with only 26% saying they were generally good. That was a 40% drop between 2009 and 2016. That is the reality in most places. The fault lines are difficult to deal with in many countries.
How can we deal with racial and religious fault lines? We have never believed that a laissez-faire approach in creating a national identity for a multiracial society will work. We were activists in this respect. We have had an activist policy of fostering inter-religious and interracial harmony. Many examples: EIP, several Members have spoken about it, the building up of our neighbourhoods. Dr Tan Wu Meng raised the need to ensure that they have sufficient interaction in spaces in the new HDB estates. HDB, when they design, they safeguard spaces where the communities can gather. For new block designs, there are additional areas for interaction beyond the void deck, for example, precinct pavilions, three-generation playgrounds, roof-top gardens. There are dedicated spaces like community centres for people from different races to gather, bond. Our national school system, with English as the medium of instruction; National Service (NS). In fact, we are often accused of being too interventionist and too focused on race. I do not think one can be too interventionist in this context.
[Deputy Speaker (Mr Charles Chong) in the Chair]
It is useful to say what is now being said in other parts of the world with regard to race relations and integration. Let me quote Prime Minister Theresa May, who said in June of this year, and I quote: \"…there is, to be frank, far too much tolerance of extremism in our country.\"
Some people would hold up Britain as a model of free speech, as the kind of country that perhaps achieves a good balance between being too strict and being too lax. But this is what the Prime Minister had to say: \"…our country needs to come together to take out this extremism; and we need to live our lives not in a series of separated, segregated communities, but as one truly United Kingdom.\"
Has Britain gotten it right, the balance? Have we gotten it right? Are we repressive?
In May 2017, she said: \"There is … a role for government to help people and build up organisations in society to promote and defend Britain's values and stand up to the extremists who want to undermine our values and impose their twisted beliefs onto the rest of us.\"
We go to Germany, Chancellor Angela Merkel said: German attempts to create a multicultural society had, I quote, \"utterly failed\". She was very frank. Since the 1960s, many Turkish citizens moved to Germany for work. They stayed in Germany. They started families. The assumption was that the new immigrants settling in Germany would, over time, naturally assimilate themselves. But what, in fact, happened was the creation of parallel, isolated societies. The German government is now playing a more interventionist role.
We have been fortunate that 50 years ago, our leaders had the foresight to deal with this problem without being clouded by ideology. They were practical. They were focused. And their ideology was, \"we want everybody to be together\", which is a noble ideology.
Other countries' experience reminds us that we have to continue to build on the strong foundations that our country has had. We have to continue to be activist. Ms Sun Xueling cited the Pew Research Centre study on religious diversity that Singapore is ranked top amongst 232 countries. Mr de Souza cited several studies.
I would say this though. I am usually careful of such studies and reports. They have ranked us sometimes at the top and sometimes at the bottom. You need to check the methodology and the people who do these reports. For example, if I could digress and make a point here: take the Reporters sans frontières' (RSF's) Reporters without Borders' ranking on press freedom. I have spoken about this before in 2009. In 2008, RSF ranked us 144 out of 173 countries, below Guinea, Sudan, Pakistan, amongst others. Thus, I pointed out in 2009, that at about the same time RSF came out with their report, the International Herald Tribune (IHT) had a news story on Guinea, in fact, it was one or two days before I made my speech. And IHT said that people were being gunned down by a \"brutal military junta\"; women were being raped on the streets. But in RSF's eyes, their press freedom was higher than ours.
And RSF, of course, continues to rank us poorly. In 2017, it ranked us 151 out of 180 countries, below countries like Guinea again; Gambia, where journalists were detained, media outlets shut down, Internet disconnected, international phone calls banned last year; South Sudan, where it was described as having one of the world's most serious refugee crisis, suffering the effects of a devastating civil war; Afghanistan is ranked ahead of us; Pakistan is ranked ahead of us. I would invite RSF to please go there.
So, we have to be discerning about these rankings and how they are done and what are the political objectives behind them. And sometimes, ignore them, when they are patently false and not hold them up as a mantra.
With that, I will say, we should be doing quite well in comparison with many other countries when it comes to religious diversity and guaranteeing religious minorities. And really, you do not need studies and reports. You look at our lived reality. What is the experience? Your experience, my experience, the experience of our people. We know the answer. We can agree on the whole that we are going in the right direction. But it is always work in progress. I think Mr Pritam Singh used that phrase in a similar context in his speech. Mr Gan Thiam Poh said that there is scope to improve our appreciation of other religious groups. I agree with him.
Let me move on to how do we encourage greater integration. Many Members − Ms Sun Xueling, Dr Tan Wu Meng, Mr Liang Eng Hwa and others, spoke about the importance of each one of us as individuals, doing our part.
Ms Sun Xueling called for all Singaporeans to take a small step forward, so that the distance among the races narrow. We need that. Singaporeans need to come together. They need to understand one another better; not drift apart and withdraw into our own racial and religious communities.
We have to create more common spaces. Mr Alex Yam said racial and religious harmony must go beyond tokenism. Yes. We need genuine acceptance, we need genuine respect, and to honour one another. It is important that every citizen feels part of this society and has a strong sense of belonging. We need to create common spaces, bring people together, facilitate interactions and build strong, meaningful relationships.
In this context, Assoc Prof Daniel Goh made some remarks on self-help groups. Let me share some personal experiences. I served as President of SINDA for I think five or six years. The ideal is, of course, that self-help groups should not exist and we should have race-neutral help groups. The reality: CDAC, MENDAKI, SINDA, Eurasian Association, they are able to mobilise more volunteers from the respective individual communities, get more support that way.
As SINDA President, I told SINDA, let us get more non-Indian volunteers. So, we went out on a recruitment drive. At the end of the day, we did get more non-Indian volunteers, but the percentage was 11%; 89% was still Indian.
It is a journey. We have some goals and ideals, but we also need to be realistic and practical, and mobilise the community along the different lines that mobilisation is possible and, at the same time, keep reminding ourselves that while we mobilise the community to help those who are less well-performing, we also remind them that they are Singaporeans and they should help everybody else.
And then, the self-help groups moved, provided tuition support for those of other races. They opened their doors after having started helping their own. And, of course, most of the load then goes on to CDAC because they have the most centres. So, again, it is something where the anchorage, the majority community, voluntarily takes on a greater share of the burden. It is not easy to achieve in most places. And the Government encouraged all of this.
Ten years ago, the four self-help groups came together with CDAC and they have OnePeople.sg. The name speaks for itself.
What Assoc Prof Daniel Goh spoke about, the approaches are already happening. Basically, the self-help groups and communal bodies are not mutually exclusive to fostering integration, if properly managed. The different challenges require different solutions. The education programmes that Assoc Prof Goh spoke about, they already exist. And I am sure Dr Janil Puthucheary, who heads up OnePeople.sg, would be happy to give the Member a briefing, so that he will have a better understanding of what they do. What we need is a greater understanding of what we already do in many areas.
Mr Leon Perera acknowledged that we are not a fully race-blind society. I think that is acknowledging the obvious. Channel NewsAsia surveys showed this last year and this year. Other surveys show that there is a line among the races. So, we might as well acknowledge that and then try and build bonds and a common identity. The Member made a number of other points about, for example, playing in common corridors. That, as I have mentioned earlier, was a deliberate Government policy of building HDB estates in a way which integrates people.
The Member also made a number of general statements, as I listened, and they seem to be almost everything that we are already doing. For example, have some controls on speech relating to race and religion and, at the same time, also create some space for talking about them. Indeed, I would be happy if Members see it that way. That is what we are doing.
And the Member said repression is not an answer. Exactly. And I can assure the Member and everybody else, like he quoted, Saddam Hussein is not a model for this Government. In Iraq, what you had was a minority suppressing the majority in the first place, quite brutally, and, now, what is being suggested is that the minority is being oppressed. That is not a model for us. Neither is Marshal Tito a model for us. Our model is the governance that Mr Lee Kuan Yew, Dr Goh Keng Swee, Mr S Rajaratnam and others provided. That is the model that we have taken. And that model, for example, allowed the Member, a person from a minority community to go from an HDB flat, playing with other races − a deliberate Government policy − to top schools and then to Oxford. And I believe the state paid for most of that. So, in a sense, Mr Leon Perera symbolises the success of Singapore's multiracial approach.
So, I agree with all the broad concepts from the general points that the Member has made. But governance has to go beyond generalities. You have to build the integrated communities in HDB estates. You have to make sure your schools are open for all races. You have to have the NS system. The hallmark of our predecessors was to take the general ideas and then successfully convert them into practical steps. And if we want to change any of that, let us have a care.
The Member said we need to focus on the day-to-day. Yes, we do. And I believe I have explained that. At the same time, let us not forget that symbolism and seats of power matter. For example, if every Cabinet Minister and every Member of this House were from one race, I think it will be a very different matter, would it not? And the Member accepts that, because he accepted that multiracialism is necessary in the corridors of power as well.
As for the point that the cure must not be worse than the disease, again, I accept that. It is a general statement. But also remember there are some aspects of the disease that look pretty terrible, like Iraq, like the massacres in the former Yugoslavia, like Syria. So, we share the same aspirations. We need to convert those aspirations into practical realities in a way which is doable in the context of Singapore.
Ms Rahayu Mahzam spoke about the Muslim-only launderette in Johor. Narrow-mindedness in the name of Islam seeks to drive a wedge between Muslims and non-Muslims. The owner was asked to stop that discriminatory practice or shut down. We would not want something like that in Singapore. The tendencies and the risks are there and we need to guard against them.
And I agree with some of the points made in this context by Mr Pritam Singh and Mr Muhamad Faisal Abdul Manap. Mr Pritam Singh said neighbours willing to be open-minded, live-and-let-live attitude. Precisely. That is what we need to encourage. And Mr Muhamad Faisal Manap talked about open-mindedness, respecting the differences of people and national values. Precisely.
Next, let me move on to religious teachers. There is also a problem if a religious teacher tells his followers that they cannot make friends with people of other faiths or an employer. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in this context, may I seek your permission to show a video, please?
Mr Deputy Speaker: Proceed, please. [A video clip was shown to hon Members.]
Mr K Shanmugam: This religious leader was originally from India, he is in Zimbabwe. He used to come to Singapore regularly to preach. Three years ago, we banned him. There was some unhappiness, but I think Members will understand why. He said that \"it is the biggest sin and crime for a Muslim to wish a non-Muslim Merry Christmas or Happy Deepavali\", and I suppose the same goes for \"Happy Chinese New Year\". This is dangerous. Divisiveness. Our common space will shrink. And different segments of the community will drift apart.
So, we made no apologies for taking that approach, banning that. Because we cannot allow this sort of preaching to take hold in Singapore and gain followers. Taken to extremes, such preaching can have very serious consequences. For example, in 2016, a Muslim shopkeeper in Glasgow was stabbed by a fellow Muslim to death a day after he put up a Facebook posting wishing customers \"Happy Easter\". We need to be careful about foreign preachers who may not understand our context.
I agree with Mr Muhamad Faisal Manap that religious teachings must be aligned with our national values. Our religious bodies do draw on religious leadership from abroad. For example, MUIS has a Distinguished Visitors' Programme. Many distinguished Islamic scholars come and share their experiences. Likewise, for other religions. And that is to be welcomed. We did not say no to that. But it is important to be clear on the practices which will not work here and we have to be careful that we do not import the religious conflicts from other countries, even as we sympathise and offer help, where appropriate.
Mr Pritam Singh said our first loyalty should always remain to Singapore even if our common sense of humanity makes us feel for the plight of others in conflicts overseas. And I fully agree. We have to be careful not to import those religious conflicts here.
Mr Alex Yam, Ms Sun Xueling and other Members have said our Muslim community has taken the lead. They have put in place a code of ethics for religious teachers and, on the ground, Ms Rahayu Mahzam shared that members of the Muslim community actively speak out against extremist preachings. That reaffirms that Singapore Muslims object to the misguided teachings of ISIS.
Our National Council of Churches has spoken up against undesirable practices of foreign Christian preachers. Mufti Menk, whom Members saw in the video, was not the only preacher I banned. A few weeks ago, we banned two Christian preachers who had made several Islamophobic comments. The National Council of Churches came out after that. Those two preachers had been contacted by churches in Singapore. They were coming to speak, we said no. And the National Council of Churches came out and told all churches to be careful whom they invite. And that is good.
We do need to really look at our practices. Do they promote tolerance? Do they promote integration? Or do they tend to divide? We need to draw a clear line between what is acceptable and what is not acceptable. We have to develop our own style in the practice of religion, situated within the context of our multi-religious, multiracial society.
Mixing of religion and politics is another dangerous area and we need to guard against that because that is happening quite a bit around the region.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, may I seek your permission to have another video shown, please?
Mr Deputy Speaker: Proceed, please. [A video clip was shown to hon Members.]
Mr K Shanmugam: This is Dr Zakir Naik, who will not come to Singapore, but you can assume that Mufti Menk and Dr Naik are all around the region preaching. And their videos are available. Many people go and buy them, including Singaporeans. But such is what is happening and they are feted and welcomed for their viewpoints.
So, you can imagine. You can have a sense of what is happening in this region. A religious leader telling people they cannot vote for someone of another religion. I think Singaporeans will say that is not acceptable. And if we allowed that kind of teaching in Singapore, you can easily imagine what else might be said by people. It will move on to race. If you are one race, you should vote for a person of that race. It happens in other places.
This is a broad canvas of the kind of problems we face, some of the challenges, the approaches we take. In concrete terms, what are we looking at in this context?
First, let me talk about restrictions on foreign preachers. Foreign preachers who do not share our values of religious harmony will not be allowed to preach in Singapore. I spoke about their possible influence earlier. As such an open society, we cannot avoid being influenced by external developments. But we have to try our best to insulate ourselves from overseas events and foreign doctrines which can do us serious harm. We are studying how we can tighten the process and ensure that such preachers do not come into Singapore to preach.
Second, hate speech. Social media emboldens some people to say terrible and evil things. Mr Murali Pillai and Mr Desmond Choo said such comments have the potential to inflame emotions and can go viral. There are laws today. We have used them. We are studying whether we need to move more quickly and have more options to deal with this particular issue appropriately and decisively when there is hate speech.
Third, prevention of radicalisation. Mr Murali Pillai and Dr Intan Mokhtar spoke on the importance of community actors − parents, spouses, teachers and youths − playing their part in identifying whether someone close to them is showing signs of radicalisation. There were constructive suggestions on how we can support these people to help. Minister Dr Yaacob Ibrahim has highlighted some of the current initiatives. We will study those suggestions and see how we can support them further.
Fourth, the Islamic College. Dr Yaacob spoke about this. The Singapore Islamic College, when set up, can train a new generation of religious teachers who will understand our multi-religious and multiracial context. We support what Dr Yaacob has said.
Fifth, dealing with segregationist teachings. Our religious groups and leaders are generally very supportive of our efforts to build and maintain religious harmony in Singapore. They know how important it is that our religions co-exist harmoniously and why we need to maintain our common spaces. Religion can, and has been, a source of strength for our society, but we must also watch out for exclusivist, intolerant practices because that can deepen our fault lines and weaken our entire society. I spoke earlier about this. So, we are reviewing the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act to see how we can best deal with this issue.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, since 1965, we have come very far in terms of integration. But I think everyone would agree that we have not arrived, and one never knows whether there is such a thing as having arrived.
Singapore's approach, as I have sketched out, is to build a Singapore identity that can accommodate diversity and celebrate our different racial and religious identities whilst at the same time creating a broad common space that we all share as Singaporeans and can build our sense of solidarity as one nation. That is an ongoing journey. It has to be continuously adjusted and refined as circumstances evolve, both locally and internationally.
In that context, the stronger religiosity that we have been experiencing across all religions is a source of strength, as long as we get the framework right. And we have to pay close attention to this. Almost 15 years ago, I spoke in this House during the debate on the White Paper following the JI arrests. I shared my view that it is an ideological battle that has to be won, and it is incumbent on all of us, as Singaporeans, to first reach across racial lines to build stronger ties across communities, ties that bind us more closely. That is the only way to cut terrorism from its base. We have to win the fight for hearts and minds.
I said then that each of us must take a deep and honest look at ourselves, examine our attitudes, mindsets towards our Muslim brothers and sisters, and ask in our heart of hearts, do we respect and value them as Singaporeans, and accept them as equals? Or are we just being superficial and politically correct? Are we showing them, with sincerity, that we genuinely want to build deep links? That is vital. That will define where our society is headed and that will determine whether we are able to come together as one people to celebrate the rich diversity amongst us and be the stronger for it or be divided by the differences and allow suspicion and negativity to tear our society apart.
And I said that Muslim Singaporeans also have a duty to react in a way which will encourage closer ties. Freedom to practise a religion should not mean a total ban on the discussion of practices, which is similar to the point Mr Leon Perera made. That will hinder a healthy, economically productive life and active citizenry. It should allow us to discuss practices that impact on others in society. We must be prepared to debate this but handle it sensitively. Many of these points are still relevant 15 years later, today.
I will emphasise one of the points on terrorism. It is not tied to any one religion. The man who killed more than 50 people and injured several hundreds yesterday in Las Vegas, as far as I know, is not a Muslim. So, we have to be careful about linking, and I stand corrected, as this is what I heard Er Dr Lee saying —
Er Dr Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon): I did not make that comment.
Mr K Shanmugam: I see. I am sorry. Then, I apologise.
Anyway, I would say that we have to be careful about linking an entire religion to terrorism. Terrorism is not a threat that will go away anytime soon. It threatens our very existence as one of the most religiously diverse and harmonious societies in the world, where different religious faiths have been able to co-exist peacefully. We must resolve never to allow that and maintain the precious harmony that we have here.
As to the religious identity of that man, I based myself on what I read earlier in the morning but I stand corrected. Maybe I should say, \"I do not know\". Thank you, Sir. [Applause.]
","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":"Motion","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 up to 30 minutes.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Staying United Against the Terrorism Threat","subTitle":"Motion","sectionType":"OS","content":"Mr Speaker: Mr Christopher de Souza.
Mr Christopher de Souza: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to thank the 17 Members of Parliament, including Minister K Shanmugam and Minister Yaacob Ibrahim, who have contributed much to the robust debate on this Motion.
That multiracialism can be discussed so openly by Members of many different races here in Singapore's Parliament is itself a strength not many parliaments around the world possess. Furthermore, that we could achieve broad consensus in the debate that we have to stay united, regardless of race, in the face of a terror attack is itself important and positive. We have agreed broadly not to point fingers at a certain race or religion, but to condemn in a single voice the abhorrent nature of terror attacks. That agreement is not something to be belittled, especially when we see how so many countries around the world choose the fractious route of finger-pointing and ostracising. So, this bipartisan support for this Motion is good for Singapore and good for a united stand against terrorism.
Mr Alex Yam supported the idea that all Singaporeans have a role in being vigilant. He said that all of us need to be aware of the concerns, as well as the preparatory measures required. Vigilance is only part of the equation. Resilience after an attack is just as important.
Mr Desmond Choo shared the importance of having \"first responders\" online to initiate and shape discussions in a productive manner, as well as to dispel falsehoods and rumours.
Both vigilance and resilience require a collective effort. In the same way, a collective counter-offence is required to diffuse the spread of violent extremist radical teachings. As Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar has said, \"[it is] a shared responsibility, [one] which requires ... common effort and resolve.\"
Yes, we have a range of laws to prevent the spread of radicalised teachings which promote violent extremism. And as Mr Murali Pillai stated, it is important to have these laws in place now, before an attack occurs. But, as Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar also pointed out in her speech, more can be done upstream, well before muscular laws are applied. This is a good point. One major battleground upstream is the Internet. While it may propagate violent extremism, it can also be used to deter it.
What are we facing? It was reported by Channel NewsAsia that in 2015, there were 46,000 Twitter accounts and 10,000 accounts on Facebook held by those openly supporting terrorists. There were another 9,800 websites belonging to terrorist groups. We need to work on the counter-narrative. How?
Dr Intan Mokhtar shared that she hoped that there will be more \"social media savvy\" asatizahs as they have a potential to be a positive influence to shape and influence the perception of the youths.
Google's subsidiary, Jigsaw, does it by providing links to credible counter-narrative videos. These links are provided to those who had searched online for what Google's algorithms construed as potential terrorists. The counter-narrative links are not openly counter-terrorist in name and title. So, as a result, that potential reader is not deterred. Counter-narratives are key.
In fact, what we are debating today in Parliament is also a counter-narrative to terrorism. What we need to do more of is to put that counter-narrative into social media.
But we have not remained stagnant in that endeavour. Our Home Team has worked hard to keep us ahead of the game. We have invested in technology and thought out of the box to keep ahead. Through collaboration with the US, we have developed puffer portals to detect all forms of Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear and Explosive (CBRNE) threats. We have utilised the Automated Biometric and Behavioural Screening Suite to identify many blacklisted travellers. These are all important and critical initiatives.
Importantly, we also need to guard against the deadly concoction of terrorism and drugs. In Marawi, it was reported that 11 kilogrammes of high-grade methamphetamine hydrochloride or \"Shabu\" worth about US$5 million was found in a den belonging to militants. Some militants were even found high on drugs.
This is not just a problem isolated to Marawi. The Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation stated at a Security Conference in December last year, \"Terrorism is closely linked with the drug problem. Illicit drug trafficking provides the bulk of terrorism's funding.\" Therefore, to prevent funding to terrorists, we need to make sure we do our part to stop drugs from travelling into and through Singapore.
The third point is investing in multiracialism as the best socio-weapon to defeat the ills terrorism seeks to sow. As Ms Sun Xueling shared, her aspiration is that Singapore will grow \"closer to realising the ideals our nation aspires to\". Ms Rahayu Mahzam still retains the faith that the non-Muslim community in Singapore will know that Singapore Muslims strongly reject terrorism and the misguided ISIS actions.
To that end, Mr Liang Eng Hwa stated that, \"Government policies and laws alone will not be enough to bring us to that enduring level of trust and harmonious relations at the people-to-people level\". So, for Mr Liang, people-to-people relations are important. It is a good point.
Mr Leon Perera suggested to have more common spaces for people of different races to interact and integrate. I agree. Mr Leon Perera also expressed the desire that we must be aware of minorities who seek to sow discord amongst numerical majorities through influence and interference, sow discord along the lines of what the terrorism regime seeks. I agree. And I agree that that is a good desire to have. But I would also say that the laws in Singapore already deter such behaviour. The Government has already put in the legal levers to deal with this. I had mentioned the Public Order Act, Sedition Act and the Penal Code in the opening speech. All these seek, in one way or another, to deter the proliferation of violent extremism, radical teachings. So, we have systems in place already.
Mr Muhamad Faisal Manap suggested working upstream to intervene to strengthen our social cohesion to fight terrorism. He suggested the use of religious knowledge in schools to achieve that. But I think Mr Muhamad Faisal Manap would agree that much would depend on the curriculum and teaching materials of the subject, and that one requirement would be that the subject not include teachings that would incite violent extremism. That should be avoided so as not to manipulate the students.
Many of the Members here shared how multiracialism was furthered in their communities. Dr Tan Wu Meng, speaking in all three languages, shared with us that the Clementi CC organised a demonstration of ketupat making for the new citizens to share with them Singapore's multiracialism.
Ms Thanaletchimi highlighted the workplace as an important venue to foster multiracialism in Singapore. As Ms Thanaletchimi stated, as our Singapore workforce constituents comprise a combination of local and migrant workers, it is not only important to inculcate the value of multiracialism and multiculturalism among Singaporeans but also to the migrant workers from various countries.
Singapore's multiracial tapestry is important. And in preserving it, Mr Pritam Singh shared with us that conflicts of another country, although emotive, should not be transported here to destroy the social fabric we have in Singapore − our common humanity. I agree.
Assoc Prof Daniel Goh asked why the word \"weapon\" was used in the Motion's title. Let me share. When I was crafting the Motion, it was to view terrorism as an enemy in a real sense. After all, terrorism is an affront to Singapore and all her values. I thought \"weapon\" was a good analogy for what we are up against, and the hybrid word \"socio-weapon\" was chosen because terrorism is a common enemy we have to battle against as a citizenry. In peacetime, we do not use multiracialism as a weapon. But when under attack, we can deploy that multiracialism as a strength, as a weapon, against the common enemy. It is distinct from the hardware the SAF and Home Team will use, but it is as important a tool, as important a weapon when we are facing a terrorist attack on our shores. Hence, the reason for the word \"socio-weapon\" in the Motion's title.
The Community Emergency and Engagement Committee is another significant platform to ensure that our multiracialism can endure the test of a terror attack. With your permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, may I display a few slides on the LED screen?
Mr Deputy Speaker: Yes, please. [Slides were shown to hon Members.]
Mr Christopher de Souza: This tabletop exercise was organised by Ulu Pandan constituency's Community Emergency and Engagement Committee. I am sure many other constituencies have conducted similar exercises. Our grassroots leaders and key community resource persons, such as religious group leaders, gathered to simulate responding to a terror attack. Different people from different races are playing a part now to prepare for the consequences of a terror attack. Committee members were assigned to different groups, such as operations, media, logistics, community resources deployment, all everyday issues needed to overcome terror attacks. It is nothing like being prepared.
Essentially, multiracialism is a constant work-in-progress. As Minister K Shanmugam stated clearly, we have never believed that a laissez-faire approach to creating a national identity would work. We are wanting to secure a multiracial society that will work and that we are activist in this respect. As Minister Yaacob Ibrahim said passionately, we all sing the same National Anthem and hold our right fist to our hearts when reciting the pledge. These and many more experiences of being a Singaporean must mean something to every one of us, especially when the going gets tough for a member of our Singaporean family.
Dr Mercy Jesuvadian of the National Institute of Education highlighted that it is important to start building racial harmony at an early age. At the PAP Community Foundation (PCF) Sparkle Tots Preschool in my constituency, we have babies of all the different races taken care of by infant care teachers of different races. There is a photograph there. Members can see multiracial babies and multiracial infant caregivers. There is multiracial bonding on all levels − the teacher with the infant, the infants with one another, the teacher with her colleagues, the infant's family and the teacher, and the families with other families. But this also shows the big reservoir of trust we have among the races − to augment Dr Tan Wu Meng's point − to be able to entrust the baby with someone else from a different race. It is reflective of these day-after banners, which Ulu Pandan residents helped to organise, reflective of the values Singapore aspires to achieve.
Many of us here celebrate Multiracial Day in our constituencies where the children dress up in traditional costumes. Recently, in Ulu Pandan, we had a Multiracial Dessert Day. We feasted on many different kinds of desserts, from ang ku kueh, roti, samosa, pineapple tarts. We experienced the wonder of multiracialism through our appetites and stomachs. In a very real way, we tasted how each culture had something unique to offer, how each culture was unique and valuable. And we experienced it in one of the most Singaporean ways possible − food − a language that transcends the different communities. Many of us would have attended moon cake festivals over the weekend and seen residents of many races carry lanterns together, lighting up the evening with the warm glow of the lanterns.
Allow me to conclude, Sir. I took this photograph when visiting the PCF infant care centre in my ward earlier this year. It is a photograph of Makcik Minaseh carrying young Xander, holding him, caring for him. It is a meaningful photograph for me. Why? It reminded me of what happened 40 years ago. Back then, I was just born and my parents lived on Changi Air Base. My father and mother had asked a young Malay lady, Cik Zainap, whether she would like to help my mother in taking care of the children. My father was flying fighters then in the 1970s. It was dangerous. Pilots' wives went through quite a lot then, not knowing if something would happen in the air to their husbands. So, any extra help at home was very welcomed by my mother. Zainap became part of our family. She worked well with my mother and she saw my sister and I grow up. Even after we settled down and started our own families, our family kept in touch with Zainap.
She is now known as Nenek Zainap to our children and she considers them each her cucu. We keep in close touch. This photograph was taken when my parents, my wife and I and our children visited Zainap last year in her Tampines home for Hari Raya. Since then, we had our No 3 − so one more cucu for her! So, it is wonderful that in Singapore, we can consider one another as part of the same keluarga, the same family. My parents and I are a part of her family, and she is a part of ours.
Sir, one more example. In 2012, the Prime Minister came to Ulu Pandan to launch the Choo Siu Heng Scholarship, named after a long-standing and selfless community leader who dedicated over 50 years of service to the community. Mr Choo believed in a Singaporean Singapore, with multiracialism as a bedrock. Mr Choo was a source of great wisdom and encouragement, especially in how to reach out and serve residents. Sadly, in 2011, he passed away. We decided to honour his legacy by setting up a scholarship in his name to sponsor the university fees of a young Singaporean who is involved in community work in Ulu Pandan. Every year since then, we have given out a scholarship to a new and deserving student. The second recipient was Waseemah. She is pictured here with Mr Choo's widow, Mr Choo's son Roland, and Mr Choo's grandchildren. Also seen are Waseemah's parents. Mr Choo is not in this photograph. But his values of a united multiracial society within an independent Singapore live on in Waseemah, who is part of the Youth Executive Committee in Ulu Pandan serving a multiracial Singapore.
When terror strikes, what instincts will come to my mind? The care of Nenek Zainap, the complete dedication of Mr Choo, the effort of Waseemah and the selfless work of the many volunteers and Singaporeans who aspire to multiracialism. We will resist pointing a finger. Instead, we trust that Singaporeans will lock hands with fellow Singaporeans of all races, face terrorism squarely, and show in unity that \"we will not be defeated, not on these shores, not in our homes, not on our soil\", and that Singapore will prevail. [Applause.]
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Resolved, (proc text)]
[(proc text) \"That this House fortifies Singapore's resolve to stay united against the threat of terrorism by reaffirming the core values of multiracialism and social cohesion and calls on the Government to continue (a) promoting vigilance and resilience among Singaporeans to deter and overcome terrorist attacks; (b) preventing the spread of radicalised teachings which promote violent extremism; and (c) investing in multiracialism as the best socio-weapon to defeat the ills that terrorism seeks to sow\". (proc text)]
","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, at its rising today, Parliament do stand adjourned to a date to be fixed.\" – [Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien.] (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Counting from President Wee Kim Wee or President Ong Teng Cheong for Reserved Presidential Election − Policy Decision or Legal Question?","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"The Leader of the House (Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, \"That Parliament do now adjourn.\"
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, President Halimah Yacob took her Oath of Office on 14 September 2017. President Halimah is a popular figure who is well-respected in many circles. She was also my former Member of Parliament, who worked hard to serve her constituents. Yet, despite her personal attributes, the lightning circumstances under which this Government installed her as the Head of State have left Singaporeans reeling in its wake.
In the immediate aftermath of announcing this year's Presidential Election as reserved for Malay candidates, the media reports highlighted how the public embraced the move with open arms, welcoming a Malay President after a break of 46 years. Yet, as the dust started to settle, it was clear that the public was very divided over this issue. At public discussion forums, such as the one organised by the Institute of Policy Studies on 8 September, law professors and retired politicians raised legal issues and shared adverse public opinions on the matter. Social media exploded in critique and satire.
Indeed, in the past few days, it seems to me that the top Government leaders have been going into overdrive, trying hard to convince Singaporeans that the Elected Presidency is an integral pillar of Singapore's commitment to multiracialism. The Government now appears to be well-aware of the unhappiness on the ground caused by its manoeuvres to install President Halimah.
Sir, this Motion does not seek to deal with the wider issues of the Presidency, nor multiracialism, which are worthy of much longer airtime. Neither is it my purpose to go into the legal arguments, some of which have been aired in our Courts in July.
This Motion focuses on the Parliamentary debates, and one aspect only of those debates. What did the Government tell Parliament was the basis for counting Reserved Presidential Elections under the hiatus-triggered model, and was what the Government told Parliament accurate? To cut to the chase, did the Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean and Minister Chan Chun Sing make misleading statements to the House that the question of which President to count from was a legal question? Did the Government all along make a policy decision itself to count from President Wee Kim Wee? Did the Government merely use the Attorney-General's Chambers' (AGC's) advice as a cover to avoid full Parliamentary debate on why the count was not starting from President Ong Teng Cheong?
To answer this question, it is necessary to start with what happened in November during the debate on the Constitution (Amendment) Bill. During that debate on 8 November, the Prime Minister told the House the following:
\"… the symbolic role of the President is just as important as his custodial role. As a symbol of the nation, the race of the candidate is relevant. So, while individually, a good candidate of any race will be satisfactory, collectively, over a period of time, we need that mix of Presidents of different races, and the election mechanism must be designed to produce such a mix over time. This is what the hiatus-triggered model delivers.\"
\"When should the racial provision start counting? The Constitutional Amendment Bill states that the Government should legislate on this point. The Government intends to legislate when we amend the Presidential Elections Act in January next year.\"
\"We have taken the Attorney-General's (AG's) advice. We will start counting from the first President who exercised the powers of the Elected President, in other words, Dr Wee Kim Wee. That means we are now in the fifth term of the Elected Presidency.\"
\"…Therefore, by the operation of the hiatus-triggered model, the next election, due next year (2017), will be a reserved election for Malay candidates.\" Unquote. That was the Prime Minister's speech.
Sir, the clear impression given to Members was that the Government's decision to count from President Wee Kim Wee was based on the AGC's advice. That must have been why the Prime Minister sequenced the sentences as he did, that having taken the AGC's advice, the Government was counting the five terms from President Wee Kim Wee. The Prime Minister did not say that the Government intended to count from President Wee Kim Wee and that the AGC had merely confirmed that it was acceptable to do so.
Sir, it seems that the media had a similar impression. In a Channel NewsAsia (CNA) report on 8 November, there was a headline which read as follows, reporting on the debate:
\"Next Presidential Election to be reserved for Malay Candidates. Prime Minister Lee says the Government has taken the Attorney-General's advice that the racial provisions in the review of the Elected Presidency will start counting from Dr Wee Kim Wee.\"
That was the headline. The impression that it was the AGC which advised the Government to count from President Wee was perpetuated the next day, 9 November, by Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean. During clarification time, I rose to expressly recall that the Prime Minister had said that the decision to count from Dr Wee Kim Wee was \"based on the AGC's advice on how to count the terms\". I asked whether the Government was prepared to publish that advice.
Deputy Prime Minister Teo did not reply immediately. After a Cabinet huddle, Deputy Prime Minister Teo eventually rose and responded as follows:
\"On the reserved elections and how to count, I would like to confirm that this is indeed the Attorney-General's Chambers' advice. And if not, and you do not think that is correct, I think it is possible if you wish to challenge judicially.\"
Let me repeat what he said.
\"On the reserved elections and how to count, I would like to confirm that this is indeed the Attorney-General's Chambers' advice. And if not, and you do not think that is correct, I think it is possible if you wish to challenge judicially.\"
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, any reasonable person hearing those words would assume the following:
(a) That the AGC had advised the Government how to count; and
(b) That the AGC's advice involved a question of law. Why else would I be asked to challenge it judicially?
As the debate went on, I was asked whether I was suggesting that the Prime Minister had falsely told the House that such was the advice of the AGC. I repeated that my interest was in asking for the AGC's advice to be published. Deputy Prime Minister Teo then told the House that he would ask the Prime Minister to consider publishing the advice.
Three months later, on 6 February, this House held a Second Reading debate on the Presidential Elections (Amendment) Bill. What struck me in preparing for the debate was that the Bill contained a new Schedule with a Table, stipulating that the count was to start from President Wee Kim Wee. It dawned on me then that the Government had simply wanted Parliament to make new law to stipulate that the count should start from President Wee Kim Wee. It was completely a Government decision.
When I put it to the Government that counting from President Wee Kim Wee was \"an arbitrary and deliberate decision to achieve a desired outcome\", Minister Chan Chun Sing rejected my assertion. He told the House that the Government had decided not to publish the AGC's advice. Minister Chan further said:
\"The Government is confident of the advice rendered by the Attorney-General. We proceeded on that basis during the debates on the constitutional changes in this House. Prime Minister Lee explained to all why we needed the hiatus-triggered mechanism, and we passed the Constitution (Amendment) Bill. We are here today to put the nuts and bolts in place for a decision made clear by the Prime Minister during the debates in November. And we will not go through this again…\"
He continued: \"Ms Lim once again questioned the Attorney-General's advice. I am a bit bewildered by this. I would like to clarify: (a) is Ms Lim suggesting that the Attorney-General did not give the Government the appropriate advice; or (b) that the Prime Minister has not been truthful with the Attorney-General's advice? If it is the first, then I think Ms Lim, as suggested by Deputy Prime Minister Teo, can challenge this in the Courts. But if it is the second, then I am afraid it is a very serious issue to cast aspersions on the integrity of our Prime Minister.\"
Sir, we should note what happened here. Instead of confirming that it was the Government who made the decision to count from President Wee, Minister Chan explicitly said that the Government was confident of the AGC's advice and proceeded on that basis to make the Constitutional changes. He said he did not want to reopen the debate on the count from President Wee, even though Parliament was then asked, for the first time, to enact the Table stipulating the count from President Wee. Here we were debating a law that would practically rewrite history, by deeming President Wee as the first Elected President. Yet, instead of the Government using the opportunity to clarify the matter and any misimpressions created, it chose, instead, to impute sinister intentions to me. And that was how the Parliamentary debates on the reserved Presidential Elections ended.
Sir, with this background, we now turn to what happened next in the Court proceedings brought by former Presidential Election candidate, Dr Tan Cheng Bock. In High Court Originating Summons No 495 of 2017, Dr Tan sought a declaration from the Court that the amendment to the Presidential Elections Act in February to count from President Wee Kim Wee was unconstitutional. In other words, his case was that Parliament had passed an unconstitutional law in February when it legislated the Schedule to the Presidential Elections Act, with the Table to count the hiatus from President Wee.
Sir, prior to commencing his case, Dr Tan had obtained the opinion of a prominent Queen's Counsel (QC) in London, considered an expert on Westminster-model Constitutional Law. The advice received was that Parliament's amendment to the Presidential Elections Act to count reserved Presidential Elections from President Wee Kim Wee was unconstitutional. The basis for this opinion was that one had to read the Constitution in a purposive manner, that is, the Constitution should be interpreted in a way that furthers its purpose. Since the purpose of the Constitutional amendment was to cure the problem of five Presidential Elections not turning out a candidate from a particular ethnic community, counting from President Wee did not make sense, since he was never elected. This would mean that it was proper to count only from President Ong Teng Cheong or later. If that were to be done, this year's Presidential Election would still be open to candidates of all communities.
Sir, although Dr Tan's case has now been dismissed by the Court of Appeal, what is most telling is the stand taken by the AGC in the case. Deputy AG Hri Kumar, a former People's Action Party (PAP) Member of Parliament, represented the Government. He made the following submissions to the Court. Before the High Court on 29 June 2017, the Deputy AG said:
\"The Prime Minister never said that the AG advised the Prime Minister to start the count from President Wee. What the Prime Minister said is that the AG advised that what the Government was proposing to do was legitimate.\" This is from the Official Court transcript.
Mr Hri Kumar further submitted that the decision on which President to count from was a policy matter for the Government and not a legal question. He argued that, \"the AG was in no position to tell the Government where to start the count from.\"
On 31 July, before the Court of Appeal of five judges, the Deputy AG repeated his position even more vividly. He submitted that the AGC's advice was \"irrelevant\". He also tried to explain away the Prime Minister's speech on taking the AGC's advice. He said:
\"One should not look at speeches like statutory instruments. The Prime Minister had made it clear from his speech that President Wee was not a popularly elected President, but a President who exercised the powers of an Elected President. Then he says, fifth term of Elected President. A convenient term used in his speech. He was not defining presidency in this context as Elected Presidency.\"
That was Mr Hri Kumar Nair's submission to the Court. Sir, I was in Court when he made that submission, which to me, was astonishing. Was the Deputy AG saying that we should not take the Prime Minister's speech literally but loosely? Not place too much weight on the terms the Prime Minister used in making a keynote speech to Parliament to amend the Constitution?
Indeed, the Deputy AG's submission that the Prime Minister would use terms \"for convenience\" drew some scepticism from one of the Judges, who remarked from the Bench that the Prime Minister was speaking in a Parliamentary debate and would not refer to the Elected President \"for ease of convenience\".
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Government's reference to the AGC's advice has confused Members and also the Courts. The Ministers kept consistently referring to the AGC's advice as the basis for the legislative changes. Yet, the Deputy AG says in Court that the advice is \"irrelevant\". I would like all parties interested to look at the Court transcripts to see how the Courts struggled with trying to make sense of what the Government was saying in Parliament with regard to the AGC's advice.
Mr Deputy Speaker, the mysterious AGC's advice has still not been produced before Parliament nor the Courts. I can only assume that revealing the advice would not be useful to the Government.
Even if one were to give the benefit of doubt to the Prime Minister to assume that the Prime Minister's speech in November was just ambiguous rather than misleading, it is also deeply troubling that nobody from the front bench sought to correct the impression given. The Ministers must have known that the House understood that the Government was acting on AGC's advice on how to count, that there were legal questions involved. Yet, nobody came out to clarify that, \"Hey, actually, it was the Government who decided to count from Wee Kim Wee, it was a policy decision. Nevertheless, we have sought the AGC's blessing to cover ourselves\". This was never told to us.
Sir, as things stand, the Courts have now decided that which President to count from for the Reserved Presidential Election is, indeed, a policy decision for Parliament.
The Government's handling of the Parliamentary debates on the legislative changes for a Reserved Presidential Election has been most unsatisfactory. Here we are, debating changes affecting the highest office in the land, yet the Government decides to engage in ambiguous language and red herrings. We in this House should have been told in no uncertain terms that it was the Government that wanted to count from Wee Kim Wee. The Government should have defended its own decision on why counting from President Wee was appropriate. It should not have evaded the debate by using the AGC's advice as a distraction and then gone to Court to say that the AGC's advice was irrelevant.
Sir, with the benefit of the additional knowledge from the Court case, I now think back of the Parliamentary debates when the Government refused to publish the AGC's advice despite repeated requests. Did the Government refuse to publish the advice because doing so would have made it clear that the decision to count from President Wee was initiated by the Government and the Government alone?
Be that as it may, the Deputy AG has now told us that the AGC's advice was merely sought to legitimise what the Government itself wanted to do. Sir, the Government should have told Parliament directly that counting from President Wee was its decision and defended the decision on the merits. Instead, it chose to distract and confuse.
The Government's inconsistent explanations would further fuel the suspicions of Singaporeans about the real intention behind the legislative changes that resulted in this year's Presidential Election being a closed one.
Mr Deputy Speaker:\tMinister Shanmugam.
The Minister for Home Affairs and Minister for Law (Mr K Shanmugam): Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a few points.
First, the Government has been always very clear and upfront on the policy objectives of this hiatus-triggered reserved elections framework. It has been 46 years since we have had a Malay President and our challenge was how to achieve both meritocracy and multiracialism where qualified candidates from different races can regularly be elected to be our Head of State.
When the Prime Minister announced the appointment of the Constitutional Commission to review the Elected Presidency system, he said, our President is the Head of State, he represents all Singaporeans in our multiracial society. As such, it is important that the minorities have a chance to be elected and that this happens regularly.
Second, the Government has always been clear that when it comes to the counting, it is a policy matter for Parliament to decide. Ms Sylvia Lim protests far too much.
I made this clear upfront. In a dialogue session held after the Government released its White Paper, I was asked the following question: when would the circuit breaker to hold the Reserved Election after a racial group has not been represented in Presidential Office after five continuous terms come into effect?
What was my reply? \"The most direct answer is actually, the Government can decide. When we put in the Bill, we can say we want it to start from this period. It is … a policy decision…\" CNA reported it. It is still on record.
Ms Sylvia Lim:\tRead some more.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Court of Appeal has confirmed that it was for Parliament to decide. Ms Lim said she was present. She heard that this Judge asked that question; that was said, this was said. Why does Ms Lim not read the judgment?
There is only one person in this House whom the Courts have held to be misleading Parliament and he is not from the PAP. Only one person, after evidence is heard − Ms Lim knows whom the High Court held was misleading Parliament. So, I suppose Ms Lim knows all about misleading Parliament.
The Court of Appeal's judgment makes clear a number of things.
First, the constitutional text is clear that Parliament can choose from any of the five terms preceding the 2017 elections.
Second, the Prime Minister's speech in Parliament on the constitutional amendments made it clear that Parliament intended to give itself the discretion to specify the last term of President Wee as the first term to be counted for purposes of deciding whether an election is reserved.
Members can read the part Ms Lim quoted from the Prime Minister. I do not see anything that is ambiguous.
The point is this − and we are not changing history here; Ms Lim is a lawyer, she knows this − Dr Wee, in the second term, exercised the powers of an Elected President. There is nothing ambiguous about that. That is a matter of clear law. Parliament could have started counting from Dr Wee; could have started counting from an earlier President. Parliament decided to start from Dr Wee. It was made very clear that it was a policy decision. But in the context of that, for example, if we wanted to start from Dr Wee, are there any legal impediments to start counting from Dr Wee? I am just talking about one question amongst many that can arise. There are a number of questions that can be asked and there were also provisions relating to minority rights and so on. And I said that we are asking AGC to advise us on a number of questions. That was, I think, on the CNA transcript.
So, the Prime Minister was entirely right to say: we will start counting from here, the next elections will be reserved for a Malay President and we have taken advice from AGC.
What Ms Lim is saying is that we are starting to count from here because of AGC's advice. That was never suggested. We start counting, we are a careful Government, we make a policy decision, but we take advice to see whether there are any impediments. And this Government, as a rule, generally does not publish legal opinions that it gets. If it can be done according to the law, we do it. If the law has to be changed to achieve policy objectives, we do it.
And I said it upfront, well before the Parliamentary proceedings. And the Prime Minister was totally clear. And the Court of Appeal said the Prime Minister was very clear.
What Deputy AG Hri Kumar said in court is: you do not try and take every Member of Parliament's speech and every Minister's speech and then try and interpret it as if it is statutory interpretation. You go back to the legislation.
And we had a long spiel, totally irrelevant, about the QC's advice. Ms Lim knows what happened to the QC's advice in Court, she carefully omits saying anything about that. And we know how QC's advice can be obtained.
What matters is what the Court of Appeal has said. And the Court of Appeal has been very clear. They said that the Prime Minister has been very clear. They looked at the proceedings. They looked at the legislation. This argument that it was unconstitutional does not have any leg to stand on, because the Constitution provided for Parliament to legislate, and Parliament legislated. Nobody is suggesting that Dr Wee was elected. It is an untruth that is attributed to the proceedings. What is suggested is that he was the first person to exercise the powers of an Elected President.
And is there any legal impediment for us to start counting from there? These are questions which others may just decide for themselves. But we will usually ask AGC for advice on these things. And that is exactly what − you know if you look at the context − we decide, and we check with AGC. The Prime Minister said it, Deputy Prime Minister Teo on second day said it, and Minister Chan said it a few months later.
The Court of Appeal, as a matter of law, said AGC's advice is irrelevant. AGC also argued in Court that their advice is irrelevant. Absolutely so. Because for the legal question of whether a provision is unconstitutional or constitutional − and Ms Lim really should know about this, instead of spending so much time making a point out of nothing − the question before the Court is: this particular provision in the Presidential Elections Act, is that constitutional or unconstitutional?
What does the Court have to do? The Court has got to look at the constitutional provisions, it has got to look at the provisions in the legislation. It can have a reference to Parliamentary debates, if the provisions are not clear, and decide how it interprets, which is what the Court of Appeal did.
And in that context, what one party − the Government's lawyers told the Government, or what the other party's lawyers told the other party − Dr Tan Cheng Bock − are completely irrelevant.
That is a legal argument AGC put forward, and that is a point that the Court of Appeal also makes. But that is quite different from the Prime Minister, in Parliament, explaining that: \"Look, you know, these are the steps we have taken. We have also taken AGC's advice.\" He is telling that to the Members. It is the truth, but it is irrelevant as a matter of law. Surely, the Member knows the difference.
Let me, therefore, summarise and say this, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir. The Government made it clear, right from the time when the Prime Minister issued instructions, in terms of within Cabinet and then set out a letter explaining what he wanted to do, the terms of reference; and then, when the Constitutional Commission was set up, he also explained to the public that having a minority representation is an important issue and he wants the Constitutional Commission to consider that issue, amongst other issues.
Then, we have the Constitutional Commission's report. The Government made clear in the White Paper exactly what its approach was, including on the reserved elections. And then, we explained it on the ground, district by district. I said on record − and I am happy to be shown any other part; Ms Lim suggests that I said something else, somewhere else − that is quite untrue, I am very clear and careful about what I say and I am happy to be confronted with anything else I might have said.
I said: this is a policy matter for us to decide. And that we are taking advice on a number of issues. I am paraphrasing because I do not have it in front of me. Why would I go and say it is a policy matter if I thought it was a pure legal issue? If Ms Lim is right, then I was misleading all of Singapore.
Mr Deputy Speaker:\tMinister Shanmugam, you have 30 seconds to wrap up.
Mr K Shanmugam:\tThank you, Sir. I will use up the 30 seconds and sit down. So, we were very clear. It is a policy matter. And that is on the record. The Prime Minister took the same position; he explained in Parliament: we decide, but we took AGC's advice. The next day, Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hian, and subsequently, Minister Chan Chun Sing, took the same positions. Did anyone say: \"We are going to decide this way because this is the way that AGC has told us that we have to decide\"? That would make no sense, because Parliament is sovereign. Ms Lim must know Parliament is sovereign. If there is a certain legal approach, then we can change the law. You have got to read whatever statements I have made in the overall context that Parliament is sovereign. Its will is sovereign − and the real issue is: can we achieve what we want, within the current framework of taking this approach? Or do we need to make some changes? I think it is quite clear. Thank you, Sir.
Mr Deputy Speaker:\tOrder. The time allowed for the proceedings has expired —
Mr K Shanmugam:\tSir, can I please read what the Prime Minister actually said, and put it on record?
Mr Deputy Speaker:\tYou have 30 seconds.
Mr K Shanmugam:\tYes. \"We have taken the Attorney-General's advice. We will start counting from the first President who exercised the powers of the Elected President\" − so, no rewriting of history here − that was \"Dr Wee Kim Wee. That means we are now in the fifth term of the Elected Presidency. We also have to define the ethnic group of each of the Elected Presidents we have had so far. There is no practical doubt, but as a legal matter, we have to define it\".
Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. The time allowed for the proceedings has expired.
The Question having been proposed at 7.05 pm and the Debate having continued for half an hour, Mr Deputy Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned accordingly at 7.35 pm.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":"Matter Raised On Adjournment Motion","questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Additional After-school Care Places Given More HDB BTO Flats in Yishun","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"22 Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for Education (Schools) in light of the increasing number of HDB BTO flats in Yishun (a) what are the plans to expand the number of places for after-school care; and (b) how will the Ministry cope with the demand for additional resources and personnel to keep pace with expansion.
Mr Ng Chee Meng: The Ministry of Education (MOE) is on track to open Student Care Centres (SCCs) in all primary schools by end 2020.
The supply of school-based SCC places in Yishun has largely kept pace with demand. Nine out of 10 primary schools in Yishun have a school-based SCC, and the remaining school will see its new school-based SCC set up by 2019. The provision of after-school support in Yishun is also supplemented by community-based SCCs registered with the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF).
MOE will continue to work closely with MSF to monitor the demand for SCC places both in our schools and in the community. MOE will also work with our schools on the plans to set up new school-based SCCs or expand the capacity of existing centres, at a pace that does not compromise quality.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Trend of Women in Civil Service and Women in Leadership Positions in Civil Service","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"23 Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked the Prime Minister (a) what is the breakdown in percentage terms of civil servants in each gender currently; (b) of these, what is the percentage of women holding leadership positions; and (c) what is the trend of women joining the Civil Service.
Mr Teo Chee Hean (for the Prime Minister): As at 31 December 2016, 56% of (about 84,000) civil servants are female. Among officers in leadership positions (defined as officers in super-scale grades), 45% are female. Females made up 56% of the officers who joined the Civil Service over the past five years (2012-2016).
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Maintaining Ratio of Six Workers to Support One Elderly Person","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"24 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Prime Minister what have been the solutions implemented to maintain the current ratio of six workers to support one elderly person given that the total fertility rate remains low and one out of four Singaporeans will be aged 65 and above by 2030.
Mr Teo Chee Hean (for the Prime Minister): Singapore's resident old-age support ratio, which measures the number of residents aged between 20 and 64 to each resident aged 65 and above, is currently five is to one. As is the case in many countries with ageing populations, this ratio will likely decline over time.
To sustain a healthy working population, we provide strong support to Singaporeans who have children and maintain a calibrated pace of immigration. We have also supplemented the local workforce with foreigners in Singapore on time-limited work passes. Our policies are regularly reviewed and adjusted.
While the old-age support ratio uses the age threshold of 65, many seniors now stay active beyond the age of 65. In 2016, 43% of residents aged between 65 and 69 were in the labour force. They may also be contributing in other important ways, such as providing care to their family members.
Each successive cohort of seniors will be healthier, more educated and live longer. We should enable them to contribute for as long as they are willing and able. Since 1 July this year, the re-employment age has been raised from 65 to 67. We have also extended the Additional Special Employment Credit to encourage continued employment of older workers and enhanced WorkPro grant support for employers to redesign jobs to be more age-friendly. These initiatives help older Singaporeans to contribute actively in the community and economy well into their silver years.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Supporting Efforts to Restore Peace and Stability in Myanmar's Rakhine State","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"25 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs (a) how does Singapore intend to support the government of Myanmar in restoring peace and stability in the Rakhine state; (b) how important is it to Singapore (as chair of ASEAN in 2018) and ASEAN in responding to the urgent situation in Rakhine or conflict in any member states that may threaten the stability of the region; and (c) whether the Government of Singapore will consider providing humanitarian assistance through the government of Bangladesh given that Bangladesh will build a refugee camp for more than 400,000 displaced Rohingya refugees.
26 Mr Pritam Singh asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs (a) what is the Government's assessment of the humanitarian tragedy facing the Rohingya population in Myanmar; and (b) whether there is a constructive role that ASEAN can play to address the crisis.
Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: Mr Louis Ng and Mr Pritam Singh's questions relate to the situation in Rakhine State. Mr Christopher de Souza and Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar also posed related questions at yesterday's Sitting [Please refer to (a) \"Compelling Myanmar to Remedy Human Tragedy in Rakhine State\", and (b) \"Singapore's Role as 2018 ASEAN Chair to Address Humanitarian Situation in Rakhine State\", Official Report, 2 October 2017, Vol 94, Issue 51, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer Not Answered by 3.00 pm section.] I will address the four questions in my reply this afternoon.
In Myanmar's Northern Rakhine State, a humanitarian disaster has unfolded in the aftermath of a terrorist attack on 25 August 2017 and subsequent related acts of violence. The conflict has resulted in loss of lives, destruction of homes and the displacement of large numbers of people. The situation in the Rakhine State is a complex intercommunal issue with deep historical roots, dating back more than half a century. There are no quick fixes. The immediate task at hand is for all the parties involved to cease actions that will further worsen the situation on the ground, so that humanitarian assistance can reach those desperately in need, regardless of ethnicity and religious affiliation. We urge the restoration of peace, stability and the rule of law in the Rakhine State. It is the responsibility of every government to protect every civilian and to restore law and order. Comprehensive, long-term and sustainable solutions must also be found to address the underlying challenges and build trust among the different stakeholders and communities and define the legal status of everyone in Rakhine State. As a close friend and neighbour, Singapore stands ready to support the Myanmar government in whatever way we can to make a positive contribution.
Given the scale of the humanitarian needs, the Singapore Government will be offering bilateral humanitarian aid to both Myanmar and Bangladesh. We hope to contribute to the efforts to help all affected communities on both sides of the border, regardless of ethnicity and religion. For Myanmar, we will be offering an aid package comprising approximately S$100,000 worth of supplies from the Singapore Government. For Bangladesh, given that it is experiencing a more severe refugee crisis, we will be offering two humanitarian loads comprising approximately S$200,000 worth of supplies from the Singapore Government.
Our community organisations have also launched fundraising drives for the affected communities in Rakhine State. I would like to highlight three such organisations in my reply.
The first is the Singapore Red Cross (SRC), which has been providing humanitarian assistance in Rakhine State since 2012. SRC has launched a month-long public fundraising appeal1 and committed S$27,150 worth of relief items to be distributed in Rakhine State. This is in addition to an earlier contribution of US$50,000 in shelter items to the Rakhine State. SRC will work with the Myanmar Red Cross and the Bangladesh Red Crescent to ensure that the relief items reach the affected communities.
The second is the Rahmatan Lil Alamin Foundation (RLAF), a community-based charity, which has raised more than S$300,000 thus far2. RLAF will work with the United Nations (UN) High Commission for Refugees to distribute aid to the refugees in Bangladesh. Earlier in December 2016, RLAF and our local communities had also channelled more than S$180,000 of humanitarian aid to affected communities in the Rakhine State.
Mercy Relief will also raise funds and is planning to deploy a team to conduct aid distribution in Bangladesh. Mercy Relief will work with Action Aid International, an established international non-governmental organisation in Bangladesh, as well as the Bangladesh Ministry of Disaster Management and Relief, to distribute S$100,000 worth of items, including solar lamps, blankets and shelter, for affected communities.
The funds raised will be used to provide humanitarian aid to all affected communities in that region, regardless of ethnicity or religion.
Members have also asked about the role ASEAN can play. Mr Christopher de Souza asked specifically if Myanmar can be compelled under the relevant articles in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Human Rights Declaration (AHRD). AHRD reaffirms ASEAN member states' common interest and commitment to the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms, as well as the purposes and the principles enshrined in the ASEAN Charter. Although the AHRD does not impose legal obligations, we expect all ASEAN countries to uphold the spirit and the principles set out in the document.
The situation in Myanmar affects all ASEAN countries as well as the wider international community. It is in our common interest to work with the Myanmar government to support its efforts to restore peace and stability, and to find long-term solutions to this complex communal problem in the Rakhine State. While the principle of non-interference is enshrined in the ASEAN Charter, the Charter also calls for enhanced consultations on matters of common interest of ASEAN.
The ASEAN Foreign Ministers recently held an informal meeting, which Minister Vivian Balakrishnan attended, in New York on 23 September 2017 to discuss the issue of the Rakhine State. The meeting began with Myanmar Minister of State for Foreign Affairs U Kyaw Tin's briefing on the developments in the Rakhine State, followed by a frank and robust exchange of views among the Foreign Ministers.
Following the meeting, the Philippines issued an ASEAN Chairman's Statement on the Humanitarian Situation in the Rakhine State, which condemned the recent acts of violence and welcomed Myanmar's efforts to resolve the situation on the ground. The Chairman's Statement also reflected the undertaking by all ASEAN member states to support Myanmar's humanitarian relief effort, and to activate the ASEAN Coordinating Centre for Humanitarian Assistance on disaster management (AHA Centre) to work with the Myanmar government-led mechanism, in cooperation with the Red Cross Movement, to deliver humanitarian assistance to all displaced inhabitants without discrimination. This was in line with the Foreign Ministers' recognition of the need for increased humanitarian access to all affected communities.
The Myanmar government has acknowledged that they need to address this crucible of intercommunal tension in the Rakhine State. One year ago, State Counsellor Daw Aung San Suu Kyi established a commission led by former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan to make long-term recommendations to address the challenges facing the ethnically and religiously divided Rakhine State. The Advisory Commission on Rakhine State has submitted its final report and recommendations. Daw Aung San Suu Kyi has expressed her government's determination to implement them fully and \"within the shortest time possible\". A 15-member inter-ministerial committee has been formed to look into the recommendations. Myanmar has also welcomed the offers of the international community to contribute towards the government's humanitarian assistance programme. We hope that these efforts will be fruitful.
There is an urgent need to restore peace, stability, harmony and reconciliation among all the communities in Rakhine State. As ASEAN member states, we are all committed to abide by the principles set out in the ASEAN Charter to enhance good governance and the rule of law. ASEAN has conveyed its hope and support for a long-term solution to a complex intercommunal issue with deep historical roots. While responsibility to resolve the complex issues involving the peoples of the Rakhine State ultimately rests with all the parties concerned in Myanmar themselves, Singapore and our fellow ASEAN member states can do our part to support efforts by all parties to work towards a viable solution, so that affected communities can rebuild their lives.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : As of 1 October 2017, the SRC has raised S$33,510.","2 : As of 2 October 2017, the RLAF has raised S$307,000."],"footNoteQuestions":["25","26"],"questionNo":"25-26"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Use/Investment of Cryptocurrencies","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"1 Miss Cheng Li Hui asked the Prime Minister (a) whether the Government is keeping track of the use/investment of cryptocurrencies, such as bitcoin, in Singapore; (b) how do cryptocurrencies affect our finance industry; (c) whether studies are being conducted to assess the problems and risks of using/investing in cryptocurrencies; and (d) whether regulatory frameworks are necessary in the future.
Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam (for the Prime Minister): We are familiar with money, that is, notes and coins, as a medium of exchange – an intermediary instrument used to facilitate transactions. I make a television (TV) set, sell it for money, and then use it to buy a pair of shoes. Money becomes a medium of exchange because all of us put our trust in its reliability. The Central Bank issues these notes and coins, and makes them legal tender. Legal tender means that the medium of exchange is recognised by law to be valid for meeting a financial obligation.
With advancement in technology, new virtual means of payment have emerged, such as cryptocurrency, which is a form of digital token secured by cryptography. They are not legal tender. But some people put their trust in them and use them as a means of payment. Hence, Bitcoin and Ether have been adopted by people in some communities to pay one another or to pay for goods and services.
The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) has been monitoring the use of such virtual currencies. Their use is not prevalent in Singapore. About 20 Singapore retailers like restaurants and online shops currently accept Bitcoins3. This is unlike places like Japan, where the use is more popular. Likewise, in the Singapore financial industry, use of virtual currencies as a mode of payment is not significant. Trading is generally for speculative investment purposes, and the volume is low4 compared to other countries, such as the United States, Japan and Hong Kong.
Similar to most jurisdictions, MAS does not regulate such virtual currencies per se. However, we regulate the activities that surround them if those activities fall within our more general ambit as financial regulator. Let me give two examples.
First, virtual currencies, due to the anonymous nature of the transactions, can be exploited for money laundering and terrorism financing risks. MAS is working on a new payment services regulatory framework that will address these risks.
A second example is fundraising. Virtual currencies can go beyond being a means of payment and evolve into \"second generation\" tokens representing benefits, such as ownership in assets, like a share or bond certificate. The sale of such \"second generation\" tokens to raise funds is commonly known as an initial coin offering (ICO). A number of ICOs have been structured out of Singapore in recent months.
These are financial activities that fall under MAS' regulatory ambit. Hence, on 1 August 2017, MAS clarified that if a token is structured in the form of securities, the ICO must comply with existing securities laws aimed at safeguarding investors' interest. So, the requirements of having to register a prospectus, obtain intermediary or exchange operator licences will apply. These intermediaries must also comply with existing rules on anti-money laundering and countering terrorism financing.
MAS has not issued new legislation specifically for ICOs. We will continue to monitor the developments of such offers and consider more targeted legislation if necessary.
Some consumers may be attracted to invest in virtual currencies and digital tokens due to their recent exponential rise in value. However, as a financial regulator, our focus is securitised interests in assets, such as shares in a company. MAS does not and cannot regulate all products that people put their money in thinking that they will appreciate in value. But recognising that the risks of investing in virtual currencies are significant, MAS and the Commercial Affairs Department have published an advisory alerting consumers to these risks and are working together to raise public awareness of potential scams.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["3 : This is based on the directory maintained by Coin Republic of bitcoin-related businesses in Singapore (http://coinrepublic.com).","4 : Based on virtual currency exchanges data."],"footNoteQuestions":["1"],"questionNo":"1"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Incidences of Freon Gas Leaks on MRT and LRT Rail Systems","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"2 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Transport (a) how many incidences of freon gas leaks on the MRT and LRT rail systems have occurred over the past 10 years; and (b) what is the risk posed to commuters by such gas leaks.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: Over the past 10 years, there have been 23 instances of Freon gas leaks on trains. Freon gas can interact with moisture in the air to form an odourless white smoke. The smoke poses no health risk to the public. As soon as a leak is reported, affected commuters are detrained at the next station, and the train withdrawn for repair.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Singaporeans Employed by Majority Foreign-Owned Companies","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"3 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for Manpower (a) how many Singaporeans are currently employed by companies in Singapore that are more than 50% owned by foreigners; and (b) what is breakdown of this number by (i) age group, (ii) educational level and (iii) percentage of the total Singaporean workforce.
Mr Lim Swee Say: The number of workers5 employed in majority foreign-owned enterprises6 is provided in Table 1 below. Breakdown by residential status, age group and educational level is not available.
4 Miss Cheng Li Hui asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (Industry) (a) what are the terms for the extension of the Formula One Singapore Grand Prix for another four years; and (b) whether there is any evaluation of the benefits of the extension as against the inconvenience caused to drivers and retailers.
Mr S Iswaran: The exact terms of the agreement between the Singapore Tourism Board (STB) and the race promoter, Singapore Grand Prix Pte Ltd (SGP), are subject to business confidentiality. Nevertheless, the decision to continue hosting the Formula One Singapore Grand Prix for another four years, from 2018 to 2021, was made after careful deliberation of the expected benefits and costs from a national perspective, taking into account the impact on various stakeholders.
Including the 2017 race, Singapore would have hosted over 450,000 international visitors, contributing about $1.4 billion in incremental tourism receipts.7 The race has also generated business opportunities for local companies, with more than 90% of race-related works sub-contracted to Singapore-based companies. In addition, there are indirect benefits, as the Formula One Singapore Grand Prix has boosted Singapore's image as a vibrant and innovative city due to the high global viewership and media coverage. Over the years, the Singapore race has built up a significant brand and following, successfully establishing itself as a signature race on the F1 calendar that has been referred to as the \"crown jewel\" of the sport. We expect to sustain such benefits in the new term, and to reduce the cost of organising the race to $135 million per year, with the Government’s share remaining at 60%. This cost reduction is due to factors, such as operational efficiencies.
The Formula One Singapore Grand Prix is iconic because it is a night race on a street circuit. However, we recognise that it may cause inconvenience to segments of the public, such as drivers and retailers. Over the years, the Government agencies have worked with the race promoter and affected stakeholders to find ways to better plan and coordinate the race execution, to minimise these inconveniences.
To reduce the impact on road traffic and drivers, we have halved the number of days for road closures from 12 days in 2008, to six days in 2017. The introduction of the Circle Line and Downtown Line has also increased accessibility to the race vicinity during the F1 period and alleviated the traffic congestion. In addition, STB has worked with various stakeholders, including retailers, to capitalise on the buzz created by the race by launching the Grand Prix Season Singapore (GPSS) – a season of lifestyle events complementing the race experience.
The extension of the Formula One Singapore Grand Prix for another four years was decided on terms that are beneficial to all parties. STB will continue to work closely with other Government agencies and stakeholders to enhance the event experience for Singaporeans and visitors while minimising inconveniences to the public.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["7 : This includes a projection for 2017."],"footNoteQuestions":["4"],"questionNo":"4"}],"writtenAnswersVOList":[],"writtenAnsNAVOList":[],"annexureList":[],"vernacularList":[{"vernacularID":1815,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20171003/vernacular-Intan(1).pdf","fileName":"Intan(1).pdf"},{"vernacularID":1816,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Ms Sun Xueling","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20171003/vernacular-Sun Xueling(1).pdf","fileName":"Sun Xueling(1).pdf"},{"vernacularID":1817,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20171003/vernacular-Muhamad Faisal Abdul Manap(1).pdf","fileName":"Muhamad Faisal Abdul Manap(1).pdf"},{"vernacularID":1818,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Assoc Prof Dr Yaacob Ibrahim","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20171003/vernacular-Yaacob Ibrahim(1).pdf","fileName":"Yaacob Ibrahim(1).pdf"},{"vernacularID":1819,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Liang Eng Hwa","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20171003/vernacular-Liang Eng Hwa(1).pdf","fileName":"Liang Eng Hwa(1).pdf"},{"vernacularID":1820,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Dr Tan Wu Meng","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20171003/vernacular-Tan Wu Meng(1).pdf","fileName":"Tan Wu Meng(1).pdf"},{"vernacularID":1821,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Dr Tan Wu Meng","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20171003/vernacular-Tan Wu Meng(2).pdf","fileName":"Tan Wu Meng(2).pdf"},{"vernacularID":1822,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Ms Rahayu Mahzam","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20171003/vernacular-Rahayu Mahzam(1).pdf","fileName":"Rahayu Mahzam(1).pdf"},{"vernacularID":1823,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Gan Thiam Poh","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20171003/vernacular-Gan Thiam Poh(1).pdf","fileName":"Gan Thiam Poh(1).pdf"}],"onlinePDFFileName":""}