1 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Minister for Education (a) whether the Ministry has conducted investigations into an alleged assault at Admiralty Secondary School on 7 January 2025; (b) if so, whether results of the investigations can be released; (c) whether any investigations have also been conducted on the suicide of an ex-student of Admiralty Secondary School in 2023, in particular, allegations that school leaders and the school principal dismissed the student's complaints about being bullied; and (d) whether any actions have been taken against perpetrators or school leaders involved in each case.
\tThe Minister for Education (Mr Chan Chun Sing): Mr Speaker, Sir, with your permission, may I request for my response to also address Written Question No 27 in today’s Order Paper and a written Parliamentary Question which is scheduled for a subsequent Sitting, please.
\tMr Speaker: Please proceed.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: I invite Members to seek clarifications if need be. I will also make some broader comments on how we should handle such incidents as a society.
Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank Members of Parliament and members of the public for showing concern for the well-being of our students. The Ministry of Education (MOE) takes a serious view of any act of bullying or violence. No one should be bullied. No one wants to be bullied. No one should bully.
MOE monitors these cases that are reported to or are identified by our schools, whether the incidents happen in or outside schools, online or offline. While cases of physical bullying are relatively stable and manageable, other associated issues have arisen, especially online, to compound our concerns.
First, the virality of social media postings has heightened sensitivities and increased social media vigilante actions. These can normalise the extremes and hinder rehabilitative actions.
Second, the unhelpful involvement of even a minority of adults can complicate the situation and compound the challenges faced in guiding our students.
Let me now touch on the Admiralty Secondary School incidents. For Admiralty Secondary School, in the last five years, there was an average of about two incidents of bullying per year per 1,000 students, both within and outside of school. This is no higher than the national average of bullying cases in secondary schools.
Regarding the alleged assault case at Admiralty Secondary on 7 January, preliminary investigations by MOE reveal that it was not an incident of bullying, but an altercation that happened between two new Secondary 1 students during transition between periods. This resulted in one student striking the other on the head with a plastic water bottle, giving rise to a cut on that student’s head. The form teacher intervened immediately on witnessing the scene and separated the students. The injured student received first aid for the cut on his head, while the school leaders called for an ambulance to convey him to hospital.
Based on MOE’s investigations so far, the school had acted appropriately to support the student’s well-being. The school had ensured that he received medical care in a timely manner. During his medical leave, the school maintained communication with his parents, provided learning support for the child and monitored his well-being. The student has since returned to school. The school has also been assisting the Police in their ongoing investigations of the case.
The student who struck the other student has been suspended, is counselled and will face further disciplinary actions when he returns to school. The school will also facilitate the restoration of relationships between the two students when they are both back in school. The objective of these educative and restorative efforts is to help students learn and grow through these experiences.
Sir, we understand the anxieties of parents whose children are or have been involved in fighting or bullying incidents, but please allow the school and the authorities to deal with the cases and carry out the necessary disciplinary and restorative actions professionally. Without the full facts, let us not speculate or jump in to complicate matters further.
Regarding the incident involving a former student of Admiralty Secondary School who fell from height in 2023, MOE is deeply saddened by this loss and our condolences are with her family and loved ones.
Sir, the causes and possible triggers for suicides are complex and multifaceted. When it happens, our school leaders seek to extend help to affected students and families and work closely with families in managing their grief.
When our schools manage these situations, MOE maintains strict confidentiality and does not disclose details of the incidents or the child’s family circumstances to the public out of respect for the family’s privacy and in view of the sensitive nature of these matters.
However, this often leaves our school leaders and teachers vulnerable to misunderstanding, leading to online attacks and abuse of our teachers and staff while they continue to exercise restraint and sensitivity to the families. Given that this particular student’s case has now been made known to the public, I would like to assure Members of the House that the school had gone above and beyond in supporting this student when she was experiencing emotional challenges. When the school was informed that the student was going through some friendship issues, the school took action to guide the affected students to resolve their differences and to reconcile. A dedicated team comprising experienced school staff and school counsellor extended counselling to her and facilitated restorative conversations amongst the schoolmates. Even after this incident, when the student experienced other challenges, the school continued to provide support and intervention over several months.
Throughout this process, the school staff maintained communication with the student’s family, reaching out to work with and support them. The one-sided allegations lobbed at Admiralty Secondary do not reflect the full picture. They do not do justice to the efforts that the school had made to help the student and her family in her time of need. The outcome was not something anyone wished to see happen. But the intent and efforts of the school to help the child and the family, seeking to partner the family, should not be doubted.
Mr Speaker, Sir, at this juncture, while I will not comment on the specifics of various cases, let me share some broader reflections on how we should respond as a society to these and similar ones that have arisen.
When such incidents happen, some of us, including adults, may react reflexively or emotionally. The court of public opinion, often with an incomplete view, then reacts and complicates an already difficult situation.
MOE is particularly concerned when adults take to social media or turn up in our schools to threaten our staff, demanding action on behalf of their children, or even threatening the other children. This is wrong. MOE will not tolerate such actions. We will do all that is necessary, including taking firm action in accordance with MOE’s Engagement Charter and our laws to safeguard the well-being of our staff and students while we work to counsel and discipline the students involved.
While these incidents are few, they incur disproportionate amount of time and bandwidth to manage and must not be allowed to grow. While a small number of parents may think the schools have not done enough in their eyes to address their grievances, we can all be confident that our teachers have the best interests of our students at heart and will deal with all of them, take care of them impartially, and not just a few or selected ones.
It is useful to remember that it is one thing for children to fight and quarrel. It is quite another for adults to jump in, take sides, aggravate the quarrel and detract us from guiding our children towards reconciliation and rehabilitation. In the recent incidents, school leaders were flamed online, the school was unfairly represented and the steadfast efforts of our educators to support all affected students were left unacknowledged and unappreciated. Mr Speaker, Sir, and Members of this House, I am sure we can all agree that we can and must be better than this.
I understand that many of us care deeply about the well-being of our students. Compassion forms the foundation of a strong, nurturing society that we all strive to build. While MOE continues to take a firm stance against bullying, take care of our children and staff, help feuding parties to heal and guide our children in the proper ways, we – as parents and the wider community – can also partner our teachers and play our part by reminding ourselves of the following.
One, what we hear and see online may not be what it is, especially when we only choose to hear and see what we want.
Two, he who shouts the loudest and fastest, may not be the most innocent nor most accurate.
Three, swinging the sword of vigilantism in the dark, online and in real life, always hurts the innocent ones that one may claim to protect.
Four, broadcasting the extremes will normalise the extremes and encourage even more extreme behaviours.
Five, when we amplify one-sided perspectives, we should have a care if we are not being used to further the agenda of specific individuals. Providing partisan support to feuding parties would only fuel the fire and embolden the feuding parties to be even more strident, making reconciliation more difficult.
Six, retributive justice must be coupled with rehabilitative justice. Punishment alone, without due care to rehabilitate, is not in line with the long-term developmental interests of our children.
Seven, hate begets hate. Respect begets respect. An eye for an eye, makes us all blind and robs us of our future and humanity.
Eight, we are our children’s most important role models. If we act like bullies, offline or online, they will too. Threatening, doxxing and being disrespectful to other children and teachers are not actions that make our children better. This is also not how we demonstrate to our children that we care for them and protect them.
Nine, subverting the schools’ authority, by appealing to external “higher” authorities or seeking to use the media to attack and cast aspersions on our schools and teachers, will make us all losers. Ultimately, our children will no longer respect authority. Such actions also take up the precious time and bandwidth of our teachers, at the expense of other children and parents who deserve more.
Ten, when we, as adults and parents, shield our children who have done wrong from punishment, we are teaching them the wrong lessons – that perhaps they do not have to take responsibility for their actions, that perhaps someone else is always at fault, or that they will always be bailed out.
So, Mr Speaker, Sir, let us work together. Let us not let the unrepresentative actions of a small minority colour the perception and behaviour of our children, our parents, our teachers and our schools. As parents and members of the public, let us work with our teachers to be positive role models, carefully considering how we should respond in ways that are helpful and kind. By sharing and responding to information thoughtfully and respectfully, we contribute to building a wiser and more compassionate society.
\tMr Speaker: Ms Poa.
\tMs Hazel Poa (Non-Constituency Member): I thank the Minister for the reply. I agree with the Minister that rehabilitation is very important and it is very difficult to maintain a fine balance between punishment and rehabilitation.
I would like to ask whether MOE tracks the outcome of the rehabilitation efforts, for example, in terms of how many of the bullies or attackers repeat the offence.
\tMr Chan Chun Sing: Mr Speaker, Sir, we thank Ms Hazel Poa for supporting MOE's stance towards management of bullying or violence cases. As I have mentioned, these cases are few in our schools and the recidivism rate is also very low.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Outcome of Police Investigations into Alleged Assault on Student at Admiralty Secondary School on 7 January 2025","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"2 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Minister for Home Affairs what is the outcome of Police investigations into an alleged assault at Admiralty Secondary School that took place on 7 January 2025.
\tThe Minister of State for Home Affairs (Ms Sun Xueling) (for the Minister for Home Affairs): On 7 January 2025 at about 2.00 pm, the Police were alerted to an alleged assault involving two male students, which occurred at Admiralty Secondary School.
One of the students sustained injuries and was conveyed to the hospital. The persons involved are known to one another and are assisting with investigations. It would not be appropriate for me to comment further at this point.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Facilitating Humanitarian Aid and Fundraising Efforts following Ceasefire in Israel and Hamas Conflict","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"3 Mr Ang Wei Neng asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs whether Singapore will be (i) providing more humanitarian aid to Gaza in light of the recent ceasefire and (ii) facilitating the raising of funds from local residents to further support the re-building of Gaza.
\tThe Minister for Foreign Affairs (Dr Vivian Balakrishnan): Mr Speaker, with your permission, my reply will cover Mr Ang Wei Neng’s question as well as the question that was set for written answer and filed by Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim in today’s Order Paper. And I also hope to address question for oral answer filed by Mr Alex Yam for the Sitting on or after 5 February 2025.
\tMr Speaker: Please go ahead.
\tDr Vivian Balakrishnan: All these questions relate to the situation in Gaza and Singapore’s humanitarian response.
First, Singapore welcomes the multi-phase ceasefire and hostage release agreement that was announced on 15 January 2025. We urge all parties to abide by its terms and enable humanitarian assistance to flow. Fortunately, we have seen an increased delivery of humanitarian aid into Gaza in the last two weeks. This is vital to alleviate the dire humanitarian situation. The unimpeded delivery of aid must continue. And we urge both sides to reach an agreement for the subsequent phases to achieve, hopefully, a permanent ceasefire, the release of all hostages and to allow for the long-term reconstruction of Gaza.
\tSince the start of the Israel-Hamas conflict in October 2023, Singapore and Singaporeans have contributed significantly. We have, so far, conveyed six tranches of humanitarian assistance to Gaza. These six tranches account for more than S$19 million. In fact, Minister Maliki Osman just visited Jordan two weeks ago to witness the handover of the sixth tranche, which comprising almost S$1.3 million that were raised by the Rahmatan Lil Alamin Foundation (RLAF), and this was given to the Jordan Hashemite Charity Organisation and to the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF). We are making plans for a seventh tranche of humanitarian aid and this will consist of food, essential supplies and medical supplies. This will be conveyed by the Republic of Singapore Air Force's (RSAF's) Multi-Role Tanker Transport aircraft and we will deliver these to our Jordanian partners. I have just spoken to the Jordanian Foreign Minister yesterday to confirm these arrangements.
Let me reiterate Singapore's appreciation to our regional partners in the Middle East, especially Jordan, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates and Cyprus, for their support in facilitating our humanitarian assistance to Gaza. We look forward to doing more together and we hope to be able to provide more help the civilians in Gaza as they rebuild their homes and their lives.
Our contributions would not have been possible without the generous support of Singaporeans and the hard work of organisations like RLAF and the Singapore Red Cross. I hope that Singaporeans will continue to contribute to these fundraising efforts. In fact, RLAF will be embarking on further fundraising for Gaza during the holy month of Ramadan.
The reconstruction needs for Gaza will be significant and Singapore will continue to contribute either bilaterally or in partnership with others. We also stand ready, through our Enhanced Technical Assistance Package to support training programmes in Gaza in collaboration with the Palestinian Authority.
Mr Alex Yam asked whether the ongoing tensions in the region pose any immediate or foreseeable implications for Singapore's diplomatic interests and regional stability in the Middle East. Singapore remains deeply concerned about the volatile situation. As stated in my written reply to a Parliamentary Question in May 2024, a wider conflict will have serious implications on the safety and security of everyone, including our Singaporeans who are living in the Middle East and Singaporean companies operating in that region. I added that greater regional tensions would also impact international energy markets, commercial aviation and global supply chains.
Therefore, we continue to monitor very closely the developments in the Middle East and we are grateful that our strong ties with various partners in the Middle East have prevailed. In fact, working together has given us opportunities to deepen these diplomatic relations and that is why we have been able to convey timely humanitarian assistance to the civilians in Gaza.
Mr Zhulkarnain and Mr Yam also asked about the role that Singapore can play in contributing to sustaining the ceasefire agreement, and promoting regional peace and stability. I understand the intent behind these questions, but I think we need to be realistic and we need to be circumspect about the role that we can play. What we can do, from far away, is to encourage all the parties to reach an agreement for a permanent ceasefire in Gaza and to pursue a longer-term solution. But we need to understand the complexity and the deep historical entanglements of this conflict in the Middle East, and there will be no quick and easy solution.
Singapore supports the right of the Palestinian people to a homeland of their own. We believe that the only viable path for achieving a comprehensive, just and durable solution to this long-standing conflict is a negotiated two-state solution, consistent with the relevant UN Security Council resolutions. We hope that the leaders on both sides will find the political will, courage and imagination to resume direct negotiations, although we know that these will be very difficult in light of the painful 16 months that have just passed.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Ang.
Mr Ang Wei Neng (West Coast): Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Minister for the comprehensive reply. In the last round, when the local Muslim foundation did a fundraising, our Nanyang residents were encouraged and also contributed to the fundraising and we are looking forward to the next fundraising round that is coming in the next month, during the Ramadan period.
I would like to ask a supplementary question to the Minister. If there is a permanent ceasefire, will the Singapore Government consider trying to build a school or hospital so that we can be involved in the reconstruction of Gaza?
\tDr Vivian Balakrishnan: I thank the Member's residents and indeed Singaporeans all over who have contributed generously and, I am sure, will continue to contribute generously during the holy month of Ramadan.
There are many needs in Gaza and we will focus especially on our partnership with the Palestinian Authority in particular, on capacity building. And that means, especially on education, on scholarships. We are, in fact, expanding our scholarships to both at the undergraduate and postgraduate levels to deserving Palestinian scholars who will get in on their merit. We will also work closely to provide training opportunities for the bureaucrats in the Palestinian Authority, because they need to step up capacity if they are able to engage not only in reconstruction but ultimately, in administering a state of their own in a constructive way. And that is the only way to really give long-term hope to the people of Palestine who deserve so much more.
So, watch this space. We will continue to work very closely with the Palestinian Authority and our partners throughout the Middle East.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim.
\tMr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim (Chua Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, I thank the Minister for answering my question. Besides the good work and the fundraising of our people to assist the civilians in Gaza, in the midst of all these fundraising, can there be greater involvement from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to, possibly, help Singaporeans understand the complexities or what the Minister mentioned, the deep historical entanglements, during the process of our fundraising? So that besides doing what we can for others, we can remind ourselves what we have here in Singapore and what we can hope to achieve in the future for Palestinians when we host them in Singapore.
\tDr Vivian Balakrishnan: Mr Zhulkarnain has actually raised quite a profound point. That, first, we count our blessings in Singapore. That we are able to live at peace with security, a multiracial, multi-religious, multilingual society. A tiny city-state in the heart of Southeast Asia.
Even as we count our blessings, we do not take it for granted. What has happened in the Middle East, as indeed in many other troubled spots in the world, can also act, if we are not careful, to divide us or to polarise us in our responses to events far away. I consider it a blessing that in all these months, we have been able to keep our society together. We recognise that there may be differences in resonance or in reactions to the same incident. But that has not stopped us from being united, by being cohesive, by being constructive and, in fact, being open-hearted and generous across all communities. This is a very important point.
I should also add that in all my interactions with the Palestinian Authority over the years and with our Arab partners in the Middle East. They have always been very intrigued. The Member has been with me on our visit and so has Mr Gerald Giam. They have been very intrigued when they looked at the composition of our delegation and how that diverse crew can work so closely together and be constructive.
Singapore's position when we interact with the Palestinians is, first, they are just interested in how we do it. And that is why, when we offer capacity-building programmes and focus on education, focus on training, focus on helping them come up to speed with public administration, with digitalisation and finance and all the other aspects, it has got extra resonance and there is extra interest.
I also remind them that, in fact, Gaza is about half the size of Singapore and it has got a population one-third of Singapore. Which means, actually, Singapore is a more crowded, congested placed than Gaza. Again, the peace, the security, the cohesion and, of course, the economic success of Singapore stand as a beacon of hope and of what is possible in the future. So, it is these intangible elements that, in fact, give us more salience.
But without overstating a point – at the end, we are far away and we are small. We are not in the immediate neighbourhood. We cannot rebuild Gaza. But we can stand as a positive example of a successful multiracial, multi-religious society which has learned to hang together, to confront challenges collectively and we have succeeded, so far, for 60 years.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Alex Yam.
\tMr Alex Yam (Marsiling-Yew Tee): Sir, I would like to ask the Minister two supplementary questions. One, with regard to the donations that have been provided. As of January this year, through RLAF, we have provided S$19 million in terms of aid to the people of Gaza. What is also important in the minds of Singaporeans who have contributed most generously to this effort, is the assessment of the effectiveness of the aid provided and whether it has been properly accounted for? Our partners there, as we witnessed during our visit with the Minister last year, have been very helpful but I think it bears reassuring to our donors in Singapore that they are properly accounted for.
Secondly, how does Singapore assess the credibility and sustainability of the current ceasefire agreement and what diplomatic tools do we have, especially our very developed relations with countries in the region that can be leveraged upon, to encourage both parties in this conflict to uphold?
\tDr Vivian Balakrishnan: The humanitarian support has been provided in several separate channels. First, that is the delivery of emergency humanitarian aid: food, essential supplies, medical supplies. And for that, I should highlight the role of our RSAF in delivering these physical supplies on the ground and through even heli-drops. And as I said, there will be another mission to send further supplies to Jordan in the coming weeks. So, that is one channel.
Another channel is money. As I had illustrated just now, Minister Maliki was in Jordan. Almost $1.3 million dollars were donated to the Jordan Hashemite Charity Organisation and to UNICEF focusing especially and obviously, on children.
The third modality. Members might recall that we have doctors in Singapore who have been providing teleconsultation for the more complicated cases resulting from injuries in Gaza. And I want to make a shout-out for them. I am quite sure if we asked for volunteers, doctors, nurses, physiotherapists, occupational therapists, would line up to go, but my concern is to make sure that it can be done safely. So, for that, I will not make any commitments at this stage.
And then the fourth, as I illustrated earlier, is in our ongoing interactions with the Palestinian Authority – capacity building, education and scholarships. So, we will continue to do more of this. We will also continue to be very mindful that we need to make sure all our contributions are properly accounted for and used to benefit the widest group who need it the most.
Could the Member share his second supplementary question again?
\tMr Alex Yam: Mr Speaker, to the Minister, how does Singapore access the credibility and sustainability of the current ceasefire agreement and what diplomatic tools do we have, especially in terms of our developed relations with countries in the region, that we can leverage upon to encourage both parties in this conflict to uphold it for the long haul.
\tDr Vivian Balakrishnan: Mr Speaker, this is an area where we do need to be circumspect and to understand the limits of our role. What we have in place now is a multi-phase ceasefire. In fact, only the first phase has been agreed and so far, despite initial anxieties, it seems to be progressing. Members have all seen the release of hostages and a ceasefire continues to hold.
On the point of the hostages, I should also mention the fact that I was very glad to see five Thai hostages released. These are people who are completely innocent who have nothing to do with the conflict there. They have been held hostage for more than a year. I was very glad to see them released as well.
Having said all that, phase two and phase three are going to be very, very complicated. And they will depend, as I said earlier, on the political will, the imagination and the courage of the leaders on all sides to actually sit down and work through those very complicated negotiations that will be needed. There is a very limited role for us here, in respect of that.
Both the Israelis and the Palestinians whom we have engaged know our position. We stand for peace. We stand for development. We believe the Palestinians need their own state. But we believe this can only come about through a negotiated two-state solution. And the two parties need to meet directly, face-to-face and to work out these complicated details. That is the only way you are going to get a comprehensive, just and durable solution. But we should approach this from a position of humility and goodwill, and whatever we can contribute, in our own small way, we will continue to do so,
And let us just reflect also – this is the season when we are still celebrating Chinese New Year, looking forward to Ramadan, SG60. This is also a reason for us to reflect on what we have achieved in Singapore and what to avoid, what to do more of and how to be a relevant and constructive example to other parts of the world.
Mr Speaker: Last supplementary question. Mr Dennis Tan.
\tMr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Hougang): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister for his answers and I do appreciate Minister's answers on support in terms of capacity building, as well as education. I do support that.
I would like to ask a supplementary question. Beyond financial assistance, is there any role that Singapore can play to provide more, perhaps, technical assistance to help with the infrastructural reconstruction, rebuilding, for example, the homes, hospitals, schools and public utilities? Because, as we can imagine, these are very dire and urgent needs on the ground at this moment.
\tDr Vivian Balakrishnan: Mr Tan is right, there are dire needs on the ground and there are dire infrastructural needs – housing, utilities, water, electricity, hospitals, schools.
But, actually, the key impediment to all this still remains a sustainable peace. And until there is an assurance of that, and because as the Member has said, actually the limiting factor is not money. There are more than enough donors, even in the Middle East alone, who will be quite happy to contribute. But it is an assurance of peace, an assurance that there is a political solution and that whatever is built will benefit everyone fairly and will not be destroyed again in the next paroxysm of violence.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Assessment of Employment Landscape for Polytechnic Graduates in 2025","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"4 Mr Pritam Singh asked the Minister for Education what is the Ministry's assessment of the employment landscape for polytechnic graduates in 2025 in view of the results of the latest Graduate Employment Survey 2024 which showed that fewer graduates secured full-time permanent jobs.
\tThe Minister for Education (Mr Chan Chun Sing): Mr Speaker, Sir, may I have your permission for my response to this Parliamentary Question (PQ) to also cover matters raised in the PQs by Dr Wan Rizal1, Ms See Jinli Jean, Mr Leong Mun Wai2, Mr Liang Eng Hwa, Mr Pritam Singh and Ms Foo Mee Har3, which are scheduled for the Sittings on and after 4 February 2025. And if need be, may I invite these Members to seek clarifications following my response, please.
Mr Speaker: Please go ahead.
\tMr Chan Chun Sing: Mr Speaker, Sir, employment rates are affected by various factors such as the economic and labour market conditions. Some fluctuations from year-to-year are to be expected. More importantly, we must continue to monitor and respond to the longer-term secular trends, beyond the shorter-term cyclical fluctuations, that may affect the employability of our graduates.
While the labour market remained tight in 2024, with job vacancies remaining higher than pre-pandemic levels, 2024 saw lower hiring demand and fewer vacancies compared to 2023, which would have contributed to the survey findings for 2024. Based on the 2024 Graduate Employment Survey conducted by the five polytechnics, about 45% of graduates were economically active. Among this group, there was a decrease in the full-time permanent employment rate and an increase in the unemployment rate as compared to 2023.
The impact was also uneven across course clusters. Some course clusters, such as health sciences, and humanities and social sciences continued to see strong employment outcomes. Graduates from course clusters, such as engineering, and information and digital technologies had higher unemployment rates. And this could be due to cyclical sectoral changes, such as the downturn in the tech sector, which also affected hiring demand.
We have also observed that some graduates have received full-time permanent job offers but have declined them for various reasons, including a perceived lack of work-life balance, or the offered pay not meeting their expectations. We will continue to monitor if this trend persists and if it has a longer-term impact on graduates' employment outcomes.
The polytechnics will continue to equip students with the necessary and in-demand skills and competencies by working closely with industry partners to ensure that our curriculum remain relevant and responsive to the evolving job market demands, as well as to provide quality internship opportunities for students. The polytechnics further support students by providing Education and Career Guidance as part of the curriculum, which includes resume writing and interview skills training. Those who require more support in finding a job can also tap on the career matching services and digital resources offered by Workforce Singapore's and the National Trades Union Congress' (NTUC's) Employment and Employability Institute.
For 2025, given global economic uncertainties, we will continue to monitor the situation closely together with the polytechnics and industry partners.
Mr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.
\tMr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Just to clarify with the Minister, I think that in his preamble to the reply, he mentioned that I had an additional question in future Sittings or so. I do not have any questions for future Sitting. This is the only one.
\tMr Chan Chun Sing: Yes.
\tMr Pritam Singh: I have two questions, Mr Speaker. One, according to the Polytechnic Graduate Employment Survey 2024, the unemployment rate for fresh undergraduates rose from 7.3% in 2023, to 12.5% in 2024, comparable to the numbers at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. Is the Minister concerned about the prospect of under-employment amongst polytechnic graduates, and would he direct the polytechnics to track under-employment data in future iterations of the Graduate Employment Survey?
I understand that the Ministry of Education (MOE) is concerned about under-employment, when it determines how many places are open in universities for different students, for example, for computer science. And I am wondering whether there is a similar concern at the polytechnics and the number of students who apply for polytechnic courses. The Minister mentioned in his reply that the numbers seem higher for engineering, and information and digital technologies-related courses, and hence, the concern would also apply with regard to under-employment here.
The second question I have is that almost 10 years have passed since this House debated MOE's Applied Study in Polytechnics and ITE Review (ASPIRE) report, which sought to strengthen applied education at polytechnics and the Institute of Technical Education (ITE). What is the Ministry's assessment of the progress made in the ASPIRE report's recommendations in equipping polytechnic graduates with: one, strong skills foundation; and two, sector linkages with industry to help enhance programme offerings, so as to ensure good job outcomes for our polytechnic graduates?
\tMr Chan Chun Sing: Mr Speaker, Sir, if I may answer the Member's questions together and put in context some of the data that has been discussed.
Over time, we have seen the following trends. The first is that the number of polytechnic graduate students that are continuing further studies has increased. So, the base of the people that are going into full-time employment directly has decreased. So, this is an important point.
Within the group of people who are going into full-time employment – this is what we are talking about in this particular survey – the long-term secular trend, more polytechnic graduates go on to study immediately before they enter the job market. That is, in some sense, a positive trend. Then, those who go directly into work are the remainder 45% or so, and within this 45%, that is where we get the uptick of last year, about a 5% of this 45%, in change in the unemployment. So, that is the first point.
The second point to Mr Singh's question about measuring under-employment. This is not something that is easy to do because the definition of under-employment varies across different sectors and perceptions, from the International Labour Organization (ILO) to NTUC and even the Ministry of Manpower, they have different ways of trying to measure it. It also depends on who you ask. If you ask the students whether they are under-employed, I think the answer is quite different than if you ask the boss whether they think their employee is under-employed, especially for fresh graduates. So, I think there is some limitation in what we can do.
Having said that, the larger issue that we have to appreciate is how do we make sure that our polytechnic graduates, or for that matter, ITE graduates, and even our university graduates, can get fulfilling jobs that earn them a good salary, not just at the entry point, but also throughout their career? We have to do this on a few fronts – and this is also in response to the progress that we have made on the ASPIRE report.
The first thing that we need to do, is that we need very close industry-and-polytechnic, industry-and-ITE, and industry-and-university collaborations. Because it takes us two to three years to produce a graduate and we must be able to work with the industry to forecast demand, not just in terms of numbers, but the type of skills required in a few years' time. This is by no means an easy job, because even the industry will know that in two to three years' time, the type of skillsets that are required and are most marketable may change and may evolve over time. But the first thing is for us to make sure that we work closely with the industries, the Ministry of Trade and Industry, to forecast the demand.
\t
The second thing is that in a fast-evolving world, I think nobody will be able to say, \"My course will fit nicely into a particular job in two to three years' time\". What we need to equip our people with are not just the skillsets of a particular job, but also adjacent competencies that allow them to pivot into what we call adjacent jobs or complementary jobs that will make them much more employable. Some of these are hard skills, some of these are soft skills. Some of these are skills that allow them to work with other partners across different nationalities so that we can widen the market opportunities for them, so that they can pivot, not necessarily just at the beginning, but also throughout their career.
So, this is how we must continue to work to make sure that our courses are relevant with industry input and at the same time, equip our people with the skills that are complementary, fungible, that they can have wider options, rather than be narrowly type-cast or siloed into specific sectors. And that is what the ASPIRE report has tried to do and will continue to progress on these fronts.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Singh.
Mr Pritam Singh: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I note Minister's points about the transit of polytechnic graduates into degree courses and understandably so. I think in the previous decade, MOE had also envisage the cohort participation rate for students entering universities to be on the increase and it is 42% now compared to previously. And of course, the other factor is we have got applied learning universities now as well and that may in itself be a positive fillip with regard to the ASPIRE report.
But in regard to the numbers of students who are not transiting to the university directly, on the applied learning front, does the Minister see gaps and issues that can be improved so that the employment prospects of students, polytechnic graduates specifically, can withstand some of these secular trends?
\tMr Chan Chun Sing: Mr Speaker, Sir, just two comments in response to Mr Singh's supplementary questions. Yes, indeed. This is always a work in progress to make sure that our courses are relevant. The skills learnt by our students are also relevant and current. We have to make sure that every year, we have to refresh the curriculum. Even if it is the same course, we have to refresh the curriculum with the industries' input, with what we sense in the market, so that we can meet the longer-term secular needs, longer-term trends beyond just a cyclical short-term trends. So, that is one thing that we do and we must continue to do.
The second thing that has come through here is also, increasingly, we have what we call the Work-Study diploma or Work-Study degree. These are applied learning programmes in collaboration with the industries. This is also another strong mechanism for us to make sure that our courses are relevant and are able to meet the just-in-time demand of the industries. We hope to be able to expand the number of Work-Study programmes, because this will make it more current, not just for the pre-employment training, but also for the continuing education and training. This is the best way for us to tighten the nexus between frontier business practices and academia, so that we can churn out students with the skillsets that the industries need.
We must continue on both fronts – both the work-study part, and the tight nexus between industry and the education institutions.
\tMr Speaker: We are more than halfway through Question Time and we are only at Question No 4. So, I am going to confine supplementary questions to only those who have filed PQs.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Question subsequently withdrawn: To ask the Minister for Education with reference to the latest Graduate Employment Survey, what measures are implemented to (i) address the challenges that fresh polytechnic graduates face in securing employment, given businesses’ cautious hiring practices despite economic growth (ii) enhance job readiness by equipping graduates with the skills required in high-demand sectors such as digital technologies and health sciences and (iii) adapt polytechnic curricula by strengthening industry partnerships to prepare graduates for the evolving job market demands, including skills in artificial intelligence and digital transformation.","2 : Question subsequently withdrawn: To ask the Minister for Education (a) whether the lower percentage of fresh polytechnic graduates landing full-time permanent jobs in 2024 based on the results of the Graduate Employment Survey by the five polytechnics is an indication of skills mismatch between polytechnic graduates and the job market; and (b) whether any further actions will be taken to improve the ability of polytechnic graduates to secure full-time permanent jobs after graduation.","3 : Question subsequently withdrawn: To ask the Minister for Education (a) what are the latest employment outcomes for fresh graduates from the 2024 cohort of graduates from the Institutes of Higher Learning including the percentage securing full-time permanent jobs within six months of graduation; (b) what has been the trend over the past five years in the proportion of graduates attaining full-time permanent employment within this timeframe; and (c) what measures are in place to address any challenges identified."],"footNoteQuestions":["4"],"questionNo":"4"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reviewing Adequacy of Drainage Systems following Flash Floods Due To Recent Monsoon Surges","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"5 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment in light of the recent flash floods in Singapore caused by the monsoon surges in recent months (a) whether the Ministry will consider conducting additional in-depth reviews on the adequacy of our drainage systems to deal with such monsoon surges; and (b) whether the current investments by the Government to improve drainage infrastructure are sufficient.
6 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment in light of the monsoon surges in January 2025 (a) how many different areas reported flooding of (i) up to 0.5 metre (ii) between 0.5 and 1 metre and (iii) more than 1 metre above ground level; (b) out of these areas, how many have reported previous incidents of flooding in the past five years; and (c) what is the Ministry’s strategy to prevent and respond to flooding situations going forward.
\tThe Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien): Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to take two oral Parliamentary Questions (PQs), Question Nos 5 and 6 in the Order Paper together? In addition, I will address one written PQ filed by Miss Rachel Ong for the 4 February 2025 Sitting.
These three PQs relate to the recent monsoon surges and drainage improvement efforts and with your permission, I will respond to these PQs together.
\tMr Speaker: Please proceed.
\tMs Grace Fu Hai Yien: In January this year, Singapore and the region experienced two monsoon surges which brought about prolonged rain. The first monsoon surge lasted four days from 10 January to 13 January, and the second monsoon surge lasted three days from 17 January to 19 January. From 10 January to 11 January, a total of 255.2 millimetres of rainfall was recorded at Changi, which is more than our average monthly rainfall of 222.4 millimetres in January.
Over these two monsoon surges in January 2025, there was one incident of flooding, which occurred at Jalan Seaview. Jalan Seaview is a low-lying area subject to tidal influence. Since the 1980s, a tidal gate has been put in place in the outlet drain downstream of Jalan Seaview, to help mitigate tidal flood risks for this area.
On 10 January, heavy rain coincided with high tide and this led to the flooding at the side road bend, a stretch of about 50 metres, of Jalan Seaview. The flooding on the road was about 0.3 metres and lasted close to three hours due to the high tide. The house next to this road experienced flooding within its car porch area. Based on the Public Utilities Board's (PUB's) records, in the past five years, this is the only stretch of road along Jalan Seaview that has experienced flooding.
While PUB had upgraded the roadside drains at Jalan Seaview in 2014 to increase their drainage capacity, some areas in the vicinity of Jalan Seaview are still susceptible to flooding as the road levels are marginally above the high tide level. The longer-term plan is to reclaim and build \"Long Island\" which will protect the East Coast area, including Jalan Seaview, from rising sea levels and tidal floods. Agencies have initiated technical studies and are engaging the public and stakeholders to shape the plans for \"Long Island\".
We encourage developments in low-lying areas, including at Jalan Seaview, to put in place their own flood protection measures, such as deploying flood protection devices. To help residents and businesses, PUB has been issuing flood protection devices, such as flood barriers and inflatable sand bags, as part of the annual monsoon preparation and providing guidance on how to deploy these devices properly in a timely manner.
Climate change will increase flood risks in Singapore due to more extreme and unpredictable rainfall. PUB adopts a multi-pronged approach to enhance Singapore's flood resilience.
First, PUB continually upgrades our drainage infrastructure. The Government has made significant investments over the decades to upgrade drainage infrastructure, with about $2.5 billion spent since 2011. We have successfully reduced flood prone areas from approximately 3,200 hectares in the 1970s to less than 25 hectares today. PUB conducts regular reviews on the adequacy of the existing drainage system and considers the latest drainage design standards and climate change data. There are 19 ongoing drainage upgrading works, with six more projects slated to commence in 2025. We will spend about $150 million on these projects in FY2025. We are currently reviewing the drainage infrastructure plan for the next review cycle of FY2026 to 2030.
That said, it is neither practical nor prudent in land-scarce Singapore to keep building more drains or expanding our drainage infrastructure. Doing so, would require significant land and financial resources, which would then not be available for other important uses. To put things into perspective, flooding in Singapore is localised and typically subsides within an hour. It is, hence, more effective to build up flood resilience at a systems level, where building owners, developers, as well as the wider community, all play their part alongside the Government.
To this end, PUB works closely with building owners and developers on measures that have to be taken at the individual development level to strengthen flood resilience. PUB's Code of Practice on Surface Water Drainage provides requirements on minimum platform and crest levels for buildings and flood protection measures that building owners and developers must implement to protect their premises. Amendments to the Sewerage and Drainage Act were passed in November 2024 to ensure that owners and developers continue to operate and maintain the flood protection measures in their premises properly after implementation.
PUB also proactively engages the community to better prepare for and respond to flood incidents. PUB works with the National Environment Agency (NEA) to forecast intense rainfall and issue early warning of potential floods to better prepare the public ahead of flood incidents. PUB launched its flood preparedness campaign \"Get Flood-Wise\" in November 2024 and worked with partners, such as Grab and BlueSG, to share flood readiness tips with drivers and commuters.
Managing flood risks is a collective effort between the Government, businesses and the public. I encourage everyone to play their part in enhancing Singapore's flood resilience.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Desmond Choo.
\tMr Desmond Choo (Tampines): I thank the Minister for the reassurance that there are future plans to protect our coastal low-lying areas. I have two supplementary questions. The first one is, because it will take some time for us to build \"Long Island\" or longer infrastructure improvements, so, what are the interim measures, including more pumps that can be deployed quickly, especially when we are going to expect more of such monsoon-type of weather events?
The second one is, we have committed to certain investments in the longer run. Now that we start to see more frequent occurrences, do we expect to invest even more? And if so, are we in a process of determining how much this would be?
\tMs Grace Fu Hai Yien: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Member for these questions. I think they are very thoughtful. Indeed, I think we need to look at both short-term as well as long-term measures. I think in the short run, we would like to see how we can prepare the public including residents, better, faster and give them more effective means to protect themselves, including the availability of more devices to protect their own property.
Whether the pumps will be really effective in the case of Jalan Seaview, that may be doubtful because we are talking about the coincidence of both intense rain and high tide. So, it is difficult to pump something out if the tide is against you. What we really need to do is, where we can, for example, in Marina Barrage, we will start pumping ahead of time, prepare as much as we can, but still, more importantly is to get the local community, especially in the flood prone areas to be prepared themselves.
So, awareness, public engagement, early warning, advising public to sign up to PUB's channel for information. We are also working with the Land Transport Authority (LTA) to make some of these warning ahead of time more effectively through more platforms. These are all works in progress.
And in the longer term, we will want to review our flood drainage system, in tandem with our coastal protection system, because these are two sides of the same coin. In intense rain with high tide, as we have seen recently, we need to manage both together, and that is the reason why PUB is now the coastal protection agency. It is really to bring consideration, at the same time, plan for it and be prepared to invest in effective infrastructure that we have said that we are going to invest in significantly. We will review the plans, as I have said earlier on, for the next cycle of 2026 to 2030. We are in the process of doing that.
But the point that I like to make is that, even as we are able to foresee a greater occurrence of such extreme weather events, sometimes it is just not financially wise for us to prepare for the extreme events, because that will mean dedicating a lot of land, a lot of financial resources to protect us for those events that may not occur so regularly or in places where it does not occur regularly.
It is still the same message, that while the Government will look at improving our infrastructure, we need community, we need businesses, we need owners to also undertake protection measures to protect themselves, protect their properties and protect their families.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Saktiandi Supaat.
\tMr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I just have two supplementary questions. One is with regard to Minister's answer earlier, about the collaboration with NEA. Can the Minister share how the Ministry intends to collaborate with other agencies to ensure a coordinated flood response in the future, if it gets too extreme, that sort of scenario?
Second is, I think, the Minister shared earlier about flood mitigation measures for housing and corporates or individuals. Can the Minister share whether it is possible to have financial or logistical support available for residents and businesses affected by the floods and whether there can be budget allocation for future flood mitigation?
\t
\t
\tMs Grace Fu Hai Yien: I think I have alluded in the earlier reply that we are working with NEA for better forecasts and also giving us more localised forecasts. Because, I think, when it comes to flooding, it is very localised, especially in Singapore when our floods occur in very small areas. So, it is all the more important for us to get very high resolution of forecasts in the very near term. So, that is something that we are working on, including with NEA and the Meteorological Service Singapore to have more sensors and better modelling in flood projection.
We are also working with LTA to try to get some of these traffic advisories out faster. For example, we are working to include some of these warning advisories in the ERP 2.0 so that we can receive the early warnings as we are driving. We are also working with the Singapore Police Force and the Singapore Civil Defence Force when it comes to emergencies related to floodings, in case there is a need to protect and save lives. So, there is close coordination between PUB and many related agencies.
On the need for financial support, I would say that actually the measures that we are putting in place really start from a very basic design. So, when it comes to developers, for example, we are expecting them to start putting in some of these budgets so that they can plan the infrastructure, the protection measures, as and when they are planning. This will be reflected in the land price and also in the development costs that they will be including in their development plans.
As to businesses as well as in the residential areas, I think PUB works very closely with them. In fact, over the years, we have been reducing the flood-prone areas significantly. I mean, when I was a child growing up, I remember that floods occurred in much wider areas more frequently, and many more businesses, including some in Chinatown, for example, quite regularly suffered from the impact of heavy rain and flooding. I think over the years, this has significantly been reduced. As I have mentioned, in the most recent monsoon surges, we only had one significant reported flood incident.
As and when they are needed, we will offer more help and we will keep a very close contact with the public and the businesses when it comes to engaging them on deployment of flood protection devices.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Singapore-US Cooperation under Biden Administration and Assessment of Relations under New Trump Administration","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"7 Mr Neil Parekh Nimil Rajnikant asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs (a) whether an assessment of Singapore-US bilateral ties under the Biden administration can be given; (b) what are the key achievements of Singapore-US relations during the tenure of the Biden government; (c) how will Singapore continue building on ties with the US under President Trump; (d) why does US engagement in the Asia Pacific remain critical for the region’s prosperity, security and growth; and (e) how does Singapore envisage US-China ties under the new Trump administration.
\tThe Minister for Foreign Affairs (Dr Vivian Balakrishnan): Mr Speaker, Mr Neil Parekh has asked a very topical question, which I have had to update just in the last few days. He has asked for an assessment of Singapore-United States (US) bilateral ties.
Singapore and the US enjoy a substantive, multifaceted and a very long-standing partnership. The fundamentals of this mutually beneficial relationship have been nurtured across both Democratic and Republican Administrations over the past 60 years. Bipartisan.
Singapore worked closely with the Administration of former President Joe Biden. During this time, our bilateral ties broadened, we institutionalised cooperation in areas including space, critical and emerging technologies and nuclear energy. For example, in 2023, we established the US-Singapore Critical and Emerging Technology Dialogue, which bolsters our collaboration in cutting-edge technology. In December 2024, the US-Singapore 123 Agreement entered into force and in January this year, we signed a Memorandum of Understanding Concerning Strategic Civil Nuclear Cooperation. Together, these agreements and partnerships will deepen civil nuclear cooperation, it will enable us to better understand how advanced nuclear energy technologies can potentially support our clean energy needs.
In 2024, we also commemorated the 20th anniversary of the US-Singapore Free Trade Agreement (USSFTA). This was the US’ first FTA with an Asian country and, in fact, remains its only FTA with an ASEAN country. The USSFTA contributed to the tripling of bilateral trade since 2004 and has allowed the US to consistently maintain a trade surplus with Singapore.
Today, the US is our top trading partner in services, our second largest trading partner in goods and our largest foreign investor. In fact, if you add up the stock of US foreign direct investment (FDI) into Singapore, the US has invested more in Singapore than it has invested cumulatively in China, India, Japan and Korea combined. Quite a shocking statistic. The US has invested more in Singapore than it has invested in India, China, Japan and Korea combined. That is why we have 6,000, in fact, more than 6,000 US firms based in Singapore, creating jobs and opportunities for Singaporeans.
Meanwhile, Singapore is the third largest Asian investor in the US and there are some 200 Singapore companies in 40 states. Together, our bilateral trade and investments between the US and Singapore generate over 350,000 jobs in the US.
We have also worked well with President Donald Trump during his first term. In October 2017, President Trump invited then-Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong to visit the US. And of course, in June 2018, President Trump came to Singapore to attend the US-North Korea Summit. In 2019, then-Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and President Trump signed the Protocol of Amendment to the 1990 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Regarding the United States Use of Facilities in Singapore. This extended the MOU by a further 15 years and it underscores our strong bilateral defence relationship and Singapore’s support for the US strategic presence in our region. We look forward to working closely again with President Trump to further deepen bilateral ties in the years ahead.
The US presence in our part of the world has actually helped to provide security, stability and economic opportunities in the Asia Pacific for the past 80 years. The US is ASEAN’s second-largest trading partner and the largest source of FDI into ASEAN. It has also supported ASEAN economic initiatives, especially capacity building in areas like digital trade, trade facilitation and the development of micro, small and medium enterprises. The US has also cooperated closely with ASEAN on emerging issues like clean energy and cybersecurity.
But the world is now at a new inflection point, probably at a point which we have not faced for almost a century. The liberal world order that prevailed after the Second World War, which was characterised in three dimensions: one, domestically, usually democracy and human rights; two, economically, by global supply chains and economic integration; and three, at the international level by the development of international institutions, the United Nations, the Bretton Woods institutions, international law, international norms and rules. That liberal world order, which, in fact, has been quite conducive for Singapore’s progress in the last 60 years, is now being eroded and it is being eroded because it has lost domestic political support in many parts of the world. And I set that out so that we can also situate the changes which are happening within the US and the unfolding drama of its relations with its own treaty allies, with Europe, with China, with Southeast Asia. And therefore, how we need to respond to this profound challenge.
The US’ relationship with China is, in fact, the most consequential relationship in the world. How these two superpowers interact with one another has deep implications for global stability and prosperity. Right now, I would characterise it as a significant lack of strategic trust between these two superpowers. And we are all witnessing a bifurcation, a decoupling of the global economy as a result of that. But again, if you look at the headlines over the last few days, it is not just the US and China, but also its relationship within its own allies and neighbours in its own hemisphere, and its evolving relationship with the European Union (EU).
And the challenge, therefore, is how Singapore and Southeast Asia should respond. We believe there needs to be an omni-directional engagement on our part with all the multiple poles of power that are emerging. That means, engaging with the US, engaging with China, India, the EU, Africa and South America. And you would notice our intensive diplomacy and economic engagement across the world. The signing of FTAs like the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement, which is ASEAN with China, Japan, Korea, Australia and New Zealand. You would have noticed the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), which initially was supposed to include the US. The US pulled out, the rest continued and the TPP has grown since then. You would also have noticed that we have now signed FTAs with the Pacific Alliance, which is Mexico, Colombia, Peru and Chile, and we also signed one with Mercosur, which is Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay and Paraguay.
It is worth noting that all these FTAs that Singapore has been able to sign have occurred despite the mood against globalisation. And in fact, if you look at the variety of governments in charge of these countries, they range across a very wide political spectrum. But the point is we can still continue to engage and make common calls as widely as possible in order to expand opportunities and to look for stability.
With the US, ASEAN and the US elevated relations to a Comprehensive Strategic Partnership in 2022 and we were able to adopt a Leaders’ level statement on cooperation on the ASEAN Outlook on the Indo-Pacific as well as on artificial intelligence.
Specifically, with respect to Singapore, we will have to continue to play a constructive, inclusive role in a nimble way given our size. So, that means, we have to be consistent, reliable and a trustworthy host to enterprises from all over the world, including the US and China. We will uphold the rule of law and sanctity of contract. We will act decisively and firmly against individuals and companies that flout the rules. Or maybe, let me rephrase that more colloquially. It means playing it straight, it means saying the same thing to everyone and it means doing what we say. At a time of tension, instability and volatility, our Singapore branding and the way we speak and behave, in fact, becomes more valuable.
Mr Speaker: Mr Neil Parekh.
\tMr Neil Parekh Nimil Rajnikant (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, I have a supplementary question for the Minister. I would like to get his assessment on the likely impact on Singapore of the recent tariffs imposed on China, Mexico and Canada.
\t
\t
\t
\tDr Vivian Balakrishnan: I know we are under time pressure so, obviously, I cannot give the Member a comprehensive answer to all that and, in any case, the news is still unfolding.
But just take a step back, I think tariffs and emerging tariffs are a reality going forward. I will take some risk and say that I do not anticipate us being on the hit list for direct tariffs because, as I said earlier in my answer, the US has a surplus in as far as the trade balance with us is concerned.
Having said that, even if you assume that there are no tariffs, no direct tariffs against the export of Singapore products and services, the fact that we are a small open economy and that trade constitutes more than three times our gross domestic product means if there is any friction, if there is any degradation of economic integration global supply chains and world trade, we will be impacted indirectly.
So, this is an area which we are watching very, very closely but I hope Members in this House will recognise that it still means we need to keep calm, we need to keep our eyes open. But we need to be very careful in what we say and how we behave and playing it straight, saying the same thing to everyone and meaning, and doing what we say, is valuable. But I do need to prepare Singaporeans that it will be a turbulent ride in the months or years to come.\t
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Assistance for Victims of Incident Involving Address Changes Via ICA System, Punishment for Perpetrators and Remedial Actions to Correct System or Process","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"8 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) what assistance has been provided to the victims of the unauthorised home address changes performed on the ICA website; and (b) what punishment will be meted out to the perpetrators who did the changes.
9 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether the recent cases of unauthorised change of address using ICA's e-service have affected other Government services such as the distribution of CDC Vouchers and the calculation of Government benefits payable to the affected individuals.
10 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority will be conducting a comprehensive review of all electronic change of addresses done within the past six months through the “Others” module, which allows the change of address by a proxy, to ascertain the authenticity of the change of addresses.
11 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether the procedure for a change of home address is being reviewed.
12 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether the Government will consider implementing stricter rules or guidelines to regulate the photocopying of physical NRICs to reduce the likelihood of such information being misused.
\tThe Minister of State for Home Affairs (Ms Sun Xueling) (for the Minister for Home Affairs): Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to address Question Nos 8 to 12 raised by Ms Joan Pereira, Mr Leong Mun Wai and Ms Hazel Poa in today's Order Paper, and Mr Mohd Fahmi bin Aliman’s question scheduled for a future Sitting.
\tMr Speaker: Please go ahead.
\tMs Sun Xueling: The Ministry of Digital Development and Information (MDDI) has related questions in this Sitting and will address Mr Fahmi’s question on Singpass in its reply.
First, let me explain the procedure for changing one’s registered address with the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA). The fraudulent changes of address had occurred through the “Others” module in ICA’s system for electronic change of address (eCOA). The “Others” module had been introduced for the benefit of non-digitally savvy residents, such as the elderly or disabled. It enables them to change their address online without having to make an in-person trip to ICA, by getting a proxy to help them. The proxy would log into the system using his or her own Singpass account and apply for a change of address for the individual by keying in the individual’s National Registration Identity Card (NRIC) number and date of issue of the NRIC. A physical personal identification number (PIN) mailer would then be sent to the individual at his new address. The proxy would log into the eCOA system a second time and with the PIN, complete the change of address for the individual.
In designing and building our digital services, we have to make practical trade-offs between absolute security and useability. In the case of the eCOA service, there were safeguards in place, including the need to authenticate the proxy via Singpass log-in, the use of NRIC number and date of issue of the NRIC of the person whose address was to be changed, and the use of a physical PIN mailer.
At that time, these were assessed to represent an acceptable balance between absolute security and useability. However, we now recognise that this service could be and was exploited by malicious actors. A key problem is that there was criminal action: people gave up their Singpass account to be misused. This criminal action, which was not anticipated, was the key reason why malicious actors were able to exploit the “Others” module in the eCOA service. They had first used Singpass accounts which had been relinquished, as proxies to initiate the change of address for another individual. Using the date of issue of NRIC as one of the three safeguards was reasonable, but proved not adequate, as malicious actors managed to get hold of the information.
ICA has since introduced an additional security feature which is face verification when individuals use their Singpass account to log into the “Myself” module of the eCOA service to change their own residential address. This module has been resumed since 14 January 2025. The “Others” module and the “Myself and my family” module will remain suspended until additional safeguards can be put in place.
The Government places high priority on the security of our digital services from illegal and malicious actors. This is both to maintain public confidence and to protect the public from harm. We constantly test and improve the security of our systems and will continue to do so.
Second, let me address questions about the impact of the unauthorised changes of addresses and what assistance has been provided to the victims. ICA has reviewed all eCOA applications made through the “Others” module since October 2020, when the eCOA service was launched. ICA has ascertained that unauthorised changes took place only in the recent months, from August 2024 onwards. ICA has found that the suspects tried to change the registered addresses of 99 individuals. They succeeded in changing the addresses of 71 of the individuals.
ICA and the Singapore Police Force (SPF) have been working with the Government Technology Agency of Singapore (GovTech) and other Government agencies to mitigate the impact on these affected individuals. ICA has reached out to all 99 individuals to verify and restore the correct addresses. ICA is also assisting them to replace their physical NRIC, which will have a new date of issue.
ICA is also working with other Government agencies to comprehensively assess the impact of the fraudulent change of address for the 71 individuals, in particular those whose address registered in ICA’s system had been used by other agencies to administer their schemes since the fraud began. These checks are ongoing. Agencies will provide the appropriate assistance and restoration if there has been any adverse impact on the calculation or disbursement of Government benefits, including Community Development Council (CDC) Vouchers, to these individuals.
Of the 71 individuals whose addresses were successfully changed, the suspects went on to take over the Singpass accounts of 16 of the individuals. They did so by performing a password reset for the Singpass account and requesting for a physical PIN mailer to be sent to the newly registered address.
Out of an abundance of caution, GovTech has suspended the Singpass accounts of all 99 affected individuals to prevent unauthorised activity, and has been in contact with them to reset and secure their Singpass accounts. SPF is also coordinating with Government agencies and private entities to stop or reverse any fraudulent activity originating from the 16 compromised Singpass accounts. If there have been monetary losses arising from the compromised Singpass accounts, Police will work with agencies and financial institutions to remediate the losses wherever possible.
Third, Ms Joan Pereira asked what punishment would be meted out. Thirteen suspects have been arrested by the Police and investigations are ongoing. Four men have already been charged in court for offences under the Computer Misuse Act 1993. These offences carry penalties of imprisonment of up to three years, a fine of up to $10,000, or both, for first-time offenders. Details of the arrests and the offences for which the suspects have been charged are contained in SPF’s news releases. SPF will be making known other details in due course as its investigations progress further.
Finally, regarding the photocopying of NRICs, under the Personal Data Protection Commission’s Advisory Guidelines, organisations are generally not allowed to collect, use or disclose copies of NRIC, as they contain personal data. Exceptions apply only where required under the law, or when it is necessary to accurately identify an individual. Organisations that fail to comply with these Guidelines may be in breach of their obligations under the Personal Data Protection Act.
\tMr Speaker: Ms Joan Pereira.
Ms Joan Pereira (Tanjong Pagar): Thank you, Speaker. I have one supplementary question for the Minister of State. I would like to ask why ICA suspended the eCOA's service only on 11 January 2025. Could ICA not have acted sooner?
\t
\tMs Sun Xueling: I thank the Member for her supplementary question. ICA had started investigating cases of unauthorised changes of address in September 2024. Initially, the cases appeared unconnected. Time was needed to investigate and triangulate information from various reports made.
By December 2024, ICA had uncovered how the unauthorised changes of addresses were effected and what they were used for. In parallel, ICA was also reviewing the technical aspects of improving the security of the eCOA system.
Following an internal assessment, ICA decided to suspend the eCOA service and did so on 11 January 2025. In hindsight, ICA could have taken steps to cease the service earlier in December 2024 when the modus operandi was established. But these are judgement calls that public officers have to make every day. The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) is reviewing with ICA what lessons we can draw from this incident.
\tMr Speaker: Ms Hazel Poa.
\tMs Hazel Poa (Non-Constituency Member): I thank the Minister of State for her answers. Upon a change of address, does the Ministry currently send letters to both the new and old addresses in order to verify that the change is genuine? And secondly, would the Ministry consider reinstating the venue of changing residential address to be at Neighbourhood Police Posts (NPPs)?
\t
\tMs Sun Xueling: I thank the Member for her supplementary questions. Currently, the mailers are sent to the new address but, like I had shared in my response earlier, ICA is reviewing how this service is conducted and has instituted the use of facial verification under the \"Myself\" module. So, for the other modules, like \"Myself and family members\" as well as \"Others\", ICA is still reviewing what would be the best way forward in order to safeguard our electronic services.
I am sorry. Could I ask about the second question again, please?
\tMs Hazel Poa: Updating addresses at NPPs.
\tMs Sun Xueling: I thank the Member for that question. There have been instances in the past where there have been questions raised in this House about manpower issues that the SPF faces. So, many of our NPPs have gone towards a \"man-less\" operation model. But what will happen is, if there are individuals who walk into our NPPs and ask for help to change their address, they will be guided to ICA for them to change their addresses at ICA.
Mr Speaker: Order. End of Question Time. The Clerk will now read the Orders of the Day and the Notices of Motions. Leader of the House.
[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":"Time Limit for Minister's Speech","subTitle":"Suspension of Standing Orders","sectionType":"OS","content":"Mr Speaker: Leader of the House.
The Leader of the House (Ms Indranee Rajah): Mr Speaker, Sir, I believe that the next item on the Order Paper, which is the Maintenance of Racial Harmony Bill, as well as the second item, the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment) Bill, will be moved by the Minister for Home Affairs. Mr Speaker, I believe you will also be asking for them to be debated together.
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 of the Minister for Home Affairs' speeches.
Mr Speaker: I give my consent. Does the Leader of the House 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 No 48(8) to remove the time limit in respect of the Minister for Home Affairs' speeches\". – [Ms Indranee Rajah.] (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Maintenance of Racial Harmony Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Minister for Home Affairs.
The Minister for Home Affairs (Mr K Shanmugam): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you. I move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\"
I will refer to this Maintenance of Racial Harmony Bill (RH Bill) as the RH Bill – short for racial harmony, which is somewhat similar sounding to the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act, which we passed some time ago.
Sir, this Bill is linked to the next Bill, the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment) Bill. The latter amends the President's powers under the Constitution to give effect to the proposals in this Bill. Sir, I seek your permission, to debate both Bills together.
Mr Speaker: Please proceed.
Mr K Shanmugam: Thank you, Sir. We will, of course, take the Constitution Bill through its formal stages separately later.
At present, dealing with the Maintenance of Racial Harmony Bill, there are powers to deal with conduct which threatens racial harmony, but what you see is that they are found in different pieces of legislation. What this Bill does is to bring those powers together in one place. And so, in that sense, it consolidates. And at the same time, by presenting it in this form, we seek to affirm the importance of racial harmony in Singapore.
Based on the responses we have had from members of the public when we had our consultations and when we put out the Bill, I want to make one point. This Bill is not a panacea for all racial issues. You cannot by law force people of different races to get along with one another, nor can you prevent insensitivity or racist slights from happening in everyday interactions by passing a law.
That, we try to deal with, try and improve conduct, try and get people together, through a variety of policies and platforms which promote social cohesion and racial harmony. That is a huge part of it. The law can set out a framework as to what you cannot do.
Sir, with your permission, may I ask the Clerks to distribute Annex 1?
Mr Speaker: Go ahead. [A handout was distributed to hon Members. Please refer to Annex 1.]
Mr K Shanmugam: Members can also access this material through the MP@SGPARL app.
The point that has been made by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) through its press release, which I am sure the Members who are intending to speak on the Bill would have looked at, and which I would emphasise again and you will see it from Annex 1 is that most of the proposals in this Bill – certainly the substantive proposals – are not new.
As long as Members understand we are consolidating from different pieces of legislation and so, when you express your concerns and so on, in a way, what you need to understand is, if you have those concerns, then they would have existed for a very long time, because this Bill does not create new provisions in a substantive manner.
There are some new provisions – you can see that in the Bill and in the press releases. But I am referring to the substantive provisions.
The Table in Annex 1 also provides a comparative reference between this Bill and the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act as well as other legislation.
For example, Part 2 of the Bill on the Presidential Council for Racial and Religious Harmony takes reference from the current Presidential Council for Religious Harmony. Part 3 of the Bill on \"Restraining Orders Against Racial Content\" and Part 4 of the Bill on \"Measures Against Foreign Influence\" are also similar to the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act. Part 6 of the Bill on \"Offences Relating to Race\" – those are what I call the charging provisions – brings over the existing offences from the Penal Code.
In the course of bringing in concepts and provisions from other existing legislation, we have made some refinements to some provisions for clarity and effectiveness. I will explain that later.
Sir, first, I think the Bill itself is fairly clear cut. But why such a Bill? Why do we need this? It is not usual in many countries. I think that is a more fundamental, more important question. That is because we have always treated racial harmony as being fundamental in Singapore. This Bill has to be seen in that context. Multiracialism, underpinned by racial harmony, is a foundational principle for us.
Sir, as most Members will know, when Singapore gained Independence, the issues relating to racial relations were fresh in the minds of the first generation of leaders. The proximate cause were the racial riots of 1964. At that time, communal tensions were very high in both Singapore and Malaysia.
On 21 July 1964, riots started. That was during a procession to celebrate the Prophet Muhammad's birthday. A glass bottle was thrown into a crowd. The crowd had about 20,000 Malay celebrants. There was then an angry exchange between Malays in the crowd and some Chinese bystanders. That resulted in violence and the violence spread all across Singapore. That was the state of the tensions at that point. It lasted 17 days before the situation stabilised; 23 people died, more than 400 were injured.
Then, riots broke out again on 2 September 1964, between again the Malays and Chinese. That happened after a Malay trishaw rider was killed. The second time round, it took 12 days before calm was established; 13 people died and more than a hundred were injured.
The broader context for those tensions were the arguments between Singapore and Malaysia. These arguments then led to Singapore's separation from Malaysia.
Singapore's merger into the new Federation of Malaysia in 1963 had raised some very fundamental issues. Although the new state of Malaysia in 1963 had Malays, Chinese, Indians and Eurasians, amongst others, there were basic differences between Singapore and Kuala Lumpur on how the state was to be organised and, in particular, the approach towards multiracialism. Singapore wanted racial equality. Kuala Lumpur favoured race-based politics. The two approaches were not reconcilable.
The idea of a \"Malaysian Malaysia\", advocated by Singapore, brought about a very strong counter\tfrom the United Malays National Organisation (UMNO) leaders in Kuala Lumpur and Malaya. They saw this as a challenge to Malay dominance. Singapore then became an independent country.
On the day of our Independence on 9 August 1965, Mr Lee said – and these are very important words. He famously said, \"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.\"
These issues and the approaches exercised the minds of Mr Lee and his generation. The problems were seared into their minds. They had grown up in a Malaya where different races had lived together for generations as colonial subjects. Once Independence was achieved – first in the Federation of Malaya in 1957 and then in Malaysia in 1963 – the question immediately arose as to whether all citizens, regardless of their race, were to have equal status.
Our founding leaders had seen how fragile a multiracial society could be. They wanted, as far as possible, to make Singapore a more racially equal society. That involved many tough decisions. For instance, the languages we speak. Some major Chinese organisations asked Mr Lee to make Chinese our only official language and the language of business. Mr Lee refused. He said on 3 October 1965 that, \"although in Singapore 75% of the population is Chinese, the Malays form only 12%, never mind; Malay has become our national language, yet, Malay language, Chinese, Tamil and English are all equal.\"
The four official languages were given recognition by the Republic of Singapore Independence Act and also in the Constitution.
Another example: one of the first few constitutional amendments our first generation of leaders made was to create a Presidential Council for Minority Rights chaired by the Chief Justice. The Presidential Council for Minority Rights can veto any legislation that Parliament passes that it feels affects the rights and privileges of minorities in Singapore.
There were several other steps that were taken to focus on a Singaporean identity which would transcend race and religion.
It was an act of tremendous courage on the part of those leaders to do all of this. It would have been far easier for them to have said, \"Okay, in Singapore, Chinese will be the sole official language and the Chinese will have several other legally recognised privileges.\"
If you see the situation in advanced, developed countries, if you go to Germany, you have to speak German by and large, if you go to France, you have to speak French. If you go to the United Kingdom (UK), you generally have to speak English. So, it would have been very natural for some to have said in Singapore, Chinese should be the language of business, language of commerce and language of government. But we took a different path.
Over the years, our insistence on maintaining racial and religious harmony, and our zero tolerance for bigotry and hatred has made Singapore a very different place compared with others. If you look at a 2023 Gallup World Poll, 92% of respondents in Singapore said that Singapore was a good place to live in for racial minorities. We were ranked first out of over 130 countries and territories for this question.
Another global survey by the Pew Research Center in 2021 found that 92% of respondents in Singapore think that having people of different backgrounds, including racial backgrounds, makes Singapore a better place to live in.
The Government also periodically conducts domestic surveys on racial and religious harmony in Singapore. And so do non-Government entities. Most recently, in August of last year, my Ministry and the Ministry of Digital Development and Information (MDDI) polled more than 1,000 Singapore residents on their sentiments towards racial harmony.
With your permission, Sir, Mr Speaker, may I ask the Clerks to distribute Annex 2, which summarises the key findings from this poll?
Mr Speaker: Please go ahead. [A handout was distributed to hon Members. Please refer to Annex 2.]
Mr K Shanmugam: Members will see that the majority of the respondents felt that the current state of race relations in Singapore was good or very good. About half agreed that Singapore's laws were adequate to protect racial harmony, 6% disagreed and the rest were somewhere in-between. Most agreed that it was both the Government's and the community's responsibility to strengthen race relations.
What I would say to Members is that what we have in Singapore is actually not the natural order of things. Indeed, there is nothing natural about what we have in Singapore. We now have come to believe it to be natural. We have made it our second nature. But actually, it is not natural because human beings are wired to be tribal, based on identity, and that continues to be true in many places around the world. If you look at many countries, they are organised on the basis of formal or informal racial or religious hierarchies. That is the natural order of things. What we have in Singapore is we changed the natural order and made that changed situation second nature for us. So, this Bill has to be seen in that context.
When we consider our approach to multi-racialism and laws, it is also useful to look at the experience of other countries and see what we should do or should not do. Let us look at the developed world. Again, some examples. The UK, United States (US) and France have a majority white population, but also a long history of immigration. So, they have been multiracial longer than Singapore has been independent.
Race has been a flashpoint in these countries. Last year, the UK was hit with a wave of riots, between July and August 2024. The riots began with falsehoods. There was a knife attack that killed three young girls. Rumours were that the attacker was an asylum seeker but, in fact, the attacker was born in the UK. By mid-afternoon on the day of the attack, the false name of the suspect had received more than 30,000 mentions on X alone. As of September last year, the police had arrested more than 1,200 persons.
This wave of riots is widely viewed as being among the most serious in British history. It exposed deep-seated racist sentiments and also other grievances, relating to immigration. There have also been other riots in the UK, arising from distrust between communities.
There was a survey in 2021. That survey was conducted by the King's College, University of Manchester and the University of Saint Andrews. The survey found that more than one-third of persons from minority groups in the UK had actually experienced racist assaults, meaning physical attacks. One-third.
Turning to the US, we also see evidence that race and attitudes towards racial issues, seems to divide American society. You see the endless media reports on the issue, the protests marches, the violence. You get the sense that racial issues continue to be flashpoints.
And if you turn to France, a report that was published in 2023 found that 91%, more than nine in 10 of black people had been victims of racial discrimination either \"often\" or \"from time to time\". Reports of anti-semitic and anti-Muslim acts increased by almost 300% and 30% respectively, while other types of racist acts increased by around 20%. Racial tensions are present and spill into serious violence even in countries where people do not look very different from each other.
If you look at the 1994 Rwandan genocide, this is one of several examples in Africa. A more recent example is the crisis in Sudan, specifically, the Darfur region. And as a result of the crisis, millions have been displaced from their homes. The British Broadcasting Corporation recently described the situation in Sudan as the world's worst humanitarian crisis. In our region, too, many countries have faced serious and long-standing conflict along racial lines, Myanmar being one of them.
So, looking across these countries, we see three issues.
First, in allowing hate speech. Many of the countries I have cited as examples earlier, such as the US, UK and France, they allow denigration of other races or religions. In the US, the Supreme Court has said that inflammatory speech, even speech advocating violence, can be protected. In Singapore, we take a different approach.
As I told this House in my Ministerial Statement in April 2019, if we do not have a tough set of laws and policies against hateful and offensive speech, the tone and texture of public discourse in our society will change over time. It will create an environment that is conducive for discrimination and eventually, violence against people who can be classified in a specific category, described by skin colour or religion or some other attribute.
We must not let this happen here. I trust that on this issue, we are all agreed as to where we draw the line on hate speech, on speech which advocates violence, on speech which incites violence, on speech which seeks to set aside a group and target them as the \"out\" group, as I have said in my Ministerial Statement.
The second lesson that I think that we can learn is and this is an age-old issue: the exploitation of race for politics. Race-related issues have immense power to mobilise people, identity politics basically and it is deeply visceral. Politicians know it, and many exploit it to score political points and win elections.
In recent years, you see a trend in many countries, including the West, politicians encouraging people to think along racial lines and adopt a \"us versus them\" mentality. And if this is repeated both during electoral cycles and off-electoral cycles, the racial divisions are then reinforced and become even more entrenched in society. We take a tough stance on this. Again, I trust all Members will agree with us that the exploitation of race has no place in our politics.
Third, social segregation. The neighbours we have and our day-to-day interactions with them affect how we perceive the wider society. Racially segregated neighbourhoods limit opportunities to build trust between different communities.
The University of California did a study in 2021 and found that racially segregated residential neighbourhoods in the US remain the \"lynchpin\" that sustains systemic racial inequality. This is a consequence of years of residential segregation based on race and the issue is not unique to the US.
After the riots in 2001, the government in UK commissioned a study. That study found that physical racial segregation of housing estates was a key contributor for the riots then. The report described most of the white communities as living \"parallel lives\" from minority Asian and black groups. It commented that, \"there is little wonder that ignorance about each other's communities can easily grow into fear\".
If we were to look at France, residential segregation can also be found in the banlieues. These are suburban areas predominantly inhabited by immigrant families usually of Arab or other African descent. Around five million people, or about 8% of the French population, live in areas classified as banlieues. The overlap of ethnic segregation in these areas, with economic and social exclusion, has led to increasing polarisation between those minority, marginalised groups and the majority in French society. Again, here, we have done it differently in Singapore.
Previous Governments had the foresight to introduce the Ethnic Integration Policy (EIP) in our public housing estates. EIP has ensured a mix of races in our public housing estates. If the Government had left it to market forces, you would have seen Chinese, Malays and Indians, forming residential enclaves in different parts of Singapore, similar to what is happening in many other countries and similar to what was happening in Singapore before we introduced the EIP.
If that happens, soon, schools in those areas would also become segregated. Children would have less diverse social circles and limited exposure to different cultures. They would grow up with less understanding, trust and comfort with other communities. They will carry this into adulthood and into workplaces.
We put in place rules to maintain certain racial proportions in public housing, so that we would have mixing across races in every estate. Singaporeans generally appreciate the intent of this policy. The Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) conducted a survey in 2024 and 93% of the respondents agreed that it was important to have a mix of people from different races in each housing estate.
In the light of these lessons, what is our approach to maintaining racial harmony? I will say there are two aspects.
One, we have to have a strong legal framework which sets clear boundaries on what is not allowed in Singapore. Second, with that framework in place, we would have to have the Government actively putting in place policies and platforms that maximise our common space, to strengthen cohesion. Just a few words on that.
The law can tell you what you cannot do. The law cannot tell you \"be nice to your neighbour, form friendships and bonds with your neighbours across races, across religions\". That is where policies come in. So, the thousands of activities that are carried out every weekend, bringing people together and multiplicity of events and approaches, the way schools are organised, every other aspect, which is too long to go into here. But that comes in to create opportunities for people to become friends or at least form understandings and dislike each other less where there is dislike and like each other more where there is some potential for like. And over time, we would say that Singapore has progressed substantively on this front.
So, let me start with the first aspect: our a strong legal framework. Our Constitution guarantees that all persons are equal before the law and entitled to equal protection under the law. So, it is the responsibility of the Government to care for the interests of the racial minorities. Minority representation in Parliament is guaranteed through our Group Representation Constituency (GRC) system.
Other legislation also deal with these issues. Most recently, the Workplace Fairness Bill prohibits workplace discrimination based on some characteristics, including race. This means an employer cannot make an adverse employment decision because of the race of the jobseeker or employee. A subsequent Bill will lay out avenues for affected individuals to seek recourse when they feel that they have been discriminated against, including racial discrimination in the workplace.
Beyond that, of course, our Penal Code also sets out what conduct is not acceptable and that would include conduct in the context of race. These laws have generally served their intended purpose. The Maintenance of Racial Harmony Bill continues with that approach. The law tells us what is it that we cannot do or what remedies there are when something wrong has been done.
The second part: the policies and platforms to expand and deepen our common space. If you look at 1965 and if you look at today, you will find that most people are comfortable with bonds across races. Singapore is in a much healthier place. There is understanding, there is appreciation, there is acceptance and deep bonds across racial religious lines. Of course, there are some people who will still have some different viewpoints but, on the whole, it is a very substantively different society from what it was in the 1960s, because we have been facilitating interactions between people of different backgrounds and we do this very deliberately. It is not left to chance.
While I do not want to go into a discussion of the policies, maybe I can refer to a poll. The poll that MHA and MDDI conducted last year, it found that over 85% of respondents felt that race relations are better or the same compared to 10 years ago. That is in the context where, in many parts of the world, race relations have actually regressed. IPS and OnePeople.sg, also conducted a study based on a survey last year involving 4,000 Singaporean residents.
Mr Speaker, Sir, with your permission, may I ask the Clerk to distribute Annex 3, which summarises the key findings of this study?
Mr Speaker: Yes, please proceed. [A handout was distributed to hon Members. Please refer to Annex 3.]
Mr K Shanmugam: Thank you, Sir. This study found that nearly two-thirds, 65.4%, of respondents rated Singapore's racial and religious harmony as high or very high. That is an increase of about 8% from 2018/2019, when 57.1% said that. The number of race-related incidents reported to the Police has also largely remained stable over the years at around 10 per year, though there are some years with spikes. The Police have noticed, I have noticed, that whenever there are elections, the number of Police reports spike.
But we cannot take this state of affairs for granted. We are in an age when identity politics is on the rise globally and we cannot cut ourselves off from the world. With that background, Sir, I will turn to the Bill itself.
Essentially, the Bill has five aspects or five proposals.
First, it brings over existing race-related offences in the Penal Code.
Second, it introduces the Community Remedial Initiative (CRI). That gives the offender the opportunity to mend ties with the community that he was attacking and we provide this as an alternative to the person being charged in Court.
Third, the Bill seeks to establish a Restraining Order regime.
Fourth, it establishes the Presidential Council for Racial and Religious Harmony to advise on matters relating to racial and religious harmony that are referred to it by the Minister for Home Affairs or by Parliament.
Fifth, it introduces safeguards against foreign influence through race-based entities.
The 2024 poll on racial harmony, which I referred to, shows that the public strongly support various proposals in this Bill. Nonetheless, during public consultations, one common comment that we received was that this Bill only prevents racial disharmony and it does not promote racial harmony.
I can understand the perspective. What people want to see is something that will positively push people to be harmonious with each other across races. I explained the point earlier: you cannot, by law, force people to get along better with each other. That is to come through government policies, through the framework, the structure of society and how we build that DNA into society over time. And that is what we have been doing.
Laws play an important role in that because if you allow bad behaviour, then these policies would not succeed. Laws are there, they provide a very strong legal framework and people know we will enforce our laws and, therefore, they reduce and deter bad behaviour. Once you stop that bad behaviour, amongst a small minority usually – laws are necessary, usually only as regards a small minority of people – then, if you do not allow for that behaviour, then there is a framework and within that, you can promote policies that will enhance racial harmony.
I will refer specifically to two proposals in this Bill, one relating to race-related offences and the other CRI. My colleague, the Minister of State Sun Xueling, will cover the rest.
First, on race-related offences. They are covered under clauses 39 and 40 of the Bill.
Clause 39 takes what is already an offence today, that is, inciting violence under section 267C of the Penal Code and it prescribes increased penalties for a subset of that conduct where offenders do so on the basis of a belief about race.
Clause 40 brings over the substance of existing race-related offences in the Penal Code, which deal with threats to racial harmony. These are: section 298, which concerns acts that wound the racial feelings of any person; and section 298A, which concerns acts that promote enmity between racial groups. In bringing these offences over, we have made certain clarifications.
In particular, we have received public feedback that the term \"wound racial feelings\" lacks clarity. Therefore, clause 40(2) replaces the term \"wound racial feelings\" with objective descriptions, so, at least, more objective descriptions, which are, essentially, \"insults, vilifies, denigrates, threatens or abuses on the basis of race\". This provides greater clarity and probably narrows the scope of conduct that would make out an offence today. \"Wound racial feelings\" could potentially be subjective.
We have also aligned these offences with the corresponding offences in the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act as we take an equally strong stance in dealing with threats to racial harmony and religious harmony. First, the penalties for offences in this Bill are the same as the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act.
Second, we have also introduced defences for offences under clause 40 that are already present in the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act. These are the defence of private or domestic conduct, which allows people to have a safe space to express their views about race and religion in private or domestic settings. The defence of pointing out, in good faith, any matters for the purpose of bringing about a removal of those matters.
And similar to the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act, there will also be extraterritorial coverage for race-related offences. If the offence is committed overseas but targets Singapore and has an impact in Singapore, it will be covered.
We acknowledge that it may be difficult to enforce offences outside of Singapore, but it signals our commitment to protect our racial harmony, even when the threat originates outside of Singapore. That said, while there are offences in the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act that are tiered, depending on whether the act is committed by a religious leader or a lay person, this Bill makes no such differentiation for obvious reasons.
The law today does not distinguish between different categories of offenders for race-related offences. The distinction we had drawn in the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act was unique because in the context of religion, it reflects a greater risk posed by the actions of religious leaders who exercise formal religious authority and there is no equivalent in the context of race. Instead, all persons are held to the same standard since the acts of any individual can threaten racial harmony. Again, this only reflects the existing law and does not expand the scope of criminal liability.
Next, I will move to the CRI. Our starting point is this: racial incidents harm both the victim as well as the ties between the races. And criminal prosecution may be necessary, but it cannot, by itself, mend the community ties. Thus, if you have an offender, he might be offered an opportunity to participate in Community Remedial programmes as an alternative to prosecution. This is similar to the CRI in the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act and we seek to achieve two policy objectives.
First, reconciliation. It provides the alleged offender with the opportunity to make amends for his racist conduct and hopefully, by that process, he or she gets a better understanding of the community that he attacked and hopefully, creates a bond, a bridge and strengthens mutual understanding.
Second, rehabilitation. It gives the offender the opportunity to learn from his mistake. Clause 41(2) of the Bill provides for the Minister to appoint community partners to deliver the programmes and MHA intends to work with OnePeople.sg and the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth (MCCY) to design suitable programmes based on the context of the different types of offensive conduct.
These programmes will have three broad elements. First, raising awareness of how the alleged offender's racist conduct impacts others. Second, initiating action by requiring the alleged offender to make amends with the aggrieved individual and community through volunteer work and other suitable engagements. Third, by encouraging amity by arranging guided reflection sessions with the alleged offender and aggrieved individual or community.
But as clause 41(4) provides, it is not compulsory for an alleged offender to complete the programmes, but failure to complete can be taken into account by the Public Prosecutor in exercising prosecutorial discretion. Such cases will continue to be directly referred for prosecution. Egregious cases will not be offered the opportunity of CRI so that a clear and strong signal is sent that such conduct will be treated severely.
Sir, in our multiracial society where diversity is woven into the very fabric of our identity, it is crucial that we continue to celebrate our differences while understanding and respecting one another. By fostering an environment of trust, empathy and unity, we can build a future where everyone continues to feel a deep sense of belonging and pride in being Singaporean, regardless of race.
Mr Speaker, Sir, what we are trying to achieve in Singapore is not easy. It is, in fact, very difficult and very hard work. But given that Singapore has always been a diverse country – many races, many religions, many languages – we had to and we wanted to, from this multiplicity, create one united people but without suppressing any racial, religious or linguistic identity. That has been, if I may say so, the genius of Singapore. From many, one; but without erasing multiplicity.
We could not have done this without simultaneously fostering understanding, trust and acceptance amongst our many, and at the same time, making clear that we will not tolerate any bigotry or hatred or intolerance that threatens the one people that we have become.
We are grateful for the progress we have made thanks to the Pioneer and Merdeka Generations of Singaporeans, but we know that we can do better and we are trying to do better. The Bill, as I have said earlier, will not be a panacea for solving all race-related challenges, but it is a powerful signal of our resolve to remain united as one people.
Mr Speaker, I seek the support of all Members for this Bill. Let us send a strong signal to all the nations of the world that 60 years after we gained Independence, Singapore will remain a multiracial nation. That we will not be a Malay nation, a Chinese nation, or an Indian nation. That every Singaporean will have his place here and that he or she will be respected, and we will all be equal: language, culture, race, religion. [Applause.]
Minister of State Sun Xueling will now take the House through the remaining proposals in the Bill.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Minister of State Sun Xueling.
The Minister of State for Home Affairs (Ms Sun Xueling): Mr Speaker, the Minister for Home Affairs has provided the context and set out the broad rationale for the Maintenance of Racial Harmony Bill. He also explained two of the five proposals on race-related offences and the Community Remedial Initiative (CRI).
In my speech, I will provide details on the remaining three proposals: first, establishing a Restraining Order regime to enable the Government to act quickly and pre-emptively against content that threatens racial harmony; second, establishing the Presidential Council for Racial and Religious Harmony to advise on matters relating to the maintenance of racial and religious harmony in Singapore; and third, introducing safeguards against malicious foreign influence for race-based entities.
I will start with the Restraining Order regime. This lever is not new in our statutes. The Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act already has a Restraining Order regime against content that threatens religious harmony. This was deemed necessary because the Internet, social media and smartphones can enable offensive content to go viral very quickly.
A 2024 poll conducted by MDDI, involving more than 1,000 Singapore residents, provided three insights: first, one in two respondents have encountered content in the online space that might be considered racist or racially insensitive; second, two in three agreed that allowing racially offensive content to spread could threaten racial harmony; and third, seven in 10 agreed with the need for racially offensive content to be removed as quickly as possible.
The Government shares the view that there should be levers to quickly remove content that could undermine our racial harmony and prevent such content from being further disseminated. Therefore, clause 8 of the Bill will enable the Minister for Home Affairs to make Restraining Orders against persons involved in the communication, production or distribution of content that prejudices the maintenance of racial harmony in Singapore. This will complement existing levers, such as the Broadcasting Act and Online Criminal Harms Act, which provide ex-post powers against egregious race-related content on platforms, such as social media services.
Specifically, a racial content Restraining Order under the Bill may do one or more of the following: (a) prohibit a person from communicating or distributing specified information or material; (b) prohibit a person from addressing a specified audience on a specified subject; (c) require a person to take all reasonably practicable steps to ensure that any specified information or materials are no longer available to the general public in Singapore; (d) prohibit a person from printing, editing, assisting, or contributing to, any publication or a specified publication; and (e) prohibit a person from holding office in an editorial board or committee of any publication.
There is one area where race is in a slightly different position as compared with religion, with regard to their respective roles in politics in Singapore. That difference is reflected in the difference between the Restraining Order regime under the Bill, and that in the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act.
Religion is a deeply personal issue. We have, as a society, emphasised that as a multi-religious but secular state, religion should not be mixed with politics. This is a foundational principle of our society.
In the context of race, we have laws which deal with communal politics. But given our multiracial community, race features in some of our political structures. For example, we have the GRCs. We also have constitutional provisions to ensure that a President from a minority race will be elected periodically. Good faith discussions about race have always been an important part of our political discourse and will continue to be so. It would therefore not be right or possible to completely disallow racial discourse in politics. Thus, this will not be one of the grounds for the issuance of a racial content Restraining Order in this Bill. However, any behaviour that creates enmity between races, such as whipping up of communal feelings, denigration of a person’s race or encouragement of violence, have been and will continue to be prohibited by the law.
The Restraining Order takes immediate effect once issued and this mirrors the amended Restraining Order process when the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act was amended in 2019. There is no need to first establish that the person is engaging in criminal conduct, as the intent is to quickly stop the spread of content that could potentially undermine social cohesion. Failure to comply with the Restraining Order will be an offence.
The Government will be very careful when exercising its powers to issue Restraining Orders. The fact that no Restraining Orders have been issued to date, since the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act was introduced in 1990, is reflective of this. But neither is this an indication that the Restraining Order regime is not necessary. On the contrary, the mere existence of the regime is a deterrent against conduct that disrupts religious harmony. The same logic applies to the Restraining Order regime under this Bill.
The issuance of Restraining Orders will be subject to stringent safeguards. All Restraining Orders will be reviewed by a Presidential Council for Racial and Religious Harmony, which I will elaborate on in the next proposal. The person who is issued a racial content Restraining Order will be able to make representations to the Presidential Council for Racial and Religious Harmony. The Presidential Council for Racial and Religious Harmony’s independent recommendation on the Restraining Order will thereafter be sent to the President, followed by the Cabinet’s advice to the President. If the Cabinet’s advice is different from the Presidential Council for Racial and Religious Harmony’s recommendation, the President will be able to act in his discretion to confirm, cancel or vary the Restraining Order.
Moving to the next proposal, clause 3 in this Bill will establish the Presidential Council for Racial and Religious Harmony, which will replace the existing Presidential Council for Religious Harmony. The Presidential Council for Racial and Religious Harmony will comprise representatives from the major racial and religious communities in Singapore and those who have distinguished themselves in public service or community relations in Singapore. As with the existing Presidential Council for Religious Harmony, our intent is to ensure that the new Presidential Council for Racial and Religious Harmony adequately represents the racial and religious diversity in our society.
The proposal to replace the existing Presidential Council for Religious Harmony with the Presidential Council for Racial and Religious Harmony recognises that issues of race may have religious dimensions and vice versa. Therefore, having a single council would facilitate consultation by the Minister or Parliament on issues given the close relationship between race and religion in Singapore.
To this end, the Presidential Council for Racial and Religious Harmony will have the following functions: one, to consider and report to the Minister or Parliament on matters affecting the maintenance of racial and religious harmony in Singapore which are referred to the Presidential Council for Racial and Religious Harmony by the Minister or by Parliament; and two, to consider and make recommendations to the President on Restraining Orders.
In the context of this proposal, we will be introducing the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment) Bill. The Bill comprises amendments to the Constitution to enable the President to act in his discretion: (a) in deciding whether to act on the Presidential Council for Minority Rights’ advice on Presidential Council for Racial and Religious Harmony appointments; and (b) in confirming, cancelling or varying a Restraining Order in cases where the Cabinet’s advice is different from the Presidential Council for Racial and Religious Harmony’s recommendation. These are the same powers that the President has today in relation to the Presidential Council for Religious Harmony and we are extending it to the new Presidential Council for Racial and Religious Harmony.
We have consulted the President on these amendments as they pertain to his discretionary powers. The President supports the amendments.
Moving to the last proposal, we want to safeguard our racial harmony from malicious foreign influence. Our starting point is this: as a small, open and digitally inclusive society, Singapore is vulnerable to external actors exerting malicious foreign influence to achieve their own agenda. We had thus introduced safeguards against malicious foreign influence for religious groups under the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act in 2019. Similarly, entities that promote the interests of a racial group or discuss issues relating to race are potential entry points for malicious foreign influence, which may seek to exploit race for their own agenda and undermine our racial harmony.
Singaporeans understand the foreign influence risks. The same MDDI poll I mentioned earlier provided the following insights: one, nearly seven in 10 respondents agreed that Singapore’s racial harmony could be threatened by malicious foreign influence; two, more than seven in 10 respondents agreed that there should be laws to protect race-based entities from malicious foreign actors.
Clause 15 empowers a competent authority to designate a race-based entity if considered necessary or expedient to pre-empt, prevent or reduce any foreign influence that may undermine racial harmony in Singapore. An entity may be designated by the competent authority if it: one, represents or promotes the social, economic, political, educational, linguistic, cultural or other interests of any race; or two, discusses any issue relating to any race.
We recognise that there is a wide range of entities that engage with race-related issues. As a policy stance, we will start off in a practical and measured manner by only designating race-based entities assessed to have a higher potential of being vectors for malicious foreign influence, rather than subjecting all race-based entities to the measures.
In the first instance, we will designate clan associations and business associations linked to the Chinese, Malay and Indian races. We will need time to assess the entities in these categories before we can inform them whether they will be designated. Clans and business associations, including those focused on trade promotion that are assessed not to be linked to the Chinese, Malay and Indian races, will not be designated at this juncture. However, we do not preclude designating such entities in the future, as the foreign influence landscape evolves.
I understand that there may be some anxiety amongst business associations as to whether they will be designated. I will make two points: first, designation is not a reflection of any wrongdoing by the entity and should not be perceived as such; second, business associations and organisations whose objects, purposes or activities do not relate to any race, will not be designated. Each designation decision will be made holistically and on its own merits. The list of designated entities will be made public to promote transparency.
Clauses 18, 19, 20, 23 and 24 of the Bill will introduce baseline measures against malicious foreign influence that designated race-based entities will have to comply with. These baseline measures are similar to those that all religious groups under the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act have to comply with.
First, designated entities will need to disclose donations accepted from foreign or anonymous sources. The disclosure requirements will be set out in the subsidiary legislation and will take reference from the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act as much as possible.
Second, designated entities will need to disclose foreign affiliations. This refers to arrangements or agreements where foreign persons or organisations have a position of control or power over the race-based entity.
Third, designated entities will need to disclose the leadership composition of their governing body.
Fourth, designated entities will need to comply with the following leadership requirements: one, their responsible officers must be Singapore Citizens or Singapore Permanent Residents (PRs). Responsible officers include the chairperson of the board of directors, the chief executive officer or the company secretary of a company; or the president, secretary and treasurer of a society; and two, the majority of the governing body, or anyone exercising functions analogous to a governing body member, are required to be Singapore Citizens.
For the first three measures, I wish to highlight that the focus is on disclosure. There will not be a blanket prohibition for designated entities to stop accepting foreign donations or to end foreign affiliations. They just need to disclose these matters on an annual basis to MHA.
The Government is prepared to grant exemptions to specific baseline measures on a case-by-case basis.
Clause 32 provides an avenue for designated entities to apply to the Minister for exemption from some or all of the baseline measures. There is a similar process for religious groups under the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act. All entities will be notified ahead of being designated and will be provided time to submit their representations.
Clause 27 empowers the Minister to issue foreign influence Restraining Orders to impose stepped-up measures on a specific race-based entity. The intent is to pre-empt, prevent or reduce any malicious foreign influence affecting the entity which may undermine racial harmony and present a threat to public peace and public order. This is the same threshold for a foreign influence Restraining Order to be issued under the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act.
These stepped-up measures against a designated entity may do one or more of the following:
(a) Prohibit the entity from accepting any donation from a specified foreign principal or any anonymous donation;
(b) Require the entity to return or dispose of any donation from a specified foreign principal or any anonymous donation;
(c) Prohibit the entity from forming or maintaining a specified foreign affiliation; and/or
(d) Prohibit the entity from appointing, admitting or retaining a specified individual – whether or not the individual is a Singapore Citizen – as a member of its governing body, or require the entity to remove any individual who is not or who ceases to be a Singapore Citizen as a member of its governing body.
These powers will, amongst others, mitigate the risk of Singapore Citizens becoming proxies for a foreign principal to exert influence over the race-based entity. Of note, while this policy intent is also relevant for religious groups, such a lever is not currently present in the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act. Therefore, the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act will be amended to introduce a similar provision.
Foreign influence Restraining Orders will also be reviewed by the Presidential Council for Racial and Religious Harmony, and must be confirmed by the President, similar to the racial content Restraining Orders I spoke about earlier. Mr Speaker, in Mandarin, please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Today, we are introducing the Maintenance of Racial Harmony Bill. This Bill was announced by then-Prime Minister Lee in his 2021 National Day Rally Speech. At that time, we were in the thick of the COVID-19 pandemic and you might recall that several racist incidents were widely publicised on social media. It reminds us that although Singapore has come a long way in our race relations since our early years, racial harmony is not the natural order of things. We have to continue to work at it.
This Bill is the latest in our suite of measures to strengthen social cohesion and safeguard racial harmony in Singapore.
This is a new Bill but, in fact, much of what is in the Bill is not new. Similar provisions already exist in the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act, which was enacted in 1990 and amended in 2019. This Bill aligns what we have for both race and religion, since the objectives of the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act also apply in the context of racial harmony.
This Bill has five key proposals:
(a) port over existing race-related offences in the Penal Code;
(b) introduce the CRI;
(c) establish the Presidential Council for Racial and Religious Harmony;
(d) establish the Restraining Order regime; and
(e) introduce safeguards against foreign influence for race-based entities.
I will further elaborate on the proposals dealing with the Restraining Order regime and safeguards against foreign influence for race-based entities.
The Bill will enable the Minister for Home Affairs to make Restraining Orders against persons involved in the communication, production and distribution of content that prejudices the maintenance of racial harmony in Singapore. The Restraining Order regime allows us to take action pre-emptively against conduct that has the potential to inflame tensions between racial groups before it goes viral and causes irreparable damage to our social cohesion.
This will complement existing levers, such as the Broadcasting Act and Online Criminal Harms Act, which provide ex-post powers against egregious race-related content on platforms such as social media services.
I wish to assure Members that the Government will be very careful when exercising its power to issue Restraining Orders. The fact that no Restraining Orders have been issued to date since the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act was introduced in 1990 is reflective of this. Restraining Orders are also subject to a variety of safeguards. For instance, they must be reviewed by the Presidential Council for Religious Harmony.
The introduction of the Restraining Order regime is in line with the public's views that racially offensive content should be removed quickly to prevent the erosion of racial harmony. The Restraining Order is intended to provide more levers to preserve our social cohesion, not to silence legitimate opinions on race even if the Government may disagree with them.
The last proposal in this Bill will introduce safeguards against malicious foreign influence. As we know, Singapore is vulnerable to external actors exerting malicious foreign influence to achieve their own agenda. They may do so in many ways, for instance, by seeding ideas that are incompatible with our multiracial society. Entities that promote the interests of a racial group or discuss issues relating to race are therefore potential entry points for such malicious foreign influence.
We recognise that there is a wide range of entities that engage with race-related issues. As a policy stance, we will start off in a practical and measured manner by only designating race-based entities assessed to have a higher potential of being vectors for malicious foreign influence, rather than subjecting all race-based entities to the measures.
In the first instance, we will designate clan associations and business associations linked to the Chinese, Malay and Indian races. We will need time to assess these entities in these categories before we can inform them whether they will be designated. Clans and business associations, including those focused on trade promotion, that are assessed to be not linked to the Chinese, Malay and Indian races will not be designated at this juncture. However, we do not preclude designating such entities in the future as the foreign influence landscape evolves.
I understand that there may be some anxiety amongst business associations as to whether they will be designated. Here, I would like to make two points. First, business associations and organisations whose objects, purposes or activities do not relate to any race will not be designated. Second, designation is not a reflection of any wrongdoing by the entity and should not be perceived as such.
Each designation decision will be made holistically and based on its own merits. The list of the designated entities will be made public to promote transparency. Our estimate is that the designations will cover more than 300 race-based entities in the first instance.
The baseline measures for designated race-based entities are similar to those that all religious groups are currently required to comply with under the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act. Designated entities will need to disclose foreign donations and anonymous donations, foreign affiliations and their leadership compositions. They will also need to comply with certain leadership requirements, such as the requirement for their top office-bearers to be Singapore Citizens or PRs.
All entities will be informed of MHA's intention to designate them and will be given 14 days to make representations or seek clarifications before the designation takes place. The Government is also prepared to grant exemptions to specific baseline measures on a case-by-case basis.
To be clear, the baseline measures for designated race-based entities are meant to be a preventive measure. Being designated does not mean the entity is being targeted or has been compromised by a foreign actor. We are also not instructing designated race-based entities to stop receiving foreign donations or to end any foreign affiliations. They just need to disclose these matters on an annual basis to MHA. When subsequently operationalising the Bill, MHA will provide an information kit to designated entities to guide them in complying with the requirements.
(In English): Mr Speaker, Sir, racial harmony will always remain a work-in-progress in Singapore. We build on efforts and learn from the lessons of the past. It is also our responsibility to plant new seeds in accordance with new circumstances and realities. This Bill does that.
The Government will continue to do our part, but it will take a whole-of-society effort to sustain the progress we have made so that future generations of Singaporeans too will enjoy the peace and harmony that we enjoy today.
Mr Speaker: Mr Yip Hon Weng.
Mr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill is timely and necessary. Racial harmony is not something we can take for granted. It is not just about avoiding conflict. It is about creating a society where we all feel at home.
This Bill possesses the potential to achieve its objectives. However, its success depends on how it is implemented and perceived by the community. I have some clarifications.
First, Mr Speaker, Sir, I have clarifications about the racial content Restraining Orders in Part 3 of the Bill. These are important tools. But like all tools, they need to be handled carefully. The power of racial content Restraining Orders is undeniable, but with that power comes an inherent challenge: balancing enforcement with the preservation of freedom of expression. How do we ensure that these orders are not misused to stifle legitimate discourse?
These includes artistic expressions, like parodies, satire or critiques of societal issues that touch on race. While some content may indeed cross the line, how do we draw boundaries between harmful speech and those forms of expression that are vital for a vibrant and open society? Could the current approach inadvertently silence voices that challenge the status quo in a way that promotes reflection and growth? How will we ensure that these laws do not become a tool for shutting down uncomfortable but necessary conversations about race and identity?
Education is as critical as enforcement. Are there plans to pair these measures with public campaigns that teach empathy, respect and dialogue? Racial harmony is not just about avoiding offence. It is about understanding each other's struggles and aspirations. Beyond penalties, how does this Bill encourage connection?
Laws alone do not build harmony. Harmony thrives when people see each other as neighbours, not strangers. How can this legislation inspire bridge-building between communities?
Second, Mr Speaker, Sir, Singapore's openness is undoubtedly a strength, but it also makes us vulnerable to external risks. Part 4 of the Bill rightly addresses the challenge of foreign influence. However, it is critical that we proceed carefully to avoid unintended consequences.
A recurring phrase in the Bill states that \"it is for the accused to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the accused took all reasonable steps to comply.\" This wording imposes a significant burden of proof on individuals, particularly volunteers who already juggle public service responsibilities. The penalties involved are substantial and this could inadvertently discourage Singaporeans and PRs from stepping forward to take on leadership roles in local associations. How can we ensure that this legislation does not unintentionally deter participation in community and cultural leadership?
Moreover, how do we define and differentiate \"foreign influence\" from \"global collaboration\"?
Many local associations maintain deep historical ties with overseas organisations, preserving our cultural heritage over decades, if not centuries. Could the broad definition of \"foreign affiliation\" unintentionally create barriers for such groups? Would this legislation impact non-profit or cultural organisations with harmless international connections? Transparent and proportionate enforcement will be critical to allaying such concerns.
Additionally, I seek clarification on how this Bill will interact with the Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Act (or FICA) passed in 2021. Are there overlapping provisions and, if so, how will both pieces of legislation complement one another? Clarity is essential to avoid unnecessary duplication of compliance requirements.
Finally, how do we measure the effectiveness of these safeguards in Part 4? Regular reviews and transparent monitoring will be necessary to ensure the measures effectively strengthen racial harmony without hindering meaningful international partnerships or discouraging our community's engagement with global networks.
Third, Mr Speaker, Sir, I am particularly encouraged by the CRI in clause 41. Offering an alternative to prosecution is a progressive step, but it also raises a few questions too. How do we decide who qualifies for this programme? And how will it address the underlying prejudices or misunderstandings that led to the offense? We should also evaluate its impact. Will participants truly understand the importance of racial harmony or will they simply view it as another box to tick?
Community involvement is key. Will grassroots leaders and organisations play a role in shaping or running these programmes? Their involvement could bring authenticity and trust to the process. What happens if someone does not complete the programme? Will there be room for appeals or second chances? And how does this initiative fit into the overall Bill? Could it serve as a softer, community-based complement to the more stringent Restraining Orders?
Lastly, Mr Speaker, Sir, policies alone do not build harmony. People do. That is why constructive engagement with the public is so important. Part 5 of the Bill outlines oversight mechanisms. Will there be regular public consultations to ensure these measures remain relevant and effective? Listening to people's lived experiences can make our policies stronger.
How will the Presidential Council for Racial and Religious Harmony work with communities on the ground? Solutions must feel inclusive and co-created, not imposed from above. Education is critical too. How can we make public awareness campaigns engaging for everyone to understand their role in maintaining harmony? Empowered communities are harmonious communities.
In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, Singapore's journey towards racial harmony has not been without its challenges. The painful lessons of the 1950s and 1960s – the racial unrest, the scars of the Maria Hertogh riots – serve as stark reminders of how fragile harmony can be. But they also gave rise to a commitment, a collective will, to build something stronger, something lasting. We are here today because of the hard work, the courage and the vision of those who came before us, who understood that racial harmony is not just a hope, it is a necessity.
We have come far. The 2023 Gallup World Poll ranked us first among 135 countries as a great place for racial minorities to live – 92% of those polled said they felt welcomed. Yet, we cannot let these positive numbers lull us into complacency. The 2024 MDDI poll also reminds us that nearly half of our fellow Singaporeans still see racism as a problem and more than half have experienced racial insensitivity online. These are not just statistics. They are a call to action.
We must continue to push forward. We must strive for an environment where every Singaporean, whether born here or new to our shores, understands that racial harmony is not just a policy – it is a shared responsibility. There is no place in Singapore for the biases that divide us. We must make it clear, now and always, that racism has no place here.
Mr Speaker, Sir, racial harmony is not a static achievement. It is a living, breathing reality that requires constant care, constant work. This Bill is an important step, but it is only the beginning. Today, I have raised in my speech questions that we must answer together: first, how do we ensure that our efforts to protect harmony does not come at the expense of meaningful, honest dialogue and freedom of expression? Second, how do we safeguard our openness to the world without allowing foreign influence to undermine our unity? Third, how do we ensure that the CRI is more than just a programme, but a true opportunity for understanding and healing? And lastly, how do we engage every member of our community in the ongoing work of nurturing racial harmony?
Let us remember that true harmony is not just about avoiding conflict. It is about building connections, about recognising our shared humanity, acknowledging our differences and yet, seeing what unites us. Singapore is often hailed as a model of multiracial harmony. But models cannot stay static. They must evolve, just as we must.
We owe it to ourselves, to our children and to our future generations to keep moving forward – towards a Singapore where every individual feels seen, heard and valued. This Bill gives us the tools to make that vision a reality. But it is up to us to inspire the kind of harmony that goes beyond legislation, to inspire the kind of harmony that lives in the hearts and minds of every Singaporean.
Let us legislate for harmony, but let us also live it. Let us empower every Singaporean to not just be a passive observer, but an active guardian of the harmony we hold so dear. I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Gerald Giam.
Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, the Maintenance of Racial Harmony Bill seeks to address the complexities of race relations in Singapore. It introduces measures to regulate racial discourse, counter foreign interference and strengthen community cohesion. However, it is important this Bill fosters racial harmony without unintentionally stifling essential public discourse and silencing marginalised voices.
Racial harmony is a cornerstone of our society and I think we all agree that it cannot be achieved through legislation alone. Enduring racial harmony requires genuine understanding and open dialogue among all communities.
However, the broad Ministerial powers under this Bill risk deterring legitimate public discourse that is essential for fostering intercommunal dialogue and strengthen social cohesion. For instance, public critiques of systemic discrimination or policies affecting certain racial groups could be misconstrued as vilifying or denigrating others, even when the intent is to raise awareness or advocate for positive change. Forums discussing global events, like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, or domestic policies such as the Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement (CECA) could risk being labelled as racially inflammatory, despite their role in constructive discourse.
It is important to distinguish between speech that on one hand, incites hatred and violence, which should be prevented, and speech that fosters understanding and calls out racial inequalities, which we should encourage. Constructive conversations, including in public forums, are necessary for addressing racial issues and strengthening intercommunal trust.
While the Bill includes defences for private communication and calling out racism in good faith, individuals may still be uncertain about their practical application. The need to prove good faith intent or the private nature of a conversation could create hesitation to engage in discussions on race. This uncertainty may discourage open dialogue and cause such conversations to go underground or in echo chambers within the Internet.
Since the legislative intent as expressed during this debate may be referenced by the Courts, could the Minister clarify, with specific examples, the types of speech, including the ones I raised, that will or will not fall within the scope of this legislation?
I note that unlike the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act, which explicitly prohibits the mixing of religion and politics, this Bill does not contain a similar prohibition on the mixing of race and politics. Can the Minister confirm then that members of the public can engage in public discussions on racial issues without an outright legal restriction?
Foreign influence operations can exploit racial and communal fault lines, destabilising our society and undermining social cohesion. Countering foreign interference is a necessary component of maintaining racial harmony. The ability to monitor and regulate race-based entities, and to take action against harmful external influences, is an important step in protecting Singapore's racial harmony and national security, and I acknowledge the Government's efforts in addressing this issue.
The Bill introduces measures such as designating entities and issuing Restraining Orders. The Workers' Party supports the inclusion of these provisions. It is important, however, that these powers are exercised judiciously, with transparency and accountability to maintain public trust. Ensuring that decisions are seen as fair and impartial will be crucial to the effectiveness and legitimacy of these measures.
I support the introduction of the Community Remedial programme, which offers an alternative to prosecution by encouraging participants to reflect on their actions and fostering rehabilitation. To be effective, the programme should engage participants in meaningful dialogue with members of other racial groups, allowing for deeper understanding and reflection on the impact of their actions. Could the Minister share more details on the structure and content of the Community Remedial programme? How will its effectiveness be measured to ensure it leads to genuine rehabilitation and behavioural change?
Sir, unlike the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act in 1990, this Bill did not undergo the same level of Parliamentary scrutiny through a Select Committee. Instead, the Government feedback unit, Reaching Everyone for Active Citizenry (REACH), conducted a public consultation last year, but the feedback collected remains largely opaque, with only summarised data shared publicly. A Select Committee provides a more transparent and rigorous process, allowing for in-depth scrutiny, public engagement and expert input, particularly from minority communities most affected by such legislation.
The Government's Forward Singapore report underscores the need to strengthen our social compact through deeper citizen engagement. Yet, for an issue as fundamental as race relations, bypassing the Select Committee process weakens participatory democracy. A strong democratic system requires more than just electoral participation. It must also ensure meaningful avenues for policy-making input, robust public consultations and rigorous legislative scrutiny. The Government should uphold these principles by ensuring that future legislation of similar significance is subject to the full scrutiny of a Select Committee.
Mr Speaker, the Workers' Party supports the Maintenance of Racial Harmony Bill, particularly measures to counter foreign interference, but we urge the Government to ensure that safeguards are in place to protect civil liberties and encourage open conversations about race.
Mr Speaker: Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 3.55 pm.
Sitting accordingly suspended
at 3.27 pm until 3.55 pm.
Sitting resumed at 3.55 pm.
[Deputy Speaker (Mr Christopher de Souza) in the Chair]
[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, I support this Bill which will strengthen our ability to address threats to racial harmony. The Bill does this holistically through not just quick and pre-emptive responses, but through community-based approach.
I commend MHA for its broad consultation with the public and community leaders. We all have a stake in a multiracial and multi-religious society. The consultative process for the Bill reflects this priority.
I have three points of clarification to raise.
My first point is on the function of the Presidential Council for Racial and Religious Harmony. This will replace the Presidential Council for Religious Harmony. The Presidential Council for Racial and Religious Harmony is supposed to comprise representatives from all major racial and religious communities in Singapore.
Race and religion are two distinct matters. Context, considerations and nuances for racial and religious matters will differ. Representatives from major racial communities may not be best placed to opine on religious matters and vice versa. Can the Minister share if the Ministry considered setting a distinct council for racial matters? Can the Minister share the rationale for having a combined council for racial and religious matters and how this is preferable to having distinct councils?
Next, under section 9 of Schedule 1 on the Presidential Council for Racial and Religious Harmony, vacancy among its members does not affect the validity of the Presidential Council for Racial and Religious Harmony's proceedings.
Presumably, the requirement that representatives from all major racial and religious communities in Singapore are present on the Presidential Council for Racial and Religious Harmony are to ensure that perspectives of all communities are considered. While the quorum requirement ensures that at least half of members must be present, the Presidential Council for Racial and Religious Harmony is also set up such that every member plays an important role in representing their racial or religious community. For instance, under the current Presidential Council for Religious Harmony, there is one representative for each major religious group. It is difficult to imagine a decision concerning a particular religious group without the representative from that group present.
Without being prescriptive as to the procedures of the Presidential Council, can the Minister share if the chairperson of the Presidential Council for Racial and Religious Harmony should ensure the presence of representatives when decisions affecting their communities are deliberated and made?
My second point is on Restraining Orders. When a Restraining Order is first imposed, the President may cancel, confirm or vary the Restraining Order if the advice of the Cabinet is contrary to the recommendation of the Presidential Council for Racial and Religious Harmony. However, when it comes to the extension of a Restraining Order, the President can only cancel a direction or confirm the direction without variation.
Can the Minister share why the President does not have the discretion to vary the direction when it comes to the extension of a Restraining Order? Can the Minister also share what measures are available to address the root causes of racist conduct which necessitate the Restraining Order in the first place?
When it comes to offences relating to race, the Bill introduces the possibility of community remediation. Individuals subject to a Restraining Order may similarly require intervention to address ideologies and misconceptions underlying the conduct. What steps will be taken to address the root causes of the conduct attracting the Restraining Order?
My third and final point is on remediation for serious offenders. The Bill will provide for a CRI-Race. Under CRI-Race, persons who have engaged in conduct prejudicial to racial harmony can take remedial action for their conduct. Completing the programme can be taken into account by the Public Prosecutor in deciding whether to prosecute a race-related offence under the Bill.
Underlying the CRI-Race is the principle of restorative justice. The offender will have the opportunity to learn and make amends. This restores any damaged community relations and can even serve to strengthen ties. However, the CRI-Race will not be offered if the offence is egregious. The Ministry has stated that criminal prosecution will be pursued to send a signal of non-tolerance for serious racial offending.
I agree that prosecution may be necessary in serious cases. Appropriate punishment is also a form of repairing community relations by reinforcing healthy norms on race relations. However, punishment and rehabilitation are not mutually exclusive. Even serious offenders who are jailed, must eventually return and re-integrate into society. For these serious offenders, time in prison alone does not necessarily mean they will emerge with any better understanding of race relations.
It may be even more important for these serious offenders to participate in programmes targeted to address deep-seated ideologies and misconceptions. These programmes should incorporate community-based approaches.
Can the Minister share what programmes are available for the rehabilitation of serious race offenders who are not eligible for CRI-Race? How do we ensure that their time in prison does not have the adverse effect of radicalising these individuals even further? Sir, notwithstanding these clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Hazel Poa.
Ms Hazel Poa (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, racial and religious differences have always been challenging issues. With globalisation and the spread of different cultures and information, both within countries and across borders, even more sensitivity is needed to deal with these topics. If and when discussions on race and religion cross certain boundaries and cause hurt, disharmony, hostility or even violence among communities, it would be appropriate for the state to intervene in the interest of maintaining public order and peace.
The Maintenance of Racial Harmony Bill that we are debating today needs to strike a fair and reasonable balance between the freedom of speech and expression and the preservation of public order, peace and racial harmony. This is a very fine balance.
The Progress Singapore Party (PSP) supports laws to protect our order and peace in our multiracial and multi-religious country. Harmonious and peaceful relations between different races and religions is something that we should never take for granted in Singapore.
However, we also value the fact that freedom of speech and expression is a fundamental right enshrined in our Constitution. It is freedom of speech that allows for creativity, the exchange of ideas and opinions and improvements beneficial to society. It is also freedom of speech that allows us to seek accountability from those in power.
While discussions involving race can be sensitive, but honest and responsible discussions on racial relations and topics are necessary for better inter-racial understanding and mutual respect. We must not allow such discussions to be stifled and driven underground by overly restrictive legislation. As such, we seek greater clarity from the Government on the type of behaviour or expressions that will be prohibited under the Bill.
Firstly, can the Minister give us some examples of scenarios where, in the Ministry's view, a Restraining Order would be needed to preserve public order and peace, and where we could not use any other existing legislation to achieve the same outcome of peace and order?
Secondly, while this Bill borrows the language found in the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act, the phrase \"an act that causes feelings of enmity, hatred, ill will or hostility between different races in Singapore\" is broad enough to potentially cover many instances over a whole spectrum of seriousness.
Singaporeans are, therefore, naturally concerned that the Government will use such executive powers to further restrict what Singaporeans can do or say. We would like to seek the Minister's clarification on if and, if so, how, the use of this Act will be calibrated to ensure that a fair and appropriate balance will be struck between the right of Singaporeans to their freedom of speech and expression, and our public order and peace. We will set out a few examples here to frame this debate.
The first is the incident involving Mr Shaik Amar who made comments about EIP on social media in July 2024. He had commented that EIP does not benefit ethnic minority households and only causes them significant financial detriment when they sell their flats. While he received a Correction Direction under the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) for this comment, would that attract a Restraining Order under this Bill? Assuming the answer is yes, does this mean that there are potentially cases that could and, in practice, would attract both a Correction Direction under POFMA and a Restraining Order under this Bill if the conditions are satisfied?
The second is in relation to conflicts, such as the Israel-Hamas war. I will provide three examples.
Firstly, will making comments, such as \"Free Palestinians Now!\" online attract a Restraining Order under this Bill? Such comments may be made online by a very large number of people. Considering that, what factors will push a case beyond the tipping point, such that a Restraining Order will be imposed?
Furthermore, considering that millions of comments are posted every day on social media, practically speaking, how does the Ministry intend to monitor these comments? How much manpower and spending by the Ministry is justifiable to monitor comments like these?
Secondly, in February 2024, the Police stated that the use of phrases, such as \"from the river to the sea\" can lead to racial tensions and may be an offence under section 298A(a) of the Penal Code 1871, which will be abolished under this Bill. Would individuals who use phrases, such as \"from the river to sea, Palestinians will be free\", online or offline, now be subject to a Restraining Order under this Bill or prosecuted under clause 40 of the Bill?
Finally, what about individuals using an umbrella painted with watermelon images during their day to day, or wearing a keffiyeh at their university graduation ceremony? Would individuals committing such acts be subject to a Restraining Order or prosecuted under clause 40 of the Bill?
Sir, previous prosecutions and convictions under section 298A have been for very egregious remarks or acts. For example, in 2017, Muslim imam Mr Nalla Mohamed Abdul Jameel Abdul Malik, was convicted under section 298A for promoting enmity between different religious groups. In 2015, Mr Amos Yee was convicted under section 298 of wounding the religious feelings of Christians for describing Jesus Christ in an offensive manner.
In other cases, the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) chose not to prosecute. These include Ms Amy Cheong's hurtful remarks online regarding Malay weddings in 2013 and Ms Sangeetha Thanapal's claim in 2018 that casual racism was common.
Will the enactment of this Bill lead to more types of actions and speech attracting Restraining Orders or prosecutions under clause 40? Would the Minister issue Restraining Orders to Ms Amy Cheong or Ms Sangeetha Thanapal under the Bill if they said the same things today? Notably, Ms Sangeetha Thanapal's comments had been made overseas, which is now explicitly covered by the Bill under clause 38.
More critically, will the Bill be used to restrict discussions of racially sensitive topics, such as EIP, the deployment of Malay national servicemen, the racial breakdown of death row inmates or the \"Chinese, Malay, Indian and Others\" (CMIO) model?
Next, we note that under the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act, the Council has 30 days to make its recommendations to the President; under this Bill, that period has been extended to 44 days.
Given that a Restraining Order will take immediate effect upon its service on the person restrained before the Council makes its recommendations, we would like to ask for the reason for this extension from 30 to 44 days.
We are also concerned about the effect of clause 8(2)(d) and (e) on journalists and editors. Clause 8(2)(d) can prohibit a person from editing or contributing to \"any publication\". Clause 8(2)(e) goes further to prohibit a person from holding office in any editorial board. Considering that the Restraining Order can be extended \"one or more times\" for up to two years each, this means that an editor or journalist could potentially be kept out of his work indefinitely. Can the Minister clarify whether our concerns are valid and how these two clauses will be used? Deputy Speaker, in Mandarin, please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] For a long time, race and religion have been sensitive topics. When discussions about race and religion lead to disharmony, hostility or even violence between communities, it is appropriate for the Government to intervene to maintain public order and peace.
The Maintenance of Racial Harmony Bill, being read the second time today, needs to strike a good balance between freedom of speech and maintaining public order, peace and racial harmony.
Singapore is multiracial and multi-religious society, and our racial and religious harmony has not come easily and cannot be taken for granted. PSP, therefore, supports using legislation to maintain harmony between races and religions. However, we also cherish the freedom of speech granted to us by the Constitution. Freedom of speech is a fundamental right that promotes creativity, social progress and the exchange of ideas. It also allows us to hold those in power accountable.
While discussions involving race can be sensitive, it is necessary to discuss racial issues in an honest and responsible manner to promote understanding and mutual respect between races.
These sensitive racial topics include the impact on housing prices by HDB's EIP, our country's CMIO racial classification system, the racial distribution of death row inmates and the deployment of Malay National Servicemen. While not everyone will agree with these statements, discussing these topics in a rational, responsible, non-malicious and non-hostile manner can promote national and social development.
Singapore's existing laws already limited citizens' ability to express themselves freely in many ways and we do not wish to see this Bill to further curtail speeches.
We hope the Government can clearly explain under what circumstances it will issue Restriction Orders and what behaviours or expressions it will target. We hope the Minister can clarify how this Bill will strike a fair and appropriate balance between citizens' right to freedom of speech and public order and peace.
(In English): Deputy Speaker, PSP has serious concerns that the powers under this Bill will dampen important discussions. I have provided several examples of speech and actions, which I hope that the Minister can clarify whether the powers in this Bill will be used against such speech or actions.
The Government already has many powers under laws, such as the Internal Security Act, POFMA and FICA to act against false speech, acts that threaten national security and foreign interference in our politics. Protests are only allowed at Hong Lim Park and protest permits are not granted for sensitive topics. The ability of Singaporeans to freely express themselves is already very circumscribed and limited by existing laws.
Recognising the importance of maintaining racial harmony, PSP will support this Bill despite our reservations. But we hope greater clarity can be given in order not to dampen reasonable discussions or expressions involving race.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim.
Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim (Chua Chu Kang): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, Singapore has come a long way since the racial riots of 1964, we have progressed together as a nation regardless of race, language or religion. However, racial harmony, just like our peace and stability, is not something that we can take for granted.
A recent study revealed that 56% of respondents are of the view that racism is an important problem in Singapore, up from 46% in 2016. This trend underscores the need for proactive measures to address the underlying causes of racial tensions. Fortunately, a significant majority, about 70%, acknowledges that legislative tools are still useful in safeguarding racial and religious harmony in our society. This Bill, thus, presents an opportunity to strengthen our commitment in fostering a cohesive and inclusive society.
Before I seek specific clarifications in this Bill, I would like to highlight the importance of: firstly, the roles that we all play to maintain racial harmony; and secondly, the continued importance of our existing race-based integration policies and organisations which complements the objectives set out in this Bill.
While I applaud that the Bill introduces legal tools, such as ROs and community remedial measures, I believe that we must also tackle the root causes of racial tensions and, at the heart of it, racism.
This Bill is not a panacea. We as a society must do our part to safeguard against prejudices and discrimination through indirect means, like casual racism. Now, it remains a pervasive issue, often dismissed as unintentional or harmless. Yet, research shows that such behaviors perpetuate discrimination and exclusion. Whether in a family setting or workplace, this must be addressed with both clarity and conviction.
The work needed to maintain racial harmony cannot be left to the enforcement mechanism in this Bill or any other piece of legislation. It must begin in our schools, our workplaces and our homes.
For instance, we can introduce stronger education initiatives, like compulsory racial sensitivity training in schools and workplaces, to counter unconscious biases. At workplaces, we can encourage positive interracial interactions by fostering a culture of understanding and empathy. Businesses can also establish concrete anti-discrimination policies that evolve with and reflect current societal attitudes.
When every individual, regardless of race, language or religion, feels respected and valued, then racial harmony is not just enforced, but deeply ingrained in our society.
With more mixed-race marriages, naturalised Singaporeans and younger Singaporeans identifying with a shared identity rather than along ethnic distinctions, some have called for the revisiting of race-based policies or integration policies, like the CMIO classification, the Housing and Development Board's (HDB's) EIP and our Self-Help Groups as well.
However, while we aspire to be colour blind, we cannot close our eyes to the realities on the ground nor abandon the foundations that have been built by generations before us. Our policies remain crucial to maintaining racial harmony in Singapore.
For instance, our self-help groups, continue to mobilise resources and deliver targeted interventions along communal lines. Having volunteered in this space for many years before I became a Member of Parliament, I have seen how self-help groups provide an additional avenue for assistance and navigate through cultural or religious sensitivities that had risen.
Next, policies like EIP go beyond housing but right to the heart of our integration as a society. It is not just about putting different people from different races together in the same block or in the same precinct. It is more than that. It shapes generations and how we mould ourselves together. Once people of different races live together, they become neighbours and they become friends, their children grow up together, they help one another and learn to live together.
Regardless of whether we speak less of our mother tongues or erase race from our identity cards, our race and identity stays with us wherever we go. We can have various legislations or campaigns but, ultimately, racial harmony depends on each and every one of us.
That is why, while this Bill grants significant powers to intervene in racial disputes, a community-led approach will be more effective in supplementing and fostering long-term racial harmony. No amount of laws can change the heart of a community.
With that I move to my clarifications, Mr Deputy Speaker.
My first set of clarifications relate to the provisions that protect our racial organisations against foreign influence trying to exploit racial lines or undermine our racial harmony. This Bill draws parallels with FICA in respect of Restraining Orders. Under FICA, such interference includes actions that incite or are likely to incite feelings of enmity, hatred or ill will between different groups in Singapore, endangering public peace and order.
Just like hon Member Mr Yip Hon Weng, I join him in his clarifications on the overlap between FICA and this Bill. Why are similar provisions required in two separate legislations and whether given the possible overlap, how will the Ministry appropriately ensure that the powers in both legislations will be exercised judiciously?
Secondly, to date, there have been no public reported prosecutions under FICA. However, its provisions remain a critical safeguard against foreign interference. Has FICA been enforced since its implementation?
Thirdly, I note the automatic inclusion in this Bill for clan and business associations linked to the Chinese, Malay and Indian races. What about individual businesses that do not belong to such associations but have deep links to foreign organisations?
Fourthly, I understand that MHA has stated that at this juncture it is not necessary nor desirable for the safeguards in this Bill to apply to all race-based organisations because they are a much larger and more diverse group. However, can the Minister assure the House that MHA will continually review the list by monitoring race-based organisations and their activities? In this regard, will there be an avenue for reporting by members of the public or whistle-blowers for MHA to follow up on investigation or further assessment?
My next set of clarifications relate to CRI as envisaged under clause 41 of the Bill. This provision allows offenders to participate in reparative programmes, such as community service or educational workshops, as an alternative to custodial sentences or fines.
Similar restorative justice programmes exist globally, such as in New Zealand's family group and conferences and Canada’s indigenous sentencing circles. Locally, we have seen success with community-based sentencing in other areas, such as youth rehabilitation programmes. By emphasising rehabilitation over punishment, CRI aligns with our broader goal of fostering understanding and harmony.
Firstly, may I ask the Minister whether CRI or a similar scheme for maintenance of racial harmony, has been implemented locally or globally before? What are the intended outcomes for CRI for the perpetrators or the individuals or the community affected by the offence. I appreciate that the Minister has stated that CRI will involve creating awareness on the impact on affected community, making amends or amendments or suitable reparations.
And thirdly, guided reflections for offenders. I hope that CRI will be tailored to the specific circumstance depending on the racial sensitivities. It could include structured programmes, such as racial sensitivity workshops, where offenders can engage in facilitated discussions to understand the impact of their actions, the hurt and learn about different cultures; secondly, community service through inter-racial community projects, in order to foster deeper empathy and understanding; and thirdly, dialogue sessions between the offenders and members of the affected community to promote reconciliation.
And thirdly, for such CRI, would the close or immediate family members of the offender be involved or be a participant as well? Because this may help the rehabilitation of the offender on a long-term basis if his close family or home environment is also taken into consideration.
Fourthly, to build public trust in CRI, we must ensure transparency and rigor in its implementation. What are the measures that the Ministry will take in this regard? Would there be clear published guidelines on the detailed criteria for eligibility and programme requirements for CRI? Whether there will be public awareness campaigns to educate the public on the benefits of restorative justice and reconciliation? How will the Minister ensure that proper resources are allocated and provided to the necessary organisations that will be implementing the CRI? Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in Malay, please.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, this Maintenance of Racial Harmony Bill aims to further strengthen the legal safeguards for racial harmony. Singapore has long built a harmonious multiracial and multi-religious society and it is our responsibility to work together in preserving our way of life for future generations. Therefore, I support and agree with the safeguards and the establishment of a special Presidential Council for Racial Harmony.
As a Malay-Muslim and a minority in Singapore, we benefit from the safeguarding of racial harmony, which is a cornerstone of our country, so that there will be no repeat of the racial riots that our people experienced during our country's early years of independence. Here, I would like to share the story of my late mother during those racial riots, an experience that taught me a valuable lesson.
My late mother witnessed the procession to commemorate Prophet Muhammad's birthday in the early 1960s when racial riots broke out in Singapore. At that time, my grandfather, who was a police officer, was part of the police contingent participating in the procession. My mother and her three older sisters, along with my grandparents, boarded a bus to return home. This bus was also carrying several other passengers of various races – there were Chinese, Malays and even a Sikh. The driver was Chinese. On the way home, their bus came to a halt when the rioters blocked their bus and began throwing bottles and stones at it.
At that moment, everyone on the bus was worried about their safety. However, there was only one thing in their minds regardless of whether they were Malay, Chinese or Indian. They all just want to get home safely. Eventually, a few young men got off the bus to clear a path for their vehicle to drive quickly away from that place. This incident left a profound impact on my mother, who was still very young at the time.
My mother advised me: although we were of different races and religions, all of us in Singapore are like passengers in the same bus, heading in one direction towards the same destination. Therefore, we must take care of each other. Since young, she instilled in me the importance of racial harmony in Singapore's multiracial society.
Hence, I welcome any legislation that will continue to maintain and safeguard racial harmony in our country. At the same time, Singapore can take a more proactive approach towards racial harmony that goes beyond law enforcement and fosters a society built on mutual understanding, dialogue and integration.
(In English): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in my Malay speech, I shared the account of my late mother whose family was stuck in a bus right in the middle of the 1960s racial riots. The passengers in the bus consisted of families from various races – Malay, Chinese and Indian. At that time, when crowds ran amok and chaos engulfed them, the only thing that the passengers wanted was safety and safe passage home for everyone on the bus. They did not care if the rioters outside were of any particular race.
Just like the passengers on that bus, we fellow Singaporeans must continue to take care of one another, regardless of how we look, the language we speak or from where our families first originated. The world is increasingly conducive for the divisive. We are all on the same boat, heading in one direction towards the same destination. Racial harmony in our nation is integral to our survival and progress.
This Bill is a testament to Singapore's unwavering commitment to racial harmony. However, its success will depend on careful implementation, balancing legal enforcement with education, dialogue and community empowerment. We can create a society where racial harmony is not just a policy goal but a lived reality for all Singaporeans.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to end with a quote from the seminal speech, given by Singapore's first Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr S Rajaratnam, to the United Nations (UN) General Assembly on 21 September 1965 on the occasion of Singapore’s admission to the UN:
\"The cultural and political development of my country has for decades been based on free intercourse and exchange of ideas drawn from many races, from many continents. The multiracial and multi-cultural character of my country has made us somewhat skeptical of those who preach the superiority and exclusiveness of one culture and one race. In a multiracial society, one soon learns that no one people has a monopoly of wisdom and that one's own culture is not without flaws. This not only breeds tolerance for different viewpoints but also a readiness to learn and borrow from the accumulated wisdom of other people. We shall, therefore, bring to the world of the UN, the attitude and approaches of a multiracial nation, aware that independence and interdependence of peoples and nations are not incompatible goals to pursue.\"
Those words, Mr Deputy Speaker, echo true since 1965 until today and on the occasion of this year's SG60 of our nation building, let us work together to build a Singapore that is united in its diversity, resilient in its values and steadfast in its pursuit of racial harmony, a shining united light in the sea of global polarising challenges. Mr Deputy Speaker, I stand in support of this Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Dennis Tan.
Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Hougang): Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Maintenance of Racial Harmony Bill. But I have some questions and concerns to the proposed provisions in this Bill relating to clans and business organisations which would be designated as race-based entities under this Bill.
I declare that I am an honorary adviser of the Singapore Teochew Poit Ip Huay Kuan.
Mr Deputy Speaker, according to MHA, clans and business associations linked to the Chinese, Malay and Indian races would be designated as race-based entities under this Bill and be subject to measures to curb possible foreign influence. It was reported that according to MHA's preliminary estimation, this Bill, once passed, will result in the designation of more than 300 such entities in Singapore.
CNA reported that according to MHA, organisations that promote the interest of a racial group or subgroup are potential entry points for such influence, and that entities may be designated if their objectives and activities represent the interest of any race or issues relating to it and that \"designation is deemed necessary or expedient to preempt, prevent or reduce any foreign influence that may undermine racial harmony in Singapore.\"
Mr Deputy Speaker, while I agree that clans and business associations linked to races should be protected from foreign political influence and interference, I am concerned with the potential impact the new rules may have on our clan associations and other race-based associations whose focus may be cultural and economic and not political.
Clauses 18 to 22 of this Bill provide for regulations imposing reporting obligations on designated entities.
Clause 18(1) requires that designated entities will generally be required to report the foreign donations and anonymous donations that they accept, subject to the regulations to be provided. Clause 18(2) sets out various matters that may be prescribed by the regulations to be included in the reports to be submitted by designated entities. They include the classes of foreign donations and anonymous donations that need not be reported.
May I ask the Minister what would be the classes or types of foreign donations which designated entities will be required to be reported? Would these be categorised by a monetary limit?
Clause 19(1) requires designated entities to report their foreign affiliations according to the subsidiary legislations. Clause 19(2) sets out various matters to be prescribed by the regulations which must be included in such reports by the designated entities. Clause 19(2)(b) mentions the possibility of \"classes of foreign affiliations, if any, that may not be reported\".
May I ask the Minister what are the possible affiliations being considered by MHA at this point in time to be excluded from the reporting process and if so, what are the considerations?
I would also like to ask the Minister whether MHA is presently aware of the extent to which our clan and business associations receive donations from foreign counterparts and entities, and if so, to share some details so that we can better understand the extent of such financial support such organisations are currently receiving and have a better appreciation of the likely risks that such organisations may face. It would also enable Members of Parliament to appreciate MHA's concern about the risk of foreign interference on such clans and associations, leading to MHA tabling such requirements.
Mr Deputy Speaker, while the declaration of details relating to foreign donations to clans and business organisations may be a control measure to minimise or prevent foreign political interference with the local clans or business associations, I am concerned that the reporting requirements should not overly burden the management of our clan and business organisations, especially the smaller clans, which may already have their hands tied running their organisations, recruiting younger members and ensuring their continuing relevance and contributions to modern society in Singapore.
I hope that MHA will also be empathetic to organisational constraints, especially in smaller clans and business associations, when regulations are introduced for easier administrative compliance. After all, many of these office-bearers and members are volunteers and staff support may be limited, especially for the smaller clans and associations. This is also bearing in mind the likely penalties which may arise from non-compliance are quite stiff.
I would further like to ask the Minister to confirm for good order that the presence of foreign-based donations, whether from a foreign counterpart clan or business association or from even a foreign business entity with business interests, is in itself and unlike in FICA not prohibited and not regarded to be unwelcome.
I say this because there are possibly mutual benefits from such donations if such clans and associations find it difficult to raise funds while foreign businesses may find that it is a good marketing avenue for their businesses and products. While MHA can follow up on declared foreign entities, if it deems necessary, I hope that there will not be unnecessary stigma relating to foreign donations per se as long as there is no political interference.
I would also like to know whether the financial contributions to joint projects between local clans or business organisations and their foreign counterparts come under the clauses of this Bill. If so, I am concerned that their inclusion may discourage joint projects which may be beneficial to the development of our local clans or business organisations.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I will next touch on leadership restrictions imposed by this Bill on designated entities like clans and business organisations.
Clauses 23 to 26 of this Bill impose basic leadership restrictions on such designated entities. The provisions require that more than half of the total number of seats on the governing body of any designated entity must be occupied or held by Singapore Citizens. For governing bodies with fewer than three seats, all of them must be occupied or held by Singapore citizens. Responsible officers of designated entities must be Singapore Citizens or Singapore PRs.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I support these provisions. In fact, I will go one step further to ask that responsible offices of designated entities must be Singapore Citizens only as opposed to Singapore Citizens and PRs are effectively nationals of another country. While their support and participation in clans and business organisations should be encouraged and allowed, the leadership of such entities should remain with those with no other nationality than that of Singapore. Mr Speaker, in Mandarin, please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Maintenance of Racial Harmony Bill, but I have some questions and concerns about the provisions in the Bill regarding clan associations and business associations. I declare that I am an honorary advisor to the Teochew Poit Ip Huay Kuan in Singapore.
According to the Bill, clan associations and business associations will be required to declare details of foreign donations. The Government's aim is to reduce or prevent foreign political interference in local clan associations and business associations. I can understand this. However, I am concerned that the reporting requirements may impose unnecessary administrative burdens on these organisations, especially smaller ones.
Many clan associations are already facing numerous challenges in their operations, including attracting new generations of members, maintaining the associations' operations and ensuring their continued relevance and contribution to a modern Singapore society. Therefore, the process of declaring foreign donations should not create additional administrative burdens for them.
I hope that MHA will show more empathy towards smaller clan associations and business associations when implementing these new regulations. After all, many association directors and members are volunteers, and these associations have limited manpower and resources. Severe penalties on unintentional oversights will put significant pressure on these organisations.
Furthermore, I also would like to ask the Minister to clarify that foreign donations themselves are not unwelcome or universally prohibited, because this is not like FICA. After all, donations from foreign clan associations, business associations or foreign counterparts may provide support for local associations or business organisations that are short of funds. At the same time, donations also give foreign companies more exposure in the market. This is a mutually beneficial relationship. Of course, MHA may follow up on declared foreign entities when deemed necessary, but I hope that this will not lead to unnecessary prejudice against foreign donations themselves.
(In English): My Deputy Speaker, notwithstanding my concerns and questions, I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Mark Lee.
Mr Mark Lee (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I strongly support this Bill and its aim of reinforcing Singapore's commitment to racial harmony. This is a principle that has anchored our social stability and will continue to be vital as our society becomes more interconnected. The introduction of clear measures to address emerging risks is timely and necessary.
As we implement this Bill, it is important to provide clarity for trade associations and foreign chambers of commerce so that they can continue their work in strengthening economic partnerships and fostering international collaboration. We must ensure that these business-focused organisations continue to be able to operate effectively within this framework and reinforce Singapore's standing as a trusted global business hub.
I therefore have five clarifications for the Minister.
First, one key area requiring clarification is the classification of trade associations under this Bill. The Bill states that organisations promoting the interests of specific racial groups may be designated as race-based entities, subjecting them to restrictions on foreign affiliations, mandatory disclosures and leadership requirements. It is unclear whether local or foreign chambers of commerce and business trade associations, which primarily focus on trade facilitation, investment promotion and industry collaboration, would fall under this classification.
For instance, within Singapore Business Federation, we have representation from Singapore Chinese Chamber, Indian and Malay Chamber of Commerce, American Chamber of Commerce, China Enterprises Association, European Chamber of Commerce and the Japanese Chamber of Commerce and Industry. Each of them plays crucial roles in facilitating trade, investment and cross-border business relations. These associations serve an economic purpose, focusing on bilateral trade policies, market access and regulatory advocacy, and not promoting any racial agenda.
I would like to ask the Minister to confirm if trade-based organisations will be exempted from designation, given their distinct function from community-based racial entities.
My second clarification is related to restrictions on foreign donations and affiliations. Some foreign trade associations receive funding from overseas business networks, foundations, corporate sponsorships and membership fees from foreign companies. Under this Bill, such funding could be classified as foreign donations and subject to regulatory scrutiny.
For example, if a multinational corporation sponsors a networking event hosted by a trade association, would this be deemed a foreign donation requiring disclosure or approval? If so, even though the Bill does not prohibit a designated trade association from accepting such sponsorships, the compliance implications for multinational enterprises could be significant.
Their internal risk assessment may classify sponsorship of a designated entity as a potential regulatory exposure, leading them to reconsider or, in the worst case, withdraw financial support. This could in turn discourage multinational companies (MNCs) from engaging with trade associations in Singapore, limiting the ability of these associations to organise industry events, foster business collaborations and advocate for trade and investment growth.
Another common practice is industry collaborations between local and foreign business councils. For example, if a Singapore-based association receives funding from an ASEAN business counterpart, would that funding be classified as a foreign donation? The implications of such a designation could hinder industry collaboration across markets.
My third clarification is in relation to leadership restrictions requiring more than 50% of governing body members to be Singapore Citizens. While the intent is to prevent undue foreign influence, this could pose practical challenges for foreign chambers and trade associations that rely on senior representatives from multinational corporations. These individuals bring industry expertise, strengthen bilateral ties and advocate for business-friendly policies. Would such advocacy be hindered by restrictions on non-Singaporean leadership in trade organisations?
Would the Minister therefore consider flexibility in leadership requirements for trade associations that do not engage in racial or political advocacy?
Fourth, I would like to seek clarification on the subject of foreign affiliations. In today’s fast-changing world, trade associations must remain nimble, flexible and responsive to support businesses and strengthen international partnerships. Trade associations frequently sign MOUs and establish partnerships with overseas trade bodies, embassies and government-linked investment agencies to promote cultural, as well as business exchanges, facilitate trade and strengthen international cooperation. These agreements are a regular and necessary part of global business engagement, allowing Singapore companies to expand their networks and access new markets.
Under this Bill, would such partnerships be subject to foreign influence reporting requirements and if so, what criteria would determine whether a Memorandum of Understanding or collaboration falls under these regulations? Clear and well-defined guidelines will enable them to continue fostering global collaboration seamlessly while upholding Singapore's strong social fabric.
Finally, I seek clarification on whether local and foreign trade associations will be clearly informed of the criteria used to classify them as race-based entities. As these organisations focus on business, trade facilitation and international collaboration, it is important they understand the basis for their classification under this Bill. If an association appeals against its designation, clear guidelines are essential to ensure transparency in classification criteria and assessment factors. This will help trade associations operate with confidence while ensuring compliance. I ask the Minister whether these classifications will be made transparent in advance and what the appeal process for exemptions will entail.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, maintaining racial harmony is a fundamental pillar of our society and this Bill reinforces our collective commitment to safeguarding it. At the same time, Singapore has been recognised as a trusted hub for trade and investment, with a strong reputation for regulatory clarity and openness to global partnerships.
As we implement this Bill, let us give assurances to our trade associations and foreign chambers of commerce such that they can continue to play their role in strengthening business ties and facilitating international collaboration. Barring my clarifications, I fully support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim.
Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Mr Deputy Speaker, I shall speak briefly on both Bills.
First, on the Maintenance of Racial Harmony Bill. The Maintenance of Racial Harmony Bill has several aims. Besides porting over and modernising existing offences, it also gives new powers to the Minister for Home Affairs to issue Restraining Orders to prevent the communication of content considered to be prejudicial to racial harmony in Singapore. The Bill further seeks to curtail foreign influence in race-based organisations, such as clans, through requirements such as reporting foreign donations and foreign participation in these organisations.
Sir, before I proceed, I declare that I am an Honorary Adviser of two organisations: Sai Ho Piat Su and Teochew Poit Ip Huay Kuan. That said, the views expressed in my speech today are my own.
Sir, we can all agree that the management of race relations and indeed, the management of Singapore society as a whole, should be decided by Singaporeans and Singaporeans alone. There is a risk that foreign entities may attempt or may already have attempted to channel their race-based agenda through Singapore-based entities.
The Ministry has informed this House that in the run-up to this Bill, it has consulted race-based organisations that it intends to designate for the new transparency requirements and that they understood the need for these new obligations.
Sir, on this matter, I would like to share a general observation about foreign connections. As mentioned by others before me, not all foreign connections are malign. On the ground, it is quite common to see race-based organisations having reciprocal relationships with like-minded organisations in other countries.
For Chinese-based organisations, these like-minded organisations may reside in Malaysia, Brunei and China. Such relationships enrich the breadth of engagement on shared interests and increase access to resources for charitable activities. Such connections also enhance people-to-people ties across national borders, which is to be encouraged from a foreign affairs perspective. In the implementation of this Bill, such benign foreign relationships should be allowed to continue and flourish. Sir, let me articulate this in Chinese.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] On this matter, I would like to share some observations about foreign connections. Not all foreign connections are malign. On the ground, it is quite common to see race-based organisations having reciprocal relationships with race-based organisations in other countries. For Chinese-based organisations, they may reside in Malaysia, Brunei and China. Such relationships enrich the breadth of engagement on shared interests and increase access to resources for charitable activities. From a foreign affairs perspective, such connections also enhance people-to-people ties across national borders. We should allow such benign foreign relationships to continue and flourish.
(In English): I now move to the roles to be played by the President. These provisions are covered in both the Maintenance of Racial Harmony Bill and the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment) Bill.
Sir, the Constitution (Amendment) Bill gives the Elected President (EP) a new power. If passed, the EP will have discretion to decide whether to confirm, cancel or vary any Restraining Order made by the Minister. Such discretion will be available if the Presidential Council for Racial and Religious Harmony disagrees with the Minister's decision to issue a Restraining Order.
This discretionary power sought to be given to the EP goes to the fundamentals of governance. I am sure the Government will agree with me that the responsibility of maintaining racial harmony and law and order lies with the Government. While all of us have a part to play, the Government is responsible for this outcome. It is publicly accountable for this key performance indicator to Singaporeans through Parliament. It is not the EP's responsibility to maintain public peace and public order. He is not answerable to Parliament in any way.
In my view, the proposed mechanism for the President to review the Minister's Orders carries several significant risks. Imagine a scenario where the Minister issues a Restraining Order which the Presidential Council disagrees with, following which the EP then decides to also disagree with the Minister and cancels the Restraining Order. I pause here to point out that although some of us may think that such a scenario of both the Presidential Council and the President breaking ranks with the Cabinet is unlikely, this is exactly what the Bills today permit to happen.
Returning to the scenario of the President cancelling the Restraining Order, let us say it subsequently turns out that the organisation concerned had truly become a proxy for a hostile foreign actor, or race relations deteriorate sharply, proving that the Minister was justified in issuing the Restraining Order in the first place. When Singaporeans question the decision-making process, the Government can justifiably say that it correctly issued the Restraining Order but since the EP decided to cancel it, the Government is not to be blamed for the bad outcomes. Is this acceptable?
On a separate note, I am also concerned about the grave implications of bringing the President into such decisions involving ethnicity. As our founding Prime Minister has said, the President is a symbol of unity and the personification of the state. Indeed, that is the President's central and defining role. To require him to make hard decisions on matters involving ethnicity will detract from his role as a unifying figure above politics.
This Bill envisages the President possibly confronting the Cabinet on decisions that that affect influential race-based organisations. For the President to enter the fray and to take a position on racial affairs could quite possibly lead to the presidency being polarised along racial lines. This should be avoided at all costs.
Further complicating the matter is that the presidency already has a defined racial dimension due to the reserve presidency. Imagine a scenario if a President were to cancel a Minister's Restraining Order relating to an organisation of the President's own ethnic roots. Even if the President were to do so for objective reasons, would it be perceived as objective? Such a scenario could be divisive and highly damaging, not just for the presidency as an institution, but for race relations in general. Looking ahead, will the presidency then become an arena in which racial issues are fought over?
Sir, since 1988, when the proposal for the EP was first mooted, the Workers' Party has been consistent in opposing the institution. This is mainly due to the potential gridlock it may cause to a newly elected Government if it should require to use past reserves, or when it needs to make key appointments in the public service. For the purposes of today's debate, we are further concerned about the implications of bringing the President into decisions involving race-based matters, for the reasons I have given. Sir, as such, the Workers' Party cannot support the Constitution (Amendment) Bill and will vote to oppose it.
As for the Maintenance of Racial Harmony Bill, my party colleagues, Gerald Giam and Dennis Tan, have raised questions and concerns. On my part, I would emphasise that we are not supportive of the provisions dealing with the EP's discretion. Nevertheless, as stated by my colleagues earlier, we support the wider objectives of managing race relations and will vote in support of the Maintenance of Racial Harmony Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Joan Pereira.
Ms Joan Pereira (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Maintenance of Racial Harmony and Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment) Bills.
These are important and crucial updates to our current legislation to uphold racial harmony in an increasingly polarised global environment. This will support law enforcement and enhance clarity for the public. However, having two separate pieces of legislation for racial and religious harmony may prove to be confusing for the general public as well as for organisations. The lines may also get blurred in situations where racial and religious differences could be mixed up, blended together or misunderstood.
Even as we endeavour to promote racial and religious harmony, we must be mindful of how we can better integrate foreigners, from foreign employees to PRs and new citizens. For those of us who grow up in Singapore, attend local schools and have the benefit of years of national education, you can say that it is almost in our DNA to understand the absolute importance and duty that we all have to maintain racial and religious harmony.
How about those who have joined us as adults? How can we help them to reach a higher level of understanding about cultural nuances and mutual respect, and be able to integrate and assimilate into Singapore society? Could we re-look at how we can build and improve on the educational and learning journeys for new citizens, and also extend to those who are joining as PRs?
Our national pledge continues to remind Singaporeans of the need to remain united \"regardless of race, language or religion\". Now that we are 60 years into our nation-building journey, language is thankfully no longer something that divides Singaporeans, with high English literacy rates and perhaps Singlish being something that unite Singaporeans.
As we look to the future, it is my wish that we may one day be able to look beyond race or religion as well. That said, we will still need to be aware and be alert for the other ways which malicious actors, whether foreign or local, can try to carve out fault-lines within our community. This could include the exploitation of differences in socio-economic levels across our society, as well as attempts to fan xenophobic sentiments. Sir, in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] As we look into the future, it is my wish that we may one day be able to look beyond race or religion as well. That said, we will still need to be aware and be on the alert for the other ways which malicious actors, whether foreign or local, can try to carve out fault-lines within our community. This could include the exploitation of differences in socio-economic levels across our society as well as attempts to fan xenophobic sentiments.
(In English): We should also be cognisant that we ourselves do not overly focus on and draw our own fault lines unnecessarily and cause alarm. For example, I had paid attention to the Board Diversity Index that is developed by the Singapore Institute of Directors because of the useful insights that we can draw about the diversity efforts amongst our corporations here. The latest 2025 Board Diversity Index reported that the percentage of boards which have at least one-third of directors from a non-majority culture fell. We need to be aware that being overly sensitive or in today's parlance, too \"woke\" without the proper context or understanding, can also cause problems for our society.
We need to remain vigilant and be on guard against attempts to weaken or harm our hard-earned unity among different racial groups. These Bills are timely and will help to set the safety parameters for respectful interactions and build greater understanding. I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Usha Chandradas.
Ms Usha Chandradas (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise in support the Bill, but I have some clarifications on the extent to which the Bill might have an effect on artistic expression.
I think many of us here today are agreed, and I certainly am of the view, that every civilised society has some measure of censorship in it. It should not be the case that hate speech is allowed to run unchecked in society just because we want to adhere to some imagined or theoretical principle on freedom of speech.
However, as it is the case with most things, the most extreme cases of racially harmful content are arguably the easiest ones to address. Where it is quite clear that offence has been caused and is intended, and maliciously phrased expressions and slurs are used, it is relatively easy for society to come together and band against these acts. The problem, however, lies in the grey areas where, for example, it is not immediately clear whether the acts in question are likely to incite \"enmity, hatred, ill will or hostility” against a particular race or “insult, vilify, denigrate, threaten or abuse” another race, as these terms are set out in clauses 8 and 40 of the Bill.
I appreciate that the Government does not have an easy task. Overly strict measures could suppress future dialogue while inaction might encourage irresponsible and harmful behaviour.
This Bill is a matter of particular concern to Singapore’s arts community. Our arts and cultural groups have long been engaged in thoughtful, critical and necessary conversations about identity, history and race. These are voices that should be nurtured. If we truly believe in an inclusive and harmonious society, then we must also believe in the power of art, storytelling and critical discourse to bring us closer together.
The question of the extent to which the state should intervene in censorship of the arts is not a new one and it is one that has been addressed by all the previous arts Nominated Members of Parliament at one point or another. I, too, would like to add my voice to theirs in the context of the Bill that we are debating today.
First, I would like to ask if the Minister can provide some assurance to the arts community that the Presidential Council for Racial and Religious Harmony will be composed of some representatives from the literary, visual, performing and musical arts sectors? At the moment, the Schedule to the Bill only refers to Council members as being “representatives of all major racial and religious communities” and “persons who have distinguished themselves in public service or community relations.” The Council has very wide powers to review racial content Restraining Orders and it is heartening to see that the views of the Minister will be subject to some amount of independent oversight by the Council and the President.
A common refrain amongst the arts community – and I, too, feel this way sometimes when dealing with bureaucracies – is that administrators with little interest in or knowledge of the arts may not have a good understanding of how artistic production takes place, why artists behave in the way that they do, what artists intend to achieve and why the preservation of their voices is important. Artist representation on the Council is not only desirable, I would go so far as to say it is essential to maintaining public confidence and providing assurance that this new proposed law both safeguards the space for artistic expression while protecting racial harmony.
Secondly, in a related point, I would like to ask the Minister, if the potentially offending acts or content in question are artistic works, will the Council be open to consulting with specialists in the field when making its decisions? For instance, in cases where the contentious material is a painting, would the Council seek expert opinions from senior artists, art historians and academics specialising in the visual arts? If the work in question is a literary piece, would the Council then engage with experienced publishers, authors and editors to ensure a well-rounded and informed evaluation? Clause 33(5)(a) of the Bill alludes to the Council having the power to invite “any person” to attend before it and I believe that it would provide much assurance to the arts community if the Minister can confirm that specialist opinions will be obtained where artistic work and content is concerned.
Thirdly, can the Minister clarify whether there will be opportunities for the deliberations of the Council to be made public and if so, what the frequency of disclosure is expected to be? The Schedule to the Bill states that Council members and officers must keep meeting discussions confidential except when sharing with the President, Cabinet, Minister, other Council members or officers, or if they are expressly authorised to make disclosures by the Minister.
I would like to make the point here that it is important for the public to understand the basis for the Council’s decision-making. One strength of this Bill is that it acknowledges the complexity of racially motivated harmful acts. In introducing community remedial programmes in clause 41, it recognises that the remedies for racial intolerance are not to be found only in criminal sanctions. Instead, we are better served as a community by ongoing initiatives that seek to rehabilitate and educate.
In a similar spirit, if we regularly make the deliberations of the Council public, this could serve as a very powerful educational tool for the broader community. It would not only foster greater transparency but also prompt deeper public engagement and feedback on the decisions that are made. This kind of input would offer authorities valuable insights into contemporary cultural standards. It will help them to ensure that their decisions remain attuned to the evolving sentiments of Singaporeans.
My fourth question is on whether the Ministry will be releasing examples of what constitutes harmful content that would potentially be subject to Restraining Orders under clause 8 of the Bill. Will we be seeing regulations which offer examples and guiding principles? Restraining Orders can be used to prohibit the communication or distribution of “information and material”. The definition of “information and material” at clause 8(8) appears to be wide enough to cover visual, literary, musical and performance art works. Read in its entirety, these works can be removed from circulation altogether if the Minister is satisfied that the conditions in clause 8(1) are met. I think that clear examples will be helpful to minimise subjective interpretation and assure the arts community that legitimate artistic works will not fall afoul of the law.
Can the Minister also clarify how the phrase “likely to commit” in clause 8(1) will be construed? Restraining Orders can be issued if the Minister is “satisfied” that a person is “likely” to commit offences. This is clearly a pre-emptive power and one that should be exercised very carefully. It should not be the case that art works, books or plays that critically examine racial issues could be banned or censored based on mere speculation. Could the Minister clarify whether specific guidelines will be used to determine when an artistic work might be regarded as “information or material” connected to acts that are “likely” to cause racial disharmony?
My sixth and last question has to do with the interpretation of clause 40 of the Bill. Under this clause, an offence is committed if a person incites enmity, hatred, ill will, hostility, contempt or ridicule against a racial group in Singapore. The offence applies if the person knows that their actions are likely to cause this effect. It is, however, a defence under clause 8(6), if the accused person can show that he pointed out the offending matters in good faith and to bring about a removal of those matters. Looking at the strict wording of the Bill, it seems possible that if an artist were to produce, say, a video work about racial tensions in Singapore’s history, or if a theatre company stages a play on colonial era racial policies, that these works might be at risk of being deemed to “incite feelings of ill will.”
Let me give the Members a more specific example. The late artist Lee Wen’s “Journey of a Yellow Man” is a well-known performance art series in Singapore’s art history. It is a work that is studied by art historians and is taught to art students. It is part of the collection of the National Gallery Singapore and it is also a part of other prominent collections overseas. Lee Wen himself was awarded the Cultural Medallion in 2005. The work, if Members have not seen it, involves the artist, Lee Wen, a man who is of Chinese ethnicity, covering himself with yellow paint and placing himself into deliberate encounters and situations all over the world. These are then photographed, filmed or sometimes witnessed by an audience. As explained by the Singapore Art Museum, “the body of work is an exploration of identity and ethnic and cultural stereotypes.”
If we apply clause 40(1) to this body of work, it is possible to form the view that Lee, if he were alive today, might be considered as having knowingly ridiculed Chinese ethnicity. He would have accordingly committed an offence under clause 40(1) when exhibiting his work. Could he then rely on the defence in clause 40(6)?
Based on the wording of the Bill, I believe it is not so clear. Art historians would certainly argue that the work was made in “good faith” but can it be said to have been made or displayed “in order to bring about a removal of the feelings of ridicule?” Well, I would say yes, on balance, but I would also mention that this message is not immediately apparent from the images that are presented in the body of work. Certainly, the works are Lee’s expression of his frustration at being racially stereotyped when he was overseas, but can we say from simply looking at the work that there is a clear enough expression of a desire to bring about the “removal of ridicule”? I am not sure that we can.
Lee’s own declarations may not necessarily shed light on the matter either. Here is an example of something Lee himself has said on the topic in a 1994 artist statement. He said: “I’m already yellow. Why do I still paint myself yellow? Yellow is the colour of the sun, the colour of the moon, the colour of the river that runs in the old country. It is the spirit of nobility, the glow of precious gold. The warmth and abundance of harvest, the power and faith in temples. In a different sense, yellow can also be the colour of dangerous hazards, confidential secrets, pornography and vices. It is also the colour of the persecuted and the oppressed.”
So, as you can see, in the realm of art, messaging is often nuanced, layered and open to interpretation. Audiences are invited to engage critically and to interpret the works in their own way. This is what art is all about and why it is so powerful and why we value it. Last year, Prime Minister Lawrence Wong committed an additional $100 million of funding to support the arts in recognition of this value that it has in our society.
In the context of this Bill, however, the element of audience interpretation can make it challenging for an artist to definitively prove that their work is intended as a call for change, rather than being misinterpreted as an endorsement of the very issues that the work seeks to critique. This ambiguity may then make it difficult for artists to rely on the defence provided at clause 40(6) of the Bill.
Many artistic works critically examine race, social injustice and history. These should not be viewed at the get-go as acts of hostility but rather, as efforts to foster deeper understanding. Australia’s Racial Hatred Act introduced in October 1995, for example, provides a defence where a person's conduct was done reasonably and in good faith in the performance, exhibition or distribution of an artistic work. The proposed Bill today does not go as far as that. We do not have a blanket exemption or protection for artistic works, but we must protect our ability to discuss and reflect on history without fear of heightened state intervention.
In this regard, some guidance on the interpretation of clause 40(6) will be helpful. I know it is not possible for the Ministry to provide an exhaustive list of guidelines on this point, but I hope that the Minister can assure us that the terms “good faith” and “bring(ing) about the removal of those matters”, as these phrases are set out in clause 40(6), that these phrases will be broadly interpreted.
Racial harmony is indeed the cornerstone of our society, but true harmony is achieved through through open and meaningful dialogue. Our artists play a very important role in facilitating this. It is essential to strike a balance between preventing harmful content and allowing the arts to thrive as a platform for meaningful discourse.
Sir, I understand the Minister’s explanation earlier that a number of the Bills’ provisions actually port over and consolidate existing laws but given that we have a new proposed Bill to consider, I think it is also a good opportunity to relook some of the issues as they have been presented before the House today.
Sir, I support this Bill and I look forward to the Minister's response to my clarifications.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Neil Parekh.
Mr Neil Parekh Nimil Rajnikant (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to speak on the Maintenance of Racial Harmony Bill, an important legislative initiative that seeks to reinforce our long-standing commitment to social cohesion and unity in Singapore. Together with the related Constitution (Amendment) Bill, this legislation strengthens our efforts to uphold racial harmony, ensuring that Singapore remains an inclusive and cohesive society for all.
Racial harmony has always been a fundamental pillar of our nation’s success. Over the years, we have fostered a culture of mutual respect and understanding among our diverse, multi-ethnic communities. However, in an evolving social landscape marked by the rise of digital media and increasing external influences, it is imperative to adopt new measures that safeguard the delicate balance of our multicultural fabric. This Bill is a timely and necessary step in that direction.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I seek clarifications from the Minister of State on seven key aspects of the Bill.
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]
One, could the Minister of State please elaborate on how the Presidential Council of Racial and Religious Harmony will engage with organisations that have racial affiliations? Will the Council primarily serve an advisory role, or will it have the authority to issue specific guidelines and recommendations that businesses or institutions must adhere to?
Two, the Bill grants the Minister the power to issue Restraining Orders with immediate effect. Could the Minister please clarify the criteria used to determine when an entity falls within the scope of such orders? What safeguards exist to ensure that organisations have the right to appeal or challenge these orders without undue disruption to their operations?
Three, participation in the remedial CRI race programme is presented as an alternative to prosecution. Can the Minister please explain the eligibility criteria for participation and whether completion of the programme will be considered in determining future regulatory actions against offenders. Also, how can entities contribute to the broader objectives of such initiatives, potentially as partners in promoting racial harmony?
Four, can the Minister please provide more details on the penalties for non-compliance with the Bill's provisions? How will the Government ensure these penalties are proportionate and do not unduly burden businesses?
Five, the Bill mandates disclosure requirements for race-based entities. Could the Minister please clarify what criteria will define an organisation as a \"race-based entity\"? How will the Government balance the need for transparency with the operational realities of organisations engaged in international collaborations? Could the Minister clarify the criteria for evaluating foreign donations or affiliations that may be deemed politically or racially sensitive?
Six, the Bill introduces stricter oversight of business associations with racial ties. Could the Minister please elaborate on how the Government plans to balance regulatory oversight with the operational needs of businesses and chambers of commerce, particularly those engaged in cross-border partnerships? How will the Government address concerns about potential competitive disadvantages for designated race-based entities especially the smaller ones, now that they have additional regulatory requirements and disclosure obligations?
Lastly, on support for businesses, given that the leadership composition rules for designated race-based entities may require significant changes to organisational structures and processes, will the Government consider providing a transition allowance? Specifically, how much time will be given to affected organisations to comply with the new requirements and what support or resources will be made available to help them navigate these changes, without undue disruption to their operations?
Sir, the Maintenance of Racial Harmony Bill is a comprehensive and forward-thinking legislative framework that reaffirms Singapore's unwavering commitment to racial unity. While this Bill introduces additional compliance requirements for business organisations, it also provides an opportunity for them to contribute meaningfully to our shared national goal of racial harmony. I am confident that through collaborative efforts, businesses, community groups and the Government can work together to uphold our social cohesion.
Mr Speaker, Sir, notwithstanding my clarifications, this Bill has my full support.
Mr Speaker: Dr Syed Harun.
Dr Syed Harun Alhabsyi (Nominated Member): Thank you, Mr Speaker. In Malay, please.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, racial harmony is the cornerstone of Singapore's social stability and prosperity. Although our hearts may differ, shaped by our respective cultural tapestries and ethnic traditions. As the Malay proverb goes, we all have black hair (birds of a feather).
The peace of our nation and society is our responsibility and we must have the will and courage to reach across the divide, get to know each other better and forge a united vision to ensure the peace and progress of our nation. This Maintenance of Racial Harmony Bill is important in preventing hostility and hatred from emerging between the different races. It also makes it an offence to incite and foment discord on the basis of race.
This is an appropriate measure for our country in order to preserve racial harmony, social stability, a united people as well as national cohesion. It also creates a fair and just society that views everyone equally regardless of race and one that fosters inclusivity and accords respect and appreciation to all races.
The importance of this Bill is also that it affirms measures that will prevent foreign influence and interference in local racial issues. It is important because Singapore, as an open economy, is also exposed to and not immune to, various external elements and influences. Moreover, with the influence of social media, this Bill needs to be holistic in order to curb news, narratives and perceptions that are false and dangerous, which can trigger misunderstanding, hatred and division between races.
In Singapore, as a young nation where many of our ancestors were early immigrants and traders, and where our family histories and ethnic traditions may still share intertwined aspects of history, culture and race from China, India and the Malay Archipelago, in these 60 years since Singapore's Independence, there are also many more unique features and local contexts that the people need to consider together. We must not allow any avenue and opportunity for extreme opinions, which can result in discrimination and racial provocations taking root and permeate our society.
This does not mean that we should avoid celebrating our respective racial identities that are rich with diversity and history, or shy away from honest discussions about issues of importance to each race. For everything that is allowed to develop in our multiracial and multi-ethnic society, we will need to consider the local context, culture, etiquette, history, harmony and legislation.
(In English): Mr Speaker, in English, please. I have a few clarifications in three broad parts for the Minister, as part of this proposed Bill. Firstly, in part three, restraining orders against racial content in clause eight, it is noted that the Minister may make a racial content Restraining Order against a person if the Minister is satisfied that several thresholds have been met in relation to an act that causes feelings of enmity, hatred, ill will or hostility between different races in Singapore, or that incites, instigates or encourages another person to commit such an act. May I clarify, specifically in the instance that a person is likely to commit or is attempting to commit the specific acts, could the Minister provide examples of when such a threshold is crossed and how this may differ from having an intent without any action alone? This is to reassure us that sufficient and reasonable basis for a Restraining Order is met before it is meted under these powers.
Secondly, in Part 4, measures against foreign influence, under division two, designation of entities, clause 15(A), where the competent authority may designate an entity where the primary objects, purposes or activities include representing or promoting social, economic, political, educational, linguistic, cultural or other interests, or discussing any issue relating to any race in Singapore. Would this also possibly include well-meaning ground-up initiatives, registered community-based organisations or registered charities that seek to support specific racial groups as part of each community's efforts to also uplift their own? Would ethnic-based self-help groups, like the Chinese Development Assistance Council, Yayasan MENDAKI, Singapore Indian Development Association and the Eurasian Association also fall within this definition of such potential entities as per clause 15(A)?
Would this be a rather wide and encompassing definition that needs better scoping and specificity for the purposes of this Bill, and instead of encouraging ground-up community efforts, could this instead raise concerns and prevent people from stepping forward to contribute more fervently towards building the social, economic, educational, linguistic and cultural interests of particular aspects of a race or community, which is really the rich diversity we want to preserve and encourage in Singapore, and also allow to flourish.
Lastly, also echoing what some hon Members have mentioned earlier, in part six offences relating to race, under offence of inciting enmity against persons distinguished by race and so on, in clause 40, I wonder if this, in any way, could affect our arts community in their good work today. We agree, and I am sure with a resounding consensus in this House, that we are firmly and flatly against any form of intentional incitement of ill will and hostility across racial lines. This, I have also outlined, in rather unequivocal terms, in the Malay portion of my speech earlier.
I appreciate, however, that the arts is and can be a powerful medium for expression of differing and diverse views, and sometimes emotive opinions, serving as a vehicle for social commentary, political critique, personal reflection and advocacy. Sometimes, the arts asks inconvenient questions, presses on hot button issues and could upset people.
In light of how clause 40 is worded, could the Ministry reassure the arts community and its enthusiasts, especially those in the visual, literary and performing art forms, that even on sensitive topics relating to race, where sometimes, there could be questions or challenges about racial stereotypes and identities, these would still be permitted with within the remit of artistic licence and what is considered reasonable.
My view is that some latitude should be given for the relevant art forms to express views, to ask the hard questions, to challenge narratives and to inspire change. In fact, when done well and tastefully, society would be more cohesive, more thoughtful and more reflective in the longer term, even though it could stir uncomfortable emotions and disdain in the short term. Mr Speaker, my points notwithstanding, I rise in support of the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Razwana Begum.
Assoc Prof Razwana Begum Abdul Rahim (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, I stand in support of the Maintenance of Racial Harmony Bill. Mr Speaker, the Bill contains several important provisions, most notably: to allow the Minister to make \"racial content Restraining Orders\", including \"foreign influence Restraining Orders\" and to establish a Presidential Council for Racial and Religious Harmony.
The Bill also allows the Minister to establish CRI to address racial incidents and as an alternative to criminal proceedings. Mr Speaker, the overall intent of these provisions is, as the name of the Bill suggests, to maintain racial harmony in Singapore, and I commend this intention.
Mr Speaker, Singapore is renowned internationally as a safe and prosperous society and one in which people of many different cultures, religions and ethnicities live and work together successfully, peacefully and respectfully.
Such a situation is, however, not something to be taken for granted. As noted by then-Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong in 2017, and I quote: \"there is nothing natural about where we are – multiracial, multi-religious, tolerant and progressive. We made it happen and we have got to protect it, nurture it, preserve it and never break it.\" Senior Minister Lee's comments were true then and remain true today.
As highlighted by the Minister earlier, the study conducted by MHA and MDDI indicates that 43% of surveyed Singaporeans feel that \"racism remains a problem in Singapore\" and 35% have had \"racially insensitive encounters\".
Mr Speaker, these figures demonstrate the importance of proactive action, such as the provisions contained in this Bill, to build and maintain a Singapore where racial harmony is not just a theory, or something enjoyed by certain racial groups, but a day-to-day reality for every person who calls Singapore home. Mr Speaker, I will now comment on several specific aspects of the Bill.
First, racial content Restraining Orders. Mr Speaker, part 8(2) of the Bill allows the Minister to make a racial content Restraining Order that prohibits or requires those subject to the order to do, or not do, certain things, including: prohibiting a person from writing about, talking about or distributing information about \"any specified subject, topic, or theme\"; requiring a person to take steps to ensure that \"any specified information or material\" is \"no longer available\"; and prohibiting a person from printing, editing or contributing to \"any publication\".
Mr Speaker, these powers are substantial and I am concerned that they allow, at least in theory, the conditions of a Restraining Order to go beyond what is reasonably necessary to address behaviour of concern.
Perhaps the Bill could contain a provision that stipulates that Restraining Orders can only be made once all other options have been exhausted and that the conditions of the restraining order are: directly proportional to the behaviour of concern; the least intrusive or restrictive remedy available to achieve the desired outcome and clearly aimed at modifying behaviour of concern, and are not used to punish people
Mr Speaker, my second issue relates to community education. In an ideal world, this Bill would be unnecessary and Singaporeans would not engage, certainly not deliberately, in any act that \"causes feelings of enmity, hatred, ill will, or hostility between different races\", or \"incites, instigates or encourages a person\" to do the same.
Mr Speaker, the MHA data I referenced earlier, particularly the figure that 35% of surveyed Singaporeans have had \"racially insensitive encounters\", suggests that more work needs to be done before my ideal world is realised. Mr Speaker, in Malay, please.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, as frequently cited, prevention is better than the cure and I am interested to hear about any culturally and age-appropriate programmes that are currently available within our primary and secondary schools that work with children and young people to combat racial or religious intolerance or prejudice, while allowing for the open discussion of different views and opinions. I am particularly interested to hear about any such programmes that have been co-designed by children and young people from different cultural, racial and religious groups.
In relation to that, it is important that in any society people can safely raise or ask legitimate and genuine topics or questions about race and religion, yet to do so in a sensitive and constructive manner. It is important that in appropriately curtailing actions or discussions that are racially offensive or insensitive, we do not inadvertently curtail curious conversation or dialogue. This is particularly important for children and young people who can be naturally inquisitive about difference, and who need to be provided safe opportunities to ask about race and religion, and to learn about diversity, tolerance and inclusion.
(In English): Mr Speaker, related to the above, is the issue of new citizens, PRs and other foreigners living in Singapore.
Mr Speaker, people arrive in Singapore, either temporarily or permanently, from many different countries, and bring with them diverse opinions and behaviours. I would like to know what programmes, including community education initiatives, are available to welcome new arrivals, and alert them to the cultural norms expected, or required, in Singapore, and the thinking behind these norms. It is important that we assist all Singaporeans, including those new to our country, to not engage in any behaviour that may inadvertently offend or distress others.
Mr Speaker, I will now turn to the proposed Presidential Council for Racial and Religious Harmony. I understand that the Council is an extension of the current Presidential Council for Religious Harmony and that it is to have a range of functions related to racial and religious harmony.
I support the establishment of such a Council and would like to know what mechanisms are in place to ensure that membership of the Council is representative of the diverse Singapore community, and that individual members have the necessary expertise and experience to undertake their role.
I would also like to know how the Council intends to seek the views and opinions of the Singaporean community when making decisions, including the views and opinions of children and young people, women, foreign workers and other at-risk groups.
Mr Speaker, the Bill allows the Minister to establish CRIs for people who have engaged in conduct prejudicial to racial harmony. As noted in the MHA press release dated 7 January 2025, and I quote: \"CRIs will provide an alleged offender the opportunity to learn from and make amends for [their] racist conduct, thereby soothing communal tensions and repairing ties between the communities.\" And \"satisfactory completion of a Community Remedial programme can be taken into account by the Public Prosecutor in deciding whether to prosecute a race-related offence under the Bill.\"
Mr Speaker, I support the establishment of CRIs and would like to know what mechanisms are in place to ensure that the initiatives will be: co-developed with relevant community members and leaders; evidence-based and independently evaluated; and sufficiently funded and staffed by people with the necessary expertise and experience.
I would also like to know whether it is intended that any of the CRIs will formally incorporate the principles and practices of restorative justice, a model of community healing that is particularly relevant to racial harmony.
Mr Speaker, the Bill allows the Minister to \"designate\" entities; an action that then enforces certain obligations on that entity, including reporting foreign donations and anonymous donations, reporting foreign affiliations and reporting governing body composition.
The Bill allows the Minister to make a \"foreign influence restraining order\" if \"necessary or expedient to pre-empt, prevent or reduce any foreign influence that may undermine racial harmony in Singapore and present a threat to public peace and public order in Singapore\".
Mr Speaker, a foreign influence Restraining Order, while important, may have a significant impact on an entity, including on the entity’s cash flow, strategic partnerships and management structure. Perhaps the Bill could contain a provision that stipulates that foreign influence Restraining Orders, just like Restraining Orders in general, can only be made once all other options have been exhausted and that the conditions of the restraining order are directly proportional to the issue of concern; the least intrusive or restrictive remedy available to achieve the desired outcome and clearly aimed at modifying behaviour of concern.
Entities may not always be aware of their obligations regarding foreign influence or may be engaging in behaviour without intent and these entities should be alerted and supported as early in the process as possible.
Mr Speaker, my next issue of concern relates to online threats and overseas challenges. A substantial proportion of racially offensive or inappropriate material is disseminated online, including from overseas or anonymous sources. This material is notoriously difficult to respond to and I would like to know what mechanisms are in place to enable the Ministry, or other agencies, to prevent, monitor or take down racially problematic material that is online, either domestically or internationally, particularly when that material is posted anonymously or under a pseudonym.
I would also like to know what mechanisms are in place to enhance domestic cooperation with international agencies, including law enforcement agencies, in responding to online or overseas issues.
Mr Speaker, racism in any form is harmful and shapes people’s everyday lives: their work, schooling, sense of belonging, and mental and physical well-being. The harm can be worse for those who experience discrimination on several fronts, such as race, gender, age, religion and disability. The impact of these behaviours can be substantial and it is important that victims are provided with the appropriate level of professional, trauma-informed support and care. Victims should also be informed of their right to seek legal advice about potential legal action against liable individuals or entities.
Supporting victims of racism is a responsibility we all share. This means standing up against negative stereotypes, intervening in instances of interpersonal racism and advocating for fair practices in our institutions. We must create safe spaces where victims feel heard, validated and supported.
Mr Speaker, in conclusion I will make some final comments about the role of community. Racism exists in several forms and can be covert or overt, conscious or unconscious, deliberate or accidental. Racism can be individual or personal or it can be systemic or structural. Regardless of the form it takes, we all have a role to play to be vigilant in our own behaviour and the behaviour of others and to speak up if something is not right.
We cannot and should not, only rely on others to do something, or on laws or guidelines. This is about taking personal responsibility and working collectively to stamp out racism wherever and whenever it occurs. By doing so, we can assist make Singapore a place where everyone, regardless of their race, feels safe, welcome and respected. Clarifications notwithstanding, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Darryl David.
Mr Darryl David (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Speaker, Sir, not only this Bill but this issue of racial harmony is one that resonates deeply with me. As someone of mixed race parentage, I recall my late mother telling me about how, as a Chinese lady dating an Indian man in the 1960s in Singapore, there were more than a few occasions where they were subject to some rather unkind comments and there were even places in Singapore that she and my father could not go to as a mixed race couple because of a very real threat of physical violence.
My mother also shared the story of how, as a teenage girl, she had to go to the hospital to identify the body of a minority race friend who had been killed when he was innocently swept up in a racially-charged act of violence and I can still recall the deep emotion in her voice as she told me this story, with a somber reminder of how \"we should never, ever take racial harmony in Singapore for granted.\" It is with these words in mind that I rise in full support of this Bill.
In this regard, I think it is timely that the Government introduces the Maintenance of Racial Harmony Act as a standalone piece of legislation to deal with potential threats to racial harmony and to signal the importance of maintaining racial harmony in Singapore.
I applaud the Government’s position, Mr Speaker, that criminal prosecution is not the first recourse and sole remedy to racial incidents, considering that a good number of such incidents were not committed with the intent to injure anyone’s feelings, but largely arising from lack of cultural understanding and sensitivity. An effective CRI must be supported by a structured set of interventions that are evidence-based so that it can achieve its intent to help those who are undergoing the intervention to understand the impact of his or her conduct, reconcile and make amends within the community.
I hope that the Government can shed light on how such interventions are developed and delivered, and would like to ask if the Government will be setting up an expert taskforce to design, implement and oversee the CRIs.
I would also like to ask how would the effectiveness of these CRIs be measured so that their efficacy can be assessed? And with each transgression being different, would the Government be offering targeted interventions so that maximum level of reconciliation can be achieved? Finally, would recalcitrant offenders be referred to for prosecution if the community remedial initiative fails to work for them, even though their offences might not be sufficiently egregious to warrant prosecution under the current Penal Code?
I would also like to suggest that we consider using the Inter-Racial and Religious Confidence Circles (IRCCs) to rehabilitate individuals who are referred to the community remedial initiative. The IRCCs are already there. They are present and they have been a key pillar of helping to maintain racial and religious harmony in Singapore. Perhaps, the remediation process using the IRCCs could be similar to how radicalised individuals are currently being rehabilitated, but at a less severe, stepped-down level within the community.
Ultimately, Mr Speaker, reconciliation is a two-party effort. While we can mandate that offenders undergo remedial initiatives, the community must also embrace magnanimity and be willing to forgive the offenders if the offenders are contrite and they demonstrate willingness to make amends and rebuild bridges.
I would like to now talk about how we can safeguard racial harmony from foreign influence. This Bill also introduces measures against foreign influence by requiring entities, including unincorporated associations, to abide by rules governing donations, affiliations and leadership. While it would be fairly legislatively simple to compel registered entities to disclose their source of donations, foreign affiliations, if any, and the composition of their governing body, how does the Government intend to compel unincorporated associations to do the same?
This is under the assumption that these associations are informal entities and are loose gatherings of like-minded individuals that the Government does not necessarily have oversight of or has much information on. As such, I hope the Government can shed more light on how it plans to exercise supervision over these entities.
Under the provision to safeguard designated entities from foreign influence, more than half of their governing bodies must be Singaporeans and the responsible officer for such entities must be either Singaporeans or PRs. While these nationality-based restrictions may, in theory, safeguard designated entities from foreign influences, such arrangements might not provide sufficient guardrails. For example, the leadership team of a designated entity could comprise mainly newly naturalised Singaporeans or PRs who may still have personal historical linkages to foreign entities.
While I believe that we should not – and I say it again – we should not unfairly shine the spotlight on newly naturalised Singaporeans or PRs, it is empirically difficult for the Government to police personal affiliations of individuals, both local born and naturalised alike.
In this regard, I would like to suggest an additional safeguard that I hope that the Government can consider the implementation of a two-tier structure for designated entities.
For designated entities that have a lower risk of foreign influence or are regarded as less nationally critical, the nationality-based restrictions on their governing bodies and leaders proposed by this Bill would suffice as safeguards. However, for designated entities that have a higher possibility of being influenced by foreign actors or are regarded as nationally critical if compromised – for example, co-operative societies, trade unions, mutual-benefit organisations, platform worker associations and the like – the Government could legislate more thorough background checks on their proposed leaders before these individuals are appointed into their governing bodies or leadership team. I believe that such background checks would help to provide additional guardrails by restricting local born and naturalised Singaporeans with tangible and established foreign affiliations from holding leadership positions in such designated entities.
Mr Speaker, Sir, racial harmony in Singapore must never be taken lightly because it is an integral component of social cohesion and social trust in our multiracial, multi-religious society. A socially harmonious, cohesive and high-trust society will ultimately strengthen the stability of communities and the resilience of Singapore.
I am glad that the Government is sending a strong signal on the importance of racial harmony with this Bill, because, in the words of someone very dear to me, who once lived through the racial riots of the past, we should \"never, ever take Singapore's racial harmony for granted\".
Mr Speaker: Mr Vikram Nair.
Mr Vikram Nair (Sembawang): Mr Speaker, in 2021, then-Prime Minister Lee first telegraphed a Bill on racial harmony in his National Day Rally. At the last Committee of Supply debate for MHA, I asked for an update on this proposed Maintenance of Racial Harmony Bill, and I am happy to see this well thought through and comprehensive Bill before us today.
The most important aspect of racial harmony is the day-to-day actions each of us takes to build bridges with people of different races.
The Government has policies that nudge us in this direction, including ethnic quotas for public housing and the requirement for minority representation for contesting in GRCs for our elections. Most of us have close friends of all races and understand the customs and traditions of one another. Yet, notwithstanding the racial harmony we generally enjoy in Singapore, there remain issues beneath the surface and we cannot take our harmony for granted. In my view, legislation remains a necessary tool to promote and maintain racial harmony.
We have had offences in relation to racial harmony in the Penal Code in the old sections 298 and 298A, and the substance of these offences remain in this Bill. The old language of section 298 of the Penal Code that made it an offence to \"wound racial harmony and feelings of any person\" has been replaced with language making it an offence to insult, vilify, denigrate, threaten or abuse another on the basis of race. In my view, the new language adds clarity by specifying the actual actions that constitute the offence. The offences in section 298A of promoting enmity between races and engaging in acts prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony remain. While prosecutions under these sections are not common, I think they send an important signal on what is unacceptable conduct.
There are also three important new tools this Bill provide MHA more powers to better calibrate and deal with the potential threats to racial harmony.
The first is the introduction of a Restraining Order regime, which allows MHA to act swiftly against acts that may threaten racial harmony. This seems to be an intermediate step that allows swift action without the need to prosecute the wrongdoer. I note that these orders will be subject to review by the Presidential Council for Racial and Religious Harmony and the President, which, in my view, is an important check. A similar regime exists in relation to religious harmony under the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act and I think it is sensible for those principles to apply here as well.
The second tool is the CRI, which gives MHA the option to offer reparative measures in lieu of prosecution to offenders. This gives MHA a more calibrated set of tools so that less serious offenders may be given a chance to mend their ways and avoid a criminal conviction.
I will be interested to know how MHA intends to apply these measures. I think MHA will probably need to develop a set of interventions and procedures. There will also probably be a need to have skilled professionals to both help raise awareness and encourage amity between the offender and the community.
The aim of this provision seems to go beyond a simple Corrective Work Order type regime, and building bridges and amity is much more difficult than dishing out punishment. So, I look forward to seeing how MHA will apply these powers. It will also be important to develop some internal guidelines, at least on when this discretion will be exercised, though in my view it would be best to have this as the first port of call for most first-time offenders unless it was a particularly serious offence.
The third set of measures to safeguard racial harmony relates to foreign influence and requires race-based entities to have a leadership composed primarily of Singapore Citizens and to disclose foreign donations and affiliations.
I declare that I am involved in a voluntary capacity in a number of race-related charities in Singapore. I am the advisor to the board of trustees of Singapore Indian Development Association, and I am a trustee of the Singapore Indian Education Trust as well as a trustee of the Singapore Indian Fine Arts Society.
I note from Minister of State Sun's speech that charities have not been listed amongst the entities that MHA intends to designate at this juncture. This should be a relief to many of them.
As a matter of principle though, I believe that while race-based groups play an important role in preserving culture and tradition, it is important for Singapore-based groups to be rooted in our values as well. The requirement of a largely Singaporean leadership supports this objective.
I also agree that foreign donations should be disclosed, though I think we should also send the message that there is nothing wrong with getting donations from foreigners per se, especially for charitable institutions. Many charitable groups may benefit from raising funds from a larger group of donors, including foreigners, and the beneficiaries of these charities are ultimately going to be primarily Singaporeans and PRs.
Mr Speaker, I think that this is a well thought through Bill that introduces important new tools for MHA to continue to protect our racial harmony in a more calibrated way. I support this Bill.
Mr Speaker: Minister Shanmugam.
Mr K Shanmugam: Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. I thank Members for their interventions. It is really gratifying to see that there is unanimous agreement on the need for the Bill. There are some questions, some concerns, and I do note the Workers' Party's position that they will support the Bill but not the Constitution (Amendment) Bill because they have specific concerns about the President having the power to disagree with the Minister. I will deal with that separately.
Let me start with some of the misconceptions that underlie some of the questions raised.
Sir, if I may deal with Mr Gerald Giam's points. He expressed, as I see it, two main concerns. One, that genuine dialogue will be curtailed. He gave examples of CECA, the Palestinian issue and so on. He also said that since this is such an important Bill, it really ought to have been sent to the Select Committee like the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act.
I appreciate his comments, but I think there is some serious misconception on what this Bill does or what it is intended to cover.
I would refer Members to Annex 1 and the press release of MHA. Hopefully, that will help in responding to Mr Giam's comments, Ms Poa's comments and also some of the others who expressed some concerns.
First of all, paragraph three, the second sentence: \"The scope of unacceptable conduct regarding race relations will remain substantively the same as today. There is, in fact, no change in the law.\"
If you look at paragraph 12, on the substantive provisions, because paragraph 11 sets out what is being brought over from the Penal Code. Paragraph 12 says that \"the scope of the offences under the Bill is substantially the same as what is covered in the Penal Code. Some updates will be made to align the language and defences under the Bill with the equivalent provisions.\"
So, the changes are that we actually provided for some additional defences and in fact, narrowed one of the provisions.
If you look at sections 298 and 298A of the Penal Code and then you look at clauses 39 and 40 of the Bill, they are the same.
As I understand from Mr Giam's speech, he accepts that today, there are no unacceptable constraints on discussing CECA, Palestinian issues and so on. Sections 298 and 298A have been in force for 17 years. If no concerns have been expressed until now, I am a slight loss – what is the additional concern with clauses 39 and 40?
Up to today, I am not aware of any concerns expressed in Parliament about sections 298 or 298A of the Penal Code or any suggestion that they should be repealed. And the Penal Code has been debated a number of times, on various occasions in Parliament.
The point, perhaps, was picked up by Ms Chandradas because she did say yes, the provisions are the same, but since we are coming back to Parliament, perhaps we can re-debate it or debate it anew. That is a different point.
What is new is really the Presidential Council for Racial and Religious Harmony, the additional power to issue Restraining Orders and the CRIs, additional remedial orders. But they are process-related. The fundamental power, as you would see in clause 8, relates to issuing Restraining Orders; if you look at the provisions, they go back, essentially, to clauses 39 and 40. So, I think there is a degree of misconception, which then leads to concerns.
For the same reason, therefore, the substantive law remains the same with the addition of some processes. Then, I think you can understand why we do not need a Select Committee, particularly as those additional provisions – Restraining Orders, the Presidential Council, CRI – these are modelled after the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act.
Mr Giam also asked about members of public and can they engage in racial politics. The answer is they can continue to do, after this Bill is passed, what they have been doing until now. I will just say, have a care on racial politics. If you get to the line of inciting violence, anything along those lines, which sections 298A and 298 deal with, then you could be transgressing the law.
I would add one more point because this is such a fundamental misconception that we do not want to unduly alarm the public. I know sometimes speeches are made with the purpose of the public in mind. I am not suggesting that Mr Giam or anyone else has made such a speech, but it is sometimes tailored for putting out in social media.
But I think all of us agree that we do not want the public to be misled. So, I would suggest that if speeches are put out, which could be misleading on their own, then some care should be taken to give the correct impression of the debate, under the Parliamentary Proceedings Act and the correct impression of the Bill, as clarified by me.
Assoc Prof Razwana Begum and Mr Louis Ng what measures are in place to address the root causes of racist conduct and support victims of racism and if there are plans to complement measures under the Bill with public campaigns or education efforts promoting racial harmony, and how the public can play a role in safeguarding social cohesion.
I have said a number of times, both in my earlier speech as well as outside this Chamber and in this Chamber on other occasions. If anyone thinks that the law alone can achieve racial harmony, I think that person needs to have their head examined. That is just not possible. Members know that that has to be achieved through a multifaceted programme or policies, including public education. So, I welcome those questions by Mr Louis Ng and Assoc Prof Razwana Begum because it helps us explain this clearly that what the aim of the Bill, just in case members of public think that we are putting in this Bill and relying on it solely to achieve racial harmony. It is intended to achieve racial harmony but not solely. This is a key facet. It provides a framework. But then, you need a whole lot of other things.
As I referred to in my earlier speech, there are thousands of activities that take place every weekend organised by People's Association (PA), which is a key nation-building agency. It makes people come together every weekend and, as a result, then, you interact with each other, you go for each other's events, you celebrate the festivals, week in, week out, throughout the year. That is one of the secret sauces that make Singapore successful. That is why PA has been a key enabler of the success of this country. That is one facet; so many other things. I have talked about the schools being integrated, housing estates being integrated. A lot these are policies.
So, the legal framework tells you what you cannot do and it helps to set a set of values which are hard-wired, hopefully, into our society over time. Our Government agencies do that. Some of the other examples would be the Character and Citizenship Education lessons in schools. Students are provided a safe space to understand the importance of racial and religious harmony in our multicultural society, and to develop an appreciation of different perspectives and sensitivities around racial and religious issues.
I should note Mr Yip's emphasis on the importance of community participation in building racial harmony. That is a view that is shared by many Singaporeans. In a poll conducted by MDDI, three in five respondents said that both the Government and the community hold equal responsibility to strengthen race relationships.
Ms Hazel Poa, Assoc Prof Razwana Begum, Mr Yip and other Members asked how we can ensure that the Restraining Orders for the Bill does not stifle race-related discussions and that the Restraining Orders are not used disproportionately. I think we can look at the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act for reference. We have had similar powers for over 30 years, and the powers have never been used. That gives you an indication of how the Government approaches these powers. The important thing is to have the powers, but also to be very, very careful and judicious in how you use them.
Second, there are safeguards in place on the use of the Restraining Order. The Restraining Orders can only be used by the Minister who has to be publicly accountable, including in this Parliament. And after the Restraining Order is issued, it has to be sent to the Presidential Council for Racial and Religious Harmony. A person subject to a Restraining Order may make representations to the Presidential Council for Racial and Religious Harmony, and that Council must make recommendations to the President whether to confirm, cancel or vary the order. Thereafter, the President must consider the recommendation by the Council, along with Cabinet's advice and he can cancel, confirm or vary the Restraining Order.
Here, the President must act in accordance with the Cabinet's advice. But if the Cabinet disagrees with the Presidential Council for Racial and Religious Harmony, then the President has discretion. So, that is an additional safeguard. And if the President does not confirm the Restraining Order within 30 days of receiving the Council's recommendation, the Restraining Order will cease to have effect.
Mr Neil Parekh, Dr Syed Harun, Ms Chandradas, Ms Poa and Mr Louis Ng asked about the thresholds for issuing Restraining Orders and the safeguards on the issuance of the Restraining Orders. Minister of State Sun Xueling's speech has covered most of these questions.
Restraining Orders are pre-emptive measures and they may be issued if we know that a person is likely to commit or is attempting to commit an act without having to go through a period of investigations and prosecution to establish the criminal conduct. Really, this is necessary in the current day in the context of social media. The reference point again is the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act. The powers are present. We have discourses on religious issues. Singapore is, I would say, a highly religious society, and if people say that is a subjective opinion, at least, we can say it is quite a religious society, a religious place, and the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act in place for 35 years has not had any curtailing effect on how it has been used. I will come back to this point again. The real point is that we must have the ability to act quickly, decisively, because trust and goodwill, an understanding between our communities, once damaged, can be difficult to restore.
Persons issued a Restraining Order will need to comply with it immediately. But as Minister of State Sun had mentioned, they may make representations within 14 days. The Restraining Order will then be subject to review by the Presidential Council, Cabinet and the President.
To Ms Poa's question, there is no change in the maximum duration for the Presidential Council to make its recommendation. The Bill has used 44 days, counting from the day the person is issued an Restraining Order, in contrast to the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act, which references the end period for making the representations. Extensions of Restraining Orders are also subject to the checks and balances that I had noted above. And Restraining Order cannot be varied when it is extended. If the Minister wishes to change the terms of an order, he will have to cancel the Restraining Order before issuing a fresh Restraining Order with the new terms. This will have to go through the usual review process, including confirmation by the President.
Ms Poa expressed concerns about the Minister extending an Restraining Order indefinitely to keep a journalist or editor out of their work. If that is done, it will be an abuse of power. It will be an abuse of power to extend the Restraining Order just to keep a person out of work. The extension of Restraining Orders are subject to the same review process and will be considered by the Presidential Council and the President, and if the Minister has no good explanation, he can be overruled; and such an act of extension can also be scrutinised in Parliament.
This is one of those situations. You need the power to deal with the threats to racial harmony. The threats are real. At the same time, the Government is voluntarily frame-working in some checks on their power. And I would say, as was the point made slightly earlier, the best evidence of how these powers are likely to be used is how the Government has used very similar powers under the Maintenance Religious Harmony Act. Since 1990, when the Bill became an Act, the Maintenance Religious Harmony Act, not one order has been issued under the Maintenance Religious Harmony Act, let alone any order being extended. But having the legal framework and the power mean that everyone understands, everyone is careful and that, coupled with the whole lot of other policies that I have talked about, has meant that we have not gotten into the problems that others have gotten into. I will give you an example of one case where we did not issue an Restraining Order, but having those powers was useful.
A preacher went on YouTube and talked about Buddhism and Taoism, and made some highly disparaging remarks, said that they are superstitious, and so on. An Restraining Order could have been issued. But that was not our first reaction. My Ministry officials had a chat with the preacher and said this is really not on. He understood, and he was very cooperative and withdrew his remarks, put out a new video. That is the way we do things in Singapore. No one needs to feel ashamed and we did not need to resort to issuing an order. If he had disagreed, we may have had to. But the fact that we had the power, I think helped. After that, others took reference from that. And overall, the balance has been maintained.
Mr Parekh also asked about the role of the Presidential Council for Racial and Religious Harmony under the Bill. It is an advisory body. Its role was explained by Ms Sun. It will not have powers to issue binding guidelines or rules. That is not its mandate. Mr Ng asked why do we have a combined council, instead of two different councils, one for race and one for religion? We are a small place. The number of people who are upstanding lay people, community leaders, religious leaders. Rather than having two, it seemed to us it made sense, race and religion, the issues sometimes overlap. In fact, quite frequently, they may overlap, and it is not always straightforward to disentangle the two. Have good people, have one composite council, makes much more sense. It is a question of judgement.
We thought that it was more effective, more efficient, helps better consultation and discussions. We had initially started off thinking that we may need two and after a lot of discussions we decided we will have one.
Prof Razwana Begum, as well as Mr Louis Ng and Ms Chandradas asked about further details on the composition of the council and its procedures. As Ms Sun has mentioned, appointments to the council must seek to ensure that its representatives from the major racial and religious communities in Singapore, and those who have distinguished themselves in public service or community relations in Singapore. The Presidential Council for Minority Rights will advise on the appointments to this Council and members of the arts community who fulfil these criteria can be appointed to the Council. I do not want to prejudge. I do not want to say members of this community, or such other community would be appointed, but there is no automatic veto against the community.
Clause 33(5) of the Bill, empowers the Council to invite any person to attend before the Council and to examine the person orally, and consider that in the context of its deliberations on a Restraining Order.
Beyond this, as the Presidential Council for Racial and Religious Harmony is intended to be an independent body, it will be allowed to regulate its own procedures within the framework of the law. Given the inherently sensitive nature of the Council's discussions and so as to provide a forum for its members to express themselves freely, the Bill provides for the proceedings of the Council to be private and secret, unless its public disclosure is expressly authorised by the Minister.
Ms Sylvia Lim expressed concerns about the role of the elected President under this Bill, in making decisions on matters related to race. I have touched on this very briefly earlier.
As I understand it, Ms Lim and the Workers' Party are not objecting to the Restraining Order regime, but what she does not agree with is the Presidential review of the Restraining Order. The Workers' Party's view is that the Parliament and the public checks on the Minister are adequate and there should not be an additional layer of checks through the Presidential Council and the President. This is ultimately a question of judgment.
The Government's view is that Parliament and the public are essential checks on the Minister's power, but that there is also considerable value in having an additional layer of check through the Presidential Council and the President and that it is appropriate for the President, who is directly elected by the people, to act as a check on this power that can be exercised by the Minister. This is similar to the model we have adopted in other legislation, like the Internal Security Act and Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act. Obviously, that does not prevent Parliament from asking questions of the Minister or holding him accountable.
So, in all of this, this is a question of judgment. Ultimately, whether the system works really depends on the integrity of the people involved – all the way – the Minister, the Council, the President, Parliament and everywhere. The Presidential Council for Racial and Religious Harmony, by bringing in senior leaders in the religious and lay community, can provide an additional rigour to the process. I can tell Members, because Ms Lim sort of alluded to it, we have certainly not put these provisions in, in the belief that the Presidential Council for Racial and Religious Harmony and the President will never disagree with the Minister. That will be an untenable supposition if that was a supposition. We are building frameworks and institutions which we hope will see Singapore through over a long period. This is all part of the institution building that has been going on over the last 60 years or so.
If I can now turn to some comments that Ms Hazel Poa made, I can see that she is concerned in parts and, again, I think, Ms Poa's comments arose from not realising what is current law is and that the key charging provisions are substantially the same. Section 298A of the Penal Code criminalises acts that knowingly promote or attempts to promote on grounds of race, disharmony, or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill will between different racial groups.
And Ms Poa will see, when she quoted in her speech from the Bill, and she said: while this Bill borrows the language found in the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act, the phrase and act that causes feelings of enmity, hatred, ill will or hostility between different races in Singapore. Members will see that that is pretty much what that is in section 298A today.
The point I made earlier in response to Mr Gerald Giam, section 298A has been enforced for the last 17 years and we know that it was, as far as I can tell, most Members of Parliament or all Members did not have any issues with it.
So, then the second point that Ms Poa made, that Singaporeans are concerned that the Government will use such powers to further restrict what Singaporeans can do or say. There is no further restriction. It is a restriction there is in the current law and that restriction is being ported over, in fact, with a slight narrowing. There are additional provisions, as I mentioned earlier, relating to the Restraining Orders, the CRI. Those are separate points. The charging provision, as it were, remains substantially the same.
On the specific examples that she has given on Mr Shaik Amar, I do not recall precisely what the facts were relating to Mr Shaik Amar. I know he said something about EIP and there was a POFMA Order issued. I do not believe he was charged and my recollection is I do not remember anything he said as crossing the criminal threshold. If he did not cross the criminal threshold then, he would not cross the criminal threshold now.
On \"Free Palestine Now!\", I do not believe that this was considered an offence at that time it was said and I also do not believe that clauses 39, 40 will be triggered now if it is put into an Act. It is not a call for violence. It is an expression of opinion. If you look at Israel-Hamas, which is another example in that context – \"Free Palestine Now\" – I have spoken about it. As for social media comments that are being posted and so on, it depends. Assessments have got to be made as to whether law is breached, but the basic point is the law remains essentially the same. And if the law is breached, whether it makes sense for it to be pursued and those are matters where AGC will have to come in to. \"From river to sea\" is another point that Ms Poa made. She asked if that would be an offence now and whether a Restraining Order can be issued. She did note that the Police said that it may have been an offence; the Police statement.
I want to be careful what I say about this, because the Police statement was clear. It is up to the Police to decide what they will do about a potential offence that has been disclosed, where they have gone out in public and said they think that there may be a potential offence. I do not want to go beyond that, but if they are able to investigate, they wish to investigate because they think there was an offence, after this Bill comes into law, if Parliament passes it, they will be able to do the same now.
Whether a Restraining Order should be issued, depends on clause 8 and whether clause 8 is triggered, and that, in turn, depends on the actual facts. And then the point about umbrellas with watermelons and wearing the Palestinian motif headgear, and so on, they were not offences per se under sections 298 or 298A. They would not be offences per se now and I would suggest, therefore, a careful understanding of the provisions. Otherwise, there is a serious risk that the public may be misled. This issue of umbrellas and cause-related gatherings, you got to differentiate between what this Bill does – clauses 39, 40, taken from 298 and 298A – with gathering in protected places or in being in breach of the Public Order Act.
If you gather in some places in front of Parliament, in front of Istana, gathered at protected places, then you may be committing an offence. Not because you are carrying an umbrella with some motifs or you are wearing a particular headgear, but because you are doing something in a protected place that the law prohibits you from doing. It does not mean that the underlying expression of your ideas about Palestine are in themselves an offence. No. So, again with Ms Poa, I would say I understand the concerns, but please read the provisions carefully.
Mr Yip Hon Weng, Assoc Prof Razwana Begum and Mr Louis Ng asked what measures are in place to address the root causes of racist conduct. How do we support victims of racism and whether there are plans to complement measures under the Bill to support this. I have explained that in quite considerable detail.
Mr Mark Lee, Mr Zhulkarnain, Mr Neil Parekh and Dr Syed Harun asked which entities would be designated under this Bill. Clause 15 of the Bill describes what a race-based entity is. The definition has been kept somewhat broad because of the nature of malicious foreign influence, which can exploit a wide range of entities to further their own agenda and undermine our racial harmony. But as Minister of State Sun Xueling has mentioned, we intend to designate entities. We will take a very practical and measured approach.
For a start, we only intend to designate clan and business associations that are linked to the Chinese, Malay and Indian races. No other entities will be designated for now, though we will not preclude designating them in the future, as the threat environment evolves.
On Mr Zhulkarnain's query about whistle-blowing channels. Members of public who come across any activity which they consider suspicious, or linked to foreign interference, can let the Internal Security Department know.
Mr Lee asked if there are avenues to appeal against the designations and if there would be flexibility in the leadership requirements imposed on designated entities. Designated entities will be given 14 days to submit representations to the competent authority after they have been notified of their intended designation. As part of their representations, the entity can explain why they think they should not be designated. The competent authority will take these representations into account when making the final decision on designation. The entities can appeal to be exempted from some of the requirements, including the leadership requirements and my Ministry will look at them and will be prepared to make exemptions on a case-by-case basis, if sufficient reason is given.
They can also apply, the entities, to the competent authority to have their designations cancelled instead of being varied if there is a material change in the circumstances that no longer warrants designation.
Mr Dennis Tan, Ms Sylvia Lim, Mr Yip Hon Weng, Mr Mark Lee, Mr Neil Parekh and Dr Syed Harun asked about the extent of foreign influence that exists in clan and business associations and if the foreign influence safeguards under the Bill would deter or act as a deterrence from individuals participating in race-based activities, would they stifle the activities? And there were some points made about the importance of Singaporeans and our associations and entities being able to interact with foreigners and foreign entities.
For a start, let me make this clear. We agree entirely that Singapore must remain open. We must be able to reach out to the world. In fact, we have to, for our success. If you look at one of the underlying themes of speeches by various government leaders over the last 60 years, it is about being open, interacting with the world. Economically, we will be finished if we do not interact. Socially, we are such a small place. We need to get ideas from outside and then we need to interact and adapt the ideas that work for us to our own situations. And likewise, geopolitically too. In every way, Singapore survives by relying on being nimble and that means understanding the world and moving ahead or trying to keep a step ahead of any others. That can only happen if you form international partnerships.
So, yes, I do not think there is any difference in viewpoints or disagreement that we need the world and we need to interact with the world and we need to form partnerships.
The real issue is, with the good comes sometimes the bad and clan associations, partnerships and so on can potentially be vectors of influence from countries that want to influence our politics in Singapore. Is there evidence? There are certainly some reasons to be concerned and you see evidence all over the world where there are such vectors of influence.
We had FICA which was passed in this Parliament where Members of Parliament were subjected to various requirements. It does not mean that all of you are today vectors of influence. All of you. All of us. We are not vectors of influence. But we see that countries use legislators, Members of Parliament, Ministers sometimes for pushing their own interests overseas and we are taking precautionary measures. Likewise, we have identified this sector and we are taking the precautionary measures. So, it is really finding the right balance between remaining open and protecting ourselves from malicious foreign influence and that is what the safeguards in the Maintenance of Racial Harmony Bill seek to do.
Sir, nothing in the Bill in itself is meant to suggest that foreign influence is in itself undesirable. And designation under this Bill as a race-based entity does not imply any wrongdoing. It simply means that the entities or the entity has engaged in activities that relate to race, which sometimes is its raison d'etre and we all recognise that these entities are important for Singapore and they play a very a constructive role. They help build social bonds, they preserve our traditions and cultures, they strengthen business networks amongst the many other good things they do.
But at the same time, the nature of their activities makes them more susceptible to foreign influence and that foreign influence is malicious then it can damage us so we need to take some precautions. So, under the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act, all religious groups are subject to such safeguards. But for this Bill, the Maintenance of Racial Harmony Bill, given that race-based entities are a more diverse group compared to religious groups, our approach has been to have the safeguards apply only to a subset of designated entities and we believe that is enough to meet our policy intent.
Designated entities can continue to engage their counterparts overseas including in the pursuit of cultural or commercial goals and, as I said, designation in itself does not impute that they are guilty of any misconduct.
Designated entities will be subject to transparency requirements. But there are no prohibitions or implications on their activities in the first instance and we have engaged many of these race-based entities. They understood and accepted the need for these safeguards to mitigate foreign influence risk.
Ultimately, our intent is to safeguard Singapore from malicious foreign influence, not to curtail any legitimate exchanges, business deals or trade promotion activities conducted by our clan or business associations.
Assoc Prof Razwana Begum, Mr Lee, Mr Tan and Mr Parekh asked what would be considered foreign donations and foreign affiliations under the Bill and how the Government would help entities to comply with the foreign influence safeguards. Clauses 13(5) and 14 of the Bill define \"foreign donation\" and \"foreign affiliation\". We are working out the reporting requirements. They will be prescribed in the Regulations.
But let me make it clear. There will be no prohibition on accepting these foreign donations or having these foreign affiliations in the first instance. No prior or subsequent approval is required from the Ministry to accept these donations or to continue with these affiliations. The entities would only have to declare them.
Similar to when such safeguards were introduced under the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act, my Ministry will provide an information kit in due course to guide designated entities in fulfilling the requirements and will provide reasonable time for the entities to adjust to these changes.
Mr Yip and Mr Zhulkarnain asked how the Bill interacts with FICA. FICA is designed to apply when the risk is specific or when the risk is quite high because of the political nature of the entity or the individual. Whereas this Bill is intended to cover broad categories of race-based entities that are assessed to be susceptible to malicious foreign influence.
In 2024, we designated two politically significant persons under FICA and issued account restriction directions to five social media platforms requiring them to block 95 social media accounts linked to a foreign network.
Mr Darryl David and Mr Yip asked about the effectiveness of the foreign influence safeguards. Look, the baseline safeguards that are in the Bill will not be able to completely eliminate the risk of foreign influence. Where we uncover specific risks or heightened risks, we will have to consider issuing Restraining Orders to impose additional measures against foreign influence or go to FICA and consider the levers under FICA to deal with the risks. It depends on the facts. It depends on the level of threat. That could include imposing additional restrictions on leadership, requiring all the office bearers to be Singapore Citizens if we are of the view that the designated entities have a higher risk of foreign influence. This is therefore the two-tier approach: baseline safeguards and then additional orders if there are higher risks, which is the two-tier approach suggested by Mr David.
Assoc Prof Razwana asked what mechanisms are in place to allow the Ministry to take down racially problematic materials that are hosted online domestically or internationally. That covers different legislation. There is the Broadcasting Act. There is Online Criminal Harms Act. Bearing in mind, we do not control the platforms and there is a limit to what we can do internationally, even within Singapore. But the Bill complements the levers available under these other legislation and we have some powers to deal with the content that seeks to undermine racial harmony in Singapore.
In addition to Restraining Orders that can be issued to take down such content, offences under the Bill are provided extra-territorial effect, So, that allows us to address persons in other jurisdictions who act in a manner prejudicial to racial harmony. But actual enforcement is a separate question.
Dr Syed Harun and Ms Chandradas asked if offences under the Bill will have an impact on the arts community and their work. Again, I go back to the point I made in response to Mr Giam and Ms Poa: if they have no concern today on what they are doing, then they should have no concerns about what they will be doing tomorrow or the day after the Bill becomes an Act and comes into force because the provisions are substantively similar.
Ms Chandradas asked about the defences under the Bill and when they will apply. If I can go back to the earlier point, again I would say in our speeches and in the points we make, we have to be careful not to frighten one community or another community as to what the Bill covers. I think an accurate understanding of the Bill, both within the Chamber and outside the Chamber, is necessary.
Of course, the Bill has new provisions: the Restraining Order, other levers beyond prosecution and the Presidential Council. Those are all additional measures; whereas previously, what we could do was either charge or not charge the person.
But in terms of what they can do, the two provisions – sections 298 and 298A – they are essentially carried over and there are two separate debates, whether that is too restrictive, which is the point Ms Chandradas alluded to briefly. That is a discussion for another day. But the question here is whether we can proceed with the Bill, which is in the terms that I have described.
Ms Chandradas asked about the defences under the Bill and when they will apply. The defences are scoped to provide space for honest and fair discussions about race. The defences will not apply for the offences of urging violence on the grounds of race, against racial group or its members and I do not think anyone here would suggest that we go that far.
I took some trouble in my opening speech to draw the distinction between the way we approach this and how many other countries approach it. When it crosses the line into hate speech or speech that advocates violence, we say no. In fact, regardless of which community, whether it is defined by race or defined by some other characteristic, we say \"No, you cannot advocate violence\". We have been very clear about it.
Mr Yip, Mr Zhulkarnain, Mr Parekh, Mr David, Assoc Prof Razwana, Mr Giam and Mr Vikram Nair asked for more details about the CRI. Their questions have mostly been addressed in my earlier speech, and I have also noted Mr Zhulkarnain and Mr David's suggestions for the programme.
To briefly recap, the programme is similar to the CRI in the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act. The current intent is for the CRI to apply to conduct that potentially discloses offences under the Bill, but where the actions are serious, like incitement of violence, then it is not the intention to offer CRIs. For those cases, the intention is to prosecute them. And the other point, because this relates to race, the CRI will not be compulsory; but failure to complete the CRI can be considered by the Public Prosecutor in exercising prosecutorial discretion whether to charge or not to charge. MHA will work closely with MCCY, OnePeople.SG and community partners on structuring, delivering and monitoring the outcomes of such programmes.
An example of a CRI could be requiring the alleged offender to go and make amends with the aggrieved community that he has in some way attacked and is in breach of the provisions. Perhaps, go and volunteer with the community. And if it is properly structured, it can actually lead to better outcomes than charging such a person and imposing a fine or sending him or her to jail. It could lead to a better understanding, better appreciation. Hopefully, both sides will go away feeling better about it.
But Mr David is right that the content of each programme offered would have to be customised to some extent, depending on the specifics of the case. And individuals with entrenched racist views, and there will be some, they cannot be forced to change their views or express genuine remorse.
That said, I think it is good that CRI is offered. It really gives the alleged offender an opportunity to learn the mistake of his actions, his racist conduct and help soothe communal tensions and repair the disrupted ties between the communities.
Mr Ng asked what programmes are available for individuals in prison for serious race-related offences, given that they may not be eligible for CRI. Well, inmates undergo various programmes. I have spoken about it in extenso previously, including psychology-based correctional programmes to help address their thinking patterns related to offending, correct their behaviours, help them to stay away from re-offending – and these all part of the Singapore Prison Services efforts to rehabilitate and re-integrate offenders and try and make them contributing members of society.
Before I conclude, Sir, I would like to address some of the other suggestions made by Members. Ms Joan Pereira and Assoc Prof Razwana asked how we can better integrate foreigners and new citizens into Singapore society. This is a large topic and it is outside the scope of this Bill. I will just make the point that the Government agrees that this should be a priority and the point has been addressed elsewhere.
Sir, racial harmony is more than an ideal. It is the very foundation upon which Singapore's success and identity are built. Singapore is an outlier when compared to other multiracial countries in the world. We are racially diverse, yet we live in harmony and in a high-density city-state. This is, as I said, not the natural state of things. It is sustained through a suite of policies, laws, programmes and, more fundamentally, by Singaporeans' shared commitment to racial harmony.
This Bill reflects our collective resolve to cherish and protect this harmony, so that future generations of Singaporeans will continue to enjoy peace and progress for years to come. Mr Speaker, Sir, I seek to move.
Mr Speaker: Before I ask Members for their clarifications, Leader, do you want to move the Exempted Business Motion?
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Exempted Business","subTitle":"Business Motion","sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Resolved, \"That the proceedings on the business set down on the Order Paper for today be exempted at this day's Sitting from the provisions of Standing Order No 2.\" – [Ms Indranee Rajah.] (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Maintenance of Racial Harmony Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: We will now have clarifications for the Minister. Ms Sylvia Lim.
Ms Sylvia Lim: Thank you, Speaker. I have two clarifications for the Minister. One is on my own speech and the second is a clarification on the Government's position.
First of all, earlier in the Minister's round-up, he quoted me saying, because I mentioned that the Government is accountable for decisions on Restraining Orders through Parliament and in that way, accountable to Singaporeans through this forum that these are adequate. Actually, the point I was making was that the Government is accountable to Singaporeans through Parliament whereas the Elected President (EP) is not. So, I was making that as a comparison in questioning the wisdom of making the EP the final arbiter of whether Restraining Orders are appropriate under the Bill. So, that is my clarification.
The second clarification I have is for the Minister. Again, it relates to the EP being designated as the final arbiter in such matters. He earlier mentioned that the Government never takes it for granted that the EP will agree with the Government. So, we have to imagine a situation where the EP will disagree because the Presidential Council has disagreed with the Minister and therefore, the EP is entitled to also take the point that he will not follow the Cabinet's decision and could cancel the Restraining Order issued by the Minister.
If that were to happen, does the Minister not agree that such a confrontation with the Government, by the EP, really detracts from his role? Of course, under the scheme, there are other decisions, if we look at the decisions that the EP has been emplaced with. Decisions like whether to allow drawdown of past Reserves, decisions like whether to concur with Public Service appointments. That already involves confrontation and we have always been very uncomfortable with this problem. But today, we are faced with an additional dimension and that is that you are envisaging that the EP may have to confront the Government on an issue about race, which goes to the fundamentals of every Singaporean's identity and to social cohesion as well.
So, is he not concerned that this scheme here will risk the EP being polarised along racial lines and it is actually really not a road we want to go down?
Mr K Shanmugam: Let me take the second point first. If I can summarise the point made by Ms Lim, where the EP disagrees with the Government or the Minister, he becomes the final arbiter, and such a confrontation detracts from the President's normal role. And that we have a number of places in the Constitution, situations where the President has such a role – Reserves, for example. But here, we are dealing with race and is that not a cause for concern?
Let us go to some fundamentals. What are those fundamentals? The Government is being given the power to issue Restraining Orders relating to race. The Minister issues the order. In other countries – first of all, I do not know of other countries which do this sort of thing – but the usual route is having the courts to have a judicial review. The courts sitting in there, dealing with, perhaps, a highly emotive issue and the matter being made a cause célèbre. In my experience, that usually makes things much worse.
We have taken a very different approach. For example, in the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act, we deliberately went down this route – that we will have Restraining Orders and then, have the final check through a Council and a President.
I do not know if the Workers' Party objected to the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act with those provisions. In the Internal Security Act, too, we have a similar provision.
If the President disagrees with the Minister, it is a matter of confrontation. It is not the most pleasant of things, but as I said, you have to design these laws with a view to build up institutions for the benefit of Singapore as a whole, predicting a time when most of us may not be around, how does it serve Singapore?
It is a curious reversal of roles, because I am here arguing for an extra layer of check on the Government, whereas Ms Lim is saying, why are we having this additional layer because it brings the President into the fray. I do not think so. Because if you have outstanding people in the Presidential Council and they are advising the President – senior community leaders and leaders of religious groups, together in their collective wisdom, they think that the Government's Restraining Order lacks substance and they advise the President. And the President himself is elected by the people and in that sense, he has a mandate, he is accountable to the people himself while the Minister continues to be accountable in Parliament and, of course, to the judgement of the public.
We take the view that if there is such a confrontation, then what it means is a group of outstanding people, the Presidential Council and a person who was directly elected by the people of Singapore, the President, takes a view which is different from the Minister. And we think that that should be given some value.
I think to suggest that that should be completely ignored, they should not be given that power – I can see where Ms Lim comes from. There are people who can argue that – that it should only be the Executive. But I think the balance here comes down in favour of having this additional check and letting the Minister understand that he has to have a care in how these powers are exercised.
You have power, you try and build in a framework that provides for careful and prudent exercise of that power, but all the time, also remembering that we are a small boat in an ocean and we do need power given to the Government, subject to suitable checks, to move fast and move quick. So, if you have too many checks and balances, nothing gets done. If you have no checks and balances, sometimes, you can go very wrong. So, we are trying to find a balance. That is the best answer I can give.
Her earlier point is a clarification of what she had earlier said. I understand the point and I think I do not need to repeat myself.
Mr Speaker: Mr Leong Mun Wai.
Mr Leong Mun Wai (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Speaker, I would like to clarify with the Minister on one point. This power that is given to the EP is actually not inside FICA, right? I am not a legal expert, but I want to clarify with the Minister on this point.
Mr K Shanmugam: I am not sure, Sir, what the clarification is. If the Member wants to ask me about FICA, I suggest he puts in a question to that effect.
Mr Speaker: Mr Leong.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Mr Speaker, we are now debating a little bit about the powers of the EP. So, I think it is a relevant question, Minister. What I want to know is, under FICA, the EP does not have the power to veto the Minister's decision, right?
Mr K Shanmugam: As a matter of fact, that is yes. There are a number of pieces of legislation where the EP does not have the power to veto the Minister's decision. That is so.
Mr Speaker: Mr Leong.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Mr Speaker, Sir, I remember when we were debating FICA some years ago, I asked the Minister this question specifically – whether the President has to act according to the recommendation of the Cabinet. And the Minister's reply at that time was yes, the President has to act according to the recommendation of the Cabinet.
In that case, under FICA, the President does not have the power to independently veto the decision of the Cabinet or the Minister. Is that right?
Mr K Shanmugam: I thought I made that clear. The EP has no discretion under FICA. He has got to act on the advice of the Cabinet.
Mr Speaker: Ms Hazel Poa.
Ms Hazel Poa: The Minister has said that the provisions in the new Bill is largely similar to current provisions, but I think there is a big difference in clause 8. Most of my clarifications were with respect to the Restraining Order, which is in clause 8. The main difference is that under current law, decisions are made by the Court on whether it is criminal, but in clause 8, the decision is made by the Minister.
Is the Minister saying that the Minister, in making a decision under clause 8, will be using largely the same procedure as the judges? Because when the Courts make the decision, they are usually bound by legal precedence and there is quite a lot of research involved and it takes time.
Since the purpose of clause 8 is for speed, I do not see how that can be possible. That is why we are trying to find out what is this alternative system that the Minister will be using to make his decision.
Mr K Shanmugam: Thank you, Sir. Let me try and explain this. Today, we have sections 298 and 298A. The process is as follows. An offence is potentially disclosed. Police investigate. AGC comes in – that is, if it is believed that an offence has been committed. You have to charge the person and you have to prove the case in Court. So, it is very binary. Either you charge or you do not charge.
The Bill, in terms of the offences, clauses 39 and 40, take that approach. So, it ports over sections 298 and 298A, and I made that clear. And that responds to a number of questions Ms Poa had asked about whether something will or will not be an offence. For example, Mr Shaik Amar's words, I think, she asked if they would be an offence today.
Let me be more accurate by looking at what exactly she said. There was, for example, \"from the river to the sea\", and I quote, \"can lead to racial tensions and maybe an offence under section 298A of the Penal Code. Would individuals who use such phrases, such as \"from river to sea, Palestinians will be free\" online or offline, now we subject to a Restraining Order under this Bill or be prosecuted under clause 40 of the Bill?\" Then, she asked about those who use umbrellas painted with watermelon: \"Would individuals committing such acts be subject to a Restraining Order or prosecuted under clause 40 of the Bill?\"
And my point generally was that, if it was an offence previously, it is an offence now. If it was not an offence previously, it would not be an offence now. I also distinguished between, for example, you carry umbrellas with watermelon motifs or the Palestinian headgear motif, there might be a misunderstanding. If you do that in front of the Istana or if you come to Parliament and do it, or in some other restricted place like the State Courts, you are not being charged because of carrying around a watermelon motif, but because you are breaching the protected places Act. Some places are gazetted, a certain conduct is prohibited and whether or not you are carrying a watermelon motif umbrella, you will be charged if you are engaged in activities that are prohibited. But you are not being charged for breaching sections 298 or 298A.
But if you engage in conduct, for example, \"from the river to the sea\", you can see the Police statement. Police statement was that it was potentially an offence. And I said if it was an offence then, it may be an offence now. I did not want to go beyond that because Police have issued a statement.
Beyond being a Bill that consolidates provisions, there are parts which are added. In fact, there are five aspects to this Bill, one of which is the porting over. There are four other aspects, one of which is the Restraining Order under clause 8. But if you look at the provisions of clause 8, the essentials that need to be satisfied, they are similar to the requirements of sections 298, 298A, except that the decision is made by the Minister. It is an executive decision. It is not a decision by the Courts. So, that is an add-on to the underlying provisions, and the Minister has to be satisfied. And the earlier discussion with Ms Lim related to the Minister's decision whether it should be final, subject only to scrutiny by Parliament or it should be subject to the safeguards of a veto by the President, if Cabinet takes one view and the Presidential Council takes a different view. So, we have that.
I do not see that that adds an additional layer of substantially restricting free speech or speech on these issues, because the underlying factors that need to be satisfied are similar to what is required under sections 298 and 298A, albeit the decision is made by the Minister. I hope I have clarified.
Mr Speaker: Ms Hazel Poa.
Ms Hazel Poa: I do understand the Minister's explanation with regard to clause 39 and clause 40. My main query is on clause 8 – basically, how the Minister makes his decision. As he has pointed out, and this is the Minister making the decision instead of the Courts, the Courts have their own system in the decision-making. So, what I am trying to establish is what is the system that the Minister will be using? What sort of criteria? And will they be bound by legal precedence?
Mr K Shanmugam: Sir, in the usual way, when there is a potential event which attracts clause 8, bearing in mind this is not in place yet and bearing in mind we have never had to do this under the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act, but there would be a careful assessment made by the Ministry and obviously, the Ministry's lawyers would be involved; and almost certainly, there would be advice taken from the Government's legal officers. And then, the Minister will make a decision. But it will have to be a process that is swift and fast because of the nature of social media. But at the same time, Members will note that there are procedures for appeals and for the appeals to be dealt with. And ultimately, I have talked about the routes for challenging the Minister's decision.
Mr Speaker: Mr Leong Mun Wai.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Just one last question to the Minister. So, why does the Minister see fit to give the President the veto power under the Maintenance of Racial Harmony Act, but not under FICA?
Mr K Shanmugam: Sir, we spent some considerable time dealing with FICA. Members may recall that FICA would require the Government to act often on intelligence, on foreign influence. And often that information is not something that we can share with third parties.
Let me give you an example. If you look at FICA foreign influence countermeasures, we talked about different aspects. But let us take something that has happened internationally. Country A gives some money to a politician in Country B. You have seen enough newspaper reports. They do it covertly and they do it for the purpose of influencing the parliamentarians, journalists and others in such situations. I think I am on record as saying that many countries do it. Let us not target just one country or another. Many countries do it.
And there is record of us having been victims and there are other situations where we know that attempts have been made a number of times. Usually, it is subversive. Usually, it is covert. And usually, it is tracked through intelligence, either intelligence by ourselves or sometimes through intelligence exchange with others too.
It would be a serious prejudice to national interest if we were to go out and disclose to anyone beyond a very small group of intelligence officers the nature of this information. The idea that we can have something similar to a Presidential Council, comprising 15 to 20 people who will have access to the most classified of information, which potentially destroys our sources of information, sources of intelligence, in order to counter such influence – I cannot even begin to imagine or think that we will be doing that. So, there, it has to be kept to a very small group intentionally because of national interest.
In the context of someone talking about race, there is nothing particularly related to intelligence because it is public. The person has said what he has said and now, it is a question of assessment as to whether something ought to be done about it. And I did not see any particular issue with taking it through this route and having someone potentially review a decision that I or someone else in my position might make.
Mr Speaker: Ms Usha Chandradas.
Ms Usha Chandradas: I thank the Minister for his reply. I just have one clarification. Could the Minister address my question on how the defence at clause 40(6) will be interpreted? Is it something that is meant to be interpreted narrowly or will it be considered broadly with regard to the full context of the situation at hand that is being examined? So, specifically, if we have an artwork here that is the subject of consideration, will we consider things like the artist's intention as well as the work that is the subject of the consideration?
Mr K Shanmugam: Can I trouble Ms Chandradas to tell me which clause she was referring to?
Ms Usha Chandradas: Clause 40(6).
Mr K Shanmugam: Clause 46, it is about the composition of offences by the competent authority? If I got the right one.
Ms Usha Chandradas: Clause 40(6), my apologies, where we have to look at the matters of good faith.
Mr K Shanmugam: Yes, look, I mean, it goes back to the factors that make up the offence. We look at the issues of feelings of enmity, hatred, ill will, hostility, contempt, ridicule for any race, insult, vilify, denigrate. And then, we are seeking to give a defence in this case. Unlike some other situations, here, we are actually trying to put in a defence that if the person can show and he is not required to prove it beyond reasonable doubt, but on a balance of probabilities, that his conduct, even though the conduct would be causing these effects, he acted in good faith and he actually tried to remove whatever he had done or said. That can be taken into account in considering the totality of the situation.
It is fairly straightforward. Is there any particular concern about the way it is structured?
Ms Usha Chandradas: I think, if the Minister will recall, I referred to the example of an artist. The example that I talked about was the artist, Lee Wen, in his performance and his works, \"The Journey of the Yellow Man\". So, with this work, he is basically addressing racial stereotypes and it is with a view to prompting audiences to think about the issues.
So, if we actually look at the work, I do not think we can see a clear message there to bring about a removal of the matters that he is addressing. But if you consider the artist's intention in the work that he is producing, you will see that perhaps a different conclusion could be reached.
Mr K Shanmugam: The intention is relevant to, first of all, whether an offence has, in fact, been committed. I do not know this particular work, so I do not want to comment without knowing the details. But if you frame it as his intention, in the first place, was to educate and not to bring about enmity and ill will, and if that is believed, one has got to look at the nature of the work, what a reasonable person would think, what was his own intention in doing it; and there are a range of possibilities. One is to say, yes, it is offensive, but we think that this was the reason why he did it, and maybe, we give him a warning to not do it again. Or accept in good faith that actually, this might help in the overall maintenance of racial harmony because of the nature of the work.
Without knowing in detail what the artist has done, I am loathe to go further. But the intention behind section 40(6) was actually to try and add in additional defences to support people who might have made comments in a certain context, but then, in good faith, try and undo the damage.
Mr Speaker: I do not see any more hands raised.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr K Shanmugam]. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Minister of State for Home Affairs (Ms Sun Xueling) (for the Minister for Home Affairs): Mr Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for Home Affairs, I move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\"
The Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment) Bill is linked to the previous Bill on the Maintenance of Racial Harmony Bill. In the Second Reading speeches for that Bill and the debate we just had, the Minister for Home Affairs and I have explained the main amendments proposed in both Bills.
Although Members have already raised their questions and expressed their views on both Bills during the earlier debate, I welcome Members to raise any additional questions they may have on the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment) Bill. Mr Speaker, I seek to move.
Mr Speaker: Are there any clarifications for Minister or Minister of State? I see none.
The Question is, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\"
Pursuant to Article 5(2) of the Constitution, a vote is taken to ascertain that the Second Reading of the Bill is supported by the votes of not less than two-thirds of the total number of Elected and Non-Constituency Members of Parliament, which is 60 Members.
Clerk, ring the division bells.
[(proc text) After two minutes – (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Serjeant‐at‐Arms, lock the doors.
Before I proceed to start the electronic voting, may I remind Members that they are to be seated at their designated seats and that they should only vote when the voting buttons on their arm rest start to blink.
[(proc text) Question put, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\" (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Take a vote. You may now begin to vote. May I remind Members to depress their vote buttons firmly, in order to register their vote in the system. Members are advised to check that their names are registered according to their vote indication when the voting results are shown on the display screens.
Before I proceed to declare the results of the vote, are there any Members who wish to claim that his or her vote has not been displayed or displayed incorrectly on the screens?
Mr Speaker: I will proceed to declare the voting results now. There are 78 \"Ayes\"; seven \"Noes\"; zero \"Abstentions\". The Second Reading of the Bill has been carried by the votes of not less than two-thirds of the total number of Elected and Non-Constituency Members of Parliament.
[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Ms Sun Xueling]. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment. (proc text)]
Third Reading
Mr Speaker: Third Reading, what day?
Ms Sun Xueling: Now, Sir, I move, \"That the Bill be now read a Third time.\"
Mr Speaker: The Question is, \"That the Bill be now read a Third time.\"
Pursuant to Article 5(2) of the Constitution, a vote is taken to ascertain that the Third Reading of the Bill is supported by the votes of not less than two-thirds of the total number of Elected and Non-Constituency Members of Parliament, which is 60 Members.
Clerk, ring the division bells.
[(proc text) After one minute – (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Serjeant-at-Arms, lock the doors.
Before I proceed to start the electronic voting, may I remind Members that they are to be seated at their designated seats and should only vote when the voting buttons on their arm rest start to blink.
[(proc text) Question put, \"That the Bill be now read a Third time.\" (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Take a vote. You may now begin to vote. Again, I remind Members to depress their vote buttons firmly in order to register their vote in the system. Members are advised to check that their names are registered according to their vote indication when the voting results are shown on the display screens.
Before I proceed to declare the results of the vote, are there any Members who wish to claim that his or her vote has not been displayed or has been displayed incorrectly on the screens? I do not see any.
Mr Speaker: I will proceed to declare the voting results now. There are 78 \"Ayes\"; 7 \"Noes\"; and zero \"Abstentions\". The Third Reading of the Bill has been carried by the votes of not less than two-thirds of the total number of Elected and Non-Constituency Members of Parliament.
[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Subscription to the International Development Association","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Second Minister for Finance.
The Second Minister for Finance (Ms Indranee Rajah): Mr Speaker, I move, \"That this Parliament, in accordance with section 4(3) of the International Development Association Act 2002, resolves that an additional subscription of Singapore to the International Development Association, of a sum not exceeding US$87,000,000, be authorised for the purpose of the 21st Replenishment of the International Development Association.\"
Mr Speaker, the International Development Association (IDA) is the arm of the World Bank Group that offers concessional loans and grants to its least developed member countries. This includes some Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) countries, like Lao PDR and Cambodia.
IDA financing promotes economic and social development and poverty reduction for eligible countries, as well as support for tackling pressing global challenges. IDA was started in 1960 and is replenished every three years or so. Singapore has been contributing to IDA replenishments since 2002.
The 21st IDA Replenishment (IDA21), which covers the period from July 2025 to June 2028, occurs against the backdrop of a difficult global environment, compounded by increasingly frequent extreme weather events and health emergencies.
While no country has been spared, the effects have been felt much more greatly by the most vulnerable, especially the 78 IDA-eligible low-income countries. Many have yet to even recover from the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. According to the World Bank Group, the COVID-19 pandemic erased three years of progress in reducing the extreme poverty rate in IDA countries. About 651 million people in IDA countries faced food insecurity in 2023, nearly double the number in 2019.
In December 2024, IDA donors agreed to expand the IDA21 replenishment envelope to US$100 billion – a historical high. Apart from domestic development, IDA21 will also enable beneficiaries to address common challenges in areas like health and the environment. Specifically, 45% of the IDA21 commitments will be channelled towards climate mitigation and adaptation efforts. IDA21 will also support improvements to crisis-readiness for health emergencies as well as pandemic preparedness, prevention and response.
These have positive spin-offs for the international community as a whole. Hence, as a responsible member, Singapore should continue to do our part by supporting the IDA21 replenishment.
The World Bank Group has a good track record as an effective development partner. And Singapore has benefited from its loans and technical expertise during our early years. These had helped us to develop some key infrastructure, including our water supply, sewage, port, power and telecommunication systems. The Bank also supported the expansion of the then-Development Bank of Singapore and the National University of Singapore. As such, it is right that we also support others who are seeking to develop; and pay special attention to the most vulnerable.
IDA's hybrid financing model also has an in-built multiplier of about four. This means that for every dollar contributed by Singapore or any other donor, IDA is able to mobilise around $4 in financial support for IDA-eligible countries. For this Motion, we are proposing that Singapore make a subscription of no more than US$87 million to IDA for the purpose of IDA21. This represents about a 24% increase in absolute terms from our IDA20 subscription; or a corresponding 10% increase in our burden share. Mr Speaker, Sir, I move this Motion.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Are there any clarifications for the Minister? I see none.
[(proc text) Question, put and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Resolved, \"That this Parliament, in accordance with section 4(3) of the International Development Association Act 2002, resolves that an additional subscription of Singapore to the International Development Association, of a sum not exceeding US$87,000,000, be authorised for the purpose of the 21st Replenishment of the International Development Association.\" – [Ms Indranee Rajah] (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"A Whole-of-society Approach Towards Addressing Discrimination","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"The Deputy Leader of the House (Mr Zaqy Mohamad): Mr Speaker, Sir, on behalf of the Leader, I beg to move, \"That Parliament do now adjourn.\"
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Dr Syed Harun, when you are ready.
A Whole-of-society Approach Towards Addressing Discrimination
Dr Syed Harun Alhabsyi (Nominated Member): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Apologies for the delay. After a full day of discussing racial harmony and social cohesion, I think this Adjournment Motion topic on addressing discrimination does appear to parallel much of what we deliberated and segue quite nicely to the end of the Parliamentary day.
Mr Speaker, when we speak of discrimination, it can stir unease and discomfort. It can be confronting to our own biases, shine light on our unconscious prejudices and it tends to be a topic that needs to be tread sensitively at times. Amidst the diversity of our own backgrounds, ethnicities, cultures, upbringing and life experiences, all of us have blind spots and shortcomings relative to the view of others around us.
On that basis, all of us also consider different positions because we are indeed varied and diverse ourselves. Sometimes, we converge in our viewpoints. At other times, we may disagree and vehemently so. However, we must continue to be active in reaching out to the others, especially if they are different, take effort to know them well and make a genuine attempt to build trust amidst our differences.
Pandering to reductionist stereotypes, painting a group or community with a broad brush and dismissing negative experiences as an exception rather than a lived reality, can funnel us towards a worldview that is unjust, prejudicial and ignorant. We must protect our society against discrimination if we want to continue to be a society that is cohesive and one of high trust.
Last month, we debated in this House on the Workplace Fairness Bill where we legislated against discrimination at the workplace through 11 protected characteristics. This is a step in the right direction, but the debate over the Bill also brought up a few key points.
Firstly, the work towards addressing discrimination cannot possibly be said to start and end only at the workplace. Often, the root of any discriminatory view would have been seeded much earlier in a person. It arises from a broad-based societal view that informs how we see our neighbours, our classmates, our colleagues and people who are different from us.
Secondly, characteristics of potential discrimination are not necessarily exhaustive to the 11 that are listed in the Bill. Though the characteristics are already broadly scoped and covers most groups, it is more important that we, as a society, develop a genuine willingness to appreciate diversity of individuals in our midst and possess a readiness to see them for their strengths, rather than focus on the differences along the lines of the said characteristics.
And thirdly, not all decisions that go against a particular individual or a group are a function of discrimination and injustice. In the context of the workplace, it is necessarily a competitive hiring process and employers have to take a view that considers their business needs as well. Protected characteristics aside, really, the spirit of such decisions must be underpinned by fairness and transparency in the hiring process, benchmarked against ability and value proposition of the prospective employee.
Similarly, in any society, especially one as diverse and multicultural as ours, I think it is important to acknowledge in this Adjournment Motion that not all decisions will always be in one's favour and where they are not, they are not necessarily a function of discrimination, per se.
How then do we stem discrimination more effectively? In fact, we do want to celebrate our differences; our respective traditions, our heritage and cultures; they mean a lot to us. We also want to harmonise our rich diversity and we want to draw collective strength from all backgrounds, perspectives and ideas.
With these differences, however, there will be some tension and propensity to recognise that we are not the same, that we, too, are filled with our own biases and sometimes, prejudice can rear its ugly head. Certainly, discrimination is not something we can sweep under the carpet nor pretend that it is not there. As a society, I think we do reasonably in balancing this, compared to many other parts of the world that is filled with much polarity and prejudice today.
It remains a work in progress and something we certainly cannot take for granted or leave to chance. I offer five ways for us to consider in addressing discrimination as part of our forward-looking aspiration as a young nation that espouses justice and equality as deep rooted values in our national pledge, no less.
First, it is important that our work against discrimination starts young and in our schools.
Our efforts to expose our young to the varied life experiences of others, whether they be of individuals with disability or special needs, of different races, religions and cultures, or of different age groups and caregiving roles must start in school.
I now wish that when I was in school, I had met someone like my learned and hon friend, and fellow Nominated Member of Parliament, Mr Ong Hua Han, earlier. Not at a cursory hi-bye level, but really to get past any initial awkwardness and have a meaningful conversation and friendship at depth, to learn more about his view of the world from the chair that he sits and appreciate better the genuine struggles that I may have taken for granted.
My view is that if more of our students have the opportunity for such exchanges with people who are different from their own lived experiences, their ability to challenge their own stereotypes will change more easily and society will be better for it in time. Among others, this could be related to disability, mental health, racial or religious identity, language, nationality or different socio-economic status.
On this note, I also wonder if there is scope to improve the opportunity for growth and leadership for minorities and the disabled in our schools. How many head prefects have there been in our schools where it came from someone who was a minority or disabled? Can one imagine a student in a wheelchair, notwithstanding his or her physical limitations, but with an inspiring leadership ability to also be the class chairman?
If there was a younger version of Singapore's most decorated Paralympian and former Nominated Member of Parliament, Ms Yip Pin Xiu, could or would she be considered as her school's swim captain or part of the leadership committee of her co-curricular activity?
Second, we can and must do better in telling more stories of success and challenge more robustly discriminatory narratives. We must empower minorities and marginalised groups through mentorship and guide them to seize readily available opportunities. We should make attempt to amplify their success stories to challenge any negative stereotypes that present a false view of their actual potential and ability.
This is because role models are powerful and important to inspire others and to open up pathways to help people believe that they too can do it. When one starts from a position of being discriminated against and representation from that particular group is limited at the onset, the tide can only turn when we facilitate examples of success and affirm our stand as a society, through lived examples and stories, that discrimination is not okay.
In this regard, it does two things.
First, it gives an example and confidence to those at the margins and from minorities that they too can succeed. Whether we would like to admit it or not, what discrimination does is that, over time, it suppresses and pigeonholes groups to a diminished role rather than allow them to flourish and fulfil their real and true potential.
Stories can be powerful in breaking that mindset, especially among those who hesitate not for their lack of ability, but for a lack of self-esteem and confidence in themselves.
Second, when we tell enough of such stories of success, it reminds the remaining majority to confront any long-held discriminatory biases that do not hold true. For example, in the area of disabilities, when we hear of the incredible stories and achievements of those awarded the Goh Chok Tong Enable Awards over the years, one cannot help but be inspired by what these individuals have achieved in spite of their life challenges. Among the prior recipients are an architect with projects not just in Singapore but in China, India and the Middle East, a chef at a Michelin star restaurant and a banker, all of whom struggle with some form of disability but have achieved much the same, if not more, than many of us.
Third, we should strive for more common spaces that allow broad-based interactions and reduce opportunity for marginalisation of any particular group. Could we encourage more sports and common activities where disability matters less or does not matter at all to the outcome of the activity? If I had a go at e-sports or a game of chess with my hon friend, we would see ourselves as equal in the game. In fact, I may not stand a chance.
It is the case that for sports, specifically, the Paralympics, as a movement, has been an enabler for inclusivity and participation for those with specific impairments. However, I think we could do more to promote activities where everyone has an equal and good chance at enjoying and succeeding in that activity without concern of a handicap or a differential ability. It gives us room and space to also have conversations and experience one another as equals. This is something I think we can do better to explore.
Additionally, for traditional and cultural-based events, the practical and honest truth is that, more often than not, it is championed by participants of the same ethnic or cultural community. By an overwhelming majority, it is likely that in activities, such as the Chinese Orchestra, Silat, Sepak Takraw or Indian dance, it is participated by specific groups of individuals.
So, could we encourage more cross-cultural participation in our schools or community activities and challenge the urge to silo these activities within a narrow band of participation? Is there any way to better foster diversity in participation and encourage a wider inclusion for such activities?
Fourth, beyond the workplace, it is important that we strengthen efforts to address any gaps in our legislature and policies.
In the last Sitting, we discussed workplace fairness; and in this Parliamentary Sitting, we also discuss issues related to racial harmony and how we will not allow nor tolerate discriminatory behaviours or actions of hatred and ill will on the basis of race, to take root in our society. We also have parallel laws for religious harmony today.
Beyond the law, perhaps, it would be helpful to also look at other sectoral practices with potential smirks of discriminatory practice as well.
For example, how can we better improve the state of insurance policies for individuals who are disabled or inflicted with mental health conditions? In relation to refusal, loading and exclusionary criteria for insurance plans, are individuals with specific disability and mental health conditions assessed fairly or are there instances where decisions are taken too conservatively such that insurance coverage is unfairly onerous or even impossible?
It needs to be the case that if we are serious about eroding discriminatory practices, we should continue to review and be ever circumspect about our legislative positions and policy frameworks to encourage systemic parity and fair access, especially for marginalised groups.
My fifth and final point, Mr Speaker, is a call for the Government, being the largest employer in Singapore today and one that permeates influence in a variety of sectors relating to society, to take the lead in challenging discriminatory narratives and for itself to shape positive ones proactively, simply because it has the remit, scale and opportunity to do so.
It has been the case that the Government has been forthcoming towards greater representation of minority communities and marginalised groups, but I think we can do more. I am sure the examples I share will require more study but in the spirit of wanting to aspire to remove discrimination entirely, I think the examples that follow are worth some thought.
First, imagine how the worldview of a young student can be shaped and informed, for the better, in my opinion, if inclusive hiring practices and accessibility support is available in our schools such that it allows even for a wheelchair-bound principal or teacher to educate comfortably in our classrooms? Or how stereotypes are challenged when a teacher from a minority community teaches the second language of the majority in Mandarin, or vice versa?
Second, if we consider that the Government has shifted to be more inclusive now in all of its functions, could it potentially mean that National Service, as an example, would be possible for a male amputee or one with a disability but who is otherwise well, functional and able to serve the country in a non-combat role?
I would venture that this is not a far-fetched idea where remote technology, cybersecurity and digital systems form a strong part of our defence and security strategy, and not all tasks require the full extent of physical ability. If this were possible, would that not signal to others about our seriousness to be a cohesive and inclusive society and how important the institution of National Service is for us as a symbol of universality and collective unity as a people?
Third and finally, it bears considering how widely representative and diverse the leadership at all levels of our Public Service is today. Is there a lack of representation in certain sectors and can we do better? If there is a lack, I think it is important to study this and to find ways on how we can encourage more broad-based participation from minorities or groups at the margins so that there is access to a diversity of views for decisions taken in Public Service. When hiring and representation is broad-based and inclusive, then there is also opportunity for greater diversity in leadership to emerge from the Public Service. Ultimately, this benefits Singapore as a whole.
In conclusion, Mr Speaker, we are not immune to bias and prejudice. We are products of different experiences and surely, we want to be able to celebrate our own unique identities and cultural backgrounds. However, it should not be that we ever allow ourselves to divide as a result of that difference. We should not allow our blind spots and stereotypes to propagate discriminatory practices due to our ignorance of the other.
We may prefer sameness and familiarity in our comfort zones, but we must also recognise that there is strength in diversity and a richness to that.
Most paintings, Mr Speaker, are beautiful because there is much diversity and a celebration in the conglomerate of colours that make up the painting. Even in monochrome colours, a skilled artist plays with a variety of tones and textures. It takes skill, a lot of work and training to flow and blend the different parts of a painting to achieve the beautiful end result.
If paintings were all made with a very broad stroke of one colour, little tone and no texture, and we make a harsh assumption that all other forms did not, could not or must not fit into the painting, we allow discrimination to take hold and prevent us from adding colour to our lives and from making it more beautiful and enriching for ourselves and for the people around us.
I urge all Members of the House to consider how we form our biases today and where our blind spots could be in hope that we could work together towards eradicating all manner of discrimination, whether they be in the corridors of our Housing and Development Board flats and our homes, at work in our offices, among students in our classrooms or just in our everyday conversations. [Applause.]
Mr Speaker: Senior Parliamentary Secretary Eric Chua.
The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth and Minister for Social and Family Development (Mr Eric Chua): Mr Speaker, I thank Dr Syed Harun for affirming the importance of fostering an inclusive community. This Government is committed to working with partners to combat discrimination and to build an inclusive society.
Our approach is anchored on three pillars: first, legislative safeguards to combat discrimination; second, policies that foster social integration and protect the interests of minorities; and third, enlarging our common spaces.
First, our legal framework. It is underpinned by the principle of non-discrimination. Our Constitution provides that all persons are equal before the law and entitled to equal protection of the law.
We have a strong legal framework, including the Penal Code and the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act, to deter any attempts at undermining our racial and religious harmony. We have laws that foster an inclusive society for minority groups, such as persons with disabilities. For instance, we amended the Compulsory Education Act in 2016 to ensure that students with disabilities, including those with moderate to severe special educational needs, have access to education. We recently strengthened our legal framework to prevent discrimination in the workplace with the passing of the Workplace Fairness Bill.
Second, we implement policies that foster social integration and protect the interests of minorities. One example is our Ethnic Integration Policy in public housing estates, which ensures a balanced mix of residents from different ethnic groups.
Through our schools, we build a shared Singapore identity from an early age, yet preserving our diverse cultural heritage. Regardless of race, language or religion, we sing our national anthem, recite our national pledge and study the national curriculum. We all learn English so that we can have a common lingua franca and learn our mother tongue to preserve each ethnic group's cultural heritage.
There are also dedicated efforts to improve the inclusion of persons with disabilities and persons with mental health conditions.
The Enabling Masterplan 2030 is our national roadmap to build a more inclusive society for persons with disabilities. And the National Mental Health and Well-being Strategy launched two years ago in 2023 promotes mental health and well-being in our families, communities and workplaces.
Dr Syed Harun had mentioned insurance as a specific area where persons with disabilities and persons with mental health conditions face challenges. Regardless of pre-existing conditions or disabilities, we ensure that all Singaporeans have universal basic health insurance coverage under MediShield Life and younger Singaporeans also have long-term care insurance under CareShield Life.
The Monetary Authority of Singapore also updated its Guidelines on Fair Dealing last year. Insurers must assess every application, including from persons with disabilities and persons with mental health conditions, based on reliable information and data that is relevant to the risks being insured.
Third, we are committed to enlarging the common spaces in which all Singaporeans live, work and play.
In schools, we nurture values such as empathy and respect in a diverse student population that learns, plays and grows up together. The importance of racial and religious harmony, awareness about disabilities and mental health conditions, are taught in Social Studies, and Character and Citizenship Education curricula, as well as school activities and programmes.
All schools organise learning journeys to cultural and heritage sites, celebrate cultural festivals to help students to hone racial and religious sensitivities. Schools also promote a culture where students are sensitive to the needs of others, including peers with special educational needs (SEN) or disabilities. For instance, schools have peer support networks to support students with SEN, and by 2028 all schools will conduct at least one disability sports-related programme.
The Ministry of Education and Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth also ensure that leadership opportunities within and outside schools are open to our youth who show potential, regardless of their background.
At the workplace, beyond the Workplace Fairness Legislation and the Tripartite Guidelines on Fair Employment Practices, we will press on with education efforts to grow the mindset – that everyone benefits from a fairer and more inclusive workplace.
The Public Service does not tolerate any form of workplace discrimination and harassment. Public agencies have also adopted the Tripartite Standards for Flexible Work Arrangements to provide flexibility for officers, including those with disabilities or additional caregiving responsibilities. Eight public agencies have achieved the Enabling Mark certification for disability-inclusive hiring, including VITAL as well as the National Library Board which have achieved the highest tier, the Enabling Mark Platinum.
The Public Service values a diversity of perspectives, experiences and capabilities in its leadership teams and commits to reaching out to a diverse range of candidates.
In our communities, there are Racial and Religious Harmony Circles in every constituency. They bring leaders from different ethnic and religious communities together to organise activities for Singaporeans.
We also have dedicated efforts to raise awareness and encourage inclusion. SG Enable’s i’mable movement seeks to raise disability awareness through efforts, such as the \"UnAwkward\" campaign. SG Enable is also piloting the Enabling Services Hubs to build inclusive communities where persons with disabilities and their caregivers can be an integral part of the communities in which they live.
“Beyond the Label” is the National Council of Social Service's public education campaign that seeks to normalise conversations around mental health and promote social inclusion for persons with mental health conditions. They also partner the community through the Well-Being Circles under the SG Mental Well-Being Network.
And finally, we harness the power of sports and the arts to bring people together. In sport, we are building up a network of world-class sporting infrastructure. We have also created diverse and inclusive sports programmes for different groups of Singaporeans to pursue their sporting interests.
Last year, we announced 10 strategic moves under the Disability Sports Master Plan 2024, to engage, enrich and further empower persons with disabilities through sports.
In the arts, we are expanding arts accessibility and inclusivity to bring people of different backgrounds and abilities together. Last year, the National Arts Council and People’s Association launched ArtsEverywhere@CDC programme to bring the arts closer to the heartlands.
Our cultural institutions, like museums provide inclusive spaces and programming for all. I visited the Punggol Regional Library a while ago and I am sure it is a fine example of a truly inclusive space that embraces visitors of all abilities.
On a related note, the President’s Challenge has similarly been refreshed to support such projects that uplifts those with less in life as well as to help those pursuing second chances.
Mr Speaker, this is the approach that Singapore adopts to promote inclusion: through laws, policies and the growing of common spaces that we build through education as well as shared experiences. However, this provides only the foundation. True inclusion requires each of us to rethink the stories we tell.
Last year, I was invited to watch a showcase titled “Theatre for Dreams” at the Esplanade. Under the guidance of artist-facilitator Oniatta Effendi and her team, young men from the Singapore Boys’ Home – crafted scenes inspired by their very own personal stories, struggles as well as reflections. They told stories about their hope and dreams and aspirations. Not stories about their limitations and they were not merely subjects of their stories. They were their own story-tellers and their stories were powerful and moving.
So, each of us can shape positive narratives that build a more inclusive society – by being story-tellers of the aspirational Singapore that we want to live in. Therefore, I thank Member Dr Syed Harun for moving this Adjournment Motion, for giving us a chance to see that combating discrimination is not something that we can take for granted or leave to chance. We all have a part to play.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Resolved, \"That Parliament do now adjourn.\" (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 2(3)(a), I wish to inform hon Members that the Sitting tomorrow will commence at 11.30 am. Order.
Adjourned accordingly at 8.07 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":"Causes for and After-action Measures Taken Following Incident of Unauthorised Address Changes via ICA's System","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"13 Mr Mark Lee asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information in light of the incident involving unauthorised changes to residential addresses via ICA's online system (a) what lessons has the Government drawn about vulnerabilities in digital public services; (b) how will this incident impact the Smart Nation strategy; and (c) whether the Government will commission an independent audit or review of public sector digital platforms to identify and address cybersecurity gaps.
14 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information with regard to the recent incidents of fraudulent address changes through unauthorised Singpass access (a) what are the lessons learnt; (b) what measures are being implemented to prevent future unauthorised access of Singpass for address change requests; (c) whether facial verification will be implemented; (d) if so, how will it incorporate liveness checks to prevent the use of still photos or other static images; and (e) how will these checks be designed to counter increasingly sophisticated deepfake technology.
15 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information (a) whether there will be a review of all e-Government services' vulnerabilities following incidents of unauthorised changes to residential addresses via ICA's online system; and (b) whether the security evaluations of all e-Government services will include analysis of potential exploitation of workflows and processes, in addition to exploits that rely purely on cyber elements.
16 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information regarding the recent incidents of unauthorised changes to NRIC residential addresses (a) how extensive are the breaches; and (b) whether the Ministry will be conducting checks on other Government systems to assess similar vulnerabilities.
17 Ms Hany Soh asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information in respect of ICA's temporary suspension of its electronic service for change of residential addresses (a) how does GovTech assist and support ICA in the implementation of additional security measures; (b) whether any other private and public agencies are also provided assistance; and (c) if so, how.
Mrs Josephine Teo: My response will also cover the matters raised in the oral question by Dr Wan Rizal1, which is scheduled for a subsequent Sitting. If the question has been addressed, it may not be necessary for the Member to proceed with the question for future Sittings.
Members have raised a range of questions. The Ministry of Home Affairs has already addressed the queries specific to the electronic Change of Address (eCOA) service and how the Government Technology Agency (GovTech) is supporting on that front. My reply will address more general questions on other Government digital services and Singpass, beyond what is relevant to the eCOA service.
Since the unauthorised change of addresses via the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority's online system were publicly reported, Government agencies have been conducting checks on the possible impact to their e-services. So far, there have been no transactional services identified that can be completed in the same manner as unauthorised eCOA transactions using only the National Registration Identity Card (NRIC) number and date of issue of NRIC.
More broadly, in managing their information technology systems, Government agencies are required to conduct regular risk assessments, including risks arising from dependencies on systems managed by other agencies. The systems must also be regularly assessed for vulnerabilities and subject to penetration testing. Once identified, vulnerabilities must be promptly remediated.
As for Singpass, GovTech is constantly improving and testing the security of its design. This includes penetration testing, enhancing fraud analytics and requiring additional face verification if Singpass is used for higher-risk transactions.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Question subsequently withdrawn: To ask the Minister for Digital Development and Information following the temporary suspension of ICA's online change of address service due to scammers' unauthorised attempts to change residential addresses by exploiting compromised Singpass accounts (a) what measures are being implemented to strengthen the security of Government e-services to prevent such incidents; and (b) how will the Ministry ensure that public trust in digital Government services is maintained."],"footNoteQuestions":["13","14","15","16","17"],"questionNo":"13-17"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact on Voting Rights Arising From Incident where NRIC-registered Addresses Were Changed by Scammers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"18 Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance whether the Government has studied the impact on the voting rights of Singaporeans arising from scams involving changes of NRIC-registered addresses.
Mr Chan Chun Sing (for the Prime Minister): The Elections Department (ELD) draws data, including residential addresses, from the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) to compile the Registers of Electors. Each Register, compiled by electoral division, sets out the list of voters for that electoral division.
On 11 January 2025, ICA reported that there were unauthorised attempts to change residential addresses registered with ICA. ICA has since reached out to all affected individuals to verify their correct residential address and rectify this in ICA's system.
As announced on 22 January 2025, the Prime Minister has directed that the Registers be updated based on the prescribed date of 1 February 2025. When the revision is completed, they will be open for public inspection for two weeks. During this inspection period, a person may submit a claim to update his particulars, including his National Registration Identity Card address, in the Register if his particulars are inaccurate. In addition, all year round, Singaporeans may check their voting status and particulars in the Registers via \"My Profile\" on their Singpass app and via Voter Services on ELD's website. Those who are unable to do so electronically may visit any community centre or club and ServiceSG centres or ELD's office for assistance.
I strongly encourage every voter to check their voting status and particulars when the revised Registers are open for public inspection. ELD will issue a press release ahead of the opening of the Registers. If they observe any inaccuracies, they should inform ELD during the inspection period to ensure that their particulars are accurately reflected in the Registers.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Fires in HDB Flats from Excessive Hoarding","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"20 Mr Darryl David asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) for each year in the past five years, how many fires in HDB flats are a result of excessive hoarding; (b) whether this number been increasing over the past five years; and (c) whether there are plans to enhance the existing inter-agency efforts between SCDF and HDB to mitigate fire hazards associated with hoarding in HDB flats.
Mr K Shanmugam: The incidence of fires involving hoarding has remained low. Between 2020 and 2024, the number of fires in each year that involved hoarding was zero, three, six, nine and five respectively. As a comparison, in each of these five years, there were about 800 to 900 Housing and Development Board (HDB) fires annually.
The Hoarding Management Core Group, led by the Municipal Services Office, coordinates inter-agency efforts to resolve severe hoarding cases. The cases are assessed and prioritised based on whether there is threat to public health and safety. Where there are fire safety, public health or animal welfare risks, the Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF), National Environment Agency or National Parks Board will intervene with their regulatory levers. Agencies also work with community partners to engage the hoarders and their families to declutter.
In particular, where there is severe cluttering obstructing emergency egress, HDB coordinates with SCDF to use SCDF's fire safety levers to improve safety within the unit, such as ensuring that there is a passageway for the occupants to leave the unit during an emergency.
The Ministry of National Development, the Ministry of Social and Family Development and other key partners have also recently launched an Alliance for Action called the New Environment Action Team (NEAT). NEAT will bring together Government agencies, social service agencies, community groups and private organisations to identify hoarding cases early and provide more rounded support to hoarders and relief to their neighbours. HDB and SCDF are members of NEAT.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Effectiveness of Caring SG Commuter Lanyard and Card Campaign to Cultivate Kinder Public Transport Culture","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"21 Ms Carrie Tan asked the Minister for Transport (a) since October 2022, what feedback has LTA received from users of the Caring SG Commuter lanyard and card for commuters with invisible medical conditions and disabilities; (b) whether the Ministry tracks if these commuters experienced acts of kindness while on public transport in the past two years; (c) if not, how is the Ministry tracking the effectiveness of this initiative; and (d) how will the Ministry allocate resources to raise awareness and encourage building a kinder public transport culture.\n
Mr Chee Hong Tat: The \"Helping Hand\" initiative provides an alternative means for commuters to get assistance from their fellow travellers, using a lanyard with a card that describes their needs. As of 30 November 2024, more than 15,000 lanyards and cards have been distributed and feedback has been positive.
Based on a survey conducted in 2024, 90% of respondents agreed that the scheme would encourage commuters to show more care towards others and remind them that there are commuters who need assistance even if they do not show outward signs of needing help. Among the respondents, 42% of surveyed card holders agreed that the scheme has helped or benefited them personally. The Caring SG Commuters Committee and Land Transport Authority will continue to seek feedback on how we can refine the scheme to build a kinder public transport culture.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on Cut-off Points for Secondary 1 School Admission for Students from Affiliated and Non-affiliated Primary Schools","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"22 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Education (a) in each year since 2021, what is the median and average percentage of places at secondary schools with affiliated primary schools taken up by affiliated pupils; (b) what is the median and average cut-off point difference between affiliated pupils and non-affiliated pupils for these schools; and (c) whether the Ministry will review the disparity for affiliated schools pupils to gain entrance into the affiliated secondary school.\n
Mr Chan Chun Sing: In Singapore, our goals in education are to spark the joy of learning in students, help them realise their potential and build the foundations for them to be active, contributing members of society. This is why we have a variegated education landscape that offers our students a range of school options catering to their diverse interests, needs and strengths. Affiliated schools contribute to one part of this landscape, with their long history and distinctive school culture.
In achieving this balance, we acknowledge that there are competing policy tensions.
First, we want to right-site our students based on their individual strengths and interests. Now, with Full-Subject Based Banding across our secondary school system, including affiliated schools, we are better able to achieve this today than before.
Second, we recognise that there are some educational merits to school affiliation. For example, the affiliation policy provides schools with a long history and distinctive culture with the opportunity to consistently imbue their school values, ethos and culture into their students over a longer period.
Third, we want to ensure that our society remains open and cohesive; not closed and fractured. This starts in our schools. Even as we support the building of school culture, values and tradition, this must not come at the expense of social cohesion and what we stand for as a nation.
This is why we have evolved our education system over time, as our society matures and faces greater risk of becoming more stratified. One example was when the Ministry of Education (MOE) required affiliated secondary schools to reserve 20% of places for non-affiliated students, when there was none before, from the 2019 Secondary 1 Posting Exercise. With MOE's encouragement, some affiliated schools have also tightened the Affiliate Minimum Requirements that affiliates must meet to be eligible for priority to the school, facilitating greater access for non-affiliated students.
For each year since the 2021 Secondary 1 Posting Exercise, about half of the Secondary 1 cohort of the affiliated secondary schools are from non-affiliated primary schools, with the remaining half from their respective affiliated primary schools. The difference in cut-off points between affiliates and non-affiliates varies depending on the Posting Group. For Posting Group 3, the average difference is about seven points. For Posting Groups 2 and 1, the average difference is smaller, at two points and one point respectively, as the ranges of cut-off points in these posting groups are narrower than for Posting Group 3. The median mirrors the average for all three Posting Groups.
While this may be the current balance that we have established for now, we will continue to adjust and make further refinements, as time goes by and circumstances change, so that we can achieve the right balance for the future.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Sending Teachers for Stints at Overseas Schools or for Industry Attachment","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"25 Mr Darryl David asked the Minister for Education (a) whether there are any dedicated programmes for sending teachers for teaching stints in overseas schools or institutions; (b) if so, where will the teachers typically be sent to; (c) how long is the average length of each teaching stint; and (d) how many teachers in terms of absolute number and percentage have undergone such overseas teaching stints.
26 Mr Darryl David asked the Minister for Education (a) how many teachers have had professional corporate working experience outside of the teaching profession; (b) what is the average number of years of professional corporate experience that these teachers have; (c) whether the Ministry has any dedicated programmes to send teachers who have not worked outside of the teaching profession for professional corporate industry attachments; and (d) if so, how many teachers in terms of absolute numbers and percentage have undergone such industry attachment programmes.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: The Ministry of Education (MOE) provides a wide range of professional development opportunities for teachers to expose them to external work experiences.
Under the Teacher Work Attachment-Plus (TWA+) programme, teachers can be attached to people, public and private sector organisations for two to four weeks. Since 2022, about 550 teachers have benefited from such attachments. In addition, MOE organises learning journeys to external organisations and themed dialogues with industry experts. Close to 6,000 teachers have participated in these sessions. Beyond TWA+, a good number of teachers have also gone on longer work attachments of two to three years through secondments to other public sector organisations.
MOE welcomes those in other industries to join the teaching profession. Around one in 10 of our teachers have at least five years of prior work experience. They bring diverse industry experiences that they can share with fellow educators and students.
MOE seconds a small number of teachers to the Singapore International School in Hong Kong for periods of three to five years. We also facilitate one-month teaching attachments to international schools in Singapore for around two to three teachers per year.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Subsidies or MediSave Withdrawals for Egg Freezing","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"27 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Health whether the Ministry will consider making (i) subsidies (ii) co-funding or (iii) MediSave available for egg freezing.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Our financing policies for egg freezing are designed on clinical grounds. Hence today, women can tap on MediSave for egg freezing done on medical grounds. If they get married in the future and would like to use their frozen eggs for assisted reproduction treatments, they can receive Government co-funding support and use MediSave for their treatments. From a population policy perspective, the Government encourages young couples to fulfil their marriage and parenthood aspirations as soon as possible and not to inadvertently encourage them to delay their plans.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measurable Outcomes from Overseas Markets Immersion Programme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"29 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what are the measurable outcomes from the Overseas Markets Immersion Programme over the next five years; (b) how will its success be assessed against the $16 million budget; (c) what are the safeguards against firms using the programme to subsidise routine business costs instead of employee development; (d) how will Workforce Singapore ensure that the submitted career plans lead to meaningful outcomes; (e) how can smaller firms with limited resources access the programme; and (f) what share of the budget will benefit SMEs.
Dr Tan See Leng: The Overseas Markets Immersion Programme (OMIP), launched in November 2024 by Workforce Singapore (WSG), aims to encourage companies to send more local employees with little or no overseas experience for overseas work postings. This enables workers to gain regional or global work experience, alongside with building overseas networks that will help them progress in their careers. It also supports employers to build a globally competitive workforce to realise their overseas expansion and business growth plans.
OMIP will run for two years till 2026. After two years, we will review the outcomes of OMIP to assess its success. These outcomes include the number of local employees successfully placed in overseas postings and the number of companies supported in expanding into new overseas markets.
We have also put in place measures to ensure meaningful career outcomes for employees embarking on OMIP.
First, companies must submit a business growth or transformation plan to show that the overseas posting will contribute to business expansion.
Second, companies must provide a comprehensive on-the-job training plan describing the developmental skills and competencies that the trainee is expected to acquire by the end of their in-market training. Both the business plan and training plan must be approved by either WSG or the Singapore Business Federation, which is WSG's appointed programme partner for OMIP.
Third, to ensure the training leads to meaningful career outcomes, companies must prepare a career development plan (CDP) outlining the employee's development over the next 24 months, including the potential career pathways that the trainee will have after completing the overseas posting. Companies must submit this plan in their application and update the plan again when claiming reimbursement.
To fulfil these criteria, employers and employees must do their part to follow through and make the most of their overseas training experience. This is why WSG requires companies to get their trainees and their supervisors to acknowledge the CDP.
OMIP is open for application to both small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and non-SME companies. Each OMIP application is assessed based on merit and potential impact, rather than company size. We hope that through OMIP, many more Singaporeans can gain overseas work experience to help them progress into higher positions; and companies, too, will be equipped with a globally-oriented workforce to support their overseas expansion plans.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Insurers' Responsibility in Informing and Giving Adequate Notice to Policyholders for Changes in Coverage and Claims","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"31 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Health with regard to hospitalisation insurance plans' coverage for upgrades (a) what measures are in place to ensure that policyholders are provided with sufficient time to be informed of the changes in coverage payments; and (b) how does the Ministry ensure that insurance companies explain the changes clearly to their policyholders.
32 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Health in light of recent changes to Integrated Shield Plans (IPs) by insurers, particularly in the adjustments to coverage for Class A and B1 policyholders (a) what measures are in place to ensure that insurers provide clear, timely and comprehensive communication regarding policy adjustments; and (b) how does the Ministry hold insurers accountable for lapses in informing policyholders adequately.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Integrated Shield Plans (IPs) are private commercial products subject to the Ministry of Health's (MOH's) requirements on key parameters, such as the co-payment and deductible. Private insurers can make changes to their IPs, such as in the claim limits and scope of coverage, in accordance with the policy contractual terms and based on commercial and actuarial considerations.
In making these changes, MOH expects insurers to ensure that their policyholders' interests and well-being are safeguarded. Together with the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS), we also require insurers to provide customers with clear, relevant and timely information on any changes to their policy terms and conditions, so that policyholders can make informed decisions. Under MAS' insurance regulations, insurers must notify their policyholders of any change in policy terms and conditions at least 30 days before it takes effect.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Probe into Cause and Impact of Oil Leak at Shell Energy and Chemical Park on Bukom on 27 December 2024","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"33 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment in respect of the oil leak from the oil processing unit at the Shell Energy and Chemical Park on Bukom on 27 December 2024 (a) what products were leaked; (b) what was the cause of the leak; (c) how long has the leak occurred before it was discovered and how soon did Shell notify the authorities; and (d) what actions have been taken to ensure that such leaks can be prevented or minimised in future.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: At approximately 9.30 am on 26 December 2024, Shell Singapore Pte Ltd (Shell) discovered oil sheens in the waters off Shell Energy and Chemicals Park Singapore at Pulau Bukom. Shell informed the Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore (MPA) and National Environment Agency (NEA) of the oil sheens around 12.00 noon and 1.15 pm respectively. An MPA craft arrived on site at 12.15 pm to assess the situation and provide support. Shell completed the clean-up works on 28 December 2024 and there were no other oil sightings since then.
Shell estimated that a few tonnes of refined oil products were leaked into the water. Shell's investigations are still ongoing. Meanwhile, as a precautionary measure, Shell has carried out pipeline integrity checks across its Bukom facility and enhanced the monitoring of various discharge points leading to the watercourse.
Agencies are still investigating the incident and will not hesitate to take appropriate enforcement actions if any lapses are uncovered.
To ensure that appropriate measures are in place to prevent the recurrence of such incidents, NEA and relevant agencies have requested Shell's senior management to account for the overall operations and maintenance system at their Bukom facility. NEA has also directed Shell to engage an independent consultant to review the facilities and practices at its Bukom facility.
In addition to regular inspections on industrial facilities, NEA has reminded the operators of all similar facilities to ensure that inspections, maintenance and repairs, as well as emergency response procedures are regularly reviewed and updated. Relevant learning points from the oil leak incidents will be shared with the operators of other similar industrial facilities.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Errors on OneMap SchoolQuery System Affecting Parents' Choice of School for Primary 1 Registration","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"35 Mr Pritam Singh asked the Minister for Education (a) whether the Singapore Land Authority has uncovered any glitches or errors on the OneMap SchoolQuery service including inaccurately reflecting the distance between a place of residence and the one-kilometre or one- to two-kilometre radius of any school; and (b) what recourse do parents have when they rely on incorrect information from such glitches or errors, if any, to make choices related to their choice of preferred school for the Primary 1 admission exercise.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: The home-school distance category shown on OneMap SchoolQuery is the official distance measurement that Ministry of Education (MOE) uses for Primary 1 Registration when balloting is required.
When utilising the OneMap SchoolQuery function for primary schools, users are informed that home-school distance information is updated annually by June prior to the start of the year's Primary 1 Registration Exercise, which is conducted from July to August. This is to incorporate the latest changes in residential and school developments. In computing the home-school distance, the Singapore Land Authority (SLA) system uses the latest available information submitted by the Qualified Person engaged by the developer or owner of the property to the Building and Construction Authority. This approach has been consistently applied and MOE has not uncovered any \"error\" or \"glitch\" in the computation of home-school distance categories on SLA's OneMap SchoolQuery.
Members of the public who have queries on updated changes in home-school distance categories can approach MOE, which will look into such cases together with the relevant agencies.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Increasing Ratio of Support Staff to Nurses in Public Healthcare Institutions","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"36 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Health (a) whether the Ministry has looked into the need to increase the nursing support staff to nurse ratio in the public healthcare institutions of around 1:11; (b) if yes, what are the findings; and (c) if not, whether the Ministry will look into increasing the ratio.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: In November 2024, in response to an earlier Parliamentary Question from Mr Louis Ng, I had shared that the nursing support staff to nurse ratio in the public healthcare institutions has remained relatively stable in the past 10 years, at around one nursing support staff to 11 nurses. [Please refer to \"Target Ratio of Nurses to Administrative and Support Healthcare Workers\", Official Report, 12 November 2024, Vol 95, Issue 146, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer not Answered by End of Question Time section.]
The number has not changed. We have been strengthening our healthcare workforce, including nurses, nursing support and other healthcare professionals. These will spread out administrative duties and help healthcare professionals practise at the top of their licence.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reports of Water Seepage in HDB Flats during Continuous Monsoon Season and Sustainable Solutions to Address Problem","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"37 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether the Ministry tracks the number of external water seepage incidents that occur in HDB flats during the recent continuous monsoon raining season; (b) how many seepage cases are reported in 2024; and (c) whether the HDB has any sustainable response plan to help rectify and reduce the number of seepage cases that occur in HDB flats.
Mr Desmond Lee: The external walls of Housing and Development Board (HDB) flats are part of common property maintained by Town Councils. As residents who encounter water seepage from external walls typically report it directly to their respective Town Councils, the Ministry of National Development (MND) does not track this data.
In complex cases, HDB supports Town Councils by conducting joint inspections and providing technical advice, so as to identify the root causes and carry out appropriate repairs expeditiously. HDB has also been providing training to Town Councils on the repair of external wall seepage. Town Councils can apply for assistance under the Facade Repairs Co-payment Scheme, whereby HDB co-shares 50% of the cost of facade repairs.
HDB is committed to enhancing the comfort and safety of HDB residents and will continue to invest in research and development to address seepage issues in HDB flats more expeditiously and effectively. These include studying technologies that can pinpoint the water seepage source more accurately as well as more effective repair methods.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on Transactions Related to and Composition of Owner-occupied and Investment Properties in Private Residential Market","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"38 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for National Development (a) in each year over the last five years, what is the breakdown in the number and value of primary sale and secondary sale transactions in the private residential market that is for the purpose of owner-occupied property versus investment property; and (b) whether the Government has observed any changes in the composition of owner-occupied and investment properties in the private residential market in the last five years.
Mr Desmond Lee: From 2020 to 2024, the increase in owner-occupied private residential properties was more than three times the increase in non-owner-occupied private residential properties. In 2020, the number of owner-occupied and non-owner-occupied private residential properties were around 236,000 units and 166,000 units respectively. This increased by around 27,000 units to 263,000 owner-occupied units; and by around 8,000 units to 174,000 non-owner-occupied units in 2024.
The larger increase in the number of owner-occupied private residential properties can be attributed to the measures we had introduced over the years to prioritise housing purchases for genuine owner-occupation, such as raising of Additional Buyer's Stamp Duty for purchase of second and subsequent properties.
It is not meaningful to compare data on owner-occupied private residential properties between primary and secondary sales, given that a large proportion of primary sales involve uncompleted units that do not have owner-occupation status.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reviewing Safe Usage and Design of Zebra Crossings Due To Increase in Cyclists and PMD Users","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"39 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether the Ministry has reviewed the safe use and design of zebra crossings with the increasing number of cyclists and personal mobility device users; and (b) whether there is a need to redesign or adapt zebra crossings to meet the current and future safety needs of all road users.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: The Land Transport Authority (LTA) takes into account the safety of pedestrians and active mobility device users in the design of zebra crossings. Safety treatments to facilitate safe crossing include markings, signs and continuous flashing beacon lights.
In areas with high pedestrian footfall, such as in the vicinity of schools, residential housing estates or community centres, zebra crossings may be widened or raised to enhance safety. With more Silver Zones and Friendly Streets implemented across Housing and Development Board towns, LTA will incorporate more zebra crossings with these enhanced features. LTA will also continue to review design features to improve safety for all active mobility users.
Active mobility device users, such as cyclists and power-assisted bicycle riders, should slow down, stop and look out for oncoming traffic before making their way across zebra crossings. Similarly, drivers should slow down when approaching zebra crossings and look out for pedestrians and active mobility device users crossing the road.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"School-based Programmes to Train School Staff to Routinely Ask Children and Young People about Their Safety and Well-being","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"40 Assoc Prof Razwana Begum Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Education in light of the September 2024 Domestic Violence Trends Report, what school-based programmes are in place to train school staff about the importance of routinely asking children and young people about their safety and well-being, in addition to children and young people self-reporting such concerns.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: The safety and well-being of students are of utmost importance to schools. Teachers check on their students' well-being regularly, such as during termly check-in and daily interactions. Additionally, teachers are trained to use the Ministry of Social and Family Development's Sector-Specific Screening Guide to assess any suspected case of child abuse and neglect in consultation with their school leaders, counsellors and student welfare officers. Schools report suspected abuse cases to the National Anti-Violence and Sexual Harassment Helpline and provide ongoing monitoring and support for affected students. Through Character and Citizenship Education lessons, students learn about personal safety and self-protection, and are taught to seek help from trusted adults when their personal safety is at risk.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reports on Tech Repair Shops Performing Unauthorised Access or Cloning of Data on Personal Devices","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"42 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) in each year of the past five years, how many cases have been reported to the police on tech repair shops performing unauthorised access or cloning of data on personal devices sent for repair; (b) how many of these cases are prosecuted; (c) what is the range of sentences meted out for such criminal offences; and (d) whether such punishment needs to be enhanced.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Police do not track the data that the Member requested.
Depending on the facts of the case, unauthorised access to computer material could constitute an offence under section 3 of the Computer Misuse Act. A first-time offender could be liable on conviction to a fine of up to $5,000 or to imprisonment of up to two years, or both. Enhanced penalties are imposed for repeat offenders and for situations where damage is caused. For example, where any damage is caused as a result of the offence, a person could be liable on conviction to a fine of up to $50,000 or to imprisonment of up to seven years, or both.
The Ministry assesses that the existing penalties are adequate.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Residents' Feedback on Rain Entering HDB Flats in Marsiling and Woodgrove, and Installation of Mitigation Barriers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"44 Ms Hany Soh asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether HDB has been receiving feedback from Marsiling and Woodgrove residents, especially those residing on higher levels, on rain entering their homes causing furniture damage or risk of slipping; and (b) whether HDB has been receiving applications to install mitigation measures such as external blinds and, if so, have these been approved.
Mr Desmond Lee: During a heavy downpour, rainwater may splash into areas of the flat that are not completely enclosed, such as balconies, service yards and areas near open windows.
The Housing and Development Board (HDB) has improved its upstream design to reduce rainwater splashing, such as installing rain screens and canopies, in common areas if feasible. Within flats, in addition to closing windows during heavy rain, owners can also consider installing blinds. As some of these works may require prior approval by HDB, flat owners are advised to check the HDB InfoWEB for further information.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Awareness Campaign on Potential Negative Impact of Physical Discipline on Children","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"45 Assoc Prof Razwana Begum Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Social and Family Development in light of the September 2024 Domestic Violence Trends Report, whether the Ministry will consider a community awareness campaign informing parents about (i) the potential negative impacts of physically disciplining their children and (ii) less harmful alternatives to physically disciplining their children.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: While recognising the role of parents in disciplining their children in the family home setting, the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) supports parents by encouraging them to consider non-physical means of discipline as an alternative and foster positive relationships with their children. MSF’s evaluation studies found that the Positive Parenting Programme, also known as Triple P, run by Families for Life@Community (FFLC) agencies has positive effects on parenting and child outcomes in Singapore. Such evidence-backed parenting programmes teach parents effective strategies to manage their children's behaviour without resorting to physical punishment. For example, parents are guided on setting clear boundaries and using positive reinforcement to encourage desirable behaviours. MSF will continue our efforts to encourage parents to adopt non-physical means of discipline through parenting programmes.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Possibility for Earlier Implementation of Enhanced Provisions for Government-Paid Paternity Leave","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"46 Mr Kwek Hian Chuan Henry asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance whether the Ministry will consider implementing the enhanced provisions for Government-paid paternity leave with immediate effect to encourage familial bonding for parents with infants born over the last few months of 2024.
47 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) whether arrangements can be made to implement the new shared parental leave scheme earlier, for parents of children born after the National Day Rally 2024 but before 1 April 2025, in situations where (i) both parents and their respective employers are all mutually agreeable to proceed or (ii) both parents are serving in the public service; and (b) if not possible, why not and what are the reasons and/or technical hurdles.
Mr Lawrence Wong: The additional two weeks of Government-Paid Paternity Leave (GPPL) have been provided on a voluntary basis since 1 January 2024. Fathers whose employers are ready to grant the additional two weeks of leave can already take four weeks of GPPL and their employers will be reimbursed by the Government.
The implementation date of 1 April 2025 for mandating the additional two weeks of GPPL and introducing the new Shared Parental Leave (SPL) scheme was set after extensive consultation with the tripartite partners. It takes into account the need for system and process changes by both the Government and employers and also strikes a balance between giving employers sufficient time to make the necessary adjustments and allowing parents to benefit from both leave enhancements as soon as possible.
Unlike other parental leave provisions, the sharing of leave entitlements is a key feature of the new SPL scheme whereby couples can decide how to allocate the leave entitlement between them based on their caregiving and work arrangements. As such, its implementation is less straightforward, and employers will need to update their administrative processes and human resources systems to prepare for this. A common start date is therefore preferable for parity across all employers, to ensure that all employers, including smaller firms, will be ready to implement the changes on 1 April 2025.
The Government is also developing a centralised system to facilitate the coordination of leave sharing arrangements between parents and employers. Such a system is necessary to ensure the proper tracking of leave records to minimise discrepancies and facilitate reimbursement claims from the Government.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Programmes to Support Older Singaporeans Improve On Literacy, Numeracy and Adaptive Problem-solving Skills","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"48 Assoc Prof Razwana Begum Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Education in light of the findings from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development's (OECD's) Survey of Adult Skills 2023 (a) what age and culturally appropriate programmes are in place to support older Singaporeans improve their literacy, numeracy and adaptive problem-solving skills; and (b) what mechanisms are in place to track the success of these programmes.
49 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Education in light of the recent OECD report indicating that Singapore's adult literacy proficiency in English is below the OECD average (a) whether the Ministry will consider introducing a standardised English proficiency test at the national level as an entry requirement to local universities; and (b) how does the Ministry plan to enhance literacy proficiency through modules in Continuing Education and Training programmes to support lifelong learning.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: The Members have asked what programmes or plans are in place to support Singaporean adults in improving their literacy, numeracy and adaptive problem-solving skills. As we have explained in our previous reply on 8 January 2025, Singapore has made progress across the two cycles of the Survey of Adult Skills developed by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD0 Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC). We are the most improved country for numeracy alongside Finland, while our literacy proficiency scores remained stable. Our adaptive problem-solving score was comparable to the OECD mean. Across all three proficiency domains, our young adults continue to perform at the top, above OECD average. For older adults, skills proficiencies are lower compared to younger adults, similar to the finding in the majority of countries. [Please refer to \"Addressing Survey Findings Which Showed Decline in English Literacy Skills amongst Older Workers and Average Scores for Adaptive Problem-solving\", Official Report, 8 January 2025, Vol 95, Issue 149, Oral Answers to Questions section.]
Natural skills atrophy and technology obsolescence, which are also observed in other developed economies, reinforce the importance of our national lifelong learning agenda through our national SkillsFuture movement. We must re-double our efforts to get Singaporeans to continuously sharpen their capacity to learn, absorb new information and acquire job-specific skills.
Besides literacy, numeracy and adaptive problem-solving skills measured by OECD's PIAAC survey, there are other skills, such as soft skills and vocational skills, that are important for our local workforce to stay relevant. To this end, there is a wide range of SkillsFuture courses and training programmes available to suit the needs of different individuals. The outcome of continuous education and training goes beyond literacy and numeracy skills of Singaporeans. We monitor key outcomes, such as wage levels and employment rates of Singaporeans.
To support Singaporeans aged 40 and above, who are at higher risk of skills obsolescence having been away from formal education longer, we introduced the SkillsFuture Level-Up Programme (SFLP) last year. By lowering the opportunity cost of learning through the SkillsFuture Credit (Mid-Career) top-up and training allowance, the SFLP seeks to support substantive mid-career upskilling or reskilling, including upgrading to a higher qualification. We encourage eligible Singaporeans to sign up for the SFLP and take up courses that help to improve their career health and employability as they grow older. We also call upon employers and unions to support their workers and members in upskilling.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Incentives for Businesses to Install Speed Limiters on Lorries","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"50 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether the Ministry can consider providing incentives to lorry owners who install the mandatory speed limiters early to boost the take-up rate.
51 Ms Carrie Tan asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) how many companies are authorised by the Traffic Police to install speed limiters in lorries and how many installations can these companies handle each month; and (b) whether the Minister will consider offering incentives to businesses that own lorries to come forward to install the speed limiters so as to help with their business costs and accelerate the adoption rate.\n
Mr K Shanmugam: There are 11 companies authorised by the Traffic Police to install speed limiters. This list is published on the Singapore Police Force website. They collectively have a capacity of around 2,200 installations per month.
The Ministry is not considering any initiatives to pay part of the cost of installing speed limiters. This is similar to the approach taken previously, when speed limiters were required for goods vehicles with a maximum laden weight exceeding 12,000 kilogrammes. We will continue to monitor the installation progress and consider measures to encourage the early installation of speed limiters if necessary.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Checks on Illegal Overtime Cases and Prevalence of Trend in Specific Sectors","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"52 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Manpower (a) how frequently does the Ministry conduct checks for incidents of illegal overtime, where the number of overtime hours exceed 72 hours in a month; (b) how many cases has the Ministry enforced in the past five years; and (c) whether there is an increasing trend of illegal overtime incidents in specific sectors.
Dr Tan See Leng: The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) conducts around 5,000 Workright inspections yearly to check on employers' compliance with employment laws, including on regulations against excessive overtime. Employers found to have lapses are referred to Employment Act clinics for training and rectification. More serious enforcement actions, such as fines and prosecution, will be taken if the lapses identified are more severe or systemic.
Our calibrated enforcement efforts have been effective. In the past five years, there was no uptrend of cases involving excessive overtime, neither overall nor in any particular sector. On average, MOM received complaints on about 50 employers each year for excessive overtime exceeding 72 hours in a month and took enforcement action on around 25% of these employers. MOM will continue to educate employers and take enforcement action to ensure compliance with the law.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on Flats Purchased with Loans from Commercial Banks Instead of HDB","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"53 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for National Development (a) from 2021 to 2024, what is the total number of HDB flats purchased via housing loans; (b) what percentage of these loans are taken with a commercial bank instead of HDB; (c) during this period, how many appeals have HDB received to allow existing HDB homeowners to refinance their loan from a commercial bank to HDB; and (d) whether the HDB can consider reviewing their policy to allow HDB homeowners to refinance their housing loan from a commercial bank to HDB.
Mr Desmond Lee: From 2021 to 2024, about 135,000 Housing and Development Board (HDB) flats were purchased with housing loans, of which about 31% took a housing loan from the financial institutions (FIs) regulated by the Monetary Authority of Singapore. HDB received 397 appeals from HDB homeowners to refinance their housing loan from an FI to HDB.
HDB offers housing loans at a concessionary interest rate to eligible flat buyers. Flat buyers may also approach FIs for a housing loan. HDB does not seek to compete with FIs in providing mortgage financing. Doing so may dampen the interest of FIs in providing mortgage financing for HDB flat purchases, which would, in turn, constrict the financing options available to future HDB flat buyers.
HDB will continue to focus on its core mission of providing affordable and accessible public housing for Singaporeans.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Aligning UN-related Nationally Determined Contributions on Emissions Reduction with Singapore's Net-zero Emissions Trajectory","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"54 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment whether the Government will explain how its upcoming Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) submission to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change is aligned with the country's net-zero emissions trajectory.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Singapore is committed to our target of attaining net zero emissions by 2050. Our 2035 Nationally Determined Contribution, which we will be submitting on 10 February 2025 as required under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, will keep Singapore on track to achieve our 2050 target. Senior Minister and Coordinating Minister for National Security Teo Chee Hean, Chairman of the Inter-Ministerial Committee on Climate Change, will elaborate on this at the upcoming Committee of Supply debate.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proposal for Guidelines on Minimum Monthly Allowance for Students Undergoing Full-time Internships","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"55 Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan asked the Minister for Education whether the Ministry will consider releasing guidelines on the minimum monthly allowance for students undergoing full-time internships, given the rise in the number of interns from both public and private Institutes of Higher Learning.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: The Institutes of Higher Learning provide companies with a recommended allowance range that student interns should receive, based on industry-specific norms and consultations with industry partners as well as relevant sector agencies. The individual internship monthly allowance is mutually agreed upon between the intern and the company prior to the commencement of the internship. Given the wide range of internship arrangements across industries and companies, it is not practical to prescribe a minimum allowance.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Preventing Excessive Water Ingress into Motor Rooms of Lifts at Older HDB Blocks Given Monsoon Surges","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"56 Ms Ng Ling Ling asked the Minister for National Development given the monsoon surge from 10 to 13 January 2025 (a) whether the Ministry will conduct a review with Town Councils and provide resources for those that performed emergency repairs caused by excessive water ingress into motor rooms of lifts located in older HDB flats where the original drainage was not designed for such intense rainfall; and (b) what measures will be undertaken to pre-empt damage of such nature to minimise inconvenience to residents.
Mr Desmond Lee: The Housing and Development Board (HDB) incorporates ventilation and drainage features when designing lift motor rooms. For example, lift motor rooms located on rooftops are designed with overhangs to prevent rainwater from splashing into the lift motor rooms, as well as discharge outlets which are sufficiently sized to drain heavy rainfall off the roof of the lift motor rooms.
In addition to design features, regular maintenance of rooftop drainage systems is key. This is particularly important during monsoon seasons or when prolonged wet weather is anticipated, where Town Councils are strongly encouraged to step up their inspections of drainage systems within their estates and carry out timely maintenance works where necessary. HDB has also stepped up in its efforts to support Town Councils in proper estate maintenance, including issues that arise with changing climate and weather conditions. In complex cases, HDB supports Town Councils by conducting joint inspections and providing technical advice, so as to identify and address root causes.
To offset the costs of estate maintenance, the Government provides substantial funding to Town Councils, amounting to almost $260 million annually. Town Councils should manage their finances prudently and cater a reasonable amount of contingency funds in their budgeting to cope with unexpected repairs.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Additional Ballot for BTO Flat Applicants who had been Unsuccessful in One or Two Previous Attempts","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"57 Mr Pritam Singh asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether applicants who have been unsuccessful in applying for both a non-mature flat under the pre-October 2024 mature and non-mature BTO flat classification framework and a Standard flat under the new BTO flat classification framework are entitled to an additional ballot for their second and subsequent Standard flat applications; and (b) whether the new BTO flat classification framework assures applicants of a high chance to choose a flat by the second or third Standard flat application.
Mr Desmond Lee: First-timer (FT) families get priority allocation under the new flat classification framework. The Housing and Development Board (HDB) sets aside the majority of the Build-To-Order (BTO) flat supply for them and, additionally, accords them priority through various schemes. For example, First-Timer (Parents & Married Couples), or FT(PMC), get first priority under the Family and Parenthood Priority Scheme, when they apply for a four-room and smaller Standard BTO flat. Since the scheme was launched in October 2023, about nine in 10 or 90% of FT(PMC), who applied for a four-room and smaller flat in non-mature estates (NMEs) were invited to book a flat.
Under the new flat classification framework, all FT families who have been unsuccessful in two or more BTO attempts for a Standard flat will receive one additional ballot chance for each subsequent application they make for a Standard flat. FT(PMC) applicants may accumulate up to five ballot chances while other first-timer applicants may accumulate up to four ballot chances. The old NME framework and the new flat classification framework are inherently different. Hence, additional ballots from the old NME framework have not been ported over to the new flat classification framework. However, FT families applying under the new framework will continue to enjoy the benefit of the priority measures described above.
As HDB has only conducted one BTO exercise under the new flat classification framework, data is not yet available on the success rate of Standard flat applicants at their second or third application.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Support for Passengers Affected by Flight Disruptions Due To Severe Weather Conditions","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"58 Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked the Minister for Transport (a) what measures are being taken to improve support for passengers who are affected by flight disruptions as a result of the recent severe weather conditions; and (b) how is the Ministry coordinating with airlines and regional airport authorities to manage weather-related disruptions.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: The Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore (CAAS) shares weather forecasts for Changi Airport and the expected impact on landing capacity with airlines and other air navigation services providers. This information enables airlines to make decisions regarding flight schedule adjustments to anticipate potential delays and minimise flight diversions.
CAAS also works with regional air navigation service providers to coordinate the air traffic at Changi and other airports in the region. During inclement weather conditions, this may include the re-timing of flights before the aircraft depart from their previous station, as well as enroute management of traffic flows. This is intended to minimise prolonged holding of aircraft in the air and the need to divert to other airports.
Besides inclement weather conditions, flights disruptions can happen from time to time for other reasons. When there are flight disruptions, airlines support affected passengers through various service recovery measures, such as providing meals and refreshments, accommodations, ground transport and rebooking services, as necessary. The airport operator and ground handlers also work closely with airlines to support affected passengers, such as prioritising transfer luggage, adjusting flight schedules and notifying passengers of any changes to their flight status.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Framework for Evaluating Speakers at Campus Events to Ensure Preservation of Academic Freedom","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"59 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Education (a) whether the Ministry has advised autonomous universities (AUs) on implementing any administrative formalities assessment framework for evaluating speakers at campus events; (b) if so, how does the Ministry ensure such frameworks do not undermine academic freedom, including in politically sensitive contexts; and (c) whether these frameworks align with global academic freedom standards.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: Autonomous Universities (AUs) have the right and responsibility to implement an assessment framework for evaluating speakers at campus events.
As stated in Ministry of Education's reply to a Parliamentary Question on 9 January 2024, AUs manage their own events, including deciding on invited speakers. [Please refer to \"Incidents of Disinvitation of Speakers and Cancellations of Events at Autonomous Universities\", Official Report, 9 January 2024, Vol 95, Issue 118, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer not Answered by End of Question Time section.]
As common spaces for learning, AUs are aware that while they should promote critical thinking and appreciation of diverse viewpoints, they must also respect Singapore's wider social norms, help students to appreciate our national interests, protect our hard-earned harmony and not ride roughshod over the sensitivities of others. Neither should AUs be used by organisations or individuals to further their agenda at our expense or in the name of academic freedom. Where necessary, the Ministry will advise the AUs to uphold these principles.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Evaluation of Stem Cell Therapy as Mainstream Clinical Treatment for Cartilage Repair","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"60 Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked the Minister for Health (a) whether there is an estimated timeline for the Ministry's evaluation and approval of stem cell therapy as a mainstream clinical treatment for cartilage repair; (b) if so, what is the timeline; and (c) what are the factors that contribute to the cautious approach towards regulatory approval of such treatments.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Whether stem cell based therapies for cartilage repair becomes mainstream treatment in Singapore depends on the emergence of clinical evidence. These therapies are currently classified as investigational therapies in most overseas jurisdictions because of a lack of consistent evidence in the published medical literature to demonstrate their clinical and cost-effectiveness. The Ministry of Health (MOH) is aware that they are offered in other selected jurisdictions and we urge Singaporeans to exercise full caution when they seek these treatments overseas. MOH will continue to evaluate the evidence from both local and overseas studies for clinical and cost effectiveness.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proposal for Enhanced Penalties for Offences Committed by Scammers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"61 Ms Hany Soh asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether the Government will consider enacting enhanced penalties for offences committed through scams.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Member may refer to the Ministry's response to Question No 20 for Oral Answer on the Order Paper for the Parliament Sitting on 8 January 2025. [Please refer to \"Proposal for More Severe Penalties for Scams Involving Impersonation of Government Agencies\", Official Report, 8 January 2025, Vol 95, Issue 149, Oral Answers to Questions section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Disclosure of Ultimate Beneficial Owners for Residential Property Transactions","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"62 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Law (a) whether the disclosure of the ultimate beneficial owners (UBO) to SLA or other Government agency is needed for all residential property transactions; (b) whether UBO information is available to the public; (c) if so, how can this be accessed by potential end-buyers or their lawyers; and (d) under what circumstances and to whom can such information be disclosed.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai (The Second Minister for Law): Disclosure of the identities and citizenship of purchasers and ultimate beneficial owners are required to be made to the \tSingapore Land Authority (SLA) for all landed residential property transactions. This is to ensure compliance with the Residential Property Act 1976. This is regardless of whether the purchase is made by an individual or through a vehicle, such as a trust or entity. Such disclosures are generally not required by the SLA for non-landed properties, such as condominium and apartment units.
This information on ultimate beneficial ownership is not made public by SLA. This is not required in the conveyancing process for property transactions. The purchase of assets by companies, trusts and other vehicles is a well-known process and long recognised by law.
As regards the question on who potential buyers or their lawyers can deal with, under the Land Titles Act 1993, potential buyers or their lawyers can deal with the party reflected in the title document as the legal owner of the property.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"CPF Board's Measures to Offer Non-digital Access to Members Who Are not Digitally Savvy","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"63 Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng asked the Minister for Manpower what measures has the CPF Board taken to offer non-digital access to members who are illiterate or not digitally able to, for instance, make cash top-ups, CPF transfers and appeals on their eligibility for the Silver Support Scheme.
Dr Tan See Leng: The Central Provident Fund (CPF) Board adopts a \"digital first, but not digital only\" approach. This means that the Board strives to make digital services easy to use but also makes non-digital alternatives available and supports member education in digital literacy.
CPF Board's non-digital alternatives for members include the following.
First, members can attend in-person consultations at any of CPF Board's five service centres on matters including submitting CPF cash top-ups, transfers or appeals. These consultations are offered in English and vernacular languages. Members can also visit any of the nine ServiceSG centres in person for assistance with frequently used CPF e-services.
Second, members can make enquiries on CPF transactions or appeals in their preferred language through CPF Board's call centre.
Third, CPF Board offers support to members who may be less digitally savvy or need more support. For example, CPF Board sends hardcopy notifications to seniors under the Silver Support Scheme. CPF Board staff visits immobile members to assist them in completing their CPF withdrawal applications.
Digital services do provide more convenience to all members. The number of digital enquiries and transactions in 2023 was 102.9 million, an increase from 98.4 million in 2022. To support member education in digital literacy, CPF Board conducts E-Xperience workshops to guide members on how to use their mobile devices to perform CPF e-services and protect themselves against scams.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Allowing Unsuccessful First-time Flat Applicants Another Opportunity to Choose Flats at BTO Exercise Based on Number of Previous Attempts","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"64 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for National Development whether the HDB can consider a new system where HDB ranks unsuccessful first-time applicants based on their number of previous attempts and then allowing such applicants another opportunity to choose flats that remain available after the initial round of selection in that particular BTO exercise.
Mr Desmond Lee: We are committed to provide affordable and accessible housing for Singaporeans, including first-timer families. We have ramped up our flat supply and the Housing and Development Board is on track to launch about 102,300 Build-To-Order (BTO) flats from 2021 to 2025. As a result, application rates for BTO flats have dropped to below pre-COVID levels. Flat applicants now stand a higher chance of being invited to book a flat. In 2024, the average application rate for first-timer families across all flat types was 2.1, well below the pre-COVID rate of 3.7 in 2019.
We also set aside the majority of our flat supply for first-timer families and prioritise those with greater needs. From the October 2023 BTO exercise onwards, we introduced the First-Timer (Parents and Married Couples), or FT(PMC), priority category to provide additional support for a subset of first-timer families who may have more pressing housing needs. Under this FT(PMC) category, married couples as well as families with young children, receive one additional ballot chance for their application in a BTO or Sales of Balance Flat (SBF) exercise, across all projects. This is on top of the two ballot chances that other first-timer families receive. FT(PMCs) also receive first priority under the Family and Parenthood Priority Scheme, when they apply for a four-room or smaller Standard BTO flat. As a result, about nine in 10 FT(PMCs) on average were invited to book a flat in the three BTO exercises since October 2023 where flat booking has been completed.
Additional support is also given to first-timer families who were unsuccessful in previous attempts. Those with two unsuccessful BTO attempts for a Standard flat will be given an additional ballot chance for every subsequent BTO application for a Standard flat.
To improve the efficiency of our balloting system, the rules for non-selection of new flats have been tightened since October 2023. As a result, the non-selection rate has halved from 40% previously to about 19% over the last three BTO exercises where booking has been completed. From the February 2025 BTO and SBF exercises onwards, HDB will shortlist applicants up to 200% of the flat supply, instead of up to 300%. This will improve system efficiency by allowing applicants to secure their flats more quickly. Those without a queue number can also make arrangements earlier or proceed to apply for the next BTO or SBF exercise without having to wait for a flat booking appointment. The small number of unselected flats from each launch are offered in SBF exercises, in which first-timer applicants are also prioritised.
With the significant grant increases in March 2023 and August 2024, first-timer families who buy a resale flat on the open market can receive up to $230,000 in housing grants.
With these various measures in place to prioritise first-timer applicants, we have no current plans to allow unsuccessful first-timer applicants another opportunity to choose flats that remain available after the initial round of selection as suggested by the Member.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Frequency of Inspections to Detect Potholes on Roads, and Review of Design and Materials for Road Construction","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"65 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Transport in view of reports of nearly 100 potholes detected in the first 12 days of 2025 (a) what percentage of LTA road inspections are triggered by public complaints as compared to scheduled checks; (b) whether inspection frequency is seasonally adjusted for wear and tear due to the monsoon season; (c) how are contractors held to durability standards for pothole repairs; and (d) whether high-traffic and rainfall-prone road designs are being updated with water-resistant materials and improved construction standards.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: The Land Transport Authority (LTA) regularly inspects roads for defects, including potholes. During periods of prolonged heavy rainfall, LTA conducts additional inspections and dedicates more resources to carry out the necessary repairs. To complement these inspections, members of the public can also report on potholes via public feedback channels. Last year, these public feedback channels enabled LTA to detect around 30% of potholes. The remaining 70% were detected via LTA's inspections.
LTA has also been proactively carrying out road resurfacing at several locations across the island as a preventive measure, to reduce the need for pothole repairs. Through these efforts, the total number of potholes detected each year has dropped by almost 70% from 2021 to 2024. LTA will continue to closely monitor our road conditions and explore new solutions that can improve road durability.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reasons for Decline in Clinical Trial Approvals Despite Increase in Biomedical Investments","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"68 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Health with regard to the decline in clinical trial approvals from 178 in 2008 to 127 in 2023 (a) what are the reasons for the decline despite the increase in biomedical investments in Singapore; (b) whether there have been any policy changes that caused the decline; (c) if so, what are they; and (d) what is the Health Science Authority's assessment on why the decline occurred.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: We should first recognise Singapore's strengths and disadvantages in this field. We are recognised for our excellent healthcare infrastructure, strong research capabilities, experienced key opinion leaders and responsive and efficient health product regulation system. However, we are fundamentally limited by our smaller demographic base and hence, number of participants in clinical trials.
Over the years, regional players have invested heavily in building their clinical research capabilities and ecosystems, growing their global share of clinical trials. These larger countries often offer competitive advantages, such as lower trial costs and larger research participant populations. Hence, the competition for hosting clinical trials is getting more intense.
We will continue to enhance our attractiveness as a clinical trial destination, but in areas we are strong in. We are actively participating in regional and international clinical research networks. In 2023, about 80% of trials received by the Health Sciences Authority (HSA) were multinational clinical trials, highlighting our significant involvement in cross-border research. We have been focusing on early phase and innovative product trials that are potentially impactful and can lead to benefits for Singaporeans. Notably, in recent years, we have seen an increase in oncology trials to over 50% of trials approved in Singapore in 2023, which aligns with our focus on high-impact research areas. The Singapore Clinical Research Institute, with the support of the Ministry of Health, is also streamlining processes to reduce trial start up times, enhancing trial cost transparency and dedicating specialised talent and resources to support efficient trial operations.
Post-clinical trial, Singapore is an important production base, hosting many key players in the industry. Our HSA has become an internationally highly reputable reference agency, with which suppliers would want to register their health products. In other words, like all industries, we will continue to grow the parts of the value chain where we are strong in but may have to cede some areas where we are disadvantaged.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Prevalence of Deliberate Under-reporting of Overtime Hours by Employers of Non-domestic Migrant Workers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"69 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether the Ministry tracks the prevalence of deliberate under-reporting of overtime hours by employers of non-domestic migrant workers; and (b) what penalties are typically meted out against employers who provide inaccurate payslips.
Dr Tan See Leng: The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) tracks non-compliance with overtime pay requirements that are detected through complaints or inspections. These include cases where the employer under-reports the overtime hours worked or underpaid for the overtime worked. For breaches of overtime regulations due to lack of knowledge, MOM will generally take an educational approach and employers will cooperate to rectify the breach. For egregious cases, we take a strong stance against any infringements. We will take enforcement action, which can include fines and prosecution. For employers who provide inaccurate payslips, MOM can issue caution letters or impose administrative penalties of $100 for the first breach and $200 for the subsequent breach.
In the past five years, on average per year, MOM took action against about 40 employers for under or non-provision of overtime pay and against about 10 employers for issuing inaccurate payslips. Employees who are not paid for their overtime work or who are given inaccurate payslips are advised to approach MOM for assistance or the Tripartite Alliance for Dispute Management to file claims.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Details on Shepherding of Fauna to Alternate Forested Areas to Facilitate Upcoming Sembawang and Woodlands HDB Projects","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"70 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for National Development with regard to the shepherding of fauna to other forested areas not affected by the development works of the upcoming Sembawang and Woodlands HDB projects respectively, (a) where are the exact locations that the fauna will be shepherded to; and (b) who will carry out the shepherding of wildlife and how will the shepherding be carried out.
Mr Desmond Lee: The Housing and Development Board's (HDB's) wildlife management contractors will conduct wildlife shepherding for the Woodlands N1 and Sembawang N4 sites in accordance with the recommendations in the detailed Environmental Management and Monitoring Plan (EMMP). These works will be guided and overseen by an independent EMMP consultant engaged by HDB.
To facilitate the shepherding, the clearance of the development sites will be phased according to sub-zones in the direction of suitable forests nearby, as recommended in the EMMP. Prior to the clearance, the sub-zones will be demarcated by hoarding or temporary fencing. The EMMP consultant will carry out inspections to check for active nests, burrows and slow-moving animals before site clearance works are carried out for each sub-zone. Upon the completion of clearance for each sub-zone, hoarding or temporary fencing will be installed to prevent re-entry of wildlife into the cleared zones. This will be done progressively until wildlife has been shepherded away from all sub-zones, into nearby forests. If any trapped or slow-moving animals are encountered, HDB's wildlife management contractor will be activated to relocate them.
For Sembawang N4, wildlife will be shepherded from Sembawang Drive eastwards to the forest along Canberra Road. For Woodlands N1, wildlife will be shepherded towards a native-dominated secondary forest that will be largely retained within the site.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Use of MediSave for Shingles Vaccination","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"72 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for Health whether the Ministry can consider allowing the use of MediSave for shingles vaccination.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: My response will also cover the matters raised in the question by Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong, which is scheduled for a subsequent Sitting. I would invite Member to seek clarifications, if need be. If the question has been addressed, it may not be necessary for Member to proceed with the Question for future Sittings.
Vaccines assessed to be cost-effective will be eligible for MediSave use and subsidies. As shared in this House earlier, the shingles vaccine is currently priced at a level that does not commensurate with its benefits. We will continue to engage the manufacturer.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Exemptions Granted to Allow Companies to Exceed Overtime Limit of 72 Hours Per Month for Employees","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"73 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Manpower (a) in the past five years, how many exemptions have been granted under section 41A of the Employment Act, allowing companies to exceed the overtime limit of 72 hours per month; and (b) how many of these companies have been repeat applicants that have been granted multiple exemptions.
Dr Tan See Leng: Over the past five years, a total of around 245 employers were granted exemptions from the overtime limit of 72 hours per month under section 41A of the Employment Act. Amongst these, around 165 employers were repeat applicants.
In granting these exemptions, the Ministry of Manpower takes into account the company's operational requirements and the workers' safety and health to make sure that they are not compromised. Companies have to satisfy several conditions. First, they have obtained the consent of employees in extending their overtime hours. Second, they have a good track record for maintaining employment standards and worker health and safety. Third, they have secured the agreement of the union if it is a unionised company. In addition, high-risk work activities, such as those which involve heavy machinery, are not eligible for overtime exemptions.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Implementing Red-Amber-Green Arrows at More Traffic Junctions to Reduce Use of Discretionary Right Turns","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"75 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether an update can be provided on the plans to implement Red-Amber-Green arrows at about 200 more traffic junctions, subject to further site studies; and (b) whether such site studies can be stepped up to assess the possibility of reducing discretionary right turns to a minimum so as to reduce the risk of unforeseen accidents.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: The Land Transport Authority (LTA) has prioritised the implementation of Red-Amber-Green (RAG) arrows at junctions in the vicinity of schools and Silver Zones, at locations where there is a history of accidents and where the junctions are wider and have a higher posted speed.
As of end-2024, we have implemented RAG arrows at more than 1,200 junctions. Site studies are in progress for another 200 junctions and LTA expects to complete the implementation of these RAG arrows by end-2025.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proposal for Regulation of Lootboxes in Video Games to Minimise Predatory Monetisation Strategies","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"76 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Home Affairs in view of the potential risks of predatory monetisation strategies in video games that induce vulnerable individuals to gamble, whether the Ministry has plans to review its position on regulating loot boxes in such games.
Mr K Shanmugam: There is already risk-calibrated regulation of loot boxes in online games. Under the current class licensing regime, operators are permitted to introduce loot boxes in online games if they implement safeguards to mitigate gambling inducement risks.
For online games where players may pay for a chance to play, prizes from loot boxes must be designed primarily for use within the game. Operators are prohibited from offering money as prizes or from redeeming the prizes in exchange for money.
Games that are free of charge pose lower gambling inducement risks. They are, therefore, subject to less stringent requirements. There are no restrictions on the types of prizes that operators may offer. However, the game must not involve any prohibited game, for example, mahjong and poker, or display any article associated with prohibited games. A player's chance to play such games, such as game tokens that players can accumulate, also cannot be transferable to other players.
The Ministry of Home Affairs will continue to monitor the gambling landscape and review the regulations as necessary.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Possible Solutions to Provide Direct Lift Access for Some Flats in Keat Hong Division","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"77 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for National Development whether there are any updates on the Ministry's efforts to explore possible solutions to provide direct lift access to the blocks within the Keat Hong division of Chua Chu Kang Group Representation Constituency that currently lack direct lift access.
Mr Desmond Lee: The Member may wish to refer to the written reply given by the Minister for National Development on 10 September 2024 in response to similar questions posed by Mr Ang Wei Neng, Mr Desmond Choo and Mr Liang Eng Hwa. [Please refer to \"Number of HDB Households without Direct Lift Access and Use of Lift Access Housing Grant to Address This Issue\", Official Report, 10 September 2024, Vol 95, Issue 141, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer not Answered by End of Question Time section.]
There are no further updates at this point.
I would like to assure the Member that the Housing and Development Board (HDB) will continue to look into ways to help residents with mobility challenges. I encourage households with accessibility needs to approach HDB to explore suitable options.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reports of and Response to Burst Pipe Incidents, and Support for Affected Businesses","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"78 Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) since 2024, how many burst pipe incidents have been reported; (b) what is the average response time for such incidents; (c) what support measures are available to help affected businesses mitigate losses and ensure continuity of operations; and (d) what steps are in place to enhance the resilience of Singapore's water and other underground infrastructure against extreme weather events.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: In 2024, the Public Utilities Board (PUB) received reports of and repaired 267 pipe leaks in its water pipe network. This translates to 4.5 leaks per 100 kilometres of water pipe per year, which places PUB amongst the top-performing utilities globally.
In more than 90% of pipe leak incidents, PUB is able to repair the water pipe without interruption to water supply. Where water supply is interrupted, PUB arrives on-site within two hours and is typically able to restore water supply within four hours. During such interruptions, PUB offers several forms of support to households and businesses, including (a) deploying mobile water wagons and distributing water bags; (b) laying temporary connection hoses to bring in alternate water supply; and (c) communicating regular updates on pipe repair status and expected restoration times. In rare instances where there is property damage, PUB will provide additional assistance in the recovery effort, such as helping with the cleaning up.
For leaks from privately-owned water pipes, the owner or managing agent is responsible for isolating the leak and carrying out repairs. If they are unable to do so, PUB will assist to shut the water supply to the premises to facilitate their repair works. The owner or managing agent is similarly expected to provide temporary water supply and update affected households or businesses. Where required, PUB is prepared to provide technical advice and temporary water supply to the owner or managing agent.
PUB has a comprehensive leak management programme to prevent, detect and pre-empt leaks in its water pipe network. First, to prevent leaks, PUB periodically assesses the condition of its pipes and proactively renews at-risk and leak-prone pipes. This is informed by data collected from PUB's surveys and assessments. Second, PUB monitors the water pipe network with sensors to detect leaks early and responds promptly to minimise disruption. Third, where there are construction works nearby, PUB requires the developer and contractor to put in place monitoring measures to reduce the risk of pipe damage.
We are taking steps to ensure that our water infrastructure is adequately protected against extreme weather events. PUB has worked with the Building and Construction Authority to ensure that standards for slope protection are in place to extreme weather, to ensure that our canals and drains are guarded against the risk of slope failure and blockage. In addition, PUB has recently called a consultancy study to assess the stability of slopes adjacent to our major waterways.
PUB is also stepping up the monitoring of its water pipe network after extreme weather events. Where PUB is alerted to incidents of soil movements following such weather events, PUB will carry out additional leak surveys of the water pipes in the vicinity to detect and arrest any developing leaks.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reports of Non-compliance with Buy Now, Pay Later (BNPL) Code of Conduct and Data on BNPL Customers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"1 Mr Ong Hua Han asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) how many instances of non-compliance with the Buy Now, Pay Later (BNPL) Code of Conduct by accredited BNPL providers have there been since its introduction in 2022; (b) since then, how many and what percentage of BNPL customers have hit their BNPL limit for at least one provider; and (c) what is the breakdown of these BNPL customers by age and income level.
Mr Gan Kim Yong (for the Prime Minister): The Buy Now, Pay Later (BNPL) Code of Conduct (Code) was developed by the Singapore FinTech Association (SFA) and the BNPL industry under the Monetary Authority of Singapore's (MAS') guidance. The Code sets out standards to mitigate the risk of debt accumulation and protect the interests of users. While compliance with the Code is voluntary, SFA has put in place an accreditation process for BNPL providers to be independently assessed for compliance with the Code. All four BNPL providers in Singapore have been independently assessed and accredited to be in compliance with the Code since May 2024.
An independent oversight committee, comprising qualified and experienced members, is responsible for investigating suspected breaches of the Code by accredited BNPL providers. Accredited BNPL providers that breach the Code could lose their accreditation. We understand from SFA that there have not been any breaches of the Code reported to it thus far.
MAS does not collect data on the number and profile of BNPL users that have fully utilised their BNPL limit. Nonetheless, the consumer protection standards in the Code, such as suspending users from making further BNPL purchases once a payment is overdue, coupled with MAS' requirements on unsecured credit, including suspending credit cards, which could be used to meet BNPL payments, for borrowers who are more than 60 days past due in their repayments will help limit the risk of excessive debt incurred through BNPL.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Termination of Bonds for Scholarships Offered by Government Agencies","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"2 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance with regard to the various scholarship schemes offered by Government agencies over the past decade (a) how many scholarship recipients terminated their bonds during their course of study; and (b) how many scholarship recipients terminated their bonds during their period of service.
Mr Chan Chun Sing (for the Prime Minister): Between 2014 and 2023, Ministries and Statutory Boards collectively awarded 4,500 scholarships or an average of 450 scholarships per year. However, the total number of scholarship recipients in the system at any one time is significantly larger because each scholarship recipient takes about four years to complete their studies and then works in the Public Service to serve out their bond and beyond.
The proportion of bond-breakers is low. Each year, on average, over the last 10 years, 10 scholarship recipients broke their bond during their studies and 14 resigned before serving out the full length of their bond. Scholarship recipients who do not serve out their bonds are required to repay the value of their scholarship, taking into account the number of years they have served.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update of Electoral Register for Voters Turning Age 21 after 1 June 2024","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"3 Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance whether the electoral register will be updated in 2025 to enable those turning 21 after 1 June 2024 to vote at the next General Election.
Mr Chan Chun Sing (for the Prime Minister): As the Elections Department announced on 22 January 2025, the Prime Minister has directed the Registration Officer to revise the Registers of Electors based on the prescribed date of 1 February 2025 and to complete the revision before 1 April 2025. Subject to other requirements being met, Singapore Citizens aged 21 years and above as of the prescribed date will be included in the Registers of Electors.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Investigation into Anti-competitive Pricing Practices of Petrol Retail Operators","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"4 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry in view of petrol prices in Singapore not decreasing correspondingly with recent decline in crude oil prices and electricity tariffs, whether the Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore will investigate the practice and pricing mechanisms of petrol retail operators to ensure fairness and transparency for consumers.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: There has been a decrease in petrol prices when crude oil prices declined. Brent crude oil prices peaked at US$133 per barrel in 2022 amidst supply shortages due to the Russia-Ukraine war, but have since fallen to US$75 per barrel by the end of 2024. Similarly, Octane 95 prices peaked at $3.40 per litre in 2022 and have since fallen to $2.88 per litre by the end of 2024.
The percentage change in retail petrol prices is usually smaller than that of crude oil prices because crude oil prices account for less than one-third of listed retail petrol prices. Retail petrol prices are also determined by other factors, such as operating costs, taxes and duties, and land costs.
The Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore undertakes market surveillance regularly and will not hesitate to take action if there is evidence of anti-competitive conduct in the petrol market. In addition, the Consumers Association of Singapore has developed the Price Kaki app, which will allow consumers to easily compare the effective fuel prices from different retailers to increase price transparency and encourage a more competitive market.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Strategy and Challenges in Maintaining Singapore's Relevance in Global Semiconductor Market","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"5 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry (a) what is Singapore's strategy to continue to be relevant in the global semiconductor market; and (b) what are the key challenges in materialising this strategy.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Our goal is for Singapore to be a critical node for advanced electronics manufacturing and innovation. To achieve this, we will (a) anchor research and development (R&D) and manufacturing capabilities from globally leading companies in key segments, like memory and specialty chips; (b) strengthen our R&D ecosystem to drive growth through innovation; (c) develop a strong local base of partners and suppliers to support these activities; and (d) attract more locals into the sector and ensure they acquire industry-relevant skillsets. We will also work with industry to reduce the sector's carbon footprint in line with Singapore's net-zero target.
The global semiconductor market is facing intensive global competition for investments and an expanding scope of trade restrictions and export controls. We will need to stay nimble and calibrate our strategies as required, to sustain and grow an innovative, competitive and resilient semiconductor industry in Singapore.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Creation of Jobs for Singapore Citizens in Johor-Singapore Special Economic Zone and Mitigating Effects of Potential Business Closures in Singapore","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"6 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry (a) over the next five years, what is the expected number of new skilled jobs that will be created for Singapore citizens under the Johor-Singapore Special Economic Zone (SEZ); and (b) how does the Ministry plan to mitigate the effects of companies potentially shutting down operations in Singapore after a move to the SEZ.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The Johor-Singapore Special Economic Zone (JS-SEZ) seeks to capitalise on the complementary strengths of Singapore and Johor to strengthen Singapore's competitiveness and create good jobs for Singaporeans.
Many Singapore-based firms are already operating in Johor to take advantage of the resources there while focusing their operations in Singapore on headquarters and research functions where we have relative strengths.
Singapore and Malaysia will also jointly attract new international investments to JS-SEZ that benefit both countries. Compared to firms located in jurisdictions that are further away, firms investing in JS-SEZ are more likely to establish operations in Singapore or tap on the services provided by Singapore companies, thereby creating value for our economy.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Plans for Singapore Arts Businesses to Benefit from Johor-Singapore Special Economic Zone Agreement","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"7 Ms Usha Chandradas asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry whether there are any plans underway for Singapore arts businesses to utilise and benefit from the agreement on the Johor-Singapore Special Economic Zone.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The Johor-Singapore Special Economic Zone aims to improve cross-border movement of goods and people, and the ease of doing business. Businesses across different sectors, including arts businesses, can tap on the complementary strengths offered by Singapore and Johor to grow.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of US' AI Diffusion Policy and Export Controls on Singapore's Competitiveness and Tech Businesses","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"8 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry in view of the new artificial intelligence diffusion policy and export controls by the United States introduced in January 2025, where Singapore is not listed as among the 18 countries granted exceptions, what is the Government's assessment of (i) the ability of Singapore-based entities to import high-end chips and technologies from the United States and (ii) Singapore's artificial intelligence competitiveness.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The new artificial intelligence (AI) diffusion rule has not been finalised and is subject to further change by the Trump Administration. We are closely monitoring the situation and engaging companies on the potential impact, if any, to their AI activities in Singapore. If necessary, we will consider measures that are appropriate to ensure that Singapore-based companies will continue to have access to high-end chips and technologies from the United States.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Delivery of Aid following Ceasefire and Development of Diplomatic Relations to Promote Peace in Gaza Area","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"9 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs with the temporary ceasefire established in Gaza (a) how will Singapore assist in delivery of humanitarian efforts and aid assistance into Gaza; and (b) whether the Ministry will take any steps to explore further diplomatic relations with the Palestinian authorities and the Israeli government to promote peace and stability in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.
Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: This question has been addressed in my reply to Member of Parliament Mr Ang Wei Neng on 4 February 2025. [Please refer to \"Facilitating Humanitarian Aid and Fundraising Efforts following Ceasefire in Israel and Hamas Conflict\", Official Report, 4 February 2025, Vol 95, Issue 150, Oral Answers to Questions section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Criminal Cases Arising From Use of Gel Blasters or Imitation Guns as Fake Firearms and Public Safety Concerns","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"10 Mr Derrick Goh asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) to date, whether there are more reports of criminal cases arising from the use of gel blasters or imitation guns as fake firearms in Singapore; (b) whether there has been an uptick of police cases and reported injuries due to the use of gel-blasters in public spaces; and (c) whether the Ministry foresees emerging concerns about gel-blasters in relation to public safety and criminal activities.
Mr K Shanmugam: The number of cases involving the use of imitation arms, including toy guns like gel blasters, remains low in Singapore. In the past 10 years, there were two convictions involving imitation arms, for offences under the Arms Offences Act, Arms and Explosives Act, and the Penal Code. There were no injuries reported.
Using imitation arms to commit robbery or extortion is a serious offence under the Arms Offences Act. The offender can be jailed for up to 10 years and be liable for caning of no fewer than three strokes.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reinstatement of Service to Process Change of Address Requests at Neighbourhood Police Posts and Centres","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"11 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether the Government will consider reinstating the processing of change of address requests at Neighbourhood Police Centres and Neighbourhood Police Posts for the convenience of Singaporeans who are unable to or uncomfortable with doing so online; and (b) if not, why not.
Mr K Shanmugam: As Members know, there are severe constraints on manpower in the Police and across the Home Team Departments. I have spoken about it repeatedly. Police have had to use technology to replace manpower, wherever possible.
In that context, the physical processing of change of address requests at Neighbourhood Police Centres (NPCs) and Neighbourhood Police Posts (NPPs) was digitalised in October 2020. Our services at NPPs became digitalised and officers have been progressively redeployed. The Police have also ceased processing change of address requests with effect from December 2020. These can be done at the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA). Members of the public who visit an NPC or NPP with a request to change their address will be guided to go to ICA.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Review of Passport Administration Costs and Renewal Fees with Advancements Such As Passport-less Immigration Clearance","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"12 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) what is the annual cost of providing passport services in Singapore and how is this cost currently being funded; (b) whether the Ministry assesses that there will be a decrease in the cost of passport administration with advancements such as passport-less immigration clearance; and (c) if so, whether the Ministry will conduct a review for the potential reduction or waiving of passport renewal fees and corresponding increase in the fees for replacing lost or damaged passports.
Mr K Shanmugam: The passport application fee has remained unchanged at $70 since 2006. It is determined based on a cost-recovery basis, as with most other public services. This includes direct costs incurred for processing the application and producing and issuing the passport. Costs related to checkpoint and immigration clearance are not included in the passport application fee.
We will continue to regularly review the various passport fees, including those for replacing lost or damaged passports.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Media Coverage when Accused Persons are Brought Back to Scenes of Crime","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"13 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Home Affairs why does the Singapore Police Force allow media coverage when accused persons are brought back to the scenes of crime to assist in further investigation.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Police will make an assessment, based on public interest, in deciding whether to disclose the identity of person(s) under investigation. In such cases, the Police may also facilitate media coverage of the accused person's return to the crime scene so that they can report on the developments in the case. Strict cordons are put in place, where necessary, to ensure the media as well as members of the public remain at a safe distance to avoid any interference with the investigation.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Traffic Police and Driving Schools' Efforts at Preventing Use of Queue-jumping Bots","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"14 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether he can provide an update on how the Traffic Police has worked with the driving schools to prevent the use of queue-jumping bots to secure driving simulator slots; and (b) whether the actions taken have been effective in reducing the use of queue-jumping bots.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Traffic Police (TP) has been working with the driving schools to put in place measures, such as restricting suspicious logins with tell-tale signs of bots, requiring CAPTCHA authentication and suspending accounts that are found to be using bots. That said, while these measures will deter, they will not be able to entirely eliminate all such bot activity, as bots are evolving in sophistication and becoming harder to detect.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Public Access to Judgments of Tribunals and Financial Industry Disputes Resolution Centre, and Potential for Searchable Database","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"15 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Law (a) what percentage of judgments delivered in the Small Claims Tribunals, Employment Claims Tribunal and Financial Industry Disputes Resolution Centre are publicly accessible; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider establishing a searchable database of tribunal decisions and widely publicise its existence to enhance transparency in dispute resolution and access to justice for individual claimants.
Mr K Shanmugam: In general, the Executive leaves it to the Courts to decide on which judgments to publish. The Courts have decided that judgments delivered in the Small Claims Tribunals (SCT) and Employment Claims Tribunals (ECT) need not be published. The Courts' position is that they may make judgments available to any individual, whether a party or a non-party to the SCT or ECT proceedings, upon request.
The Courts have explained that this approach strikes a balance between helping the public understand the law and how it is applied, ensuring that the tribunals continue to dispense justice in a timely manner and maintaining the confidential nature of some proceedings. SCT and ECT have published guides to help the public understand the types of disputes adjudicated by SCT and ECT, and to navigate Court processes. The Courts have said that there are also efforts by them to leverage on advances in technology to help the public with their claims.
As mentioned previously in Parliament, the Ministry of Manpower is reviewing the publication of ECT judgments. Further, the State Courts have indicated that they are also considering the feasibility of publishing selected SCT and ECT judgments on an anonymised basis, without a prior request being made.
The Financial Industry Disputes Resolution Centre (FIDReC) is an independent alternative dispute resolution centre that seeks to promote amicable and fair outcomes in disputes between consumers and financial institutions. FIDReC is neither part of the Government nor the Judiciary. We understand that FIDReC adjudication decisions are not published as its processes are confidential and conducted without prejudice. Instead, FIDReC publishes case studies and annual reports on their website that include learning points for the public. We have conveyed the Member's feedback to FIDReC.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Minimising Food Poisoning amongst Students when Schools Switch to Food Catering","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"16 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment in view of the dwindling number of school canteen operators and with schools considering catered food for their students, what measures are in place to protect students who are much more vulnerable to food poisoning due to their weaker immune systems.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Foodborne gastroenteritis incidents in schools were found to be linked to both food supplied by caterers and canteen stall holders. Although, given caterers' higher volume of food distribution, they pose risks of larger scale foodborne illness incidents.
The Singapore Food Agency (SFA) adopts a range of measures to safeguard food safety of catered food. All licensed food caterers, including those supplying food to school canteens, are required to comply with food safety requirements, such as training of all food handlers, maintaining cleanliness of premises, ensuring all catered food have a timestamp indicating the date and time by which the food should be consumed and appointing a Food Hygiene Officer to oversee and implement food safety measures.
All licensed caterers are subjected to food safety inspections, with those having track records of past infringements and food safety-related feedback subjected to stepped-up surveillance. Caterers who are detected with food safety lapses may be given demerit points and those who accumulate more than 12 points within a year may be required to suspend their operations. SFA also regularly engages food caterers to promote awareness of measures to prevent common lapses detected in food poisoning incidents.
The Ministry of Education works with school canteen operators to comply with SFA's food safety standards and requirements. Schools regularly remind students on the importance of personal hygiene, such as the washing of hands before meals. Students also learn about food safety, food contamination and the importance of consuming food within the stipulated timings, through Food and Consumer Education.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Improving Drainage in Areas Prone to Flooding In Recent Monsoon Surge","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"17 Miss Rachel Ong asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment what are the plans to improve drainage in areas that have shown to be prone to flooding during the recent monsoon surge.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: This question has been addressed with similar Parliamentary Questions on flooding and drainage improvement at the Parliament Sitting on 4 February 2025. Please refer to the reply to Questions Nos 5 and 6 in the 4 February 2025 Order Paper. [Please refer to \"Reviewing Adequacy of Drainage Systems following Flash Floods Due To Recent Monsoon Surges\", Official Report, 4 February 2025, Vol 95, Issue 150, Oral Answers to Questions section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Monitoring Meat Purchases Bought from Malaysia through Online Platforms","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"18 Miss Rachel Ong asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) how meat purchases, specifically barbecued pork slices, bought through online platforms, such as Shopee or Lazada, from Malaysian sources are being screened or monitored; (b) whether the purchase restrictions for meat imports from Malaysia only refer to non-vacuum packed meat; and (c) whether the Government has plans to review related policies on meat imports from Malaysia for personal consumption.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: The Singapore Food Agency (SFA) requires all food businesses and importers selling meat products, whether through physical stores or e-commerce platforms, to ensure that their products come from accredited sources. SFA works with the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority to conduct border inspections and with e-commerce platforms to delist meat products that do not comply with our regulations.
Travellers may bring in food items from abroad for their own consumption, provided that the food is from an approved source within SFA's list of allowable food items and the specified weight limits. This information is available on the SFA website. Meat products from Malaysia are currently not on the approved list.
SFA will be implementing a revised private consumption policy to allow each traveller to bring in a total of 15 kilogrammes of food across all categories from any country for their personal consumption. However, products of higher regulatory concern, such as animal blood products and game meat, will continue to be disallowed.
The revised policy will be implemented under the Food Safety and Security Bill (FSSB) that was passed in Parliament in January 2025. As the FSSB is extensive, it will be implemented in phases by 2028 to facilitate a smooth transition for the industry and for SFA to put in place the necessary processes and systems to continue to safeguard food safety.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Singapore-Malaysia Water Agreement and Efforts to Ensure National Taps Continue to Meet Singapore's Water Requirements","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"19 Mr Neil Parekh Nimil Rajnikant asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) whether an update can be given on the status of the Water Agreement signed between Singapore and Malaysia that is set to expire in 2061; (b) how much water per annum does Singapore continue to receive under this agreement; and (c) what further efforts has the Government undertaken to ensure that the remaining three National Taps continue to meet the water requirements of Singapore, as newer housing estates are being developed and more global companies seek investment opportunities in Singapore.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Under the 1962 Johore River Water Agreement (62WA), which will expire in 2061, Singapore can draw up to 250 million gallons of water a day from the Johor River and is obliged to provide Johor with treated water, up to 2% of the water we import. At the recent 11th Malaysia-Singapore Leaders' Retreat, both countries emphasised their commitments in ensuring the obligations under the 62WA are fulfilled and to continuing the productive collaboration between both sides.
To meet growing water demand and strengthen our water security, the Public Utilities Board (PUB) has and will continue to invest in our water infrastructure. For example, in 2022, Singapore's 5th desalination plant, the Jurong Island Desalination Plant, was officially opened. PUB also announced in late 2024 that it will be expanding the upcoming Tuas NEWater Factory.
Apart from ensuring adequate infrastructural capacity, PUB has also introduced measures to moderate growth in water demand. The Water Efficiency Labelling Scheme helps households make well-informed choices when purchasing water fittings and appliances that save water. In consultation with the industry, PUB introduced water efficiency requirements in 2024 for new projects in specific water-intensive industries with high potential for water recycling. To support organisations which are seeking to improve their water efficiency, PUB enhanced the Water Efficiency Fund in 2023. By making informed choices and using water wisely, everyone can contribute to the sustainability of our water resources.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reasons for Increase in Unemployment Rate of Fresh Polytechnic Graduates and Plans to Address Youths' Career Expectations","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"20 Ms See Jinli Jean asked the Minister for Education (a) whether young job seekers feeling more pressure to select a fulfilling career and from the job search itself, as reported in the National Youth Council's \"The State of Youth in Singapore 2024\", has contributed to the increase in unemployment rate of fresh polytechnic graduates as indicated in the Graduate Employment Survey for 2024; and (b) if so, how does the Ministry plan to help young job seekers to align their expectations with the career propositions of the job marketplace.
21 Ms See Jinli Jean asked the Minister for Education in respect of the Graduate Employment Survey for 2024 by the five polytechnics (a) what are the likely reasons for the rise in unemployment rate of fresh polytechnic graduates by five percentage points; and (b) how does the Ministry plan to respond to this finding.
22 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for Education (a) what is the Ministry's assessment on the employment outlook of fresh polytechnic graduates; (b) what are the reasons for fewer fresh polytechnic graduates landing full-time permanent jobs in 2024 as indicated in the Graduate Employment Survey 2024 by the five polytechnics; and (c) how many fresh graduates pursue further education upon their graduation in 2024.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: My response will cover the matters raised in the questions by Dr Wan Rizal1, Ms See Jinli Jean, Mr Leong Mun Wai2, Mr Liang Eng Hwa, Mr Pritam Singh and Ms Foo Mee Har3, which are scheduled for the Sittings on and after 4 February 2025. [Please refer to \"Assessment of Employment Landscape for Polytechnic Graduates in 2025\", Official Report, 4 February 2025, Vol 95, Issue 150, Oral Answers to Questions section.]
If need be, I invite these Members to seek clarifications following my response.
Employment rates are affected by various factors, such as the economic and labour market conditions. Some fluctuations from year to year are to be expected. More importantly, we must continue to monitor and respond to the secular trends, beyond the cyclical fluctuations, that may affect the employability of our graduates.
While the labour market remained tight in 2024, with job vacancies remaining higher than pre-pandemic levels, 2024 saw lower hiring demand and fewer vacancies compared to 2023, which might have contributed to the survey findings for 2024. Based on the 2024 Graduate Employment Survey conducted by the five polytechnics, about 45% of graduates were economically active. Among this group, there was a decrease in the full-time permanent employment rate and an increase in the unemployment rate as compared to 2023. The impact was uneven across course clusters. Some course clusters, such as health sciences, and humanities and social sciences, continued to see strong employment outcomes. Graduates from course clusters, such as engineering, and information and digital technologies, had higher unemployment rates and this could be due to cyclical sectoral changes, such as the downturn in the tech sector, which also affected hiring demand.
We have also observed that some graduates have received full-time permanent job offers but have rejected them for various reasons, including a perceived lack of work-life balance or the offered pay not meeting their expectations. We will continue to monitor if this trend persists and if it has a longer-term impact on graduates' employment outcomes.
The polytechnics will continue to equip students with the necessary and in-demand skills and competencies by working closely with industry partners to ensure that their curriculum remain relevant and responsive to the evolving job market demands, as well as to provide quality internship opportunities for students. The polytechnics further support students by providing Education and Career Guidance as part of the curriculum, which includes resume writing and interview skills training. Those who require more support in finding a job can also tap on the career matching services and digital resources offered by Workforce Singapore's and the National Trades Union Congress' Employment and Employability Institute (e2i).
For 2025, given global economic uncertainties, we will continue to monitor the situation closely together with the polytechnics and industry partners.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Question subsequently withdrawn: To ask the Minister for Education with reference to the latest Graduate Employment Survey, what measures are implemented to (i) address the challenges that fresh polytechnic graduates face in securing employment, given businesses’ cautious hiring practices despite economic growth (ii) enhance job readiness by equipping graduates with the skills required in high-demand sectors such as digital technologies and health sciences and (iii) adapt polytechnic curricula by strengthening industry partnerships to prepare graduates for the evolving job market demands, including skills in artificial intelligence and digital transformation.","2 : Question subsequently withdrawn: To ask the Minister for Education (a) whether the lower percentage of fresh polytechnic graduates landing full-time permanent jobs in 2024 based on the results of the Graduate Employment Survey by the five polytechnics is an indication of skills mismatch between polytechnic graduates and the job market; and (b) whether any further actions will be taken to improve the ability of polytechnic graduates to secure full-time permanent jobs after graduation.","3 : Question subsequently withdrawn: To ask the Minister for Education (a) what are the latest employment outcomes for fresh graduates from the 2024 cohort of graduates from the Institutes of Higher Learning including the percentage securing full-time permanent jobs within six months of graduation; (b) what has been the trend over the past five years in the proportion of graduates attaining full-time permanent employment within this timeframe; and (c) what measures are in place to address any challenges identified."],"footNoteQuestions":["20","21","22"],"questionNo":"20-22"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Initiatives to Support, Sustain and Improve Employment and Further Education Rates of Special Education School Graduates","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"23 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Minister for Education based on the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study 2023 (a) how does the Ministry plan to sustain and further improve the employment and further education rates of special education school graduates; and (b) and what specific initiatives are in place to support their transition into the workforce or institutions of higher education.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: Students with special educational needs (SEN) are enrolled in either mainstream or Special Education (SPED) schools. For students in SPED schools, some learn the national curriculum with support and others benefit from a customised SPED curriculum.
For students with SEN learning the national curriculum, the Ministry of Education (MOE) strives to have as many of them progress to post-secondary education institutions (PSEIs) as possible.
Secondary and older students in mainstream schools have Education and Career Guidance Counsellors to guide them in making informed decisions about their education and career plans. Students with additional needs will receive further guidance and support from teachers and school personnel, such as SEN officers.
Students in SPED schools also receive support in transitioning to PSEIs. Schools work closely with students and their families to develop an Individual Transition Plan for each SPED student, to realise their post-school goals.
Presently, we have approximately 7,000 students with reported SEN enrolled across the Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs).
For IHL courses that have internship requirements, students with SEN are expected to participate in them. The SG Enable IHL Internship Programme assists in matching students with disabilities to inclusive organisations in various sectors. Many of our IHLs provide internship opportunities on campus for students who may face greater difficulties securing external internships. Pre-internship, employment workshops and job matching programmes are also provided to help manage the transition of students with SEN from the IHLs to the workplace. All students, regardless of their SEN condition, are encouraged to exercise self-advocacy to communicate their needs and request job accommodations at the workplace, if needed.
For students who offer a customised curriculum in SPED and demonstrate potential for employment, MOE also partners with SG Enable on employment support through programmes such as the School-To-Work Transition Programme. MOE has also enhanced the SPED Vocational Education curriculum to emphasise the intentional teaching of soft skills and more structured vocational guidance. Eligible students can also enrol in selected Institute of Technical Education Skills Certificate programmes and Workforce Skills Qualifications courses in SPED schools, such as Metta School and Delta Senior School. In addition, SG Enable provides incentives, such as grants, from the Open Door Programme to help employers redesign jobs for students with disabilities.
We encourage more employers to be part of our whole-of-society effort and adopt an inclusive mindset to enable more young Singaporeans with SEN to enter and thrive in our workforce. With some adjustment and greater understanding, employers can benefit from the value that students with SEN bring to their work teams.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Initiatives to Address Decline in Students' Interest in Mathematics despite High Achievement Levels","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"24 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Minister for Education based on the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study 2023 (TIMSS), what initiatives are being implemented to counter the reported decline in students' interest in mathematics despite high achievement levels.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: The decline in students' interest in learning Mathematics was observed across many participating education systems in the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) 2023, including in the higher-performing ones. Notwithstanding this decline, factors that potentially support students' interest in learning Mathematics remain robust in Singapore. Our students reported higher instructional clarity in Mathematics lessons, compared to most top-performing systems in TIMSS 2023. The proportion of students who indicated that their teachers deployed a wide range of teaching strategies to support their learning had also increased from TIMSS 2019.
To develop our students' interest in learning Mathematics, the Ministry of Education (MOE) adopts age-appropriate pedagogies that are engaging, such as through games or use of technology, so that students can experience fun and success in learning. For example, learning through play is a key feature of the Learning Support for Mathematics programme for students who need more support. The curriculum also encourages hands-on activities and real-world problem-solving, enabling students to apply and deepen their understanding of mathematical concepts in authentic scenarios.
MOE will continue to develop teachers' capacity and update curriculum resources to make learning more meaningful and engaging for learners.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Plans to Support Students Academically Weaker in Mathematics and Science Reach Higher Proficiency Levels","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"25 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Minister for Education based on the findings from the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study 2023, whether the Ministry plans to support academically weaker students for Mathematics and Science who, despite performing above international averages, may require additional assistance to reach higher proficiency levels.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: Our academically weaker students had generally performed better than their international peers in both Mathematics and Science in the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) 2023. This is largely due to the provision of dedicated and customised support for these students. The Ministry of Education (MOE) will continue to strengthen our support for students. For example, the Learning Support for Mathematics (LSM) Programme has provided targeted support since 2007 to Primary 1 and Primary 2 students who do not have the necessary numeracy foundation to access the primary Mathematics curriculum. MOE has extended the LSM to Primary 3 and 4 students progressively since 2023. We have also enhanced the resources and pedagogies used in LSM to further meet the needs of students and address their learning gaps.
At Primary 5 and Primary 6, students who need more time and a slower pace of learning in Mathematics and Science can offer these subjects at the Foundation level.
At the secondary level, with Full Subject-Based Banding, students can offer Mathematics and Science at the G1, G2 and G3 levels according to their level of readiness. In G1 Mathematics and Science, concepts and skills from primary levels are revisited and reinforced to cater to the need of students before moving on to new content.
Continuous professional development is extended to teachers to equip them in teaching students who require additional support. MOE will continue to work closely with schools to help students across all ability profiles to learn deeply and build a strong foundation in Mathematics and Science.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Monitoring Reports of Bullying, Depression and Suicide amongst Students as Well-being Indicators","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"26 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Minister for Education (a) whether the Ministry actively monitors the average number of (i) bullying cases (ii) students who have been diagnosed with depression or (iii) suicide cases reported per student of each school, as a measure of student well-being; (b) if so, what steps are being taken to improve student well-being at schools with higher rates of reported bullying, depression, or suicide; (c) whether there are any plans for the Ministry to monitor such statistics; and (d) if not, why not.\n
Mr Chan Chun Sing: The Ministry of Education (MOE) monitors cases related to student mental health and discipline that are reported to or identified by schools. However, MOE may not have information on all cases, as some families prefer to seek help privately. We work with schools to address student well-being issues, such as bullying, and to provide support for students with suicide risks. Beyond a support network of teachers and school counsellors in every school, students have access to specialised interventions and resources in the community, such as the Response, Early Intervention and Assessment in Community Mental Health teams. Parents also play an important role to provide the necessary support and guidance to their child at home.
Where there are schools with students with greater needs, MOE works closely with these schools to review their strategies and provide more targeted support where required. We will continue to update these measures so that our schools receive appropriate resources and assistance as they partner with parents to address student well-being issues together.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Average Bullying Cases Reported at Admiralty Secondary School versus Other Secondary Schools","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"27 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Minister for Education (a) whether the Ministry has data on the average number of cases of bullying reported per student studying at Admiralty Secondary School in each year since 2020; (b) if so, how many; and (c) how does such number of reported bullying cases compare to those of other secondary schools.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: I would like my response to also address Question No 1 in today's Order Paper and a Written Parliamentary Question, which is scheduled for a subsequent Sitting. [Please refer to \"Update on MOE's Probe into Alleged Assault on Student at Admiralty Secondary School on 7 January 2025\", Official Report, 4 February 2025, Vol 95, Issue 150, Oral Answers to Questions section.]
I invite Members to seek clarifications if need be. I will also make some broader comments on how we should handle such incidents as a society.
I thank Parliamentary Members and members of the public for showing concern for the well-being of our students. The Ministry of Education (MOE) takes a serious view of any act of bullying or violence. No one should be bullied. No one wants to be bullied. No one should bully.
MOE monitors these cases that are reported to or are identified by our schools, whether the incidents happen in or outside schools, online and offline. While cases of physical bullying are relatively stable and manageable, other associated issues have arisen, especially online, to compound our concerns.
First, the virality of social media postings has heightened sensitivities and increased social media vigilante actions. These can normalise the extremes and hinder rehabilitative actions. Second, the unhelpful involvement of even a minority of adults can complicate the situations and compound the challenges faced in guiding our students.
For Admiralty Secondary School, in the last five years, there was an average of about two incidents of bullying per year per 1000 students, both within and outside of school. This is no higher than the national average of bullying cases in secondary schools.
Regarding the alleged assault case at Admiralty Secondary on 7 January, preliminary investigations by MOE reveal that it was not an incident of bullying. An altercation happened between two new Secondary 1 students during the transition between periods. This resulted in one student striking the other on the head with a plastic water bottle, giving rise to a cut on that student's head. The Form Teacher intervened immediately on witnessing the scene and separated the students. The injured student received first aid for the cut on his head, while the school leaders called for an ambulance to convey him to hospital.
Based on MOE's investigations so far, the school had acted appropriately to support the student's well-being. The school had ensured that he received medical care in a timely manner. During his medical leave, the school maintained communication with his parents, provided learning support for the child and monitored his well-being. The student has since returned to school. The school has also been assisting the Police in their ongoing investigations of the case.
The student who struck the other student has been suspended, is being counselled and will face further disciplinary actions when he returns to school. The school will also facilitate the restoration of relationships between the two students when they are both back in school. The objective of these educative and restorative efforts is to help students learn and grow through these experiences.
We understand the anxieties of parents whose children are or have been involved in fighting or bullying incidents, but please allow the school and the authorities to deal with the cases and carry out the necessary disciplinary and restorative actions professionally. Without the full facts, let us not speculate or jump in to complicate matters further.
Regarding the incident involving a former student of Admiralty Secondary who fell from height in 2023, MOE is deeply saddened by this loss and our condolences are with her family and loved ones.
The causes and possible triggers for suicides are complex and multifaceted. When it happens, our school leaders seek to extend help to affected students and families and work closely with families in managing their grief. When our schools manage these situations, MOE maintains strict confidentiality and does not disclose details of the incidents or the child's family circumstances to the public out of respect for the family's privacy and in view of the sensitive nature of these matters.
However, this often leaves our school leaders and teachers vulnerable to misunderstanding, leading to online attacks and abuse of our teachers and staff while they continue to exercise restraint and sensitivity to the families. Given that this particular student's case has now been made known to the public, I would like to assure Members that the school had gone above and beyond in supporting this student when she was experiencing emotional challenges. When the school was informed that the student was going through some friendship issues, the school took action to guide the affected students to resolve their differences and to reconcile. A dedicated team, comprising experienced school staff and school counsellor, extended counselling to her and facilitated restorative conversations among the schoolmates. Even after this incident, when the student experienced other challenges, the school continued to provide support and intervention over several months.
Throughout this process, the school staff maintained communication with the student's family, reaching out to work with and support them. The one-sided allegations lobbed at Admiralty Secondary do not reflect the full picture. They do not do justice to the efforts that the school had made to help the student and her family in her time of need. The outcome was not something anyone wished to see happen. But the intent and efforts of the school to help the child, seeking to partner the family, should not be doubted.
At this juncture, while I will not comment on the specifics of various cases, let me share some broader reflections on how we should respond as a society to these and similar ones that have arisen.
When such incidents happen, some of us, including adults, may react reflexively or emotionally. The court of public opinion, with an incomplete view, then reacts and complicate an already difficult situation.
MOE is particularly concerned when adults take to social media or turn up in our schools to threaten our staff, demanding action on behalf of their children and even threatening the other children. This is wrong. MOE will not tolerate such actions. We will do all that is necessary, including taking firm action in accordance with MOE's Engagement Charter and our laws, to safeguard the well-being of our staff and students while we work to counsel and discipline the students involved.
While these incidents are few, they incur disproportionate amount of time and bandwidth to manage and must not be allowed to grow. While a small number of parents may think the schools have not done enough in their eyes to address their grievances, we can all be confident that our teachers are taking care of the interests of all our children impartially and not just a few or selected ones.
It is useful to remember that it is one thing for children to fight and quarrel. It is quite another for adults to jump in to take sides, aggravate the quarrel and detract us from guiding our children towards reconciliation and rehabilitation. In the recent incidents, school leaders were flamed online, the school was unfairly represented and the steadfast efforts of our educators to support all affected students were left unacknowledged and unappreciated. I am sure we can agree that we can and must be better than this.
I understand that many of us care deeply about the well-being of our students. Compassion forms the foundation of a strong, nurturing society that we all strive to build. While MOE continues to take a firm stance against bullying, take care of our children and staff, help feuding parties to heal and guide our children in the proper ways, we, as parents and the wider society, can partner our teachers and play our part by reminding ourselves of the following:
One, what we hear and see online may not be what it is. Especially when we only choose to hear and see what we want.
Two, he who shouts the loudest and fastest, may not be the most innocent nor most accurate.
Three, swinging the sword of vigilantism in the dark, online and in real life, always hurts the innocent ones that one may claim to protect.
Four, broadcasting the extremes will normalise the extremes and encourage even more extreme behaviours.
Five, when we amplify one-sided perspectives, we should have a care if we are not being used to further the agenda of specific individuals. Providing partisan support to feuding parties would only fuel the fire and embolden the feuding parties to be even more strident.
Six, retributive justice must be coupled with rehabilitative justice. Punishment alone, without due care to rehabilitate, is not in line with the long-term developmental interests of our children.
Seven, hate begets hate. Respect begets respect. An eye for an eye, makes us all blind and robs us of our future and humanity.
Eight, we are our children's role models. If we act like bullies, online or offline, they will too. Threatening, doxxing and being disrespectful to other children and teachers are not actions that make our children better. This is also not how we demonstrate to our children that we care for them and protect them.
Nine, subverting the schools' authority, by appealing to external \"higher\" authorities or seeking to use the media to attack and cast aspersions on the schools and teachers, will make us all losers. Ultimately, our children will no longer respect authority. Such actions also take up the precious time and bandwidth of our teachers, at the expense of other children and parents who deserve more.
Ten, when we, as adults and parents, shield our children who have done wrong from punishment, we are teaching them the wrong lessons – that they do not have to take responsibility for their actions, that someone else is always at fault or that they will always be bailed out.
Let us work together and not let the unrepresentative actions of a small minority colour the perception and behaviour of our children, our parents, our teachers and our schools. As parents and members of the public, let us work with our teachers to be positive role models, carefully considering how we should respond in ways that are helpful and kind. By sharing and responding to information thoughtfully and respectfully, we contribute to building a wiser and more compassionate society.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures to Increase Participation Rate of PwDs in Training Programmes","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"28 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Minister for Social and Family Development based on the Disability Trends Report 2024, what measures are being implemented to increase the participation rate of persons with disabilities in training programmes, considering the health and commuting challenges that they face.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: SG Enable undertakes continuing efforts to improve access to lifelong learning opportunities for persons with disabilities to fulfil their aspirations.
To ensure that lifelong learning opportunities remain affordable and accessible, the Open Door Programme Training Grant offers employers funding for up to 95% of course fees when they send their employees with disabilities for courses curated by SG Enable's Enabling Academy, the disability learning hub.
Enabling Academy collaborates with training providers to continually expand the range of courses tailored for persons with disabilities to support their professional development and personal enrichment. Training providers can tap on SG Enable's Capability Development Grant to purchase assistive technology devices or modify their courses for persons with disabilities. The Enabling Academy also conducts regular complimentary workshops on disability inclusion. These efforts expand and diversify the vocational and lifelong learning courses available for persons with disabilities, to enable them to build essential life skills and enhance their independence.
SG Enable launched the first Enabling Services Hub (ESH) in Tampines in 2023, with two more ESHs starting in Jurong West and Punggol in 2025. The ESHs work with community partners to provide disability support and services, including continuing education and learning courses, closer to the homes of persons with disabilities. The courses are bite-sized and cover a range of topics, such as community living skills and digital literacy.
Persons with disabilities can also tap on public transport concession fares or the Taxi Subsidy Scheme for taxi transport if they are unable to take public transport, to commute to work or employment-related training.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Additional Support for Caregivers of PwDs in Light of Reported Quality of Life Decline and Difficulties in Accessing Financial Assistance","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"29 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Minister for Social and Family Development with reference to the Disability Trends Report 2024, what additional support is being provided to caregivers of persons with disabilities in light of the reported decline in their quality of life and difficulties in accessing financial assistance and subsidies.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Caregivers of persons with disabilities may experience higher levels of stress compared to the general population. Hence, we provide a range of support to caregivers, ranging from care services for their care recipients, respite care options, caregiver training, peer support and financial assistance.
For example, SG Enable has piloted the Take-A-Break programme, offering short-term home-based respite services to families. Additionally, the Enabling Services Hubs (ESHs) work with community partners to reach out to persons with disabilities and their caregivers and deliver community-based activities and programmes. Two more ESHs will be operational in 2025, bringing the total number of ESHs to three.
Caregivers can access the Enabling Guide on SG Enable's website as an online resource to determine the schemes and services that best suit them and how they can apply for support. Caregivers may also use the Caregiver Learning Roadmap on the website to gain relevant knowledge, skills and resources to care for themselves and their loved ones. They may also join caregiver support groups for peer and emotional support. Caregivers who need more information on caregiver support services can contact SG Enable's caregiver support team.
We will continue to review our policies and services to ensure caregivers receive the support they need. As part of the Enabling Masterplan 2030, we are committed to improving the accessibility, relevance and quality of caregiver support, enhancing their well-being across the caregiving journey.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Broadening Usage of Assistance Dogs for PwDs Beyond Those Who Are Visually Impaired","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"30 Mr Darryl David asked the Minister for Social and Family Development whether an update can be provided on the review on broadening the use of assistance dogs to empower persons with disabilities beyond the visually impaired.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: In June 2024, the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) announced that the use of assistance dogs will be extended to persons with physical disabilities and persons who are deaf and hard-of-hearing, beyond the visually impaired.
The access for the new categories of assistance dogs supporting persons with physical disabilities and persons who are deaf and hard-of-hearing will be extended to public housing, public transport and licensed food establishments, in a phased approach. The Housing and Development Board (HDB) has updated their website to allow these assistance dogs to stay in HDB flats. Majlis Ugama Islam Singapura also uploaded a revised simplified Irsyad on these assistance dogs on their website. MSF is working with agencies, such as the Land Transport Authority and Singapore Food Agency, to implement the necessary changes to allow these assistance dogs onto public transport and into licensed food establishments 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":"Integrated Marketing Approach to Engage Employers and Encourage Workplace Transformation for Inclusive Hiring","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"31 Ms See Jinli Jean asked the Minister for Social and Family Development whether the Ministry will consider an integrated marketing approach to proactively engage employers across industries on workplace and workforce transformation for the hiring of persons with disabilities from the outset to establish inclusive hiring as a norm in Singapore, going above and beyond the work that is currently done by SG Enable.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) will continue to work with SG Enable, the focal agency for disability and inclusion in Singapore, to actively engage, encourage and support employers to hire persons with disabilities and promote inclusive hiring across industries.
We provide a comprehensive suite of support for inclusive hiring. The Enabling Mark, a national-level accreditation framework recognises employers for practices and outcomes in disability inclusion. The Open Door Programme provides job matching and customised employment support and grants to employers for job redesign and training. In addition, employers receive wage offsets through the Enabling Employment Credit for employees with disabilities earning below $4,000 per month. SG Enable also launched the first Enabling Business Hub at Jurong in 2023, to bring training and employment opportunities closer to persons with disabilities.
Going forward, SG Enable will be doing more by adopting a more targeted approach in six target sectors that either traditionally hire or have growth potential for job opportunities suitable for persons with disabilities, viz food and beverage services; retail trade; information and communications; health and social services; transport and storage; and financial and insurance services. Initiatives include, identifying inclusive hiring champions and supporting them to share their experiences and best practices in inclusive hiring with fellow industry players who have yet to start their inclusive hiring journey as well as expanding hiring efforts of existing inclusive employers.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Plans to Recruit 26,500 Early Childhood Educators and Strategies to Retain Manpower for Sector","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"32 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) whether the Ministry is on track to meet its target of having over 26,500 early childhood educators by 2025; and (b) what is the Ministry's strategies to improve recruitment and reduce attrition.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: In the reply on 7 January 2025 to Members of Parliament Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng and Mr Desmond Choo, we updated that the number of early childhood educators has increased from over 18,000 in 2018 to over 25,000 today. [Please refer to \"Ensuring Staffing Adequacy with Additional 40,000 Infant Care and Childcare Places Coming Onstream\", Official Report, 7 January 2025, Vol 95, Issue 148, Oral Answers to Questions section.]
We continue to see the workforce growing at a healthy pace and attrition rates have remained stable.
We had also updated on our efforts to attract and retain early childhood educators, including raising salaries in Government-supported preschools and introducing initiatives to improve educators' well-being.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Singaporeans Seeking Medical Treatment in Malaysia and Measures to Strengthen Singapore's Healthcare Hub Status","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"33 Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked the Minister for Health (a) what is the Ministry's assessment of the growing trend of Singaporeans seeking medical treatment in Malaysia for reasons, such as affordability and accessibility; and (b) what measures will be implemented to strengthen Singapore's healthcare hub status and ensure affordable, timely and high-quality medical care domestically.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The Ministry of Health (MOH) does not track the number of Singaporeans who travel to Malaysia for medical treatment nor their reasons for doing so.
MOH's priority is to ensure that healthcare in Singapore remains affordable, accessible and of high quality. We recently expanded hospital capacity with the opening of Woodlands Health Campus in 2024. We have also introduced new models of care, such as telehealth and Mobile Inpatient Care @ Home, which improve access to care for our patients. We will also be increasing MediShield Life and MediSave limits significantly from April 2025, ensuring that they remain adequate to cover nine in 10 subsidised bills.
We have developed a good international and regional reputation in providing quality healthcare and will continue to welcome overseas patients to Singapore. But we are not aspiring to be a medical hub that actively promotes medical tourism.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Promoting Awareness of and Implementing Preventive Measures against Sarcopenia","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"34 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Health (a) what initiatives are currently in place to (i) promote awareness of sarcopenia and its associated consequences for older people (ii) encourage regular resistance training from a younger age as a preventative health approach to reducing the risk of sarcopenia; and (b) whether greater funding can be provided for the construction of exercise facilities that are safe to use and easily accessible to those at risk of sarcopenia to mitigate its effects.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Sarcopenia refers to the progressive loss of muscle mass as one ages. Seniors who have a well-balanced diet and an active physical lifestyle have a lower risk of sarcopenia.
To help more seniors age actively, we have set aside $3.5 billion over the next decade for Age Well SG initiatives, including enhancing and expanding the network of Active Ageing Centres (AACs). By 2025, seniors will be served by 220 AACs offering a variety of activities including physical exercises that support those at risk of sarcopenia. This includes the Health Promotion Board's (HPB's) Steady Lah programme, which incorporates progressive muscle strengthening exercises.
Under the Live Well, Age Well programme by HPB and the People's Association, Singaporeans aged 50 and above can also participate in various active ageing activities in the community, including weekly group exercises to build strength, balance and flexibility, and workshops to learn about healthy eating.
There are various public awareness campaigns that promote healthy eating and physical lifestyle habits by the Ministry of Health. For instance, through Health Hub, social media and other channels, HPB raises awareness of the need for seniors to have sufficient protein intake as part of a well-balanced diet.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Use of MediShield Life and Integrated Shield Plans for Overseas Outpatient and Inpatient Medical Treatment","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"35 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Health whether the Government is considering reviewing the use of MediShield Life and Integrated Shield Plans for overseas outpatient and inpatient medical treatment.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: MediShield Life is designed as a universal and basic health insurance plan. Hence, it covers subsidised bills at public hospitals in Singapore. Any expansion for medical treatments overseas will likely raise premiums and undermine the original objective of the scheme.
As for Integrated Shield Plans, most provide coverage for emergency overseas medical treatments. Such coverage is provided based on insurers' commercial considerations.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Assessing Impact of Batam's Escaped Crocodiles on Singapore's Wildlife Ecosystem and Measures to Protect Residents, Farms and Businesses","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"36 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for National Development with regard to the escaped crocodiles from Batam (a) what measures are in place to identify and recover any of these animals that may enter Singapore waters; (b) how are our agencies working with our foreign counterparts on this matter; and (c) what additional safety measures have been activated for Singapore residents visiting Batam.
37 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether the Ministry has assessed the potential impact on Singapore's biodiversity from the crocodiles that escaped from a farm in Batam, which may disrupt the local ecosystem by competing with or preying on native wildlife; (b) if so, what are the steps taken by NParks, together with other agencies, to protect the biodiversity of Singapore's wildlife; and (c) what are the measures to protect the farms and businesses in the Lim Chu Kang, Neo Tiew and neighbouring areas.
Mr Desmond Lee: The National Parks Board (NParks) has assessed that the likelihood of the escaped crocodiles from Batam appearing in Singapore waters, including in Lim Chu Kang, Neo Tiew and their neighbouring areas, and the corollary biodiversity impact would be low. The crocodiles are unlikely to land in Singapore due to the more favourable habitats along their native coastlines, as compared to the extensive sea journey required to reach our shores. Nevertheless, the Singapore Food Agency has issued an advisory to our coastal fish farms to exercise vigilance and NParks is monitoring the situation with other agencies and stakeholders.
Should members of public encounter a crocodile, whether in Singapore or abroad, they should stay calm and back away. They should not approach, provoke or feed the animal and should heed warning signs and advisory notices posted in areas where crocodiles have been sighted. In the event of a sighting in Singapore, members of public should report the sighting to NParks, so that the risk to public safety can be monitored and managed. Singapore residents visiting the Batam coastal tourism areas may also wish to consult local staff and authorities for advice, especially if they plan to engage in water activities.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on Dogs at Facilities Licensed to Breed Puppies for Sale","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"38 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for National Development in each of the past five years, what are the (i) mean and (ii) median numbers of dogs at each facility licensed to breed puppies for sale.
Mr Desmond Lee: The mean and median numbers of dogs at licensed breeding facilities from 2020 to 2024 are shown in Table 1 below.
39 Ms Poh Li San asked the Minister for National Development whether the Ministry will consider allowing owners of two-room HDB flats to rent out their bedrooms if they are unable to work and are in financial difficulties.
Mr Desmond Lee: Flat owners must reside in their Housing and Development Board (HDB) flat when renting out spare bedroom(s) in their flat. For 2-room HDB flats, as there is only one bedroom, there is no spare bedroom that can be rented out.
Nevertheless, we recognise that some 2-room HDB flat owners may need to rent out their bedroom, if they are facing financial hardship. HDB considers such appeals on a case-by-case basis and is prepared to grant approval, provided that the flat owners can demonstrate that they have made suitable living arrangements with potential tenants within the flat.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"HDB Owners with Annulled Marriages Selling Instead of Surrendering Flats in Last Five Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"40 Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Minister for National Development (a) in the last five years, whether HDB has permitted flat owners whose marriages are annulled to sell their flats instead of surrendering them; and (b) if so, what are the factors taken into account.\n
Mr Desmond Lee: If flat owners are unable to form an eligible family nucleus to retain flat ownership following the annulment of their marriage, the owners are required to surrender their flat to the Housing and Development Board (HDB). Over the last five years, HDB has allowed the sale of flat following annulment in only a few cases that faced extenuating circumstances. For example, a confluence of significant financial difficulties and challenging family circumstances.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Additional Balloting Chances for Unsuccessful First-timer Families' BTO Applications in Non-mature Estates","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"41 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for National Development in light of the transition to the Standard, Plus and Prime housing classification framework for HDB BTO flats (a) whether the scheme to provide additional ballot chances to first-timer families with two or more previous unsuccessful BTO applications in non-mature estates is still in place; and (b) what is the success rate for such applicants at their third application.
Mr Desmond Lee: First-timer (FT) families get priority allocation under the new flat classification framework. The Housing and Development Board (HDB) sets aside the majority of the Build-To-Order (BTO) flat supply for them and, additionally, accords them priority through various schemes. For example, First-Timer (Parents and Married Couples), or FT(PMCs), get first priority under the Family and Parenthood Priority Scheme (FPPS), when they apply for a 4-room and smaller Standard BTO flat. Since the scheme was launched in October 2023, about nine in 10 or 90% of FT(PMCs), who applied for a 4-room and smaller flat in non-mature estates (NMEs) were invited to book a flat.
Under the new flat classification framework, all FT families who have been unsuccessful in two or more BTO attempts for a Standard flat will receive one additional ballot chance for each subsequent application they make for a Standard flat. FT(PMC) applicants may accumulate up to five ballot chances while other first-timer applicants may accumulate up to four ballot chances. The old NME framework and the new flat classification framework are inherently different. Hence, additional ballots from the old NME framework have not been ported over to the new flat classification framework. However, FT families applying under the new framework will continue to enjoy the benefit of the priority measures described above.
As HDB has only conducted one BTO exercise under the new flat classification framework, data is not yet available on the success rate of Standard flat applicants at their second or third application.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Possibility of Using Loading and Unloading Bays for Overnight Parking in Sengkang and Punggol","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"42 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for National Development whether it is possible to designate certain loading and unloading bays for overnight parking between 10.30 pm and 7.00 am in estates, such as Sengkang and Punggol, where uncovered parking spaces are limited.
Mr Desmond Lee: Loading and unloading bays (LUBs) are intended for loading and unloading activities by residents, maintenance staff and delivery personnel throughout the day. Hence, allowing vehicles to park at LUBs could lead to inconvenience and disamenities to residents.
In the early 2000s, the Housing and Development Board exercised flexibility to allow season parking holders to park overnight from 10.00 pm to 10.00 am at a small number of LUBs, including 14 locations in Sengkang and Punggol, to address localised shortage of parking spaces at that time. There are no plans to extend this arrangement to more LUBs, so as to preserve the limited number of LUB lots for loading and unloading activities.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Redemption Rates of CDC Vouchers at Supermarkets and Small Businesses","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"43 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) for each of the past four years, what is the redemption or utilisation of the Community Development Council (CDC) Vouchers expressed in terms of percentage at (i) supermarkets and (ii) small businesses; and (b) whether the Ministry can consider issuing a higher proportion of CDC Vouchers for use at supermarkets instead of other businesses.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Since January 2023, the Community Development Council (CDC) Vouchers have been split equally between the hawkers and heartland merchant category and the supermarket category. This strikes a balance between supporting Singaporean households with their daily expenses and supporting hawkers and heartland merchants.
Across the 2023 and 2024 tranches of CDC Vouchers, more than $1.3 billion worth of CDC Vouchers have been spent. Of this, about 49.6% were spent at heartland merchants and 50.4% were spent at supermarkets.
Every Singaporean household can only claim one set of CDC Vouchers per tranche. Some Singaporean households might be unable to claim their CDC Vouchers for a variety of reasons. For example, when more than one Singaporean household resides in the same rental address or their registered address is not a residential address.
Singaporean households living in co-tenanted premises are not disadvantaged as long as they can provide proof of their separate households. In such cases, the household that has yet to claim their vouchers may make an appeal at any community centre or club.
If Singaporean households experience difficulty in claiming their CDC Vouchers digitally, they can bring along their National Registration Identity Card (NRIC) showing their current registered address, the CDC Vouchers Scheme notification letter and relevant official documents showing their name and current address, for example, utilities bill, property tax, to the nearest community centre or club to apply for their vouchers.
Under the Regulation 11A of the National Registration Act, all NRIC holders need to report a change of address within 28 days of moving into a new residence, whether the residence is located in or outside of Singapore. Singaporean households who come across previous owner or occupants who did not update their address with the authorities after they have moved out and have made false claims of the CDC Vouchers, may report the incident to the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority and the Police.
For CDC Vouchers Scheme 2024, as of 31 December 2024, 97%, or about 1.3 million Singaporean households had claimed their CDC Vouchers 2024 (January) and (June), which is the highest claim figures since the launch of the digital scheme in 2021. There remains a small group of households that did not claim. For example, households whose residents are living overseas. The CDCs continue to work on ensuring all eligible Singaporean households can claim and spend their vouchers by reaching out especially to digitally less-savvy residents.
The Government remains committed to ensuring that the CDC Vouchers Scheme best serves Singaporean households and local businesses. We will continue to monitor its implementation and review where needed to ensure its effectiveness.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Eligibility of Residents with Addresses of Non-residential Premises to Claim CDC Vouchers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"44 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth whether the Ministry will allow eligible residents who reside in, and whose NRIC-registered addresses reflect, a non-residential premise such as farms and businesses in Lim Chu Kang, Neo Tiew estate and neighbouring areas to claim Community Development Council (CDC) Vouchers.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Since January 2023, the Community Development Council (CDC) Vouchers have been split equally between the hawkers and heartland merchant category and the supermarket category. This strikes a balance between supporting Singaporean households with their daily expenses and supporting hawkers and heartland merchants.
Across the 2023 and 2024 tranches of CDC Vouchers, more than $1.3 billion worth of CDC vouchers have been spent. Of this, about 49.6% were spent at heartland merchants and 50.4% were spent at supermarkets.
Every Singaporean household can only claim one set of CDC Vouchers per tranche. Some Singaporean households might be unable to claim their CDC Vouchers for a variety of reasons, for example, when more than one Singaporean household resides in the same rental address, or their registered address is not a residential address.
Singaporean households living in co-tenanted premises are not disadvantaged as long as they can provide proof of their separate households. In such cases, the household that has yet to claim their vouchers may make an appeal at any Community Centre or Club.
If Singaporean households experience difficulty in claiming their CDC Vouchers digitally, they can bring along their National Registration Identity Card (NRIC) (showing their current registered address), CDC Vouchers Scheme notification letter and relevant official documents (showing their name and current address), for example, utilities bill, property tax to the nearest Community Centre or Club to apply for their vouchers.
Under the Regulation 11A of the National Registration Act, all NRIC holders need to report a change of address within 28 days of moving into a new residence, whether the residence is located in or outside of Singapore. Singaporean households who come across previous owner or occupants who did not update their address with the authorities after they have moved out, and have made false claims of the CDC Vouchers, may report the incident to the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority and the Police.
For CDC Vouchers Scheme 2024, as of 31 December 2024, 97%, or about 1.3 million, Singaporean households had claimed their CDC Vouchers 2024 (January) and (June), which is the highest claim figures since the launch of the digital scheme in 2021. There remains a small group of households that did not claim, for example, households whose residents are living overseas. The CDCs continue to work on ensuring all eligible Singaporean households can claim and spend their vouchers by reaching out especially to digitally less-savvy residents.
The Government remains committed to ensuring that the CDC Vouchers Scheme best serves Singaporean households and local businesses. We will continue to monitor its implementation and review where needed to ensure its effectiveness.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Total Value of Unclaimed CDC Vouchers Per Household in 2024","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"45 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) what is the total value of CDC Vouchers 2024 that are unclaimed on 31 December 2024; and (b) what is the breakdown of the nature of households who have these unclaimed CDC Vouchers.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Since January 2023, the Community Development Council (CDC) Vouchers have been split equally between the hawkers and heartland merchant category and the supermarket category. This strikes a balance between supporting Singaporean households with their daily expenses and supporting hawkers and heartland merchants.
Across the 2023 and 2024 tranches of CDC Vouchers, more than $1.3 billion worth of CDC Vouchers have been spent. Of this, about 49.6% were spent at heartland merchants and 50.4% were spent at supermarkets.
Every Singaporean household can only claim one set of CDC Vouchers per tranche. Some Singaporean households might be unable to claim their CDC Vouchers for a variety of reasons. For example, when more than one Singaporean household resides in the same rental address or their registered address is not a residential address.
Singaporean households living in co-tenanted premises are not disadvantaged as long as they can provide proof of their separate households. In such cases, the household that has yet to claim their vouchers may make an appeal at any community centre or club.
If Singaporean households experience difficulty in claiming their CDC Vouchers digitally, they can bring along their National Registration Identity Card (NRIC) showing their current registered address, the CDC Vouchers Scheme notification letter and relevant official documents showing their name and current address, for example, utilities bill, property tax, to the nearest community centre or club to apply for their vouchers.
Under the Regulation 11A of the National Registration Act, all NRIC holders need to report a change of address within 28 days of moving into a new residence, whether the residence is located in or outside of Singapore. Singaporean households who come across previous owner or occupants who did not update their address with the authorities after they have moved out and have made false claims of the CDC Vouchers, may report the incident to the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority and the Police.
For CDC Vouchers Scheme 2024, as of 31 December 2024, 97%, or about 1.3 million Singaporean households had claimed their CDC Vouchers 2024 (January) and (June), which is the highest claim figures since the launch of the digital scheme in 2021. There remains a small group of households that did not claim. For example, households whose residents are living overseas. The CDCs continue to work on ensuring all eligible Singaporean households can claim and spend their vouchers by reaching out especially to digitally less-savvy residents.
The Government remains committed to ensuring that the CDC Vouchers Scheme best serves Singaporean households and local businesses. We will continue to monitor its implementation and review where needed to ensure its effectiveness.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reports of Landlords Making False Claims for CDC Vouchers Meant for Tenants and Punishment for Such Claims","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"46 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth with regard to the 2023 and 2024 CDC Vouchers (a) how many appeals were received for disputes which tenants alleged that the landlord had claimed CDC Vouchers that should have been allocated to them; (b) how many such cases resulted in CDC Vouchers being issued to the tenants instead; (c) how many individuals were found to have made false claims for CDC Vouchers; and (d) whether any penalties have been meted out to such individuals and, if so, what are the penalties.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Since January 2023, the Community Development Council (CDC) Vouchers have been split equally between the hawkers and heartland merchant category and the supermarket category. This strikes a balance between supporting Singaporean households with their daily expenses and supporting hawkers and heartland merchants.
Across the 2023 and 2024 tranches of CDC Vouchers, more than $1.3 billion worth of CDC Vouchers have been spent. Of this, about 49.6% were spent at heartland merchants and 50.4% were spent at supermarkets.
Every Singaporean household can only claim one set of CDC Vouchers per tranche. Some Singaporean households might be unable to claim their CDC Vouchers for a variety of reasons. For example, when more than one Singaporean household resides in the same rental address or their registered address is not a residential address.
Singaporean households living in co-tenanted premises are not disadvantaged as long as they can provide proof of their separate households. In such cases, the household that has yet to claim their vouchers may make an appeal at any community centre or club.
If Singaporean households experience difficulty in claiming their CDC Vouchers digitally, they can bring along their National Registration Identity Card (NRIC) showing their current registered address, the CDC Vouchers Scheme notification letter and relevant official documents showing their name and current address, e.g. utilities bill, property tax, to the nearest community centre or club to apply for their vouchers.
Under the Regulation 11A of the National Registration Act, all NRIC holders need to report a change of address within 28 days of moving into a new residence, whether the residence is located in or outside of Singapore. Singaporean households who come across previous owner or occupants who did not update their address with the authorities after they have moved out and have made false claims of the CDC Vouchers, may report the incident to the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority and the Police.
For CDC Vouchers Scheme 2024, as of 31 December 2024, 97%, or about 1.3 million Singaporean households had claimed their CDC Vouchers 2024 (January) and (June), which is the highest claim figures since the launch of the digital scheme in 2021. There remains a small group of households that did not claim. For example, households whose residents are living overseas. The CDCs continue to work on ensuring all eligible Singaporean households can claim and spend their vouchers by reaching out especially to digitally less-savvy residents.
The Government remains committed to ensuring that the CDC Vouchers Scheme best serves Singaporean households and local businesses. We will continue to monitor its implementation and review where needed to ensure its effectiveness.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Demographic of Workers Issued Work Permits for Foreign Performing Artistes","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"47 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Manpower in each of the past five years (a) what are the top three nationalities of workers issued with work permits for foreign performing artistes; and (b) how many workers of each nationality are issued with work permits for foreign performing artistes.
Dr Tan See Leng: The top three nationalities for Work Permits (Performing Artiste) are Vietnamese, Chinese and Filipino from 2020 to 2024. The Ministry of Manpower does not provide a breakdown of the number of foreign workers by nationality.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Psychological or Mental Health Injury Claims Made Annually Under Work Injury Compensation Act 2019","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"48 Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan asked the Minister for Manpower (a) in the past five years, how many claims of psychological or mental health injury claims have been made annually under the Work Injury Compensation Act 2019; and (b) how many of such claims have been successful in receiving compensation.
Dr Tan See Leng: From 2020 to 2024, there were a total of 23 work injury compensation claims for mental disorders, which is an average of 4.6 claims per year. Twelve of these claims were successful, six were rejected or withdrawn and the rest are being processed.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Statistics on Issuance and Management of ONE Pass","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"49 Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan asked the Minister for Manpower since the introduction of the Overseas Networks and Expertise Pass (ONE Pass) to 31 December 2024 (a) how may ONE Passes have been annually issued; (b) in which industries are these ONE Pass holders employed; (c) how many ONE Pass holders were holding an Employment Pass prior to receiving the ONE Pass; and (d) how many have had their ONE Pass revoked on the grounds of revocation.\n
Dr Tan See Leng: About 3,000 Overseas Networks and Expertise (ONE) Passes were issued in 2024, of which about one in six were new entrants. The conversion of existing Work Pass holders who meet the ONE Pass criteria helps us to anchor talent in Singapore. The top three sectors that ONE Pass holders were employed in were financial and insurance services, information and communication and professional services.
The ONE Pass may be revoked if the pass holder spends an extended period of time being inactive without good justifications or has failed to comply with our laws. To date, the Ministry of Manpower has only revoked one ONE Pass, following the ONE Pass holder's conviction for drink driving.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of Platform Workers Act on Working Hours and Earnings of Full-time Ride-hail Drivers and Delivery Workers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"50 Ms See Jinli Jean asked the Minister for Manpower (a) in view of the recent enactment of the Platform Workers Act, whether the Ministry intends to track the impact of the Act henceforth on (i) the daily average hours at work and (ii) the average earnings per hour at work for full-time platform ride-hail drivers and full-time platform delivery workers, respectively; and (b) if so, how often will updated versions of such data be published.
Dr Tan See Leng: Data on the median incomes of platform ride-hail and delivery workers are being monitored and published in the Ministry of Manpower's (MOM's) annual report on Labour Force in Singapore. MOM is also working with relevant agencies to monitor the impact of the Platform Workers Act, including by engaging Platform Work Associations and platform workers.
MOM does not specifically track the daily average hours of platform workers, as their working hours are flexible and may vary widely for different reasons including the preferences of platform workers. Nevertheless, we will consider the Member's suggestions and continue to monitor the situation, reviewing our policies and indicators as necessary.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Classifying Bus Service 502 as \"Trunk\" Instead of Express Bus Service and Reviewing Higher Fares for Express Buses","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"51 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for Transport (a) why is Bus Service 502 classified as an express bus service with higher fares when there are trunk bus services that have longer express sectors than Bus Service 502; and (b) whether the Government can consider classifying Bus Service 502 as a trunk bus service or review the need to charge higher fares for express bus services.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Express bus services like Service 502 serve as alternative transport options for commuters who prefer direct bus connections. The classification is based on several considerations and does not only depend on the length of the route. Higher fares are charged for express bus services as they provide shorter travel time or greater convenience compared to normal bus services plying similar routes.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reconciling Payments for Transport Fares Made on Same Credit Card But Via Different Platforms","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"52 Ms Yeo Wan Ling asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether the EZ-Link system will be enhanced so that records of payment made from different mobile devices like watches and phones linked to the same credit card can be reconciled to aid ticket inspectors' verification of a commuter's payment; and (b) if so, when.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: The digital identifier of each device used to make payment is different, even if they are linked to the same bank card. For security reasons, the links between identifiers and cards are only known to the issuing bank; and vendors, such as SimplyGo, are unable to automatically link different payment devices or cards. Commuters are encouraged to produce the device used to tap in when requested by our Ticket Inspectors.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Statistics on Same-card Transfers and Review of 45-minute Allowance Period to Support Commuters","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"53 Mr Don Wee asked the Minister for Transport (a) in 2024, what percentage of same-card transfers occurred within the current 45-minute allowance period under the public transport fare system; and (b) whether there are plans to review and increase this allowance period to better support commuters' needs.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Public transport fares are charged based on distance on a per-journey basis. This allows commuters to pick the optimal combination of services to complete their journey, without penalising transfers. To compute fares accurately and fairly, we use a set of criteria to determine if a trip is part of an ongoing journey or the start of a new one. These criteria include total journey time, the time interval between transfers and the total number of transfers.
The Land Transport Authority has designed our transport network to facilitate easy transfers between trains and buses. Our data show that the vast majority of transfers are completed within 30 minutes. If there are some exceptional circumstances that prevent a commuter from completing a bona fide transfer within the 45-minute transfer window, they can apply to SimplyGo for a fare refund and their appeals will be considered on a case-by-case basis.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Ensuring Adequate Checks on Aircraft before Arrival into and Departure from Singapore Airports","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"54 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Transport what measures are in place to ensure that all airlines and private plane operators perform adequate checks on their planes before their departures from and arrivals at Singapore's airports to ensure safety.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: The International Civil Aviation Organization requires all states to ensure that their registered aircraft are inspected regularly and are safe for flight.
The Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore (CAAS) has implemented a regulatory safety framework to ensure safety for all operators of Singapore-registered aircraft. This includes requiring routine inspections of aircraft before each flight as well as other inspections by aircraft manufacturers at pre-determined frequencies to ensure that aircrafts are in compliance with their requirements. CAAS also conducts regular audits and checks on all operators of Singapore-registered aircraft to ensure that robust processes are in place for these inspections and to verify that the required inspections are carried out.
Airlines and operators of foreign-registered aircraft operating to and from Singapore are similarly required to adhere to their respective states' safety framework. In addition to this, CAAS performs regular inspections to assess these operators' ability to prepare the aircraft and crew for flight.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Using Airline Passengers' Personal Wheelchairs at Aerobridges Instead of Airport-provided Wheelchairs","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"55 Miss Rachel Ong asked the Minister for Transport whether Changi Airport ground services allow for persons with disabilities to request for their personal wheelchairs to be brought to the aerobridge during disembarkation instead of using the airport-provided ones and, if not, why.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Changi Airport offers a range of wheelchair services to passengers. Depending on the airline and their commercial arrangements with their ground handling partners, passengers can request for their personal wheelchairs to be brought to the aerobridge during disembarkation. In cases where the airlines do not offer this option, passengers can request for wheelchairs provided by the airline, their ground handling partner or the airport operator.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Ships Arriving at Singapore Ports Operating on Zero Emissions and Uptake of Training at Maritime Energy Training Facility","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"56 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Minister for Transport in light of our ports registering a new record of arriving ship traffic in 2024 (a) what percentage of ships arriving at Singapore's ports operate on zero or near-zero emissions; (b) how will the Ministry increase the uptake of training at the Maritime Energy Training Facility; and (c) whether there is a need to step up current efforts to achieve net zero greenhouse gas emissions in the maritime sector by or around 2050.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Many ocean-going vessels have the capability to use dual fuels. There are a few marine engines operating on zero or near-zero emission fuels available, with more models under development. In 2024, 53 ocean-going vessels capable of operating on zero or near-zero emission fuels called at the Port of Singapore.
The Maritime Energy Training Facility (METF) initiative is on track to train around 10,000 maritime personnel by the 2030s. Over 400 have been trained in 2024 and more will be trained in 2025 and subsequent years as METF ramps up its capacity. The Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore (MPA) has onboarded shipping lines and ship management companies as METF partners. MPA will also continue to work with METF partners to design courses and collaborate with like-minded partners at the International Maritime Organization, to ensure that METF programmes help to set standards and support the growth of the global maritime sector.
In addition to providing digital and fuel-related training for maritime workers through METF, MPA facilitates the safe bunkering of new fuels by supporting trials and developing technical standards. MPA remains committed to working closely with the international shipping community to advance maritime digital, decarbonisation and manpower development efforts.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Statistics and Enforcement Measures for Noise Complaints on Public Transport","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"57 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Transport (a) what percentage of noise complaints on public transport resulted in successful enforcement action in the past three years; (b) what is the mean response time between a complaint being lodged and the arrival of enforcement officers on the scene; and (c) how many repeat offenders have been identified through the current enforcement system.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: We adopt a measured approach against nuisance behaviours based on their severity. Public transport staff are trained to manage noise-related complaints and will not hesitate to take action against egregious cases. In almost all cases, the passengers involved are cooperative when approached by staff to lower their volume. Further enforcement action will be taken if an offending passenger refuses to comply.
To encourage considerate commuting behaviour, the Land Transport Authority has introduced new signages, including those held by public transport staff during their rounds, in trains and buses reminding passengers to keep their volume low. Public transport staff have also stepped up checks at train stations and onboard buses.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Extension of Bus Service 371 Route for Benefit of Elderly Residents in Sengkang and Compassvale","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"58 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Transport whether it is possible for existing bus services serving the Sengkang town currently plying Compassvale Street, such as feeder Bus Service 371, to have their routes extended slightly to loop around Compassvale Crescent, to better serve the residents, especially the elderly, of that area.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: We had responded to a similar question from the Member at the November 2024 Parliament Sitting. [Please refer to \"Introduction of Feeder Bus Service to Serve Compassvale Crescent\", Official Report, 12 November 2024, Vol 95, Issue 146, Written Answers to Questions section.]
Compassvale Crescent residents have access to 14 bus services within 400 metres. These services ply Sengkang East Road, Compassvale Street or Punggol Road and connect them to the transport hub at Sengkang town centre and other destinations. Residents living closer to Compassvale Street are also within a 10-minute walk of Sengkang Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) station and Compassvale Light Rail Transit station.
The Land Transport Authority will study Assoc Prof Jamus Lim's suggestion, but one trade-off of the proposed amendment is that it will affect a significant number of existing commuters who are using bus service 371 to travel to and from Sengkang Bus Interchange and the MRT. These commuters will face longer journey times and higher fares with the amended route.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Inclusion of Hybrid Vehicles as Cleaner Energy Models for New Car Registrations from 2030","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"59 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Transport in view of the Government's mandate for all new car and taxi registrations to be of cleaner-energy models from 2030 (a) why are hybrid vehicles deemed to fall into this category; (b) what percentage of vehicle registrations from 2030 are projected to be hybrid vehicles; and (c) whether there will be any mandate for all new car and taxi vehicles registrations to be zero-emission only.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: As hybrid and electric vehicles (EVs) emit lower carbon emissions than internal combustion engine vehicles, they are part of the cleaner vehicle population.
The proportion of cleaner energy cars registered annually continues to grow. In 2024, more than 82% of newly registered cars were cleaner energy models, as compared to 65% in 2023 and 51% in 2022. Within this, electric cars are growing at the fastest rate. In 2024, 34% of newly registered cars were EVs, as compared to 18% in 2023 and 12% in 2022.
There are currently no plans to ban new registrations of hybrid cars and taxis, as it is neither necessary nor practical to do so.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null}],"writtenAnswersVOList":[],"writtenAnsNAVOList":[],"annexureList":[{"annexureID":2692,"sittingDate":null,"annexureTitle":"Annex 1","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20250204/annex-Annex 1.pdf","fileName":"Annex 1.pdf","sectionType":"BP","file":null},{"annexureID":2693,"sittingDate":null,"annexureTitle":"Annex 2","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20250204/annex-Annex 2.pdf","fileName":"Annex 2.pdf","sectionType":"BP","file":null},{"annexureID":2694,"sittingDate":null,"annexureTitle":"Annex 3","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20250204/annex-Annex 3.pdf","fileName":"Annex 3.pdf","sectionType":"BP","file":null}],"vernacularList":[{"vernacularID":6391,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Ms Sun Xueling","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20250204/vernacular-MOS Sun Xueling Family 5Feb2025_Chinese.pdf","fileName":"MOS Sun Xueling Family 5Feb2025_Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":6392,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Ms Hazel Poa","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20250204/vernacular-Ms Hazel Poa Racial 4Feb2025 -Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Ms Hazel Poa Racial 4Feb2025 -Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":6393,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20250204/vernacular-4 Feb 2025 - Mr Zhul Rahim - Maintain Racial Harmony Bill.pdf","fileName":"4 Feb 2025 - Mr Zhul Rahim - Maintain Racial Harmony Bill.pdf"},{"vernacularID":6394,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20250204/vernacular-Mr Dennis Tan Racial Har 4Feb2025-Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Mr Dennis Tan Racial Har 4Feb2025-Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":6395,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Ms Sylvia Lim","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20250204/vernacular-Ms Sylvia Lim RH 4Feb2025-Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Ms Sylvia Lim RH 4Feb2025-Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":6396,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Ms Joan Pereira","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20250204/vernacular-Ms Joan Pereira Racial Har 4Feb2025 -Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Ms Joan Pereira Racial Har 4Feb2025 -Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":6397,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Dr Syed Harun Alhabsyi","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20250204/vernacular-4 Feb 2025 - Dr Syed Harun Alhabsyi - Maintain Racial Harmony Bill.pdf","fileName":"4 Feb 2025 - Dr Syed Harun Alhabsyi - Maintain Racial Harmony Bill.pdf"},{"vernacularID":6398,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Assoc Prof Razwana Begum Abdul Rahim","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20250204/vernacular-4 Feb 2025 - AP Razwana Begum - Maintain Racial Harmony Bill.pdf","fileName":"4 Feb 2025 - AP Razwana Begum - Maintain Racial Harmony Bill.pdf"}],"onlinePDFFileName":""}