1 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Health whether the Ministry has data on the number of students from the International Baccalaureate Diploma Programme (IBDP) and the Integrated Programme (IP) who have been admitted to diploma in nursing or degree in nursing programmes at local Institutes of Higher Learning in the past three years.
\tThe Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health (Ms Rahayu Mahzam) (for the Minister for Health): Mr Deputy Speaker, over the past three years, a total of 10 students from the International Baccalaureate Diploma Programme (IBDP) and Integrated Programme (IP) were admitted to the National University of Singapore (NUS)’s Nursing degree programme. There were five students from the IBDP and IP admitted to Nanyang Polytechnic (NYP)’s and Ngee Ann Polytechnic (NP)’s Nursing diploma programmes, where most entered after completing Year 4 of their IB or IP studies.
Our Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs) will assess all applicants for nursing courses holistically, taking into account both academic performance and course fit. For IBDP or IP students who are keen on nursing as a career, we encourage them to apply for admission to polytechnic Nursing diploma programmes on the basis of Year 4 grades, and the NUS Nursing degree programme on the basis of Year 6 grades.
An overview of the various admission pathways into Nursing programmes at the IHLs is available on MOH Holdings’ Care to Go Beyond website. Information on each IHL’s admission processes and requirements can also be found on their respective websites.
\tMr Deputy Speaker: Mr Yip.
\tMr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for her response. Can she provide an\t update on the nursing manpower situation in our local restructured hospitals? And based on her reply, only 15 students entered Nursing programmes from the IBDP and IP. What more can be done to encourage more students to take up nursing from these educational routes?
\tMs Rahayu Mahzam: I thank the Member for his interest in this matter. Indeed, this is something close to our hearts and it is of concern. We are trying to grow the manpower and we are on track on building the numbers.
In respect of getting the numbers from the local institutions, we are doing a few things. We are facilitating this process. The numbers are small now, but we are encouraging movements from the different tracks. We are tracking the numbers from institutions to understand why there may be leakage or why people drop off from the courses and do \tnot enter the profession. We are working with schools and the healthcare institutions to ensure smooth transition, so that after they graduate, they enter into the profession. To facilitate entry into the profession, we are also reviewing the remuneration framework to ensure that the profession remains attractive. There are various work streams to look into how we can improve the profession, increase its stature as well as improve the work environments, so that overall, there is attraction to this profession.
We are doing different efforts on different fronts. Hopefully, in time, this will improve the manpower situation.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Help for Home Owners to Assess if Their Homes Meet Requirement for Residual Current Circuit Breaker","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"The following question stood in the name of Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling –
2 To ask the Minister for Trade and Industry regarding the requirement for all homes to have residual current circuit breaker (RCCB) by July 2025 (a) what assistance will the Government provide to home owners who are unable to assess if their circuit breakers satisfy the requirements; and (b) whether a subsidy will be made available for seniors or low-income families to install RCCBs at an affordable cost.
\tMr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Question No 2.
\tThe Minister of State for Trade and Industry (Ms Low Yen Ling) (for the Minister for Trade and Industry): Mr Deputy Speaker, the residual current circuit breaker (RCCB) is an electrical safety device that cuts off electricity supply immediately upon the detection of any leak, to guard against the risk of electric shock.
Since July 1985, all new homes are required to have RCCBs installed. For residential premises built before 1985, most would have undergone renovations and have had an RCCB installed. The Housing and Development Board (HDB) has notified all residents living in 1-room and 2-room flats built before July 1985 of this requirement and will be progressively notifying residents living in 3-room and larger flats built before July 1985.
The Energy Market Authority (EMA) has separately also notified all private property home owners of this requirement. In their communications, both agencies have informed home owners how to assess if their RCCBs are in good working condition. In addition, the helpline numbers for home owners to call for assistance are included in their notification.
For those living in 1-room and 2-room flats built before July 1985, HDB has conducted door-to-door inspections and also completed RCCB installations for inspected units without an RCCB. For the minority of residents who did not respond to the earlier round of inspections, HDB will arrange for follow-up inspections and RCCB installations. HDB will also work with grassroots leaders to provide further assistance to elderly residents on this matter when needed.
Under HDB’s RCCB Installation Assistance Programme, the Government will fully subsidise the cost of RCCB installations for those living in 1-room and 2-room HDB flats built before July 1985. For those living in 3-room or larger flats that were built before July 1985, the Government will subsidise up to 95% of the cost of RCCB installations.
We encourage all home owners to ensure that their homes are equipped with an RCCB and that their circuit breakers are in good working condition. Home owners who require further assistance can reach out to EMA or HDB for help.
\tMr Deputy Speaker: Mr Saktiandi Supaat.
\tMr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Deputy Speaker, I am also asking on behalf of hon Member Miss Cheryl Chan who is not here. We have two supplementary questions. First, how will EMA and HDB ensure that home owners of older residences before 1985 know of this exercise and what should they do? Some of them received the letter but some may not be able to understand, especially some of the seniors. They may not be able to understand what it is all about because it is a bit technical.
The second supplementary question is, can the Minister of State elaborate on the cost associated for 3-room and larger HDB flats? The Minister of State's reply alluded to there being subsidies for those in 3-room and smaller flats. But for 3-room and larger flats, what are the home owners expected to pay as they will not be fully subsidised?
\tMs Low Yen Ling: Mr Deputy Speaker, I want to thank the Member Mr Saktiandi Supaat for asking the supplementary questions, for himself and also on behalf of Miss Cheryl Chan.
I want to assure him and Members that EMA and HDB have launched concerted public education efforts to reach out to the residents staying in 1-room, 2-room, 3-room and bigger flats built before July 1985 to advise them about the RCCB requirement and also how to check if their RCCBs are working, and if they need any support or assistance to facilitate the installation of RCCB by home owners.
Let me give a sensing of the numbers. I think I have made it quite clear in my answer and I want to assure Members that, after July 1985, all new homes would have had RCCBs installed on their premises, as required by EMA. This means, majority of homes in Singapore fulfil the requirement of having a RCCB. So, this exercise, as Mr Saktiandi Supaat had said, reaches out to the residents of pre-1985-built homes and some of them may not have any RCCB.
What is the sizing? We have worked with HDB, and we understand that there are a total of 382,000 flats that were built before July 1985. Since May last year, they have been knocking on doors for these flats built before July 1985, per my sharing in the earlier answer to the Parliamentary Question. Just sharing the numbers for the 2-room flats built before July 1985 – there are about 6,000-plus flats. Out of these, HDB managed to visit more than 4,400 – so about 74%.
Out of the 4,400, only 95, or 2%, did not have RCCB installed. HDB then facilitated the installation of RCCB.
I want to assure the Member that EMA and HDB will be mounting a concerted public education effort, including sending the official letter in four languages – English, Chinese, Malay and Tamil – to these flats to reach out to them. In the letter, the helpline numbers are provided. If you would allow me, Mr Deputy Speaker, for example, for HDB dwellers, they can call the HDB branch service line at 1800 225 5432 for help. In addition, they can also call EMA's contact centre at 6835 8000. I hope I have reassured the Member.
He also asked about the cost for the bigger flats. The cost of installation of a RCCB in the flat typically is about $500. We want to ensure the safety of the pre-1985 homes with this new requirement and we are mindful of the cost of the installation to protect the home owners.
Which is why, earlier on, I mentioned that the cost of the RCCB installation for households from 1-room and 2-room flats will be fully paid for by the Government. Under the HDB RCCB Installation Assistance Programme, the Government is providing substantial subsidies up to 95% for households of bigger HDB flats.
He asked for some numbers – let me quote from the letter. Those staying in 3-room flats will only need to pay 5% of the cost, which is about $25. Those staying in 4-room flats will pay 7.5%, which is about $37.50. Residents of 5-room and executive flats will pay between $50 and $62.50. Having said that, families who are facing difficult circumstances will receive help from HDB, EMA and from the grassroots leaders. I hope I have given him the reassurance.
\tMr Deputy Speaker: Mr Melvin Yong.
\tMr Melvin Yong Yik Chye (Radin Mas): Thank you, Deputy Speaker. I would like to ask the Minister of State. You mentioned that HDB reached out door-to-door and that they did not manage to meet 26% of the households that they did not manage to meet. Will HDB be open to conducting another round of door-to-door engagements?
I say this because, in Radin Mas, I have quite a number of blocks that were built before 1985 and during my house visits, I still come across residents, especially the elderly, those staying alone, who ask our volunteers what this letter from HDB and EMA entails and what actions are required. So, I do hope that HDB can conduct another round to reach out to those whom they did not manage to meet in the first round.
\tMs Low Yen Ling: Mr Deputy Speaker, I want to thank Mr Melvin Yong for the supplementary question. I want to reassure him that this is mission critical for HDB and EMA. We want to make sure that every home in Singapore has an RCCB because it is a very important electrical safety device. For the number of HDB flats that were built before July 1985 that did not respond to HDB when they went knocking on the doors, HDB will certainly go back, one on one. We will also rope in the grassroots advisors accordingly and provide them the necessary assistance.
If we identify a particular flat does not have RCCB, we will quickly mobilise and make sure the RCCB is installed quickly.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Notice to Government for Grab Holdings' Recent Decision to Cut 1,000 Jobs","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"3 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for Manpower (a) when did the Ministry became aware of Grab Holdings’ decision to cut 1,000 jobs or 11% of its workforce, given Grab Holdings’ statement in September 2022 that it had no plans to undertake mass layoffs; (b) what proportion of those jobs that are cut are held by Singaporean workers; and (c) whether the Ministry is engaging with Grab Holdings with a view to facilitate the transition of displaced workers into suitable jobs.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Manpower (Mr Zaqy Mohamad) (for the Minister for Manpower): Mr Deputy Speaker, the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) became aware of Grabtaxi Holdings’ decision to cut jobs on 20 June 2023. The Ministry has also received their Mandatory Retrenchment Notifications (MRNs) which were submitted within five working days after affected employees were notified of their retrenchment, as legally required under the Employment Act.
Based on the retrenchment notifications received by MOM, the workforce profile of Grabtaxi Holdings before and after the retrenchment exercise is largely similar.
Digital Industry Singapore (DISG) is working with the Taskforce for Responsible Retrenchment and Employment Facilitation, comprising representatives from MOM, the Workforce Singapore (WSG), National Trades Union Congress (NTUC) and NTUC’s Employment and Employability Institute (e2i), to facilitate a smooth transition of the affected staff. In particular, e2i is in touch with Grabtaxi Holdings and has offered career coaching services, employability workshops and other employment facilitation initiatives.
\tMr Deputy Speaker: Mr Saktiandi Supaat.
\t
\tMr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Thank you, Deputy Speaker. I would like to thank the Senior Minister of State for his answers. I would like to ask him again in relation to part (b) in the Parliamentary Question that I had, I asked about the proportion – of the jobs that were cut, how many of them were held by Singaporean workers? I think the Senior Minister of State mentioned that the proportion is the same before and after the layoff. Can the Senior Minister of State share a bit more about the proportion of those jobs were lost by Singaporean workers?
My second supplementary question is a bit broad. Grab's decision to conduct a layoff is an indication of more widespread trouble lurking in the tech sector. Can I ask the Senior Minister of State what processes are there in MOM to mitigate the risks of this going forward? Also, what are the forward-looking processes that MOM intends to take going forward as well?
\tMr Zaqy Mohamad: I thank Mr Saktiandi for his questions. Mr Deputy Speaker, with regard to the proportion, in general, we do not share details submitted in the MRN for any other purpose apart from employment facilitation. That is to be fair to the firms. But I also alluded to it in my answer that the profiles before and after are the same. So, if you work backwards, proportionally, whether it is Singaporeans or other profiles, they remain largely the same. Basically, there is no one group that was affected more than another. Therefore, they came up with similar profiles before and after.
To the Member's question as well, overall, whether we think there is softness in the sector, if you look at the recent report in March 2023, the number of job vacancies in the infocomm sector remains high at about 8,100 in March 2023. So, there is demand and I think beyond the sector, we have also found that tech skills are still going to be in high demand even in non-tech firms. So, tech skills are pretty much in demand.
But as a whole, just to put things into context as well, we are at a very low unemployment rate – we are at 1.8% unemployment. That is almost full employment. If you look at the data on long-term unemployment, it is 0.6%. To a large extent, we are at almost full employment.
Therefore, opportunities remain high in terms of a vibrant information and communications (I&C) market. But at the same time, we do have to also prepare for a slowdown that could come. So, I would just say that we are cautiously optimistic about long-term prospects for the I&C sector. But at the same time, there is demand even beyond the sector for tech skills.
As a whole, what MOM is doing is, as I have shared, we are working closely with WSG and e2i. What is key is to ensure that employees being laid off are given opportunities, career counselling and are facilitated to get back into a job as soon as possible. That is most critical for us, especially to ride on the current demand and vacancies within the I&C sector as well as the broader economic requirements.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Penalties for Offences Related to Illegal Dumping of Toxic Substances into Public Sewers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"4 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment in light of recent cases of companies being fined for illegally dumping toxic and hazardous substances into public sewers (a) how are fines for first-time and repeated offenders determined for such offences; (b) whether the Ministry will consider reviewing the adequacy of existing penalties to provide greater deterrence against such offences; and (c) how are workers who maintain the public sewerage system protected from the effects of toxic and hazardous substances in the aftermath of such dumping acts.
\tThe Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien): The penalties for the illegal disposal of hazardous substances into the public sewerage system are set out under the Sewerage and Drainage Act and Sewerage and Drainage (Trade Effluent) Regulations. Penalties are set to be commensurate with the impact of the discharge on the public sewerage system and NEWater production. Repeat offenders will face harsher penalties. The penalties are reviewed and updated regularly.
All workers maintaining the sewerage system are required to don Personal Protective Equipment when performing their work. Companies which do not comply will be impacted when tendering for future Public Utilities Board (PUB) projects, including possible debarment. In addition, PUB has put in place an island-wide network of real-time sensors in the public sewerage system to detect hazardous concentrations of toxic substances in used water. This provides PUB with the triggers to respond quickly to incidents and ensure the safety of workers.
\tMr Deputy Speaker: Mr Dennis Tan.
\tMr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Hougang): Thank you, Deputy Speaker. I thank the Minister for the answers, and I have one supplementary question.
Given the severity of such incidents, could the Minister describe the mitigation measures which are usually involved in such incidents so that the stakeholders and the public will appreciate the extent of the recovery efforts involved and the costs of such efforts?
\tMs Grace Fu Hai Yien: Deputy Speaker, may I seek clarification from the Member? Is the Member asking for more education engagement or the stiffening of the penalties?
\tMr Dennis Tan Lip Fong: Thank you, Minister, for the clarification. No, not at all. Actually, can I just repeat what I am asking? Because given the severity of such incidents, I am asking the Minister whether she can share typically what are the mitigation measures involved when such incidents take place so that the members of the public as well as the stakeholders will appreciate the extent of the mitigation and recovery efforts that will be undertaken each time such incidents take place and, if possible, also the cost of such recovery efforts.
\tMs Grace Fu Hai Yien: I understand that the Member is asking us to share information on mitigation measures and also on the costs involved in mitigation measures. We will definitely take up that suggestion because it is important for not just PUB but the community and the public also to protect our sewerage system and also potentially NEWater production system. So, we will definitely take up that suggestion.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Maintenance of Centralised Cooling System Unit in Flats in Tengah","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"5 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether the maintenance of the Centralised Cooling System (CCS) unit within the flats in Tengah new town is under the purview of the Town Council, HDB or the flat owner; and (b) whether HDB will consider offering CCS to all new BTO developments.
\tThe Minister for National Development (Mr Desmond Lee): Mr Deputy Speaker, residents in selected Tengah projects can opt for the Centralised Cooling System (CCS), which is a more energy-efficient solution than conventional air-conditioning systems. Chilled water will be piped to homes from centralised chillers installed on the rooftops of selected Housing and Development Board (HDB) blocks.
Flat owners are responsible for the maintenance of the parts of the CCS within the flat. The parts of the CCS outside the flat will be maintained by SP Group.
HDB will study the feasibility of extending the CCS to other new Build-To-Order (BTO) developments.
\tMr Deputy Speaker: Mr Yip Hon Weng.
\tMr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have two supplementary questions for the Minister.
First, how have new designs, such as the CCS and fittings, added to the cost of new BTOs? Second, if residents have a choice to install this new cooling system and if many choose not to do so, would this make the CCS sub-optimal and perhaps less cost-effective?
\tMr Desmond Lee: The first question the Member is asking is whether the design for the CCS pilot has added to the cost of the BTO units, the answer is no. The flat pricing, as I said before on various occasions, is based on affordability. Of course, in the design and construction of these blocks, to enable the CCS units to be installed on the roofs and to be piped through the units will require some upfront design and the blocks have to be built in a way as to enable this piping to be taken through. Just like when you design flats with split unit air-conditioning systems, you have to design for it as well, including putting in the air-conditioning ledges.
The second question is whether the viability of such a CCS system is dependent on the take-up level. Certainly, because when we design this pilot, we make sure that there is competition and contestability. The home owner – either by subscribing to this at the onset or further down as the programme continues – can decide whether to stay on the CCS or to change back to the split unit system because the flats are designed to carry both. You have your own aircon ledge but, if you do CCS, then you use the CCS piping. In that way, that incentivises the service provider, in this instance, SP Group, to continue to offer competitive packages and to maintain the system well.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Guidelines for Early Childhood Educators on Outdoor Learning","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"6 Ms Carrie Tan asked Minister for Social and Family Development (a) since the publication of the national guide for early childhood educators on Outdoor Learning by the Early Childhood Development Agency (ECDA) in September 2019, whether the Ministry has taken stock of how many preschools are implementing the recommendations in the guide; (b) if so, what is the progress; (c) what are the challenges encountered by preschool operators incorporating more outdoor time in their curriculum; and (d) how is the Ministry helping to address these challenges.
\tThe Minister of State for Social and Family Development (Ms Sun Xueling) (for the Minister for Social and Family Development): Outdoor learning is a critical part of the holistic learning and the development of young children. Our national curriculum frameworks require all preschools to incorporate outdoor learning as part of their curriculum. We have increased the emphasis of outdoor learning in our refreshed curriculum frameworks introduced in 2022 and 2023 so that preschools will plan for children’s outdoor learning experiences across various domains, for example, numeracy, language and literacy, instead of only focusing on physical development. In addition, all preschools are required to incorporate gross motor activities into their curriculum, of which a specified amount must be done outdoors.
The national guide on outdoor learning was developed to provide educators with guiding principles and practical suggestions to enhance children’s learning in the outdoors. As the guide was meant to be a resource for educators, the Early Childhood Development Agency (ECDA) did not mandate the preschools to implement its recommendations nor track its implementation. Instead, the recommendations were weaved into ECDA’s Outdoor Learning Training Programme for preschools while ideas on outdoor learning were shared on an online repository.
With the support of the Temasek Foundation, trained educators also held peer sharing sessions. Nearly 2,500 educators and centre leaders have participated in the training courses and peer sharing sessions to date. Many of them have indicated the training courses contributed to their increased confidence in planning and implementing outdoor learning experiences for children. Sir, 174 preschools have also received funds to support the implementation of their outdoor learning improvement plans.
Challenges faced by preschools in implementing outdoor learning activities include child safety and management in outdoor spaces as well as dedicating time for outdoor activities in the timetable. Through the training courses and peer sharing sessions, educators learnt how to overcome these challenges. For example, educators learnt practical strategies to enhance child safety and management outdoors and gained ideas to creatively use existing time and space for outdoor learning.
Another challenge faced is that some preschools may not have safe and accessible spaces for outdoor learning. Since 2017, ECDA has updated design specifications to ensure new preschools prebuilt in Housing and Development Board (HDB) Build-To-Order (BTO) estates have direct and safe access to outdoor spaces.
Beyond preschools' enhanced learning outdoors, families have the most important role in ensuring their children spend time outdoors playing and learning. With concerted efforts from all stakeholders, we believe that outdoor learning will become an integral part of our children’s everyday life and development.
\tMr Deputy Speaker: Ms Carrie Tan.
\tMs Carrie Tan (Nee Soon): Deputy Speaker, Sir, I thank the Minister of State for her answer. I am quite heartened to know that the Ministry is taking a rather capacity building-based approach and involving the Temasek Foundation to advance this course to ensure more outdoor learning for children.
I can imagine that, given the challenges, some of that might come from resistance from parents, especially on the one about safety. I can also imagine that this puts additional pressure on the preschool educators who might feel uncomfortable or that they are at risk if parents come and give feedback or complain about the children getting hurt while playing outdoors. So, does the Ministry plan to form any kind of educational outreach or dialogues with parents to also educate parents on the benefits of outdoor curriculum so that they can be an equal partner and stakeholder in this effort?
Secondly, the constraint around the outdoor spaces available for the preschools, will the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) be working with the Ministry of National Development (MND) to look into the way we are planning our neighbourhoods to ensure that more space is catered for outdoor spaces? And I would like to be more specific about this request because outdoor spaces can mean highly manicured and curated gardens with bonsai and flowers and all that versus a naturalistic, very natural environment where children can learn the principles of nature and the ecosystem at work.
\t
\tMs Sun Xueling: I thank the Member for her two clarifications. Indeed, parents are very important stakeholders in this process. Our various preschools frequently update parents about the kind of activities that are happening in preschools. For many Members in Parliament today who have young children, you may have come across pictures that your preschool send you with the children having activities outdoors. So, that is one way in which the preschools actively engage parents to let their parents know what the children are doing outdoors and to also assure the parents that safety considerations and many other forms of protective measures are being undertaken to help and support their children.
There are also regular meetings between teachers and parents, so that the parents know what is happening in the preschool and also to be updated on the curriculum and what is the developmental guidance that the teachers are providing and have been sharing with the parents, so that parents are kept up-to-date and can work with the teachers on this learning journey for their children.
On the second part of your question, indeed, we are always happy to work with MND. I would just like to add that when it comes to incorporating natural gardens, community gardens, we will need to work with our Town Councils and we will need to work with Residents' Networks (RNs), especially when the estate is already built up and the preschools are already in the community. I have mentioned in my reply that when it comes to pre-built facilities, ECDA will work with MND to make sure that there is a safe access to play areas. But where the preschools are already in a community, then we will have to work with the Town Councils as well as the RNs, to see what could be incorporated into existing infrastructure, to create those natural playgrounds for children.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Likelihood of Severe Transboundary Haze Affecting Singapore in 2023 and Preventive Measures","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"7 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) what is the likelihood of severe transboundary haze affecting Singapore this year; (b) what are the measures needed to prepare for such a possibility; and (c) how can the public be better prepared to mitigate the impact of severe transboundary haze.
\tThe Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien): Mr Deputy Speaker, my response will address Question No 7 on today's Order Paper, as well as Mr Yip Hon Weng's question1 for the Sitting on 6 July 2023. And if Member Mr Yip is satisfied with the answer given, he may wish to withdraw the Parliamentary Question. With your permission, please.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Yes, please.
\tMs Grace Fu Hai Yien: The ASEAN Specialised Meteorological Centre (ASMC) hosted by the Meteorological Service Singapore (MSS) has assessed that an El Niño event is likely to be established over the next one to two months. The ASMC has also forecasted that a positive Indian Ocean Dipole is likely to develop between July and August 2023. Both climate phenomena will bring drier and warmer weather that could intensify the dry season in Singapore and the region, leading to potentially more hotspots and an increased risk of transboundary haze. We expect this year's dry season to be the hottest and driest since 2019.
The Inter-Agency Haze Task Force led by the National Environment Agency (NEA) has been coordinating and updating our national action plans in preparation for possible transboundary haze. The Ministry of Health (MOH) has worked with retail pharmacies to ensure sufficient stock of N95 masks. MOH maintains a stockpile of N95 masks and is prepared to release masks to retail pharmacies, should the need arises. There are also plans by the Inter-Agency Haze Task Force to work with the People's Association (PA) to distribute masks to low-income and vulnerable residents in the event of a severe haze episode.
All classrooms of primary and secondary schools, MOE Kindergartens and special education schools are equipped with air purifiers to enhance the well-being of students during a haze episode. Preschools are similarly required to ensure sufficient air purifiers to accommodate children in the event of haze.
MOH has advised medical practitioners on how to manage and treat patients with haze-related conditions, such as asthma or Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease. MOH has also advised all Public Healthcare Institutions (PHIs) on capacity mitigating measures in view of a potential increase in hospital admissions due to haze-related illnesses. MOH has also worked with PHIs, including nursing homes, to ensure that they have adequate air-purifying equipment and medical supplies.
Members of the public have been advised to refer to MOH's health advisories and to make preparations, such as ensuring that they have air purifiers in good working condition and N95 masks for prolonged outdoor activities during haze. To stay up to date on the latest air quality situation, members of the public can visit NEA website, MyENV app and the haze microsite at haze.gov.sg.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Yip.
\tMr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank the Minister for her response. I just have one quick supplementary question. Will the Ministry consider working with the PA to establish haze sanctuaries, like using the Residents' Committees (RCs) or other community features, especially for our seniors who may not have the adequate N95 masks, air purifiers or air-conditioners in their homes?
\tMs Grace Fu Hai Yien: Mr Deputy Speaker, there are steps that members of public can take in the event of haze. First of all, if you are unwell and you are elderly, you may wish to stay home and reduce your outdoor activities. You may also draw the curtains of your house and have natural ventilation available. A mask is always helpful, especially if you are going outdoors for a prolonged period of time.
Having said that, I would like to take up the Member's suggestions about working with PA to create spaces for the vulnerable segment of the population to seek rest for some period of time. One of the suggestions that we are thinking about is to have some of the RC centres, as well as study rooms at Community Centres (CCs), for example, that are air-conditioned to be made available to some segments of this population. So, we would very much like to thank the Member for that suggestion.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Liang Eng Hwa.
\tMr Liang Eng Hwa (Bukit Panjang): Thank you, Sir. I understand the Minister had just attended the conference on ASEAN Coordinating Centre for Transboundary Haze Pollution Control, the establishment of that. I would like to ask the Minister for an update on that, what can the centre do to help us be more proactive and to be also pre-emptive, to mitigate the impact of haze to the ASEAN region?
Secondly, whether are we also engaging the Indonesian government on how we can help and support in the management of the forest fires, should they occur during the season?
\tMs Grace Fu Hai Yien: Indeed, the Member is correct to say that we have recently met. This is the Ministerial Standing Committee comprising Ministers from the southern region of ASEAN. Representatives from Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, and of course, Singapore attended. We had a very good, useful meeting. The ASMC, which is hosted in Singapore, gave a comprehensive prediction, forecasts of the weather, that has been well accepted and also supported by the respective meteorological services centres in the respective countries.
So, I think that is the general agreement about the likelihood, the risk level of a drier El Niño setting in the next few months. There are also good discussions about fire detection and monitoring. I would say that there is a common intention and objective to help manage fires, forest fires, as well as the transboundary haze that may arise from the fires. And we have a good understanding about the assistance that Singapore has offered to the countries as well, should the need arise.
We had a good discussion also on the ASEAN Coordinating Centre for Transboundary Haze Pollution Control (ACC THPC). Indonesia, as the Chair for ASEAN this year, would like to see progress, so we had a good, fruitful discussion at this meeting last month. We hope that we can come to a conclusion leading to the launching of the ACC THPC later this year. So, good progress has been made.
Our discussion with the Indonesian government has always been very positive. Over the last few years, significant effort has been put in on the Indonesian government's part on monitoring, as well as on supervisory, regulatory, as well as building up capability for firefighting. Of course, we are helped by good weather in the last few years. But this year, again, I think that there is common affirmation of the need to monitor the dry season carefully and also to act quickly to fight fires.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms He Ting Ru.
\tMs He Ting Ru (Sengkang): Thank you, Sir. I thank the Minister earlier for agreeing to look into the using of common spaces, such as RC centres and air-conditioned rooms in our CCs, to provide sanctuaries in case of haze.
I would like to ask whether, at the same time, there could also be a request made to looking into these spaces and making them available to become heat sanctuaries in periods of heat waves and also when there are high temperatures for over prolonged periods? Because some of our elders and some of our residents might not have access to cooling devices or just cool environments.
\tMs Grace Fu Hai Yien: We will definitely take up that suggestion as well. These are all important nodes of community support on the ground; it is actually the result of many, many decades of hard work of building up assets, such as RCs, CCs, I would not say well-equipped, but which are prepared to handle some of these local exigencies when the need arises. And these have been put to good use, whether it is for COVID-19 management and now, potentially for haze. I would definitely like to take up Member He's suggestion of using them in the case of prolonged and severe heat waves.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : To ask the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) how is the Government preparing our population for any advent of haze; and (b) whether our hospitals and general practitioners are equipped to handle people who may have respiratory issues from haze."],"footNoteQuestions":["7"],"questionNo":"7"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on New Tourism Development in Jurong Lake District","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"
8 Mr Ang Wei Neng asked the Minister for Trade and Industry whether an update can be provided on the new tourism development in the Jurong Lake District.
\tThe Minister of State for Trade and Industry (Ms Low Yen Ling) (for the Minister for Trade and Industry): Mr Deputy Speaker, a request for proposal for a new tourism development at a site in Jurong Lake District was launched in March 2022 and closed in October 2022. There were no submissions.
The war in Ukraine, coupled with the overall slowdown in global economy, created an uncertain economic environment during that period, especially for the tourism sector. However, Singapore Tourism Board (STB) remains confident in the tourism potential of the site as it is adjacent to the new Science Centre and Jurong Lake Gardens. We are monitoring market sentiments and exploring other possibilities to harness this potential.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Ang.
\tMr Ang Wei Neng (West Coast): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank the Minister of State for the reply. Many West Coast and Jurong residents are looking forward to the new tourist attraction in Jurong East, not just for entertainment, but also for job opportunities. I would ask two supplementary questions.
Firstly, what are the implications of the cancellation of the high-speed rail project and of the recent release of White Side in Jurong Lake District for sale to a Master Developer, on the potential tourist development in the Jurong Lake District? Secondly, would the Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) consider calling for another request for proposals (RFP) soon for the development of a tourist attraction in Jurong Lake District and if so, how would MTI enhance the attractiveness of the site that you are calling for this proposal, for example, is the site big enough for a Disneyland?
\t
\t
\tMs Low Yen Ling: Sir, I want to thank the Member, Mr Ang Wei Neng, for his interest in the tourism development project. And I thank him for the two supplementary questions. But allow me to take a step back and recap what happened in 2008 because the Member will remember – and many Members would probably remember – the Jurong Lake District has, over the last 15 years, seen very significant progress since the release of the blueprint in 2008. For example, an established commercial core has built up around the Jurong East MRT interchange with developments, such as Jem, Westgate and Vision Exchange, complementing existing offices and amenities in the area.
The Member asked about the high-speed rail. For us, we are very focused on pushing ahead with not just MTI but the whole-of-Government plans for the Jurong Lake District, for example, upcoming improvements in rail connectivity via the Jurong Region Line and the Cross Island Line (CRL). All these developments and transport connectivity will certainly enhance the accessibility and attractiveness of the Jurong Lake District as a major employment centre.
Two weeks ago, the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) launched a tender for the master development site at the Jurong Lake District and, indeed, the launch of the master development sale site will kickstart the next phase of development for the Jurong Lake District. And I want to assure the Member and the residents staying in the area that over the next 10 to 15 years, the plan is to develop the Jurong Lake District into the largest mixed use business district outside of the city centre, in line with the blueprint. And this is in line with Singapore's strategic objective for decentralisation, so that the residents staying in that part of Singapore will have access to very attractive job opportunities within close proximity.
It will also serve as a model for sustainability that promotes a healthy living environment for residents, visitors, workers, and a thriving Jurong Lake District will boost a critical mass of high-quality office spaces, well-integrated with housing, transport – I highlighted the connectivity coming up – amenities, green spaces, the Jurong Lake Garden and other complementary use. I want to assure the Member that my STB and MTI colleagues are closely monitoring and working with various stakeholders about the potential of the tourism development project that we talked about.
I also want to assure Mr Ang that the tourism development and the master development sale site aims to meet different but very complementary planning objectives for Jurong Lake District. For example, while the master development sale site will be developed mainly for office and residential uses with complementary amenities, such as retail shops, to serve the needs of the residents as well as the workers, the tourism site eventually, when launched and completed, will be developed primarily for attraction and leisure use – like the Member talked about earlier in his supplementary question – with ancillary hotel and retail uses that will serve both the residents and the visitors.
I want to assure him that our STB colleagues are looking at the RFP and the tourism site sits next to the 90-hectare Jurong Lake Garden, which is our third national garden and the location capitalised on the beautiful views and the direct 300-metre long water frontage for Jurong Lake. And there will also be, like I said in my answer to the Parliamentary Question (PQ) answer, tremendous opportunities for collaboration with the nearby new Science Centre.
So, with plans for more than 10 kilometres of active lakeside seamlessly linked by a promenade and also boardwalk around Jurong Lake, I want to assure the Member that a string of attractions will be created around the lake, all set amidst a very lovely, immersive greenery experience for the visitors, workers as well as his residents.
\t
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Projected Need for Informal Caregivers in Next 10 to 20 Years ","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"9 Ms Carrie Tan asked the Minister for Health (a) whether the Ministry has projected any figures for the anticipated increase in informal caregivers needed over the next 10 to 20 years as the population ages; (b) if so, what are the projected figures; and (c) how will the Government build up the capacity and capability of care workers to relieve the load on family caregivers.
\tThe Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health (Ms Rahayu Mahzam) (for the Minister for Health): Mr Deputy Speaker, based on the Ministry of Manpower's (MOM) 2022 Labour Force Survey, about 90,300 residents outside of the labour force cited caregiving responsibilities as the main reason for not working. Twelve thousand four hundred of these caregivers were looking after their aged, ill or disabled parents.
As our population ages, more seniors will need care and there will be more caregivers who may need support. To prepare for this, we have strengthened support for caregivers, such as through the recent enhancement to the Home Caregiving Grant. The Government has also scaled up the capacity for aged care services, such as home and day care services, over the years to meet the needs of seniors. We are reviewing the aged care landscape to better anchor care in the community and support seniors to age well at home. These changes will help to relieve the burden on family caregivers.
To enable these improvements, the Government will continue to build up the capacity and capability of care workers. The Ministry of Health (MOH) and the Agency for Integrated Care (AIC) have helped community care organisations attract and retain manpower through schemes to support local recruitment, branding of the sector and salary enhancements. Providers can also access manpower training initiatives under AIC, such as study awards and training courses offered by learning institutes.
\tMr Deputy Speaker: Mr Yip.
\tMr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for her response. Will MOH consider spearheading and organising a system of micro-jobs at the local community level to encourage caregiving, especially to incentivise retired seniors to take out some of these jobs?
\tMs Rahayu Mahzam: There are various efforts that we are looking into. This is something that we can consider. Yesterday, I had explained to this House that we are also trying to look at how we can get more seniors to volunteer and these may be some avenues that we can explore.
\tMr Deputy Speaker: Ms Carrie Tan.
\tMs Carrie Tan (Nee Soon): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I would like to add on with two supplementary questions. One is regarding the Home Caregiving Grant. We appreciate that there is an enhanced grant to help defray the costs and expenses of caregiving. However, it is not an income replacement or an income support to the caregivers themselves who are struggling with this issue of lack of income because they had to give up their jobs. Case in point – I recently have a resident who feels very adamant that he should not be taking his mother's money because the Home Caregiving Grant is technically given to the care recipient and there are those amongst our residents who do not feel like it is right for them to take their mother's money or their parents' money when that amount needs to go for paying for the expenses of caregiving.
So, would MOH take serious consideration of \"Carefare\", which is the income supplement scheme that I proposed – three years running and every single Budget – that we need to look into supporting with some income for the full-time caregivers who have no choice but to become full-time caregivers to their aged parents?
My second supplementary question is, given the recent emergence of innovative home-based care services like the one that appeared in the newspapers, the social enterprise called Red Crowns, although it did not appear in the newspapers for a very good reason, would MOH be actively looking into supporting alternative models of community-based care that can offer Singaporeans a wider variety of homecare options for their parents?
\tMs Rahayu Mahzam: I thank the Member for her passion and interest in this. I know that this is an issue that has been raised, especially in our conversations on women's development, and it is of concern. However, when we talk about supporting, from the Ministry's perspective as to how we support the caregiving services, there are some considerations that we have to take into account.
We see the family as the first line of defence and we need to ensure that we are advocating for the right behaviours and there are also concerns about the fiscal sustainability of the approaches that we take in this. As Members are aware, the Government is already providing a lot of support – and multiple tiers of support – for healthcare services and the support to caregivers. The caregivers can tap on their MediSave, they can tap on their subsidy schemes and their grants, and a lot of this is really targeted at those who actually need the help the most. So, we do need to think carefully about changing this model and approach. I think we remain open to reviewing the different approaches to support caregivers, but we have to look at this in the context of the whole support that we are giving to the family, in respect of caregiving.
On the question in respect of the different models, under the refreshed action plan for successful ageing, we are already exploring with different models. We are developing the Active Ageing Centres within the communities. We are investing quite a bit in community care and we are also looking at how to enhance the support for home caregiving services.
\t
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Singapore's Performance for PM2.5, PM10, Sulphur Dioxide, Ozone, Nitrogen Dioxide and Carbon Monoxide Emissions","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"10 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) how did Singapore perform in 2021 and 2022 for PM2.5, PM10, sulphur dioxide, ozone, nitrogen dioxide and carbon monoxide emissions respectively; (b) whether the Government has conducted any review of the failure to meet the 2020 air quality targets; (c) whether there are any updates to Singapore’s long-term air quality targets; and (d) whether there are new plans being developed to meet the long-term targets and, if so, what are they.
\tThe Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien): Mr Deputy Speaker, the concentrations of the key air pollutants in 2021 and 2022 are available on the Department of Statistics website, singstat.gov.sg. Information on air quality is also available through the Key Environmental Statistics published annually by my Ministry.
In 2021 and 2022, Singapore's air quality was in the \"Good\" or \"Moderate\" range 99.5% and 100% of the days, respectively. Singapore has met the 2020 air quality targets for nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, sulphur dioxide and fine particulate matter PM2.5. PM10 and ozone continue to be a challenge due to multiple factors, including the weather and complex chemical reactions between the pollutants and the environment – that refers to ozone.
We will continue to review our air quality targets as well as policies to address local pollutant emissions. For example, the emission standards for motorcycles and existing industrial plants were further tightened this year.
\tMr Deputy Speaker: Ms He? No questions? Dr Tan Wu Meng.
\tDr Tan Wu Meng (Jurong): I thank the Minister for her answer. I declare that I am a medical doctor at a public hospital looking after cancer patients. I would like to ask the Minister one supplementary question.
On 6 April 2023, the cover story for the international scientific journal, Nature, looked at the correlation between air pollution and lung cancer in non-smokers. In that journal, an article was published suggesting that PM2.5 levels could contribute to an increased lung cancer risk in people who are non-smokers or never smokers.
The contribution, of course, was much less than what you get from smoking, but it was nevertheless notable and it made the front page of this international scientific journal. Would the Ministry consider looking at the PM2.5 target levels, given the emerging scientific evidence and to see whether we can bring the PM2.5 levels even lower as time goes by, as the science evolves and our understanding of the contribution of pollution to health and disease evolves as well.
\tMs Grace Fu Hai Yien: Deputy Speaker, please allow me to address the supplementary question from Member Dr Tan. First of all, I would like to reiterate that our air quality for 2021 and 2022 both met the 2020 air quality targets for PM2.5. So, that is an assurance to Dr Tan. And also, I would like to point out that for most of the medical studies, as far as I am advised by my colleagues, are dependent on the length of the exposure as well as the concentration of exposure.
So, we have to apply those underlying conditions and look at whether they are relevant to the Singapore context. As I have mentioned, we have met the PM2.5 quality targets and, therefore, we do not have a prolonged over concentration or exposure to PM2.5 in Singapore.
Having said that, I think the suggestion to review our targets continually, given new information coming from the medical and health scientific communities, is the right one. And this is what we have been doing and we will continue to do so.
\t
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Viability of Singapore Post’s Domestic Post and Parcel Business","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"11 Mr Seah Kian Peng asked the Minister for Communications and Information given the declining traditional letter mail volumes, what measures are being taken to ensure that Singapore Post’s domestic post and parcel business remains viable and there is continuity of postal services for Singaporeans.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Communications and Information (Mr Tan Kiat How) (for the Minister for Communications and Information): Sir, Singapore Post (SingPost) is both a public postal licencee with universal service obligations and a private listed company.
As a public postal licencee, SingPost bears primary responsibility for providing Singapore's postal service and is allowed to access and operate postal infrastructure, such as the national postal code system and physical letterboxes to support this. At the same time, SingPost is constituted as a commercial entity with obligations to its shareholders. As such, it must be able to maintain a viable business model.
Since the COVID-19 pandemic, the speed and scale of digitalisation has led to a sharp decline in domestic letter volumes, from around 490 million letters in Financial Year (FY) 2015 to just 260 million in FY2022. This trend is expected to persist. Many individuals have gone online, opting for paperless communications for convenience and cost savings. At the same time, most Government agencies have digitalised, communicating with citizens through online channels. Today, businesses account for more than 80% of mail users and the average consumer sends less than one letter per month.
With this decline, it will be challenging for SingPost to continue running a viable business with its current operating model and at the current postage rates. As such, a balance must be struck to allow SingPost to fulfil its responsibilities in a sustainable manner, while ensuring the continuity of postal services for Singaporeans. The Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA), as the postal regulator, will work with SingPost to review its costs and operations, including optimising and automatic post office services for greater cost effectiveness. IMDA will also review the current postal service obligations to ensure that they remain relevant in today's highly digitalised context, especially given the many alternative electronic communication channels available to consumers and businesses.
At the same time, IMDA will consider allowing SingPost to introduce postage rate adjustments in the future to better reflect the cost of letter mail business going forward. Domestic postal rates have largely been held constant since 2014, apart from a small increase at the start of the year. The upcoming adjustments will have to be of a sufficient degree to allow SingPost's business model to remain viable without requiring direct Government funding.
Finally, as SingPost reviews the company's business transformation strategies to remain relevant, we will work closely with SingPost on a fundamental review of the future of Singapore's postal service, recognising the larger shifts in the delivery ecosystem and changing needs of our local context, including the rise of logistics and e-commerce players.
\tMr Deputy Speaker: Mr Seah.
\tMr Seah Kian Peng (Marine Parade): I thank the Senior Minister of State for his reply. Just a few supplementary questions. Given the decline in volume and given that I can understand SingPost having their challenges, how does the Ministry ensure that there is no degradation of services that are provided by SingPost?
Secondly, the Senior Minister of State alluded to the fact that there will be more regular adjustments to the postal rates. I can understand that. Could the Senior Minister of State give an indication of the quantum we are looking at, in terms of the adjustment?
Finally, for my third supplementary question, I know that SingPost employs a number of Singaporeans in the postal services. As we go about doing this restructuring, I hope we pay a lot of attention to making sure that the jobs are preserved and we do all our best to keep as many of them in their current employment or in new jobs.
\tMr Tan Kiat How: Sir, let me take the three questions by Mr Seah in turn. Firstly, on the quality of service, I would like to assure the Member that there is a quality of service framework in place for the regulated service offered by SingPost. IMDA, as the postal regulator, will continue to ensure that the postal licensee keeps up and complies with the quality of service.
The second question is around adjustments. Sir, I am mindful that SingPost is a listed company and many of these reviews will have to be taken together between the regulator and the licensee as part of their regular discussions. I would like to assure the Member that all these discussions will be in the context of the cost overheads, postal rate adjustments, declining volume and the operating environment. These factors will be considered as part of the discussions.
Thirdly, on the part about local employees, this something that we are mindful of. I am sure that SingPost, as a responsible employer, would be mindful of this as well. In fact, I think there are regular conversations between them and the unions representing the postal employees. So, these are the issues that we have to discuss as part of the overall discussion around the future of the postal services, and as part of the discussions between the regulator and the licensee.
\tMr Deputy Speaker: Mr Leon Perera.
\tMr Leon Perera (Aljunied): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Just one supplementary question for the Senior Minister of State. He referred to the service quality framework that the Government uses vis-à-vis SingPost because SingPost is a Government licencee. Are there periodic surveys of customer satisfaction similar to what is done by the Land Transport Authority (LTA) vis-à-vis the public transport system, for example? I am not suggesting that that be done necessarily every year. But is that something that is done regularly and is that something where the Government will discuss the findings and hold SingPost accountable?
Before I end, I just declare my interest as chairman of a company that does market research and consulting.
\tMr Tan Kiat How: Sir, I do not have an answer at this point in time to the Member's question. I would invite him to file a Parliamentary Question and we can take a look at that.
But broadly, let me set the context by saying that the quality of service framework, which broadly looks at the service level agreement between the licensee and its customers, and how it delivers the basic postal mails, these are issues that have been around for many, many years. It is something that was continually refined to make sure that it meets the needs of the consumers in Singapore and the needs of the licensees. These are things that we benchmark with the rest of the world. In fact, Singapore has one of the most stringent quality of service framework compared to comparable cities and countries around the world.
\tMr Deputy Speaker: Mr Louis Chua.
\tMr Chua Kheng Wee Louis (Sengkang): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Just two supplementary questions.
Firstly, in relation to the domestic postal obligations, which is the framework which the Senior Minister of State has talked about in terms of the regulatory framework that IMDA has, what recourse does the Government have if SingPost, as the operator, is unable or unwilling to carry out their obligations any further because of the constraints that it is facing and so on?
Secondly, related to that, the company has also made an announcement that it is reviewing the commercial sustainability of the domestic postal business and it was also mentioned just now that there have been various discussions between IMDA and the company. Do these discussions involve the direct subsidising or funding of the company in relation to this aspect?
\tMr Tan Kiat How: Sir, there seems to be a lot of interest in postal services today. Let me take Mr Chua's questions in turn.
First, about the recourse that the Government, as a regulator, has in respect of the terms and conditions of the licence. Let me first explain that SingPost is a public postal licensee. It means that it applied for a licence to deliver a service in Singapore. So, there is no subsidy to the postal licensee. It is actually operating a business in Singapore and has applied for a licence to do so. IMDA, as the regulator, imposes certain conditions as part of that licence, and one of the conditions is the quality of service of the licensee. I hope that helps to address Mr Chua's first question around the obligations and recourse. These are all part and parcel of the terms and conditions of the licence and its regulated operations.
The second question is around the commercial aspect. Like I mentioned earlier, SingPost is a publicly listed company and has its own set of corporate governance rules around its financial statements and its own set of considerations that it shares with its shareholders. So, I will not touch on that because it is under the remit of the board and management of the company. But I just want to point out that even in its most recent financial statements to its shareholders, the overall company is profitable. And when it talked about its specific segment of post and parcels, we should see that in that context as well. Even in the post and parcel segment of its business, basic postal service or the regulated service, is just one part of that sub-business that it operates.
Lastly, can the Member Mr Chua repeat the second question or have I answered all the questions? Okay. I have replied to all.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Enhancements to Single Room Shared Facilities Initiative","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"12 Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether he can provide a status update on the Single Room Shared Facilities initiative; and (b) what suggestions are received to enhance the said initiative.
\tThe Minister for National Development (Mr Desmond Lee): Mr Deputy Speaker, we are launching a pilot of a new type of rental housing, which we call the Single Room Shared Facilities (SRSF), to provide more options for lower-income individuals under the Public Rental Scheme. With the SRSF, we aim to provide more privacy for tenants while making good use of limited space, and the shared facilities and communal spaces will enable social interaction and reduce the risk of social isolation. The Housing and Development Board (HDB) is currently refurbishing the premises at the former Anderson Junior College hostel to prepare for the pilot and applications will open in December 2023.
Since the announcement, we have received feedback of interest in applying for the pilot. We have also received suggestions about the amenities to be provided for the shared facilities, such as the kitchens and laundry rooms; received suggestions on the measures that we could take to tackle social isolation; received suggestions on the manner of facilities, management and upkeep; suggestions on the types of social interventions and community services that may be provided, and we will adopt these where possible. As this is a pilot, we will work alongside the appointed social service agency operator to refine the model as we gain experience.
\tMr Deputy Speaker: Ms Denise Phua.
\tMs Denise Phua Lay Peng (Jalan Besar): Mr Deputy Speaker, I want to thank the Minister for the HDB rental units, especially for all the good work and helpful work that they have rendered to me and my residents. I also wish to compliment HDB and the Ministry of National Development (MND) for this SRSF initiative, which I thought was very important because it addresses the gaps for the homeless and also the tenants who cannot get along well with each other. So, if designed well, it will reduce many of the appeals that we are receiving at our Meet-the-People sessions each week.
Sir, I want to find out what is the timeframe to take in all the improvements or suggestions that the Minister has mentioned and also what is the plan to scale this initiative. This is because every week, we are still receiving a lot of feedback on rental tenants who just cannot get along with each other. And the need for just more privacy for rental tenants of HDB flats is still there; the demand is there. So, I would like to ask the Minister about the scalability.
\tMr Desmond Lee: I would like to thank the Member for being a very passionate advocate for the needs of the lower-income, especially those who are residing in rental housing, transitional shelters and so on.
The various suggestions came to us first in the course of our consultation before we launched the pilot in March of this year. Before we launched the pilot, we had, last year, engaged social work professionals, social service agencies, academics, researchers, community workers and so on. Some of these ideas have actually been incorporated in this pilot and you will see some of these in place when we launch the first round of applications for tenants in December of this year.
The other ideas will be studied and some of these ideas include the kinds of social interventions that can take place for the residents of this pilot project. When the social service agency comes on board, we will work with the operator to see whether some of these can be trialed.
\t
The second question that the Member asked is when can this be scaled up. This pilot will allow us to accommodate up to a maximum of some 480 single rooms; that is, 480 individuals. So, there will be some capacity there. But as to when this can be scaled up, I think we will let the pilot run its course first. Let us assess how the tenants interact with each other, with the social service agency operator in the shared facilities, and let us learn from this pilot.
Having said that, I think it is important to contextualise this pilot, given the other things that we are doing. For example, we have been putting partitions in rental flats – both retrofitting existing ones as well as building new rental flats that come with partitions for individuals under the Joint Singles Scheme (JSS). We have been piloting the JSS Operator-Run pilot (JSS-OR). And we have earlier announced this year that we will extend the pilot to more sites. This involves two individuals sharing under the JSS rental flat with a social service agency coming in to match tenants, to address disputes and, of course, to provide social support.
This SRSF pilot tests the viability of giving each individual privacy in a room of his or her own. But to prevent and tackle the risk of social isolation, you have facilities that are shared on every floor as well as on the ground floor and a social service agency with professionals coming in to provide programming, community interventions as well as social work interventions. So, let this pilot run. Let it run for some time and if it is feasible, it may go into the design of future rental flats.
\tMr Deputy Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.
\tAssoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): I thank the Minister for his answer. I understand as well that it is currently a pilot scheme, but I am wondering if we have residents that come in to our Meet-the-People sessions and specifically, in our assessment, we feel that they have a strong case, is this something that we can formally make an appeal for?
\tMr Desmond Lee: Certainly, I encourage individuals who would like to apply for this pilot unit to do so when we open it in December this year. And I welcome Members of this House to refer residents whom you think will benefit from this pilot.
\tMr Deputy Speaker: Ms Carrie Tan.
\tMs Carrie Tan (Nee Soon): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I would like to thank the hon Member for bringing up this question. I would like to find out from Minister whether, in the public consultations that happened before the design of this pilot, there were any conversations or discussions around the role of aesthetics in uplifting people and their spirits, and how that could actually contribute to a person's ability to transcend their circumstances for more effective social mobility.
I ask this because we do see in our rental blocks in every constituency that there is very little sense of ownership amongst the residents and pervasive littering acts, and just higher rates of dirtiness and all that happens in every single Town Council, I believe. We know from observing human behaviour that it is easier to upkeep a place that is nice and beautiful than to transform, at your own effort, a place that is dirty into a clean place.
My point here is, are we looking into the mechanics of what it means to enable people to live a good life so that they are more enabled in their spirit towards overcoming the circumstances that they are facing in their lives? I am responding to the controversy around, in social media when the design of the —
\tMr Deputy Speaker: Perhaps, Ms Carrie Tan, you can ask your clarification?
\tMs Carrie Tan: So, my clarification is – was there any conversation or discussion around this topic during the public consultations? And will MND be looking into the research around this to look at the role of aesthetics in uplifting people's spirits towards breaking out of their difficult circumstances?
\tMr Desmond Lee: I thank the Member for her suggestions. Indeed, in the run-up to the announcement of this pilot, as I said, last year, we had engaged a wide range of organisations, professionals, academics and researchers. It was a long session. Of course, we had separate engagements in the lead-up to this. And there were concerns about the infrastructural side of the house – how to maintain, how to upkeep, how would we account for the usage of utilities; very practical stuff.
There were also a lot of people who were concerned about how the pilot site or how the set-up of any future model would enable social interaction as you move to a single unit kind of typology, where you can stay in the room the whole day if you want and not interact; how do you combat the loneliness and social isolation, particularly, given that many of these individuals who will stay there are often victims of circumstances who have difficulties in life and we do not want them to be entirely isolated.
Some were also concerned about how social services and community organisations could make use of the spaces to engage, to draw out the tenants and to be able to provide more holistic support for them. And in the spirit of what we have been doing in ComLink, there was also this suggestion about how a more integrated support could be provided for the tenants of this rental housing typology which, of course, will be of relevance not just to this but other rental pilots as well.
There was, of course, feedback about how community organisations could be brought in to help build community – help to organise activities for the tenants, help to build a sense of community ownership and community spirit amongst the tenants, how volunteers would come in and do community art, alongside the residents.
So, all these were suggested. Some of these would be taken on board, as I said in the response to Member Denise Phua's query.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Results from Measures to Reduce Waiting Time for Admissions to Public Hospitals","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"13 Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked the Minister for Health (a) when can the results from the measures announced to reduce waiting time for admissions to public hospitals be expected; (b) what is the longest projected waiting time for beds; (c) when will the Ministry start to mobilise private hospitals and healthcare facilities; and (d) what steps have been taken to ensure that patients who are not admitted within a day receive timely and quality care.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Health (Dr Janil Puthucheary) (for the Minister for Health): Mr Deputy Speaker, as we exit from the COVID-19 crisis, hospitals have found that average length of stay has increased significantly, from 6.1 days to seven days. This translates into 15% more utilisation of hospital beds and is the key driver for longer waiting times for admission. The patients who need longer stays are older with co-morbidities and complex conditions. The situation is aggravated by healthcare infrastructure projects being delayed due to COVID-19.
We are actively working on increasing acute bed capacity, community hospital bed capacity and Transition Care Facilities to address the capacity constraint. In the meantime, our hospitals will continue attending to life-threatening cases at the Emergency Departments (EDs) immediately and carry out urgent surgeries promptly. For non-life-threatening patients who require admissions, hospitals will activate inpatient teams to start investigations and treatments in the EDs, even before a ward bed is available. If need be, we will tap on the capacity of private hospitals, as we did during COVID-19.
\tMr Deputy Speaker: Dr Lim.
\tDr Lim Wee Kiak (Sembawang): Thank you, Sir. I would just like to ask a few supplementary questions\tregarding what is the main cause for the increase in hospitalisation stay from 6.1 days to seven days. What are steps taken now to tackle that? Can we go back to six days again? And lastly, how much is it due to the backlog from COVID-19 and when will this backlog clear?
\tDr Janil Puthucheary: Sir, I thank Dr Lim for his questions. The main cause of the increase is the increase in the complexity of care. We are seeing more aged patients, frailer patients and patients with more co-morbidities. And so, the main reason that it is taking longer for them to stay in hospital is because the amount of care they need is more. They are more unwell and it takes longer for them to recover. So, 6.1 days to seven days is a 15% increase. It is not small. It is a significant increase in the length of stay. And that is what has fundamentally affected the strain on our capacity.
We have not been able to increase as much as we have previously projected because of the delays and the infrastructure upgrading and roll-out of capacity because of COVID-19. But we are trying our best to catch up.
Can we go back, Dr Lim asked. I do not think there is a foreseeable way in which we can go back to shorter stays because our population is getting even older. So, you will have more patients with complex healthcare needs.
We do have to put in quite a lot of effort to keep us as healthy as possible for as long as possible to mitigate this burden. But once you need hospitalisation, the likelihood is that your care is likely to be more complex and longer than in the past.
What we have to do then is to optimise the use of the capacity we do have, which is to transfer patients to step-down facilities, community facilities and also, where possible, to recover at home, so that our hospital facilities are focused on those who need that complex acute care.
\t
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Mandating Caregiving Leave for Private Sector Companies","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"14 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Manpower whether the Government will consider introducing mandatory caregiving leave for private sector companies.
\tThe Minister of State for Manpower (Ms Gan Siow Huang) (for the Minister for Manpower): Mr Deputy Speaker, the Government works closely with our tripartite partners to provide a wide range of support for caregivers who manage both caregiving and work responsibilities.
All employers are required by law to provide paid maternity and paternity leave, as well as childcare and unpaid infant care leave to support the caregiving needs of employees with children. In addition, some employers have voluntarily provided other types of paid leave, such as parental care leave and family care leave, to support employees with other caregiving needs, such as caring for elderly or disabled family members. The tripartite partners also actively encourage employers to adopt best practices, such as providing enhanced leave benefits through the Tripartite Standards on Unpaid Leave for Unexpected Care Needs and Tripartite Standards on Work-Life Harmony.
We recognise that caregiving needs are diverse. The range of caregiving responsibilities and methods of caregiving continue to vary and evolve. We will study and continue to review how to better support working caregivers, bringing alongside with us the private sector companies and working closely with our tripartite partners. A more sustainable and flexible form of workplace support is flexible work arrangements, which allow caregivers to vary their work timing, location and workload to suit their personal circumstances.
The tripartite partners will continue to encourage and equip employers to provide flexible work arrangements to support employees in managing both their work and caregiving responsibilities. The Government will also continue to review and strengthen other support for working caregivers. This includes enhancing the caregiving support infrastructure, financial support and fostering a more family-friendly culture.
\tMr Deputy Speaker: Just a short supplementary question, please, Mr Leon Perera.
\tMr Leon Perera (Aljunied): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I would like to ask one short supplementary question. I am wondering if the Government will consider requiring or mandating private companies to provide an elderly or parent care leave to some extent, or flexible work arrangements that will allow for time for eldercare and parent care duties? This is an increasing problem. There is a lot of feedback from constituents, from people and as our population ages, it is going to get worse. The Civil Service provides this already. The take-up is very good. Only 20% of private companies provide this as a requirement. It may be tough for small and medium enterprises (SMEs) to provide this, but maybe for the larger companies. Will the Government consider mandating this?
\tMs Gan Siow Huang: We recognise that caregiving needs are varied and have taken a practical approach in calibrating the statutory leave provisions. Importantly, we want to strike good balance between employees' caregiving needs and employers' business costs and manpower needs.
As explained earlier, flexible work arrangements are also a very useful way to help working caregivers to manage both work and caregiving needs.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. End of Question Time. The Clerk will now proceed to read the Order of the day and Notices of Motion.
[Pursuant to Standing Order No 22(3), written answers to questions not reached by the end of Question Time are reproduced in the Appendix, unless Members had asked for questions standing in their names to be postponed to a later Sitting day or withdrawn.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Online Criminal Harms Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
Mr Deputy Speaker: Minister for Home Affairs.
The Second Minister for Home Affairs (Mrs Josephine Teo) (for the Minister for Home Affairs): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time\".
Last year, Parliament amended the Broadcasting Act through the Online Safety Bill, which targets harmful online content such as advocacy of suicide and self-harm.
The Online Criminal Harms Bill we are debating today focuses instead on online content or activity which is criminal in nature, or which is used to facilitate or abet crimes.
There is growing international consensus that new rules and levers are needed to combat criminal harms online. There is also growing recognition that proactive approaches are needed to prevent such harms, and that Government efforts alone will not be enough.
The United Kingdom (UK), the European Union (EU), Germany and Australia have or are introducing new laws in this regard. They have been useful references as we formulated our proposals.
In general, we have taken a targeted approach, focusing on areas that are most problematic. We have also taken a pragmatic and collaborative approach. For example, we recognise and encourage initiatives by online services to improve online safety. But we also know that they tend to be designed for a global user base and do not cater to the unique circumstances in specific locations.
Where we have identified a need for additional measures to tackle risks of criminal activities, it will be better to require them by law than to leave things to chance. The specific interventions should however be designed for ease of implementation, with strong emphasis on effective outcomes.
Sir, with those comments as backdrop, let me outline the broad features of the Bill.
First, the Bill allows Directions to be issued to online service providers, other entities, or individuals, when specified criminal offences take place.
Second, the Bill makes special provisions for scams and malicious cyber activities. Such activities tend to unfold with great speed and scale. They inflict great harms on the victims, not just in terms of financial losses. The threshold to issue Directions should therefore be lower than for the other specified criminal offences.
We will also require designated online services to put in place systems and processes to counter scams and malicious cyber activities.
Members would be familiar with the use of Directions to restrict the exposure of users in Singapore to online criminal content and activity. Directions are also a feature of the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA), the Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Act (FICA) and the Broadcasting Act (BA).
What criminal offences can Directions be used for? These are criminal offences that affect national security, national harmony, and individual safety, and which have an online nexus. They are specified in the First Schedule of the Bill.
Clause 6(1)(a) provides the legal threshold for Directions to be issued against online activity. Directions can be issued only when there is reasonable suspicion that a specified offence under Part 1 of the First Schedule has been committed and the online activity is in furtherance of that offence.
Designated officers will issue Directions for criminal offences under their agency's purview. For example, designated officers from the Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB) will be authorised to issue Directions for offences under the Misuse of Drugs Act.
While designated officers may be sited in several agencies, a competent authority sited under the Singapore Police Force (SPF) will serve as a single point of contact across the Government, for recipients of Directions, such as online service providers.
Clauses 8 to 12 set out the scope of the five types of Direction. For example, where the Police have reasonable suspicion that an account on a social media service is being used for unlicensed moneylending activity, they can issue the social media service provider: one, a Disabling Direction, so that the offending post or page is prevented from reaching a person in Singapore; or two, an Account Restriction Direction, so that an offending account is prevented from interacting with persons in Singapore.
As a second example, a Stop Communication Direction may be issued to someone who posts text or images, inciting violence against people of a certain race.
The use of Directions limits the reach of criminals and prevents more persons from being exposed to the harm. For scams and malicious cyber activities, we will however need a different approach, one which is more proactive and pre-emptive.
Many scams and malicious cyber activities are carried out through deception. For example, scammers may create online accounts or websites that seem authentic and legitimate. Such accounts or websites are then used to convince victims to transit to another platform, where they are then targeted for scams.
Victims may also inadvertently download malware that have the ability to steal their login credentials or other personal information. Such methods are commonly used for investment and job scams, which together saw close to 10,000 cases in 2022, with victims losing more than $300 million.
Unfortunately, the initial contacting and grooming of victims may not yet constitute a criminal offence, even if they are a necessary step. As a result, they may not cross the threshold of reasonable suspicion for Directions to be issued.
Malicious actors are also quite \"kiasu\", in the sense of preparing much more than the bare minimum. For example, thousands of blank websites are created in advance, with domain names that resemble those of legitimate organisations.
When the malicious actor is ready to strike, these blank websites are swiftly activated, populated with scam content and pushed out to the public, who may fall prey within minutes. But until these blank websites and preparatory locations are activated, they may also not cross the threshold of reasonable suspicion for Directions to be issued.
Faced with such opponents, Members might understand why our response needs to also be \"kiasu\"; to be extraordinarily careful. This is why clause 6(1)(b) of the Bill introduces a lower threshold for issuing Directions for scams and malicious cyber activity offences that are specified under part 2 of the First Schedule.
This is when there is suspicion or reason to believe that any online activity is being carried out in preparation for or as part of the commission of a scam or malicious cyber activity offence. Law enforcement would then be able to issue Directions proactively, once such activities are detected, and even before an offence is committed. For instance, we could issue Access Blocking Directions to Internet service providers to prevent the blank websites I mentioned earlier from being accessed by Singapore users, even before scammers activate these sites.
We would also be able to issue App Removal Directions to remove scam apps that are used to commit scam offences, from Singapore app storefronts and third-party app stores. In addition, we will require providers of designated online services to put in place systems and processes to counter possible offences under the Second Schedule. For now, the only group specified within the Second Schedule will be scam and malicious cyber activity offences. But this approach allows us to respond more quickly if new classes of offences emerge which also require counter actions by designated online services.
Sir, we have decided to involve online service providers in crime prevention because they have much more knowledge about what is happening on their platforms. Law enforcement agencies obtain information only when Police reports are filed by victims, or through online trawling, which is not exhaustive and is more akin to finding a needle in a haystack. On the other hand, online services have direct and full access to relevant data about activities on their platform, and can also perform analytics to detect and respond to crime on their platform.
Through successful partnerships with the Police, online service providers have also found that it helps them plug information gaps and take more effective actions. For example, a scammer may first approach a victim through an online service but carry out the scam on a different online service. The first online service may not be aware of the scam and will act to identify and remove the source only when alerted by the Police.
Such collaboration will be promoted through codes of practice. Their requirements will be framed in terms of outcomes which designated online services must meet. This gives a provider the flexibility to customise its approach depending on the nature of its service. The competent authority will consult and work with the providers of designated online services in developing the codes of practice. The codes will be updated periodically in response to new and evolving threats, and technological developments.
If designated online services are found to be non-compliant with the codes of practice, clause 23 allows that the competent authority be able to serve the providers of these services with a Rectification Notice to correct the non-compliance by a specified time, before escalation to prosecution. Clause 24 provides that the competent authority may issue the provider of a designated online service an Implementation Directive to put in place any system, process, or measure, if it is satisfied that this is necessary or expedient to address a relevant offence under the Second Schedule.
Unlike codes of practice, an Implementation Directive will be specific and prescriptive. For example, the competent authority may issue an Implementation Directive for a designated online service to put in place a specific form of multi-factor authentication to protect against the misuse of accounts to commit crimes.
We are providing for such Directives as a complement to the codes of practice. For example, where there may be an urgent need to put in place a specific measure to address the proliferation of a specific scam operation, an Implementation Directive would be more effective in this instance.
Clause 20 provides for the competent authority to designate online services that would be subject to the codes of practice and Implementation Directives to be applied against offences in the Second Schedule of the Bill. In designating online services, we will consider the extent and impact of the harms relating to the specified offence groups, the reach of the online service, the design and nature of the online service and any other relevant factors.
Clauses 28 to 31 provide the competent authority with powers to issue Access Blocking Orders, App Removal Orders or Service Restriction Orders, where there has been non-compliance with a Direction, a Rectification Notice, an Implementation Directive, or another Order.
In other words, Orders are intended to be an escalatory enforcement measure taken only where necessary, if there has been non-compliance. Their purpose is to limit the further exposure of persons in Singapore to the criminal activity. Orders operate alongside and do not replace other possible measures that we can take for non-compliance, such as prosecution.
Sir, the Bill provides for appeal mechanisms against Directions, Orders against non-compliance, designation of online services, the application and content of codes of practice, and Implementation Directives.
For Directions and Orders, an appellant must first seek reconsideration from the agency that gave the Direction or Order. If the reconsideration request is unsuccessful, the appellant can then appeal to a specialised Reviewing Tribunal under clause 18 or 37. This allows timely and efficient remedies to be delivered via an independent channel instead of via general appeal to the Courts.
Appeals against designation of online services, the application and content of codes of practice, and Implementation Directives will be heard by the Minister for Home Affairs. Such appeals involve assessments of the online landscape and policy considerations on how regulatory levers should be applied. For example, an appeal by a designated online service against a provision in a code of practice may be resolved through varying that provision. This will, however, impact other designated providers that are similarly subject to that code and thus should be decided by the Minister for Home Affairs.This appeal mechanism is similar to that provided for appeals against codes of practice in other legislation such as the Broadcasting Act, which are also appealed to the relevant Minister.
Clause 48 provides that Police officers and enforcement officers may request information from online service providers or owners of online locations where there is reasonable suspicion that a specified offence has been committed and there is online activity on that online service or location which is in aid of the specified offence. This is to facilitate investigations and criminal proceedings. These powers also apply to entities that are based overseas and information which is stored overseas. For example, the Police may require account information relating to persons who are distributing child sex abuse material from an online service provider that is not based in Singapore.
Sir, to conclude, there is no silver bullet to resolving the complexities of the online world. This Bill is calibrated to allow us to respond more effectively to online criminal harms while enabling us to continue to enjoy the many benefits which the Internet has brought us. Sir, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.
Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Mr Deputy Speaker, before I speak on the substantive aspects of this Bill, I want to make the point that not all legislation passed in this House targeting online content is equal. The Workers' Party (WP) will support rules aimed at online content when they are in Singaporeans' interest, such as with this Bill, but not otherwise.
My speech is in three parts.
First, I will reiterate why the WP did not support previous Bills concerning online content. It is important to highlight to Singaporeans that each piece of legislation needs to be scrutinised on its own merits. The Government must be made to justify each statute it wishes to pass by this House, including those that restrict Singaporeans' access to online content.
Second, I will set out why we support the current Bill as a whole.
Third, despite my general agreement with the Bill, I will raise questions for the Minister on specific points of concern.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I move on to the first part of my speech on previous legislation targeted at online content.
In its press release on 8 May, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) called this Bill, \"the next piece in our suite of legislation, including the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA), Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Act (FICA) and the recently amended Broadcasting Act to better protect the public in Singapore from various harms in the online space.\"
The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) groups these four Acts together – the Broadcasting Act, POFMA, FICA and now, if I may coin the obvious acronym, OCHA. However, we need to remind ourselves in this House and we need to remind Singaporeans generally that these statutes are very different from one another.
Three points connect these statutes: firstly, they relate to online content; secondly, the Government says that these laws are needed to protect Singaporeans from harm; thirdly, the Government can implement broad, powerful measures to restrict Singaporeans' access to online content and to impose severe penalties on individuals and entities for non-compliance.
But these statutes differ in critical ways. They target exceedingly diverse online content.
OCHA targets online content that could result in Singaporeans being victims of scams and other crimes. POFMA and FICA restrict the access of Singaporeans to information that the Government considers false, manipulative or constitutes foreign interference in our domestic affairs.
Reasonable people can disagree with the Government on what types of online content are harmful and whether Singaporeans need to be protected from them. Reasonable people can also desire that the Government not be given draconian powers that could be used, whether now or by future governments, to stifle points of view different from those of the government of the day.
Regarding FICA, the WP did not vote in favour of FICA as promulgated by the Government. We were not against FICA in principle. We understand that there are foreign actors who wish Singapore harm and that the Government should have powers to combat and counter malignant forces, but our view is that FICA confers extraordinary powers which need the most robust of independent oversight by the judicial arm of our Government, namely, the Supreme Court.
The WP was also of the view that the wording in FICA such as \"is likely to\" and \"where the Minister suspects\" creates low thresholds of proof that could be unfairly used against individuals or entities. The WP proposed more than 40 amendments which we opined would allow FICA to achieve its aims of curbing unwanted foreign influence, while at the same time ensuring appropriate checks on the Government that protect the rights of Singaporeans.
As for POFMA, the WP opposed it because POFMA entrusts the Ministers and their alternate authorities to decide what is truth and what is a falsehood. In certain cases, they would not be neutral parties, but would be making decisions as interested parties. For instance, if a Government decision is criticised in an article published on a website, it is the Minister himself or herself who decides whether the article is true or false. The Minister would be able to make such a decision with limited oversight by the Courts. The High Court cannot inquire into the merits of a Minister's POFMA decision.
In addition, the powers under POFMA are extreme. If a Correction Order is made, an entire website is blocked, not just the offending article. My view is that when websites are blocked under POFMA, it is Singaporeans who lose out. Singaporeans are not able to read alternate viewpoints. If such alternate viewpoints are false, the Government can counter those viewpoints by publishing the facts as it sees them in the mainstream local media, both in print as well as online.
The recent case involving Asia Sentinel is instructive on how POFMA can be deployed by the Government. The Government recently issued a POFMA Correction Direction to Asia Sentinel, a California-registered publication, over an article titled, \"Singapore kills a Chicken to Scare the Monkeys.\"
Asia Sentinel took certain actions to comply, but the Ministry of Communications and Information (MCI) said, \"While Asia Sentinel carried the Correction Notices, this was not done in compliance with the requirements of the Correction Direction for the respective Correction Notices to be situated at the top of the article and at the top of the main page of the website.\"
I believe that Asia Sentinel placed the Correction Notice at the top of the article but did not place it at the top of the main page of the website.
Because Asia Sentinel did not comply fully with the Government's order, Internet service providers in Singapore are ordered to block access in Singapore to Asia Sentinel's website. The article and the website are no longer accessible by computers and smart phones with Singapore Internet Protocol (IP) addresses.
In particular, I find it draconian to expect a news website to place a Correction Direction at the top of the main page of the website. Surely, a Correction Notice situated at the top of the article should be sufficient if the Government's concern is for Singaporeans to be able to read the Government's point of view in contrast to that of the news publication.
My concern is not for Asia Sentinel in itself. They are a foreign website. It is of not much concern to me whether they lose readership or revenue by being blocked in Singapore. What I do care about is that I and other Singaporeans cannot access Asia Sentinel to read the article in question and decide what we think about it for ourselves.
Indeed, anyone using a computer with a Singapore IP address can no longer access any articles published on Asia Sentinel, even those that have nothing to do with Singapore. Surely, that smacks of the Government wanting to punish the publishers of the website, rather than merely wanting to correct falsehoods in a specific article.
The Singapore Government must have many tools at its disposal to ensure that its viewpoint is available to Singaporeans. Is it really in the best interest of Singapore Citizens that the Government blocks not only an article the Government deems false, but an entire publication?
What if The New York Times or The Financial Times were to republish the Asia Sentinel article or any other POFMA-sanctioned article? Would the Singapore Government seriously mean to block either The New York Times or The Financial Times if it refuses to publish the Correction Notices in the required format? Would this blocking be in the best interest of Singaporeans?
Mr Deputy Speaker, let me move on to the second part of my speech on my support for the current Bill.
The WP agrees that it is necessary to protect Singaporeans from scams and other crimes that may be perpetrated using online methods. I believe it is right for the authorities to have available the use of Part 2 Directions against those who control relevant material or websites, online service providers, Internet service providers and app stores.
I am sure that legitimate business operators in these areas would have no objection to cooperating with Singapore authorities to protect those who live here from online criminal harms. In particular, I support the development of codes of practice for designated online services as provided for in Part 4. Ultimately, a proactive approach rather than a reactive one is certainly important in view of how quickly online scams evolve.
Overall, the WP's assessment is that OCHA is very different from POFMA and FICA when it comes to the online harms targeted. This Bill deserves the support of the House.
Mr Deputy Speaker, this brings me to the third part of my speech, where I have some questions for the Minister on specific points of concern.
My first question for the Minister is, what exactly is the difference between the use in Part 2, specifically clause 6(1), of the words \"reasonably suspects\" compared to the word \"suspects\" in limb A and limb B of the clause specifically?
MHA's press release acknowledges that the word \"suspects\" has a lower threshold than \"reasonably suspects\", but what is the practical effect of this difference in the context of combating online crimes? Perhaps the Minister could explain this distinction using the standards of proof used in our Courts. Could the standards on a balance of probabilities, prima facie or reasonable doubt help us understand the difference better?
Mr Deputy Speaker, may also ask the Minister to give more details about the codes of practice?
While in principle, a proactive approach in having codes of practice is good, the fact that there are sanctions for non-compliance reiterates the importance, if not the critical role, designated online services and other intermediary services play to disrupt scammers. Under Part 4 of the Bill, the Government may issue Rectification Notices and Implementation Directives to designated online services. Non-compliance with notices or directives attract prosecution and severe fines that can go into the millions of dollars.
Could the Minister give details of how codes of practice will be developed, including what consultations and engagements will be undertaken with the industry? To this end, Mr Deputy Speaker, how would these codes of practice apply in practice to disrupt online scams?
I note the Minister gave a broad outline in her opening speech, but let me suggest a particular context for consideration.
The days of receiving phone calls from people pretending to be Immigration, Ministry of Health (MOH) or bank officers are fast becoming yesterday's scams. Today's online scams that lure individuals – one that was recounted to me at this Monday's Meet-the-People Session just two days ago – are very sophisticated.
A resident was lured by an offer of a supposedly genuine job to raise the profile of products sold on e-commerce platforms such as Qoo10. The resident received a payment for services rendered on the first day of her assignment. Convinced that the arrangement was legitimate as money had been transferred to the resident, the resident got trapped in a quasi-investment scam, hoping to see more returns and thereby increased her engagement with the scammer. The resident at my Meet-the-People Session on Monday told me that she lost more than $300,000 in total. The scammer actually paid her close to $1,000 on the first day of the engagement, winning her trust.
I am sure Members have heard similar sad outcomes for some of our residents and their residents. Can the Minister share how this Bill and the codes of practice will operate to disrupt such scammers, particularly with reference to e-commerce companies, or online service providers through whom such scams are unknowingly perpetrated?
While it is hoped that this Bill will serve as an important line of defence to disrupt online scams, the future is even more ominous, with artificial intelligence (AI) portending the prospect of a far more intelligent scammer than ever before. To this end, it cannot be left to agencies like the Anti-Scam Command, the Police or even legislation such as this Bill, to serve as the first line of defence for Singaporeans. The general public has to be far more vigilant with respect to its engagements online, especially when it comes to the transfer of funds and engagement with individuals who are not known to them.
Finally, Mr Deputy Speaker, the introductory words of the explanatory statement to the Bill say that this Bill seeks to counter online criminal activity and protect against online harms. Currently, the target of the Bill appears to be scams and other criminal activity, but the fact that the explanatory statement says that the Bill seeks to also protect against online harms suggests that activities other than criminal ones have been contemplated by the drafters of the Bill.
Could the Minister shed light on what other activities the Bill could potentially address or conceivably address? Could the Minister let us know what other scenarios beyond criminal activity were discussed or are being deliberated? For example, the Government previously mentioned that it would seek to address \"cancel culture\". Could this be one of the areas that is being contemplated as potentially coming within the scope of the Bill?
In conclusion, Mr Deputy Speaker, this Bill is very different from POFMA and FICA, which the WP did not support. POFMA and FICA carry the possibility of Ministers depriving Singaporeans of hearing valid alternative viewpoints without adequate judicial checks. OCHA is targeted at protecting members of the public from scams and offences that can cause financial and other harm. If it remains focused on this target, the WP will continue to be in favour of its implementation. Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Murali Pillai.
Mr Murali Pillai (Bukit Batok): Mr Deputy Speaker, I support this eagerly awaited Bill, and I am glad to note from the speech of the hon Leader of the Opposition that it also enjoys the support of my hon friends across the aisle.
This Bill, if passed, will provide the legislative levers that will enable our enforcement officers to take proactive measures to protect Singapore residents from falling victim to scams. This Bill creates a potentially powerful instrument that can be used to great effect.
In my speech, I shall point out three ways to make this instrument more precise, more powerful and longer in reach. I will also focus on the organisational structure as well as the processes that are being contemplated to be put into place to administer and enforce the powers and the responsibilities spelt out in this Bill once it comes into effect.
Let me start off with a point on governance, which is embedded in the definitions of “competent authority”, “designated persons” and “authorised persons” as stated in clauses 3 and 4 of the Bill. May I please ask the hon Second Minister for Home Affairs whether she intends that a separate independent body be created as a competent authority to administer the Act once it comes into being?
In this regard, I note that the competent authority has a dual role. First, it facilitates enforcement work. In this role, it is intended that the “competent authority” be vested with the power to issue Orders for non-compliance of Government Directions to specific entities aimed at proactively dealing with cases where specified criminal offences are suspected to be committed. Second, it is vested with the responsibility to develop a framework in the form of codes of practice that designated online service providers will have to comply with a view to, amongst others, facilitate information sharing on suspicious online activities and design of features to make online platforms more scam-proof.
To achieve the legislative objective, I foresee the need to foster a relationship of candour, the hon Minister mentioned \"partnership\" between the online service providers and the competent authority. The online service providers will need some assurance that if they were to provide inputs in good faith, there will be no serious repercussions against them.
The hon Second Minister mentioned that the competent authority will be a unit within the Singapore Police Force (SPF). I wonder whether this unit within the SPF, will be structurally separated from the investigative arm. This will prevent any conflict in the dual roles contemplated for the authority.
One possible example to follow could be the Suspicious Transactions Reports Office (STRO) of the Commercial Affairs Department (CAD). The STRO has a responsibility in dealing with information-\tsharing concerning anti-money laundering activities and others with financial institutions. The STRO is sited within the CAD’s intel and admin group, which is separate from CAD’s investigative arm, its financial investigation group.
I also note that it is proposed that the Minister may appoint any public officer from any Ministry, department or an employee from a Statutory Board as an authorised person. Potentially, this is quite wide. Under Clause 5 of the Bill, it is proposed that the competent authority may delegate the exercise of its powers to authorised persons. It may also issue Directions of a general character to them and they must give effect to the Directions. May I ask what will be the hon Minister’s considerations when exercising this power that is proposed to be vested in her?
Apart from the issue of independence that I already raised, it seems to me, given the specialist nature of the duties that will be vested in the competent authority, would it not be better to create a department which can be more focused on developing the expertise and the relations necessary to achieve the legislative objectives of this Bill as opposed to allowing authorised persons to be appointed across the Civil Service?
Finally, for my last point on the governance structure, I turn to the definition of designated officer. Under the Bill, it is the designated officers who will be vested with the power to issue Government Directions in respect of online activity so as to be able to proactively manage suspected crime cases and prevent more people from falling victims to scams. However, I am not able to find any direct statutory lever that the competent authority may exercise over the designated officer. What is specifically provided though, is that under clause 4(5) of the Bill, a designated officer must act in accordance with his departmental head.
Given that the competent authority has the responsibility to administer the Act once it comes into force and the interplay between the designated officer’s and competent authority’s roles, may I ask why is it felt that it is not necessary to allow the competent authority to issue Directions that the designated officer should heed? It could be as simple as requiring the designated officer to notify the competent authority at the point when he or she exercises the powers under this Act once it comes into force.
These three points on governance may appear to be quite technical but they go towards sharpening this powerful law against scams.
I now turn to processes stipulated in the Bill which speaks to the power of this instrument.
The first has to do with the status of codes of practice issued by the competent authority. I note that it is proposed that the competent authority be vested with, amongst others, the following powers: (a) to stipulate an online service of an online service provider as a designated online service and online service providers as designated providers; and (b) to issue codes of practice that designated providers will have to comply with.
As the hon Minister mentioned, non-compliance may trigger the issuance of rectification notice and failure to comply with this notice may even be a criminal offence. Clause 19(4) also provides that the requirement of a code of practice has an effect despite any duty of confidentiality, privacy or arising from contract or any rule of professional conduct.
Against this backdrop, may I please ask why it is then stipulated in clause 21(4) of the Bill that the code of practice issued under the said clause does not have legislative effect? Would it not be better to provide that the code of Practice constitutes subsidiary legislation under the Act once it comes into force? I seek the hon Minister’s clarification on this point.
I now move on to the provisions in the Bill dealing with appeals. I note that a dual track of appeals is being proposed in this Bill. Appeals may be made to the Minister in relation to decisions made by the competent authority under Part 4 of the Bill. Appeals against actions in relation to Government directives under Part 2 of the Bill and Orders under Part 6 of the Bill may be appealed to the Reviewing Tribunal. It is provided under the respective clauses of the Bill that the decisions of the Minister and the Reviewing Tribunal are final.
My question is what is intended by the word “final”. The lawyers in this House would know that Courts do not always interpret “final” as “final”, as if nothing further can be said or challenged. In a good number of cases, the Courts have decided that usage of such words do not oust the jurisdiction of the Courts to judicially review the decisions made on appeal.
May I clarify that the intent in this Bill is not to oust the power of the Court to revisit decisions of the Minister or the Reviewing Tribunal on appeal based on the traditional grounds of judicial review? If so, is it contemplated that the Minister and the Reviewing Tribunal will have to provide written grounds of decisions when deciding on appeals so that the Court will be able to properly scrutinise the matter should its jurisdiction to review Government action be invoked? The “final” here therefore is not incompatible with “still open for challenge”.
Finally, I turn to Part 11 of the Bill that deals with, amongst others, offences for breaches of Directions and Orders issued under the Bill. I am glad to note that the offences provided for in this part have extraterritorial reach, having regard to the transnational nature of the scams today.
I have a query as to why the provision for punishment for the offence created under clause 52, which deals with persons who do not obey a Part 6 Order issued by the competent authority as a result of a failure to comply with a Part 2 Direction, falls below the threshold for making it an extradition offence.
As I understand, clause 6 and clause 28 of the Bill complement each other. Clause 6 contemplates a designated officer to issue a Part 2 Direction to any person even if he may be located outside Singapore. The focus here is to proactively deal with situations where certain specified criminal offences are suspected to be committed so as to prevent even more people in Singapore from becoming victims of scams. Where any person does not comply with the Part 2 Direction, the competent authority may give a Part 6 Order under clause 28. This involves, amongst others, the issuance of an Order to the provider of an app distribution service to stop distributing the relevant app to Singapore persons or an Order to a provider of non-compliant online service to suspend or stop the provision of such service to Singapore persons. It is important to note that it is specifically provided in clause 28 that the recipient of a Part 6 Order may not necessarily be the same as the recipient of the original Part 2 Direction.
For a person who fails to comply with a Part 2 Direction, he would have committed an offence under clause 50 of the Bill. As the said clause provides for a maximum punishment of two years, which is the minimum threshold as provided for in the Extradition Act 1968 for an offence to be an extradition offence, under the current legislative scheme, so long as the Second Schedule of the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act is subsequently updated to include this specific offence as a “serious offence”, this offence becomes extraditable.
This is not the case for clause 52 of the Bill which creates the offence for breaching a Part 6 Order. This is because the maximum punishment for a breach of clause 52 is one year, which is below the minimum threshold provided for in the Extradition Act.
Since these provisions are meant to complement each other, may I ask the hon Minister why is there a difference? I would have thought that, having provided these offences to be extraterritorial, it would be important to ensure that the more serious offences in this Bill should be made extradition offences. Otherwise, the fear is that the punishment provisions, insofar as they apply to individuals based outside Singapore, will become toothless. To harmonise the two would allow this instrument a greater, and to my mind, a proper reach.
Mr Deputy Speaker, the arm of the law, when dealing with scams, must not only be long, it must also be powerful and precise. It is with these considerations in mind that I have raised some concerns about the Bill in its current form, with attention to its governance structures, the standing of codes of practices issued and its punitive reach. With these issues properly addressed, we will have a stronger legislative instrument suited to fight the rising public menace of online criminal harms. Sir, notwithstanding my comments, I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Gerald Giam.
Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): Mr Deputy Speaker, the Online Criminal Harms Bill was introduced for the purpose of empowering the authorities to combat online crimes more effectively and safeguard the public in Singapore from various online harms. It is also supposed to enable swift Government action against online criminal activities, proactively preventing scams and malicious cyber activities to protect potential victims.
Scams are the online criminal activities that loom largest against Singaporeans these days. While I support the Bill, I would like to seek clarification on how the Bill will be able to empower the authorities to deal with scams in ways that existing legislation does not.
According to data from SPF, the victims of some 31,700 scam cases were cheated of almost $661 million in 2022, $29 million more than the year before. This works out to an average of almost $21,000 cheated per case. These are staggering amounts of hard-earned savings of Singaporeans lost to scammers. Quite a few victims are my residents who approached me for help to recover their lost savings. Sadly, in most cases, the money had been spirited overseas and could not be recovered.
The Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) and the Police currently work with Internet service providers to block scam websites. In 2021, 12,000 suspected scam websites were blocked, many with the help of artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms that can quickly detect and block scam websites. This means that if a new phishing website was set up to collect usernames and passwords of bank customers, the Government is already empowered to immediately order that website to be blocked, so that no more users in Singapore can access it. What difficulties have the authorities faced in expeditiously blocking actual scam websites, that necessitates the introduction of this Bill?
I note the Minister's explanation in her speech just a moment ago that this Bill will enable authorities to block websites if there is reasonable suspicion that they are being prepared in advance of a scam. Can I confirm with the Minister if this means that if someone were to register a domain name that is a variant of, say, \"dbs.com\", it will get proactively blocked, even if the website does not contain any content yet and even if that domain is registered overseas?
Similarly, if a telephone number is reported to have been used to carry out scams, is the Government already empowered to direct telcos to immediately block such numbers? Are there any encumbrances to doing so now that require this Bill?
The Minister previously said that scam calls made over the Internet, such as through messaging apps like WhatsApp, are currently not blocked. With this Bill, would scam calls made over the Internet now be blocked through an Account Restriction Direction that can be issued to online service providers?
Will short message service (SMS) redirection attacks, which redirect text messages containing one-time passwords (OTPs) sent from banks to hackers, be more effectively blocked under this Bill, and if so, how will it be more effectively prevented than under the current regime?
The National Crime Prevention Council (NCPC) and Open Government Products has developed ScamShield, an anti-scam app which automatically blocks scam calls, detects scam messages and allows users to report scam messages and calls. I am glad to note that a version of ScamShield for Android devices has finally been released. However, in order for SMSes from known scam numbers to be blocked, a user will need to install the ScamShield app and give the app permissions to read their SMSes and contacts. This is a multi-step process, which some non-technical users may struggle with. Indeed, even technical users may be reluctant to grant such intrusive access on their phones.
The NCPC says that more than 600,000 people have downloaded the ScamShield app. This means that more than five million residents in Singapore still do not have ScamShield installed, and presumably more do not have the app setup to block scam messages.
To better protect potential victims of scams who are unaware of ScamShield or choose not to install the app on their phones, the Government should direct telcos to block all verified scam messages and calls, without depending on end users to install ScamShield. These should include those scam phone numbers reported by end users through ScamShield and verified by the NCPC and the Police. Time is of the essence, since it only takes seconds for an unwitting victim to click on a phishing link and enter their username, password and OTP, and for the scammers to clear out their bank account or Central Provident Fund (CPF) accounts.
While the ScamShield app, ScamShield bot and website do provide forms for people to report suspected scams, how many people are aware of these reporting channels and actually use them? How does the Government intend to promote its use? How will they encourage their use and explain it to those who find it challenging, adopting such technology?
The ScamShield bot is able to take in reports of scam messages in non-English languages, but can only reply to users in English. Are there plans to enable it to reply in Chinese, Malay and Tamil, so that more non-English speakers can interact with the bot?
More should be done to leverage the knowledge of the entire population to quickly and comprehensively identify scams, and block scam numbers before more people fall victim to them. This can be done through better publicity of these reporting channels, giving updates to users when their reports were used for Police investigations or when the number is blocked, and making it easier for users to report scams.
The scam epidemic is a gargantuan problem which needs to be tackled more effectively by the Government, telcos and financial institutions. I hope that this Bill will give these agencies and organisations more levers to do so, to prevent more Singaporeans from falling victim and losing their hard-earned savings to these criminals.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Melvin Yong.
Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye (Radin Mas): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I stand in support of the Bill, which seeks to introduce levers to enable the authorities to deal more effectively with online activities that are criminal in nature. However, I have some questions and suggestions.
Before I begin, I would like to declare my interest as President of the Consumers Association of Singapore (CASE).
Sir, I commend the Bill's proposal to classify offences related to scams and malicious cyber activities as a specified criminal offence in the First Schedule. This will allow the Government to issue Directions to better combat online scams, and this is vital, because just as the e-commerce boom has supercharged the way consumers shop today, it has also led to a sharp increase in online scams in recent years. In 2022, CASE received 2,530 consumer complaints regarding e-commerce purchases. This is a 15% increase from 2021. In the first five months of this year alone, CASE has received 1,408 related complaints and this is over 55% of last year's case load.
Some of the common complaints by consumers pertaining to e-commerce transactions often involve misleading and false claims, non-delivery of orders and receiving counterfeit products. To address these complaints, CASE has been advocating for mandatory seller verification by all online marketplaces.
Over the weekend, Members may have read a The Straits Times article about how Nicholas Ong Chang Hui, a recalcitrant scammer who was sentenced to 23 months and six weeks' imprisonment, was able to obtain a verified tick on Carousell, even after he was caught previously scamming victims on the same platform. The report said that Nicholas Ong had used separate accounts to perpetuate his scams. This shows how important mandatory seller verification is to prevent such scams.
I would therefore like to ask the Minister if the codes of practice that will be issued under this Bill will include mandatory seller verification for e-commerce platforms. If so, what legislative teeth will the codes provide, should platforms refuse to comply? What will be the threshold, before the competent authority issues a Direction to mandate the implementation of such verification, and will there be a time frame given to the platform to comply with such a Direction? And if so, what would be the timeframe?
Beyond seller verification, we must put in place a suite of measures to combat e-commerce scams. One proposal that I have repeatedly raised is for the Government to require online marketplaces to put in place an escrow account. This is a simple but effective mechanism that would serve to protect the consumer's monies until the consumer confirms that the goods bought are delivered in satisfactory condition. Escrow accounts would give consumers a greater peace of mind when shopping online. Where there are issues with the goods or in instances of non-delivery of goods, consumers would have the assurance that their monies are protected. I would therefore like to ask the Minister if the Bill could require the creation of escrow accounts under the codes of practice or under a Direction.
Sir, to ensure that e-commerce platforms truly pay attention to combatting online harms perpetuated through scams on their platforms, we must ensure that the company's executives, such as the chief executive officer (CEO) and the key management staff, will be made liable for their actions, or inactions, subject to the circumstances. I would therefore like to ask the Minister if the e-commerce platforms' key executives will be criminally liable for offences under this Bill, or if they direct their firms not to comply, or to partially comply with the Directions issued.
Beyond legislation, I am happy to share that CASE has been working hard in the past year engaging many industry stakeholders to foster a trusted online marketplace for all consumers. In April this year, Shopee Singapore signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with CASE, to adopt CASE's Standard Dispute Management Framework for E-marketplaces. Including CASE's earlier MOU with Lazada Singapore, we now have two of the leading online marketplaces in Singapore, covering a significant market share of the local e-commerce sales, committed to resolve consumer disputes efficiently and equitably. I call on all other online marketplaces with local presence to come onboard too.
CASE will also be launching a new CaseTrust accreditation scheme for e-commerce businesses in the second half of this year. The scheme will cover the entire range of e-commerce practices from pre-sale to post-sales and will address common consumer pain points when they shop online. We hope to provide consumers shopping via accredited e-commerce sites with greater assurance through this accreditation scheme.
Sir, in conclusion, combatting scams and other criminal activities perpetuated through online means will require our authorities to constantly remain a step ahead of the criminals. This Bill is a timely measure that will allow our authorities to better protect the public in Singapore from various harms in the online space. I hope that the codes of practice and the Directions proposed under this Bill will include measures, such as mandating seller verification and escrow accounts, to better safeguard our consumers when they shop online. Sir, I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim.
Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim (Chua Chu Kang): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I stand in support of the Online Criminal Harms Bill. This Bill is a significant piece of legislation that will help Singaporeans from online harms.
During my Meet-the-People session this past Monday, I met a couple who had lost their life savings, over $240,000, through elaborate and unauthorised transfers from their bank accounts. They were devastated. That night alone, we had three cases of residents facing online scams.
I have met many during my house visits and Meet-the-People sessions, many who had fallen victims to the scams or know of someone who had. With online scams becoming increasingly sophisticated and deploying various methods and technology, I welcome this Bill to combat against online scams and protect our fellow Singapore residents from falling prey.
The Bill introduces a number of new measures to combat online crime, including: firstly, issuance of Government Directions to online service providers to take down content or disable accounts that are suspected of being used for criminal activity; secondly, online service providers will be required to comply with codes of practice that set out standards for preventing and responding to online harms; thirdly, enhanced enforcement powers allow the Police to investigate and prosecute online crimes.
I believe that the Bill is a necessary step to protect Singaporeans from online harms. However, I have three clarifications.
My first clarification is in relation to the appeals process and the oversight of the implementation of the Bill. I echo what hon Member Mr Murali Pillai said, \"'Final' does not necessarily mean final\". The lawyers would always want to have the final word.
The Bill gives the Minister for Home Affairs broad powers to order Internet intermediaries to remove or block online content. These powers are not subject to judicial oversight, save for an appeal to a Reviewing Tribunal in the case of a Part 2 Direction or an appeal to the Minister or an Appeals Advisory Committee in other appeals.
Some are concerned about censorship of legitimate content. May I ask the Minister to clarify the appeals process and explain how the process will not be used to restrict free speech or legitimate content?
In this regard, firstly, what are the criteria that will be used to determine whether a content is considered to be \"online criminal harms\"? Secondly, what safeguards will be put in place to protect the privacy of users?
My second clarification is in relation to the interim measures pending the conclusion of the appeals stage.
For clauses 17 and 36 of the Bill, there is a requirement that the designated officer or competent authority affirm, cancel or substitute the Direction or Order within a \"reasonable time\" after receipt of an application for re-consideration.
As a starting point, I welcome the flexibility given to the relevant authorities to deal with the differing situations that may arise. This is because such decisions should be made expeditiously to address the evolving situation and the decision should be made within a reasonable time. However, until reconsideration or final decision of an appeal, such decisions and orders remain in force.
In the premises, will the Ministry consider establishing rules, possibly by way of a subsidiary legislation, to enabling the Reviewing Tribunal or such other appeals committee, in the appropriate circumstances, to either, first, hear cases on an expedited basis; second, stay the Direction or Order pending the final decision of the Reviewing Tribunal; or third, make interim measures/orders where appropriate and necessary?
My third and final clarification is in relation to keeping up with the forms of online criminal harms using artificial intelligence (AI) or other technological developments.
We are faced with new online platforms, media and technology all the time. Just earlier this week, Meta announced that it will be launching a new social media app called \"Threads\" on its Instagram platform rivalling Twitter. These new platforms and technologies will only increase in number and sophistication as society progresses.
I would humbly suggest a constant monitoring and review of the online criminal harms space in this regard. I hope that the Minister can assure this House that the Bill or its Schedule can be periodically reviewed on a frequent basis to ensure that we keep up-to-date and possibly even abreast with the various new online criminal harms and technological platforms that may arise in the future so as to ensure that the legislation will still remain fit for purpose. In this regard, how will MHA be working with MCI or other agencies to ensure this?
In such evolving circumstances, perhaps, the use of AI intervention may be deployed to benefit us, as Member Mr Gerald Giam mentioned earlier. However, I must say that this must be exercised with caution as the use of AI and other technological tools, comes with its pitfalls and necessary risks.
In June 2022, the US Federal Trade Commission issued a report to Congress warning about safeguards when using AI to combat online harms. The report encourages legislators to create policies that ensure AI tools do not cause additional problems. Some recommendations include avoiding over-reliance due to false positives and false negatives, using more human oversight, improving platform AI interventions and passing laws that change the business models or incentives that allow harmful content to proliferate.
Singapore can also be a contributor to the global effort to harmonise the rules of AI regulations and, in particular, by using to detect and deter online criminal harms and also the approach in the case of online criminal harms perpetrated by AI itself.
In conclusion, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this Bill will put us in good stead to combat online criminal harms and we will have a comprehensive legal framework in this regard with legislations like POFMA, FICA and recent amendments to the Broadcasting Act and the recent enhanced deterrents against money mules in online scams.
Sir, there is a quote, \"Curiosity pulls people into the scam and the fraudster's greatest liability is the certainty that his fraud is too clever to be detected.\" We must correct this. Instead of curiosity, we must make our people circumspect when faced with possible scams. Instead of arrogance, we must make scammers afraid of the certainty that they will not be able to get away with it. At the same time, we should continue with our proactive approach to the prevention of online criminal harms.
I hope that the Ministry will continue the good work by working with all stakeholders, from corporates, online platforms to educational institutions and our youths who are digital natives, in raising public awareness and collective vigilance as a nation against online criminal harms. Sir, notwithstanding my clarifications, I stand in support of this Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Janet Ang.
Ms Janet Ang (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, I stand in support of the Online Criminal Harms Bill.
Online services have become a part of our daily lives and changed how we interact with people, businesses and Government. The convenience of doing things from the palm of our hands has forever transformed how we live, work and play, bringing new opportunities for people and businesses. At the same time, however, the online space is also increasingly being exploited by criminals and our digital footprint expose us to the risks of scams and malicious cyber activities.
The Government has spared no effort in public education and engaging private sector stakeholders, such as banks and telecommunications companies (telcos), to join in the fight against online criminal harms. As users, we all need to be extra careful and diligent and not let our fingers do the thinking. A wrong single click may lead to a regret of grave magnitude or even the loss of one's life savings. As users, we need to unlearn doing everything with speed. With all the instant tools around us, we, in fact, need to relearn how to allow ourselves some time to think and reflect before we act. Let us not get impatient and frustrated in having to read the repeated warnings about scams and the advice not to release our one-time passwords (OTPs) or to simply click the links in messages without validating. As users, we do need to be vigilant against bad actors by setting up our digital house in order and doing the regular \"digital spring cleaning\" and \"digital health checks\".
But given the pervasive threat and grave impact of online criminal harms on victims, it is timely that the Government is enacting this Online Criminal Harms Bill to tackle online content which is criminal in nature or used to facilitate or abet crimes.
As spelt out in the First Reading of the Bill and in Minister's speech earlier as well, \"complementing public education efforts and the steps being taken to build a discerning citizenry, this Bill enables the Government, in partnership with industry, to act more effectively against online criminal activities, including scams and malicious cyber activities.\" The Minister has also shared during her Committee of Supply (COS) speech last year that Australia, the UK and the EU are also looking into online safety legislation that provide powers for the authorities to seek take-downs of harmful online content.
I support the approach which will be taken under the proposed Bill, but I do have a few clarifications for the Minister.
When this Bill is enacted into law, Government Directions may be issued when there is reasonable suspicion that an online activity is being carried out to commit a crime. To ensure speed of response, lower threshold for taking action enables the Government to disrupt scams and malicious cyber activities before anyone falls prey.
How will the competent authority qualify \"reasonable suspicion\"? How much investigation time will be given to the online services to assist in validating the identity of the suspected perpetrator? In fact, will the investigation be before or after the directions are issued?
The collaboration of the online service platform providers is imperative. They are the middlemen, so to speak, in the middle of the crime being committed. While the tech industry is committed towards apprehending scams, but compliance may be an issue considering the broad nature of the legislative text. So, what responsibilities are expected of them? How does the Government ensure compliance? As most of these online services are global tech companies, they most likely have their own processes and tools and ways of doing things. How much flexibility will the online service providers have to arrive at the outcomes expected by this Bill?
Cyber criminals often use anonymisation tools and encryption techniques to conceal their identities and activities online. How will MHA handle the challenge of tracing and identifying offenders to take them to task?
And, of course, we know, the Internet transcends geographical boundaries. Service providers may also run into issues where data or processes are not stored and run solely in Singapore. In some cases, Directions may touch on issues out of jurisdiction and time may be needed to fully comply. There may be requests that are subject to further legal processes, such as a government-level request under a mutual legal assistance treaty with other countries. How will the Ministry handle the challenge of jurisdictional issues?
There is an appeals mechanism within the Bill. Will the timeline for the adjudication commensurate with the amount of time provided under a relevant Government Direction or will the Government Direction have to be complied with while the appeal is being looked into?
Can Minister clarify how, in the implementation of this Bill, the Government will balance the need for effective law enforcement with privacy rights and legal safeguards? And, of course, what technology and capabilities are we investing in to fight this war against online crimes?
In speaking with the industry players, there is appreciation of the consultative approach that the Government has been taking and welcome continued engagement as the Government work on drawing up the codes of practice under this OCHA as this Bill is referred to. For there to be a win-win-win, this public-private collaboration needs to continue. Can Minister share plans if any, for deepening this collaboration to facilitate the win-win-win? Notwithstanding my clarifications, Sir, I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, this Bill will allow us to tackle criminal online activities. It will empower the Government to issue directions against online activities which may be criminal, act proactively against scams and malicious cyber activities and introduce appeal mechanisms to safeguard the exercise of powers.
I have three points of clarification to raise.
My first point is on offences relating to the sale of animals. The Second Schedule of the Bill sets out offences that the Bill intends to combat. This does not include offences related to the illegal trade of animals and wildlife under the Animals and Birds Act, Wildlife Act and the Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act.
We know that a significant volume of illegal trade of animals and wildlife is taking place online. In 2021, a report by Traffic, a non-governmental organisation (NGO), found that 3,354 live birds were put on sale in 44 Singapore-based Facebook groups from December 2018 to April 2019. The sellers were unlicensed and the sales illegal.
Data published by tech companies highlight the scale of the problem. A 2021 report by the Coalition to End Wildlife Trafficking states that tech companies in the group, including Google, Facebook and TikTok, had blocked or removed nearly 12 million listings of endangered species and associated products.
Can Minister share why offences under the Animals and Birds Act, Wildlife Act and the Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act have not been included in the Second Schedule? Will the Ministry consider including these offences under the Second Schedule?
My second clarification is on the nature and effects of the codes of practices.
Section 19(4) provides that a requirement of a code of practice has effect despite any duty of confidentiality imposed by any rule of law or a duty imposed by any contract or any rule of professional conduct. This effectively allows a code of practice to override legislative and contractual rules. However, section 21(4) also provides that a code of practice does not have legislative effect. Can the Minister clarify the nature of the code of practice?
A code of practice can be introduced and amended by the competent authority without going through Parliament. It would appear inappropriate for such a code to override any duty of confidentiality that is imposed by any rule of law, including any rule introduced by Parliament. Can the Minister give specific examples of rules that the codes may override?
My third and final clarification is on the extraterritorial applications of the provision.
Under section 19(2), notices and directives can be given to designated providers even if they are constituted or operating outside of Singapore. Part 11 of the Bill deems non-compliance with Directions and notices to be offences even if committed by persons outside of Singapore.
Can the Minister elaborate on how these rules and offences will operate in practice when the service providers or individuals are located overseas? How will we ensure implementation of our notices and directives by service providers or individuals located overseas? In the event that a prosecution has to be brought against service providers or individuals located overseas, will steps be taken to secure their attendance in Court?
Sir, notwithstanding these clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Joshua Raj Thomas.
Mr Raj Joshua Thomas (Nominated Member): Sir, I stand in support of the Online Criminal Harms Bill.
Singapore is one of the most Internet-connected countries in the world. Further to this, as the hon Minister said at the Stack 2022 Developer Conference last year, effectively all transactions between citizens and the Government can already be completed digitally end-to-end. Most of our commercial transactions can also be transacted online, including e-shopping and e-banking. Retail payments have also largely gone digital. While this has significantly improved convenience, efficiency and the productivity of Government agencies and commercial entities, it has also increased Singaporeans’ exposure to potential online harms, including scams and other types of criminal activity perpetrated through an online medium.
This Bill is, therefore, timely and important to update our laws to deal with new types of criminal offences arising from the online sphere.
Two aspects of the Bill are of particular importance.
First, the Bill is one of the few laws that will have extraterritorial jurisdiction. This is important, given the transnational nature of the Internet as regards to users as well as service providers. The Bill provides that liability for various offences have extraterritorial jurisdiction and, likewise, that other measures ordered by the competent authority or designated officer may apply to persons who are not in Singapore.
Second, the Bill also takes a proactive approach to empower the competent authority to promote or require good practices by designated providers to prevent the commission of various offences. The competent authority may also require designated providers to implement appropriate systems, processes or measures. This provision will allow the competent authority to pre-empt potential emerging online harms and to take steps to help prevent them. It also grants the competent authority the ability to set out norms for current and new operators and, in this, it is an important preemptive operation of the Bill.
I have one technical clarification to make. Clause 55 of the Bill makes offences under clauses 50, 51 and 52 arrestable and non-bailable. Arrestable and non-bailable offences are offences in which the Police or the Courts would not normally offer bail, and would consider bail only on a case-by-case basis. These conditions are imposed for more serious offences and essentially mean that, after being charged, an accused person would be held in remand in prison while waiting for the final verdict.
Clause 50, in particular, criminalises the failure to comply with Orders or Directions made under Part 2 of the Bill. Clause 6(a) in Part 2 empowers a designated officer to make certain directions if he reasonably suspects that a specified offence has been committed and that online activity is in furtherance of the offence. The specific offences are enumerated at Part 1 of the First Schedule. My clarification is as regards offences that are listed in Part 1 of the First Schedule that are not arrestable and non-bailable. For example, number 32 of Part 1 of the First Schedule reads: “Offences under Part 2 of the Protection from Harassment Act”. These offences include causing fear, alarm or distress and are generally bailable offences.
Under the current Bill, if a person was reasonably suspected of, say, online harassment, and was given a Direction to stop communication and fails to comply – the putative offence would have the nature of being arrestable and non-bailable – which means that, if charged, the accused person would likely be held in remand until the matter is concluded. I ask specifically about this because for most of the offences in Part 1 of the First Schedule, the online harm is sufficiently heinous for a failure to comply with a Part 2 Direction to be considered a serious crime, whereas for some offences, like those in Part 2 of the Protection from Harassment Act, it may not necessarily be so. It is also important to note that a similar offence like cyberbullying would also not be an arrestable and non-bailable offence.
As such, it may be useful for some clarification from the hon Minister that this may be one of the factors that the Court or the Police could take into account when considering whether to offer bail, which despite being non-bailable, may be offered on a case-by-case basis, for a person charged under clause 50 of the Bill, read with clause 55.
Sir, notwithstanding my clarifications, I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Yip Hon Weng.
Mr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, as we navigate an era of advancing technology and ever-evolving artificial intelligence (AI) capabilities, it is becoming increasingly challenging to detect scams and cybercrimes. Gone are the days when we could rely on simple indicators like poor English or obvious typos. Today, we must remain vigilant and employ more sophisticated means to identify and combat these illicit activities.
This Bill serves as a valuable complement to our existing legislation, such as POFMA, FICA and the Broadcasting Act. By incorporating the Online Criminal Harms Bill into our legislative arsenal, we can enhance our ability to safeguard the public from the perils of the digital realm. I would like to raise clarifications on five areas.
First, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, reporting channels must be easily accessible. For this Bill to be successful, people must be willing and know how to come forward to report malicious sites. It is essential to establish clear and accessible avenues for reporting such sites. Can the Minister elaborate on the designated reporting channels? Will the Singapore Cyber Emergency Response Team (SingCERT) or IMDA serve as the primary agency to which these sites can be reported? Furthermore, what measures are being implemented to ensure that residents find it easy to report these sites? Increasing awareness and providing user-friendly reporting mechanisms can encourage more individuals to come forward and contribute to the early detection and prevention of online criminal activities.
Second, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we need to be quick to take action. In the digital era, given the urgency in preventing more victims from falling prey to scams or misinformation, time is of the essence in taking appropriate action against malicious sites. It would be helpful to understand the time interval between reporting a site and the issuance of any necessary Directions under this Bill. Can the Minister shed light on the timeline or processes involved in evaluating reported sites and initiating the appropriate actions? Swift and timely response is critical in the context of how fast such scams can spread online to minimise the potential harm suffered by unsuspecting individuals.
Third, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, virality and reach play a part in determining the impact of the online content. When considering the issuance of Directions, will MHA take into account factors such as the virality and the reach of social media platforms and websites? It is important to recognise that platforms with a large following or significant potential for virality can pose a greater risk of rapid and widespread harm, even if their content is equally harmful to that of websites with limited reach. Could the Minister provide insights into the considerations when assessing the severity and impact of a malicious site?
Fourth, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we should address the means by which individuals or entities might attempt to circumvent the bans on accessing malicious sites. While penalties are primarily aimed at non-compliance with Directions, what provisions does the Bill include to address individuals or entities that might modify website addresses or employ other strategies to evade the initial directions? How do we deter residents from using virtual private network (VPN) or other digital means to access these malicious sites which have been banned? It would be beneficial to understand the measures put in place to mitigate such attempts at circumvention and maintain effective control over the identified malicious sites and apps.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, my fifth clarification concerns dealing with overseas websites and perpetrators. Many malicious websites originate overseas, posing challenges in terms of identifying and holding individuals responsible. It raises the important question of how the relevant agency would know whom to direct a Disabling or Restriction Direction to. Moreover, why should the creators of such sites who are based overseas comply with such Directions? What penalties do they face and what alternatives do we have, if they refuse?
Clause 56 of the Bill indicates that individuals committing offences outside Singapore may be dealt with as if the offences were committed wholly within Singapore. However, in cases where extradition is not feasible due to the absence of an extradition treaty or the foreign enforcement agency's inability to apprehend the overseas culprits, what implications do the penalties outlined in the Bill have for individuals who cannot be brought back to Singapore for prosecution? Can the Minister elaborate on the plans and strategies in place to collaborate with foreign counterparts in apprehending these perpetrators and ensuring that they face legal consequences?
How does this law also impact on falsehoods or foreign interference by state actors that may seek to destabilise our society? What powers does this law have to act on these powerful and subversive entities? Will this law also have overlaps with FICA or POFMA?
In conclusion, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this Bill is a critical step in strengthening our legal framework to combat scams and cybercrimes in the digital age. With rapid technology advancements which enable growing sophistication of perpetrators, it is imperative that we remain vigilant and adapt our strategies to stay one step ahead. At the same time, we must acknowledge the challenges we face.
One such challenge is the global nature of such crimes. As mentioned, many malicious sites and perpetrators are based overseas, making it difficult to bring them to justice promptly. While efforts are being made to collaborate with foreign counterparts, we must accept the limitations and understand that immediate action may not always be possible.
Additionally, the ever-changing nature of scams and online harms necessitates a proactive approach. Legislation alone is necessary but insufficient. Legislation alone cannot entirely eradicate these issues. Enforcement, education and awareness remain our key defence. It is essential to prioritise efforts to educate the public about online safety, raise awareness about common scams and promote responsible digital practices. This can be achieved through robust digital literacy programmes, continuous education initiatives and comprehensive awareness campaigns, especially for our seniors. By strengthening these initiatives, we can equip individuals with the necessary knowledge and skills to navigate the digital landscape safely and confidently. I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Minister Josephine Teo.
Mrs Josephine Teo: Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank Members for their support for the Bill. They raised many relevant points which I will do my best to address.
Let me first address the questions on the circumstances under which the Government will use the levers provided in the Bill, such as Directions. Ms Janet Ang, Mr Yip Hon Weng and Mr Zhulkarnain Rahim had questions in this regard.
Where there is reasonable suspicion that a specified offence has been committed and that an online activity is, in fact, helping the offence to be carried out, designated officers can issue Directions. In many cases, it would be apparent whether the threshold of “reasonable suspicion” is crossed and action can be taken immediately, for example, child sexual abuse materials that are uploaded onto the Internet. They are quite clear for everyone to see. In less clear-cut cases, the officers would first carry out investigations.
In my opening speech, I had given examples of when the “reasonable suspicion” threshold may not have been crossed. To recap, they include, for example, initial contacting and grooming of victims of scams and blank websites that are not yet activated. These are the examples where the \"reasonable suspicion\" threshold may not have been crossed. So, Police action is not unfettered – you have to cross the threshold and the Bill sets the bounds within which the Police can act and beyond which it cannot.
To Mr Pritam Singh's question, he may have missed my explanation in the opening speech. I may not have specifically used clause 6(1)(a), which describes the general threshold, and clause 6(1)(b) which describes the threshold for scams and malicious cyber activities. But it is this – clause 6(1)(b) also covers the preparation for the offence, even when the offence has not yet occurred. So, I hope this clarifies the terms that were being used.
Mr Yip asked how quickly the Government can take action upon detection of online criminal content or activities. Where the magnitude of the criminal harm is high, and the impact is spreading fast, the authorities will seek to swiftly nip it in the bud.
This would be the case for scams. The Police set up the Anti-Scam Command in 2022, and staff from the banks are co-located with Police officers at the Anti-Scam Centre. This has enabled us to sense-make and act quickly to prevent scams from harming more victims.
And as I had mentioned in my opening speech, the threshold we have provided in the Bill for taking action against scams, is lower than for other offences, so that we can take action early and swiftly. As far as possible, we do not want to wait until a victim has fallen prey before acting.
Ms Ang and Mr Melvin Yong asked about the responsibilities and expectations that will be placed on online service providers. Where we have identified a need for measures to be taken by such companies in order to tackle criminal activities, we would be requiring them in the law. The interventions would be designed with implementation in mind and with emphasis on the outcome more than the how. This approach recognises that every online platform has its unique features and operating considerations. The Government will be reasonable in applying the requirements under the Bill.
To Ms Ang’s comment that there is appreciation of the consultative approach that the Government has been taking in developing this Bill, and her suggestion that such collaboration needs to continue. Let me assure her we will do so. For example, in developing the codes of practice, we will engage the online platforms which we intend to designate, and take an outcome-oriented approach. We will also provide reasonable timeframes for platforms to comply with codes and Directives.
Ms Ang and Mr Zhulkarnain asked how the Bill may affect privacy. Let me assure Members that the Government will strike an appropriate balance between preventing online criminal harms and privacy. For example, this Bill will not require online companies to “break” end-to-end encryption in private messaging. However, to combat a crime, we can issue Directions to the messaging platform to restrict the accounts which are being used to commit the crime. We may also require information on the suspected offenders and other platform users involved, in order to fully investigate the case.
Mr Zhulkarnain asked that free speech and legitimate content continue to be protected. Article 14 of the Constitution provides such protections. At the same time, reasonable boundaries are needed because unfettered and absolute free speech can cause harm to individuals and society. It is therefore not uncommon to find laws in some jurisdictions that limit free speech; examples include prohibitions against hate speech.
The Bill, as it stands, applies only to online content and activity that already constitute a criminal offence in Singapore, such as incitement to hatred against a religious group. I hope Mr Zhulkarnain will agree this does not create any new criminal offences in respect of speech, nor does it curtail legitimate content.
I will move on to other queries about the Bill.
Mr Yip, Ms Ang and Mr Louis Ng cited the challenges relating to jurisdictional issues and asked how the Bill will be applicable to websites and online services that are based overseas.
The Bill has provisions that allow us to issue Directions, Notices, Directives and Orders to entities and individuals, even if they have no presence in Singapore. We know, however, that some of them may choose not to comply, which is a challenge many countries similarly face. There are further steps that we can then take.
First, we can prosecute for non-compliance, where possible. Second, the Bill allows the competent authority to issue Orders to restrict access to the non-compliant online service, to prevent the criminal activity and content from being accessed by persons in Singapore. For example, an Access Blocking Order can be issued to Internet access service providers to prevent non-compliant online services from continuing to reach users in Singapore and do them harm. These levers will be used judiciously and only when necessary.
Mr Murali Pillai asked about the offence penalties and whether they were decided with extradition in mind. Relatedly, Mr Yong also asked whether we intend to hold key executives of e-commerce platforms criminally liable.
The penalties in the Online Criminal Harms Act are aligned with similar legislation, such as FICA and POFMA. We want the executives of online platforms to take online harms seriously and to comply with Directions, but this does not mean they must be personally liable for non-compliance. There are more effective measures such as access blocking. I do not think any executive in his or her right mind would find it easy to explain to their colleagues why because of non-compliance, access has been blocked; and since there is no personal liability, the need for extradition for non-compliance with Directions or Orders is moot. However, extradition can be undertaken in respect of the individuals carrying out the underlying specified offences, in accordance with the Extradition Act.
I would add, however, in the era of user-generated content, a lot of these content creators are very hard to pin down. So, we have to ask ourselves what is the priority. If the priority is to prevent harm from continuing to reach our people, you can try and chase down the original perpetrator of the offence or you can try to prevent the harm from happening first. We want to be able to do both, but we need to be able to nip it in the bud quickly first.
Mr Raj Joshua Thomas asked about the factors that will be taken into account, in deciding whether a person should be granted bail when the offence is failure to comply with the Directions. A key consideration is the risk profile of the offender. The nature of the underlying offence, which triggered the issuance of the direction in the first place, will not usually be taken into account, because the essence of the offence is the failure to comply with the Direction issued.
Also, a person liable for non-compliance to a Direction could be an Internet service provider or online service, and thus may not be the perpetrator of the underlying offence to begin with. This shows that the offence of non-compliance and the underlying offence should be assessed separately.
Mr Yip asked how the Bill would relate to existing legislation such as FICA and POFMA. POFMA and FICA were designed specifically to handle online falsehoods and foreign interference respectively, and will continue to be used for such threats. We recognise, however, that some cases are complex and levers under multiple legislation could apply. We will consider the unique aspects of each case and use the appropriate levers.
Here, it may be useful for me to address a point that Mr Gerald Giam made. I believe he asked specifically that we already have some levers under the Broadcasting Act, when the Online Safety Bill was passed and now we are trying to pass the Online Criminal Harms Bill – what is it that the new Bill will do that we were not able to do in the previous legislation?
Perhaps it is useful to then compare and contrast more broadly what this set of legislation or legislative tools are designed to achieve that we were not able to do previously.
There are essentially three areas. First is in terms of the scope of content that is covered. The amended Broadcasting Act covers egregious content as defined in the Act, with the key focus on online safety, including content advocating or instructing on suicide, or self-harm, content posing public health risk in Singapore and content likely to cause racial and religious disharmony in Singapore. So, those were the kinds of things that we covered last year, when we debated the Online Safety Bill. The Online Criminal Harms Bill will cover a broader scope of online criminal harms, including illegal moneylending, unlawful gambling and drug-related offences. So, the scope of coverage is not identical.
Secondly is the scope of services covered. They overlap to some extent but are also not identical. The amended Broadcasting Act applies to online communication services, but as a start, only social media services are subject to the provisions under the amended Broadcasting Act. The Online Criminal Harms Bill will cover all mediums of online communications through which criminal activities could be conducted. So, that is the second difference.
Thirdly, the levers to deal with scams and malicious cyber activities are quite different. The Broadcasting Act's code of practice for online safety will require social media services to respond to user reports on scams. A user submits a report, the code says, you, as a social media service, have a responsibility to act on that report. But given the need to protect victims from falling prey to scams and to ensure that scams can be efficiently and effectively addressed, the Online Criminal Harms Act, when it takes effect, will take one step further to provide the Government with the targeted levers to issue Directions against scams and malicious cyber activities, including against online activity that is suspected to be in preparation for such offences.
This is the part that is quite key. The offence may not yet have materialised. It has not necessarily taken place, but it looks to be, from past cases, that this is preparation in service of that offence. There will also be requirements for the designated online services to put in place proactive measures to detect and minimise scams and malicious cyber activities.
So, those are the three areas where the two differ; and the two actually complement each other.
Mr Murali asked about the structure and delineation of roles between the competent authority, authorised officer and designated officer. He suggested that given the role of the competent authority, it should operate separately from the investigation arm of a law enforcement agency. This will indeed be our approach. The competent authority will be sited within the Singapore Police Force (SPF), and will be structurally separate from the Police units that perform investigative functions. In building up the competent authority’s office, the appointment of authorised officers by the Minister will take into account the expertise and relationships required to effectively administer the Bill, as Mr Murali has pointed out.
Designated officers would be those who are charged with detecting, enforcing, or investigating the specified offences. They would be best placed to determine whether and what kind of Directions should be issued, and will do so independently of the competent authority. Administratively, we intend for there to be a single point of contact to issue the Directions. This function will reside with the competent authority. The competent authority will therefore have an overall picture of all the Directions being issued.
Mr Singh asked for the details of the codes of practice. Mr Yong asked whether the codes of practice could include requirements for e-commerce platforms, such as seller verification and escrow accounts.
The purposes of the codes of practice are set out in the Third Schedule, and they do provide for user verification and payment protections. The Codes will apply to designated online services, which can include e-commerce platforms that are assessed to pose significant risk of scams or malicious cyber activities.
Requirements for designated e-commerce platforms will take reference from the E-commerce Marketplace Transaction Safety Ratings (TSR). The TSR is a publicly available report that rates major e-commerce platforms based on the anti-scam measures they have in place. The higher the rating, the more anti-scam features a platform has. I encourage members of the public to refer to the TSR when transacting online and exercise caution when transacting on platforms with lower ratings.
When engaging your residents on how to protect themselves from scams, Members can also encourage your residents to refer to the TSR when transacting online.
Mr Murali and Mr Ng had queries on the technical provisions in the codes of practice. Codes of practice issued under clause 21(4) of the Bill do not have legislative effect. This means that they do not constitute law. Such provisions are common for codes of practice under Singapore legislation.
In our case, given the fast-evolving nature of the online space, we anticipate that the competent authority may need to adjust provisions in the codes of practice every now and then, to keep pace with emerging threats and industry developments, including tailoring the codes to different types of online services. This is similar to how licensing conditions in regulated sectors are today determined and varied as necessary by the licensing authority.
Let me reassure Mr Murali that notwithstanding the legal position of the codes of practice, we have provided in the Bill that persons acting reasonably to comply with the codes of practice will not incur civil and criminal liability.
We will also be able to take action if any provision of the codes are not complied with, which Mr Yong was also concerned about. In such instances, the competent authority is empowered to issue a rectification notice to a non-compliant entity. It will be an offence under this Bill if the designated online service does not comply with the notice.
Mr Ng asked about the provision that the requirements of a code of practice have effect, despite duties imposed by any rule of law, contract, or rule of professional conduct. This clause is similar to provisions under POFMA and the amended Broadcasting Act. As an example, one rule of law is the obligation of confidentiality under contract or common law. However, with the said provision in this Bill, an online service cannot reject a requirement to provide information on the basis that it is under an obligation of confidentiality.
To reassure Mr Ng, the competent authority cannot issue any code as it pleases. Any code being considered must fulfil the purpose set out in the Third Schedule. Any amendments to the Third Schedule must be presented to Parliament.
Ms Ang and Mr Zhulkarnain asked whether Directions and Orders will need to be complied with while the reconsideration or the appeal is ongoing. The answer is yes, because any stay on reconsideration or appeal would mean that more people would continue to be harmed by the online criminal activity. To reassure Members, we have provided within the Bill that the Reviewing Tribunal must complete its work expeditiously.
On Mr Murali's question about the finality of appeals made to the Minister or to the Reviewing Tribunal, there is no ouster clause within this Bill. Decisions made by the Minister and the Reviewing Tribunal will be documented and can be subject to judicial review.
Mr Zhulkarnain asked that the Bill be periodically reviewed to keep up-to-date with evolving online criminal harms and the state of technology. We agree this is important. The Bill has been drafted with this in mind, allowing us to add further offences via amendments to the First and Second Schedules, where necessary. MHA will work closely with other agencies to monitor developments in the technology space and respond nimbly to threats that can be posed by emerging technology, such as generative AI.
Mr Singh asked what other harms the Online Criminal Harms Act might cover in future. Mr Ng asked about the inclusion of offences relating to the sale of animals, birds and wildlife. For now, the Bill focuses on criminal offences that pertain to national security, national harmony and individual safety. We will consider Mr Ng's suggestion in future reviews. As to other harms, they must be criminal in nature and have an online nexus.
Ms Ang had queries about the information request provisions for investigating underlying offences. While we seek to investigate cases expeditiously, we will set reasonable timelines for online services to comply with such requests.
Next, I will deal with the questions and suggestions which relate to our broader efforts against online criminal harms and scams. Strictly, these fall outside the scope of today's Bill and some of them have been discussed in this House before. I shall therefore be brief.
With respect to the points made by Mr Singh regarding other legislation, these have already been debated in great detail on previous occasions, and they have no bearing on today's Bill in particular. I will however make three brief points.
The first is that I believe Mr Singh mentioned POFMA and that with POFMA, the Government decides what is truth.
I think that is not quite a correct characterisation. Mr Singh knows very well that POFMA deals with false statements of fact. These false statements of fact can be proven. There has to be a basis for making those allegations. Opinions – people are free to continue to make. But if you say something that is factually incorrect and it is carried online, it can go very far and it has public interest, and that is where POFMA could be considered. That is the first point. Other than that, opinions – anyone is free to continue to offer theirs.
The second point is that in the vast majority of the cases where POFMA directions have been issued, the receivers have complied in full and the content they had put up originally remain fully accessible. Most of the POFMA directions are like that. Anyone can still read what was originally made available. They can decide for themselves.
To the third point, Mr Pritam Singh specifically mentioned Asia Sentinel. I do not wish to go into that in great detail because it has no bearing on the Bill we are debating. I would invite him, if he is very interested, to file a Parliamentary Question and we can address his concerns.
Ms Ang asked what technology and capabilities the Government is investing in. Given the speed and scale at which online criminal harms can be perpetrated, manual processes will not be effective. The Government is making more use of analytics and also AI, for example, to detect and shut down scam websites faster. In implementing AI, we will keep in mind the potential downsides as shared by Mr Zhulkarnain.
In line with Mr Yip's suggestions, we will continue to work with agencies such as the Government Technology Agency (GovTech) to make reporting channels for the public more easily accessible.
On Ms Ang's and Mr Yip's queries about overseas perpetrators, cooperation across borders is needed to take them to task. We will certainly continue to strengthen our international partnerships.
Mr Yip asked how we would deal with attempts by members of the public to circumvent the Directions. The Government will do its best to protect the people in Singapore by preventing online criminal content and activities from reaching them. However, if individuals choose to circumvent these protections and use VPN or other means to access dubious content sources, they do so at their own risk. We cannot protect people who deliberately avoid the protection.
Mr Yip, and I believe, Mr Giam, also called for greater efforts to educate the public and to sensitise them to the threat of online harms. We fully agree with them. The Police have worked with several stakeholders to educate the public and raise awareness on scams. Some of these initiatives include proactive dissemination of information and advisories on scams and sharing of successful prosecutions on a regular basis; e-shoppers on watch interest group, collaborations with e-commerce platforms such as Shopee for the interactive in-app anti-scam quiz and collaborations with retailers such as Gardenia, iJooz and Canadian Pizza to display anti-scam messages on their platforms.
The Police have also set up the Scam Public Education Office to drive anti-scam outreach, which will involve working closely with community partners. The Scam Public Education Office will collaborate with the National Crime Prevention Council to create and curate anti-scam educational content for the public. It will partner the private sector and community agencies to tailor anti-scam material for different population groups such as youths and seniors, migrant workers, banking services users and digital platform users.
SPF also works closely with the Cyber Security Agency (CSA) and the IMDA to develop joint cybersafe materials and participate in public events to share the materials with members of the public. Some examples include the Digital for Life Festival organised by IMDA and the sharing on the safe use of the internet by IMDA's Digital Ambassadors with seniors in particular. I know this is a group that Mr Yip is particularly concerned about.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I believe I have covered most of the ground. I have on my notes here points that were made by Mr Giam with respect to calls. I think he said that shutting down websites is one thing – what about calls?
Actually, the topic of whether calls should be blocked has been covered separately. I think in previous updates on anti-scam measures, we had talked about the fact that IMDA implements call blocking on a very wide scale. If my memory serves me right, as recently as February or March, I think we updated the House that upwards of 55 million calls are blocked every single day right now. That is just how many you have. It is either every single day, every single week or every single month; any way, it is 55 million – a big number.
Calls are not the primary target of this Bill. Calls are an important way in which scammers reach their victims and we have taken active steps to block them.
I can update the House that IMDA is seriously looking at giving phone users the option to block all international calls, which is primarily how scam calls get piped through. That is something in the works, and I hope to be able to give Members an update in the not-too-distant future.
I thank Mr Giam for his acknowledgment of the value that the ScamShield brings. We will continue to improve the product to make it more robust and make it easier, as you say, for people to report the scams and to as best as possible, try and block the verified scam callers, as well as content. But I must caution that our developers are mindful that we do not go beyond what people expect of privacy protection. So, that is them exercising a degree of self-restraint.
In discussing such issues with my colleagues from other jurisdictions – I shall not mention where – where the population is much more accustomed to a far higher degree of surveillance, yes indeed, some of these measures can go a lot further. I am mindful, and I think Members have continued to remind us that there is only so much you can do and there are certain thresholds we should not cross.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Members for their support of the Bill. It is another important step towards creating a safer online space for Singaporeans. It complements existing efforts to act more effectively against online criminal activities, through partnerships with our people, the Government and industry. Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Giam, do you have a clarification?
Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: Sir, I thank the Minister for answering many of my questions. I still have a few outstanding questions on which I need a bit more clarification.
If someone were to register a domain name that is a variant of a bank's website and there is reasonable suspicion that there might be plans to impersonate the bank, can this website be proactively blocked under clause 6(1)(b) even if that website does not contain any content yet? I just want some clarification on that point.
Secondly, I know that you said that this Bill does not cover calls, specifically, but will scam calls made over WhatsApp, WeChat and other online messaging services be blocked through this Bill as well?
The Minister also did not answer my questions about SMS redirection – whether or not SMS redirection attempts will be or can be blocked under this Bill.
Mrs Josephine Teo: Sir, the answer to Mr Giam's first question is yes, but I also must caution Members against becoming overly comforted by the idea that even a website that is blank for now, but looks like it could be used, will be or can be blocked under the law.
These websites can be spawned in the millions. It is very easy. There are so many permutations that the scammers can think of. As much as the Police would like to be able to shut them down, I must caution that we do not expect that they will all be eliminated.
Second, I think in terms of WhatsApp, WhatsApp has end-to-end encryption. So, you and I actually can report a user who makes contact with us. Any message that you receive from an unwelcome party, you can make a request to the service provider, and the service providers have their own policies as to whether it is blocked or not.
As to the question of whether the levers within this Bill can apply to WhatsApp – yes, if we believe that there is an underlying offence that is being carried out and there is some indication as to how it is being perpetuated through this particular communication service. The answer is yes.
On SMS redirection – I am afraid I am not very clear about the nature of the Member's question. Perhaps I could trouble him to explain it to me a little bit more.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Giam.
Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: Sir, SMS redirection has been discussed in this House before. It is the situation where a bank sends out an SMS One-time Password (OTP) meant for the customer but it gets redirected to a scammer. So, the scammer receives the OTP and is then able to enter it to complete the transfer of funds. This is how some Singaporeans have fallen victim to it. It happened during the OCBC scandal, I think, at the end of 2021.
So, I just want to find out whether or not this Bill will cover and be able to prevent such actions from being taken.
Mrs Josephine Teo: Technically speaking, SMS is not anything that is offered online. If we apply the strict definition of an online scam, SMSes are not strictly covered.
What you have described as SMS redirection, we have dealt with it earlier at two levels. Firstly, at the network level, there were possible gaps – vulnerabilities that allow for such kinds of messages to be intercepted. That gap has been plugged.
What you described as SMS interception very often refers to victims unknowingly giving up their credentials. The two are different. If it is a technical issue, the gap has been plugged. If it is a matter of individuals being tricked or being deceived into giving up their credentials, then that is quite another matter.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Singh, do you have a clarification?
Mr Pritam Singh: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I refer to the points I made about related legislation, FICA and POFMA. I brought them up because of the statement released by MHA when the Bill came up for First Reading, the comparison that was made about this being a suite of legislation. But I take the Minister's point about pursuing a query I made in my speech through a Parliamentary Question.
My question relates to the point I made about the scam that affected my resident earlier, specifically with regard to e-commerce websites that are part of this whole chain of scam activities. The scammer uses Telegram. Then, they get them on WhatsApp. Then, from WhatsApp, you get a payment through PayNow. There are multiple platforms to chase up.
The question I have is with e-commerce platforms like Qoo10, when there is an encouragement for an innocent person to be part of an enterprise where you click on a feature of that website which raises the profile of some products on sale, for example.
How do the codes of practice, for example – what sort of influence will they have on these online service providers and these e-commerce companies to address that sort of problem which actually tends to direct more traffic to their website anyway?
I am just trying to understand how the codes of practices will compel a certain behaviour to address the scams we have to deal with.
Mrs Josephine Teo: Mr Deputy Speaker, there are essentially two areas of interventions that could be very helpful.
First, you must be able to catch the perpetrators. One of the difficulties of many of these platforms is that your identity can be shielded. In fact, the platform does not really know who you are.
So, one of the requirements of the codes of practice – I say this with the caveat, and I hope Members understand this – the codes of practice have yet to be published, even in draft form. I do not want to give the impression that this is what has been decided. But one of the potential and, I think, a very useful area of intervention has to do with account verification. Who is actually behind the account? Who is operating the account? We may impose certain requirements through the code on service providers in determining a user authentication process. That is one area of intervention that could be fruitful.
I mentioned this in relation to the TSR. The TSR gives you a broad sense. You could think of the TSR as something that we have put out on a voluntary basis. But if you introduce a code of practice, then you are essentially saying to service providers that you now need to introduce these measures.
The other probably useful intervention is in terms of requiring some confirmation that the good has been received before the money is released. Mr Yong talked about an escrow account, but that is not the only way in which you can assure the buyer using any particular platform, any e-commerce platform, that he has not been deceived.
In other words, he makes a payment. The payment is held on his behalf. Only upon his confirmation of the receipt of the goods is the money released to the purported seller. These are two broad areas of interventions that could be helpful.
But I would encourage Members to watch out for when the draft codes are actually published. At that time, you are certainly welcome to give your views.
Mr Deputy Speaker: There being no further clarifications, I will put the question.
[(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. – [Mrs Josephine Teo]. (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":"Statement by Leader of the House","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"Mr Deputy Speaker: Leader.
The Leader of the House (Ms Indranee Rajah): Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to raise a Point of Order. This is in relation to a video on the Progress Singapore Party (PSP)'s Facebook page and a breach of the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act.
Before I put the Point of Order, Mr Deputy Speaker, it is necessary for me to explain the facts, the context and the background. Then, I will put the Point of the Order. If I may proceed?
Mr Deputy Speaker: Please proceed, Leader.
Ms Indranee Rajah: There is, on the PSP's Facebook page, a video that was uploaded some time around midnight yesterday. The exact time is not indicated.
In the post, the text part of the Facebook post, it says, \"In what some online commentators are calling another \"sia suay\" moment, the PSP's Leong Mun Wai and Hazel Poa are here to do whatever it takes to ensure that the voice of the people is heard.\"
Then, you have the video and superimposed on top of the video is this text blurb. It says, \"During that hour, the Deputy Speaker reminded Mr Leong Mun Wai that he should not start a debate during a Ministerial Statement after he\" – that is, Mr Leong Mun Wai – \"urged the Deputy Speaker not to end the debate early because this is an important topic.\"
It was obviously referring to the Ministerial Statements and the subsequent clarifications with respect to the Ridout Road matter.
Then, in the video, there is this dramatic opening. It shows Mr Leong Mun Wai saying, \"Point of Order, Sir. This is an important issue. All Singaporeans are watching this debate.\"
Then, there is soft music. Then, you have Mr Leong Mun Wai making his clarifications. That is just a straightforward showing of the clarifications that he made. Then, at about 3:31 minutes in, it shows the part where Mr Leong says, \"There are still a lot more questions that I am going to ask Deputy Speaker. I think the debate is not going to end at 5.45 pm.\"
Then, it shows Mr Deputy Speaker replying, where he said, \"Mr Leong, I think that the Chair decides at what time the clarifications end. In fact, this is not a debate.\"
Then, it shows Mr Leong coming back to say, \"Point of Order, Sir. This is an important issue. All Singaporeans are watching this debate.\"
Then, it shows the Deputy Speaker saying, \"Mr Leong, I do not disagree with you that this is a matter of public importance. In fact, Standing Order No 23 makes specific reference that Ministerial Statements be made on matters of public importance.\"
Mr Leong says, \"Yes.\"
The Deputy Speaker then says, \"But the second sentence in Standing Order No 23 also states that there shall be no debate. Clarifications can be asked. So, there is no debate, whether under Standing Order No 23 or Standing Order No 25, which is a Personal Explanation.\" And the video cuts there. It ends.
On the face of it, you may wonder, what was the problem with this video? The difficulty is this – the video gives a false impression of what occurred in Parliament.
First, it gives a false impression that issues on the Ridout Road matter could not be fully ventilated because Mr Deputy Speaker would not allow a debate, despite a plea by Mr Leong Mun Wai for this to happen.
If you think about it, it starts off with: \"In what some online commentators are calling another \"sia suay\" moment\". What is \"sia suay\"? Embarrassing. So, there has to be something embarrassing. What is this embarrassing thing? It goes on to say that \"The PSP's Leong Mun Wai and Hazel Poa are here to do whatever it takes to ensure that the voice of people is heard\". And then, you have that blurb which suggests that they were being shut down and a debate was not allowed to take place.
So, the first wrong about the post, coupled with the video, is the suggestion that issues could not be fully ventilated and that a debate was not allowed.
What the video does not say and what is the case, is that, procedurally, for Ministerial Statements, Members can ask questions or clarifications but, unlike for Motions, it is not a debate. That may be a technical characterisation but it is something that all Members of Parliament should know. And the video does not continue to point out what happened after that. So, the gravamen of this part is that there is no debate. But, of course, what is not highlighted is that questions are put to Ministers and the Ministers are still held to account; they put themselves up for questioning and that they did answer.
The next thing that it does is it gives the impression that Mr Leong was not allowed to ask questions, which, again, is not true.
If you look at the actual transcript, you will see that Mr Leong actually asked something like 11 questions or clarifications. And if I may just refer to my record of this, the transcript that I have. The video stops where Mr Deputy Speaker explains the distinction between Standing Order No 23 and a debate. What is left out is this part when Mr Leong Mun Wai says, \"Yes. What I urge the Chair, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, is to be mindful that this topic has not been properly completely clarified. When it is not completely clarified, please do not end the session.\"
So, there is an admission there that there is a distinction between clarifications and debate. And Mr Deputy Speaker says, \"Mr Leong, I think the response to you is... I would like you to take your seat. The response is we had four Ministerial Statements from 12.30 pm and it is now 5.30 pm. That is about five hours' worth of to-ing and fro-ing. I think this House has ventilated a lot of issues. I would allow about three or four more clarifications from Members and we will then proceed to end the Ministerial Statements.\"
And then, Mr Deputy Speaker put to Mr Leong that it was not for a Member to dictate to the Chair when business should start or end and said he hoped that Mr Leong could agree. He specifically asked if Mr Leong would agree to that and Mr Leong agreed that, yes, it was not for him to decide when business would start or end.
The video also does not indicate that subsequently, Mr Deputy Speaker gave Mr Leong many opportunities to raise clarifications.
There was a time when Mr Deputy Speaker allowed Ms Poa to go first when he said, \"Mr Leong, do not worry, I will come back to you.\" Subsequently, Ms Hazel Poa was allowed to make a clarification. And, after that, Mr Deputy Speaker said to Mr Leong, \"Mr Leong Mun Wai, I am giving you some latitude. So, ask all the questions you have.\" And Mr Leong then proceeded to ask five questions, and it continued.
And it was only right at the end when Mr Deputy Speaker looked around, there were no further hands, that Mr Deputy Speaker called upon Mr Alex Yam to give the last clarification.
The next thing is that the video says that \"during that hour\", suggesting that clarifications only occurred for one hour. That, again, is not true. The entire session took about six hours. The Ministerial Statements took up about two hours and the clarifications took almost four hours, or three hours and 48 minutes to be precise. So, there was ample time for questions to be asked, and they were asked and they were answered and the session ended at 6.22 pm.
So, we have here a situation where you have a video from PSP which gives rise to a false, misleading impression of what happened in Parliament and it misrepresents the proceedings. I had actually spoken about this in Parliament and I had reminded Members about the obligations that Members have under the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act.
I had distributed a note at that time, and just to refresh Members' memories, I will ask the Clerk to distribute the Hansard of what I had said at that time and the note. [A handout was distributed to hon Members.]
The documents that are being circulated comprise three documents. The first is the extract of the Hansard on that occasion. The second is the note that I had circulated to Members, and the third is an excerpt from the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act, or PPIPA.
I would like to direct Members to the second document in the bundle. It is titled \"Upholding proper conduct in and out of Parliament\". This is the note that was circulated to Members. And I would direct Members' attention to paragraph 6.
Paragraph 6 says, \"The proceedings of Parliament are public and they are reported and discussed outside of Parliament by Members and the public alike. This is part of public discourse. However, Parliament proceedings should not be distorted, misrepresented or otherwise used improperly. Section 31 of the PPIPA provides that no person\" – that means, not just Members of Parliament, but anybody – \"no person shall publish any statement, whether in writing or otherwise which falsely or scandalously defames or which reflects on the character of the Speaker or any Member touching on his conduct in Parliament or anything done or said by him in Parliament\", \"no person shall publish wilfully any false or perverted report or any writing containing a gross or scandalous misrepresentation of any debate or proceedings of Parliament or any speech of a Member of Parliament\" and \"no person shall publish any statement, whether in writing or otherwise which falsely or scandalously defames the proceedings or the character of Parliament.\"
So, these provisions are concerned with statements reflecting on Members in their Parliamentary roles, statements reflecting on Parliament and false reports of Parliamentary proceedings.
And if Members look at paragraph 8, \"Breaches of these provisions constitute a contempt of Parliament that Parliament may punish. There are also offences that Parliament may refer to the Public Prosecutor. These provisions apply to Members and the public alike, with Members expected to lead by example in complying with the law\".
And at paragraph 11, I specifically drew to Members' attention that \"[o]utside of Parliament, Members, their political parties, and members of the public, as well as those reporting on Parliamentary proceedings, should take note of section 31 of PPIPA and not conduct themselves so as to bring Parliament into disrepute. Examples of conduct that should be avoided include misrepresenting what happened in Parliament, such as by setting out partial (and thereby misleading) versions of what happened in Parliament, casting aspersions and making scandalous or defamatory statements about Parliament and/or its Members. And as stated, these obligations apply not just to Members but to all persons.\"
So, the point I would wish to raise is this – the video, coupled with the text and blurb, actually does all of these things; misrepresents what happened in Parliament and misrepresents what the Deputy Speaker said or did.
It should be remembered that in Mr Leong's case, Mr Leong himself personally has previously had occasions where he has breached Parliamentary rules and has had to apologise for the same. These occurred on 25 February 2021, 10 May 2021, 8 March 2022 and most recently, 22 March 2023 in respect of the Ministerial Statement on Police disclosure, where he had to apologise for being disrespectful to Speaker, and subsequent to that Sitting, he also withdrew various statements in his Facebook posts, clarified that he had not intended to cast aspersions on Ministers and admitted that he was wrong to make the suggestion that he did in his statement in Parliament.
I had, on 18 April 2023, raised a Point of Order where I said that, although these were breaches, given that he had apologised, there was no need to take further action and I sought Speaker's concurrence, which Speaker gave. And it was on that occasion on 18 April this year that I reminded Members of the responsibilities, and that was when I circulated that note.
So, in light of this, may I, through you Mr Deputy Speaker, ask Mr Leong Mun Wai, who is the Secretary General of the PSP and therefore leads the PSP, may I ask why such a misleading post and video has been put up? That is first. Let me just ask that first and sees how it goes.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Leong Mun Wai.
Mr Leong Mun Wai (Non-Constituency Member): Deputy Speaker, Sir, first of all, I must say, in response to what the Minister has alleged just now, I am quite surprised that I thought the video put up by my Party was just an expression. In this country, we are still supposed to have free expression.
So, first of all, let me confirm a few things. One, when we put as a title, \"another instance of 'sia suay'\", who are we referring to? Did the Minister assume that the \"sia suay\" refers to the Deputy Speaker? We have no intention of saying that at all. The \"sia suay\" is what people in the public has used to refer to me.
We are just saying that this is another example of \"sia suay\", but actually, what Leong Mun Wai was trying to do was to ask more questions to get more facts. And that is how he was trying to get to the facts. And, so, the video put up some of the things.
Inside the video, one very important point was about the amount of time being spent.
Although the whole deliberation has lasted six hours, but that does not mean that all the questions had been asked and all the replies that came back had actually clarified all the facts. So, in the process of debate, I was maybe slightly a bit excited and said that I think I need more time to ask those questions. And that was when Deputy Speaker, Sir, came in and said, \"You are not supposed to have a debate.\"
And so, that went on, some exchanges between him and me. But I thought that I have always conducted myself with respect to the Deputy Speaker at that time. I did not say anything in violation of anything, I think. Because I do learn from some of the exchanges that I have had, with the Speaker, for example.
So, I did not say anything, I said that I agreed to what he said, if he said \"clarifications\", then I said, \"Okay, then the clarifications have not yet been completely clarified\". You say, \"No debate, just clarifications\". Okay, I will use \"clarification\".
But the difference between \"debate\" and \"clarifications\", indeed, is a very interesting differentiation – what is meant by \"debate\" and what is meant by \"clarifications\" in the context of us discussing in Parliament. So, that is something that we felt was quite interesting. As a result, it was in the video.
What I am trying to say is that I do not think that I had conducted myself disrespectfully at all. By showing this video, now I hear from you about some of the interpretations that you have explained. I think I would request that you would allow me to take this back and let us deliberate inside our party, and then we will come up with a formal response.
If there are any demands that the Government wants us to do right now, you can let us know, and we will immediately consider and respond as soon as possible. So, that is my response to you at the moment.
Ms Indranee Rajah: I thank Mr Leong Mun Wai for his response. Let me just address a few things and then I think we can arrive at a partial conclusion of this matter.
First, when Mr Leong says that he had not fully appreciated the difference between \"clarification\" and \"debate\", and he had not intended to be disrespectful to Mr Deputy Speaker, I think that we accept. There was a point when it bordered on the disrespectful, but to be fair to Mr Leong, he caught himself at that time.
So, today I am raising this Point of Order not in respect of what Mr Leong said or did in Parliament. We can set that aside and not be concerned about that.
The Point of Order that I am raising is with respect to the video, coupled with the text in the Facebook post – they have to go together. And in this respect, firstly, Mr Leong is the Secretary-General of the party, and this is the party's Facebook page, and that is why I am directing the question to him.
Second, Mr Leong said that this was just an expression and that he thought that there was supposed to be free expression. There is free expression in Singapore, but it has never extended to falsehoods, scandalously defaming somebody or misrepresenting situations or facts or misrepresenting what happened in Parliament.
So, I just wish to make that very clear, freedom of expression does not allow anybody to make false statements or misrepresent things. Because facts are important.
And then, the next thing, did I understand Mr Leong correctly? Did he say that in the Facebook post, the reference to \"sia suay\" was a reference to him? Because the text says, \"In what some online commentators are calling another 'sia suay' moment\". So, am I to understand that Mr Leong is saying that PSP is saying that Mr Leong and Ms Poa have given rise to another \"sia suay\" moment? Is the reference to them or is the reference to something else?
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Leong.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir. In response to what the Minister has asked, as I have said just now, my communications department is specifically using a past example of people calling me \"sia suay\". So, this statement \"sia suay\" on this video is also referring to me, as another instance that some people online may think that it is another \"sia suay\" instance. It is a matter of communication message.
Ms Indranee Rajah: I see. I thank Mr Leong for his clarification and confirmation that the PSP video was, in fact, referring to what it suggests is an embarrassing moment by its Secretary-General. Okay.
That aside, that brings me back to the final point, which is that having now explained how the video comes across and how it would be understood, then I think what would be appropriate is for the video to be taken down and for an apology, in a form acceptable to Parliament.
I do not ask Mr Leong to respond to that today, as he has kindly said, they will go back and consider this. This is what should be considered, and please do let us know tomorrow.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Yes, Mr Leong.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Thank you, Deputy Speaker. Yes, in response to the Minister, yes, that is what I am going to do. And thank you.
When we do our debates and discussion in this Parliament, inevitably, if you want to have substantive discussion, there will be times where wrong things are being said. If inappropriate things are being said, then I really appreciate the opportunity to get your feedback and then, we will discuss the actions we need to take.
So, what you have said specifically just now is for us to take down our video. Is that all? And an apology. Okay, I will go back and we will discuss about that within our party and we will respond to the Government as soon as we can. Oh, respond to Parliament. Respond to Parliament as soon as we can.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Leader.
Ms Indranee Rajah: The request was to respond to Parliament tomorrow. But just one more response in respect of what Mr Leong just raised in his reply.
I think Mr Leong said that sometimes things are said in the \"heat of the moment\" or you may make a mistake on the spot. That, I think we understand and that is why the Standing Orders have provisions for Members to come back and give either a Personal Explanations or to correct statements.
But this video came up around midnight, this morning. So, end of Tuesday. The Ministerial Statements and the clarifications took place on Monday. So, there was a space of more than 24 hours between the end of the clarification session and when the video is done. And when a video is done, it is not on the spur of the moment. Clearly, there is a team thinking about how to project it, how to edit it, the narrative it should have and how it should portray its protagonists or the other people that it is talking about.
So, I think, insofar as \"the heat of the moment\" argument is concerned, it does not really apply here – that the video was put together for a purpose with some deliberation.
That said, I have highlighted our concerns about that and look forward to Mr Leong coming back to us with PSP's response.
Mr Deputy Speaker: If I may, Mr Leong, in fairness, I gave you five times to raise your questions. I had specifically invited you to ask all your questions. And you did, in fact, raise more than 10 questions. I felt that was important to put on record.
Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 5.00 pm.
Sitting accordingly suspended
at 4.40 pm until 5.00 pm.
Sitting resumed at 5.00 pm.
[Deputy Speaker (Mr Christopher de Souza) in the Chair]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Group Representation Constituencies","subTitle":"Motion","sectionType":"OS","content":"Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Hazel Poa.
Ms Hazel Poa (Non-Constituency Member): Sir, I beg to move*, \"That this House calls for the abolition of Group Representation Constituencies\".
[(proc text) *The Motion also stood in the name of Mr Leong Mun Wai. (proc text)]
The Group Representation Constituency (GRC) system was introduced in 1988 when the Parliamentary Elections Act and the Constitution were amended to provide for the creation of three-Member GRCs. The justification for this change was to safeguard minority representation in Parliament. The number of Members of Parliament (MPs) from GRCs were limited to a range of 25% to 50%. Over the years, the GRC system has evolved for varying reasons.
In 1991, the maximum size of GRCs was increased from three to four candidates, and the number of MPs in GRCs was raised to a range of 25% to 75%. In 1996, the size of a GRC was raised again, this time to a maximum of six candidates. The upper limit of 75% on MPs from GRCs was removed and replaced by a minimum of eight MPs from Single Member Constituencies (SMCs). This meant that the upper limit on MPs from GRCs was effectively increased to about 90%.
My colleague, Mr Leong Mun Wai, will elaborate further on the changes to the GRC system over the years. I will now talk about the weaknesses of the GRC system.
While the objective of ensuring minority representation in Parliament is laudable, the GRC system brings along other consequences that are undesirable. A common complaint about the GRC system is that MPs are not necessarily elected on their own merits. The team approach allows some Members to ride on the coat-tails of other more established or popular team members. It is also conversely true.
Consider a GRC with two teams of four candidates. If all the candidates were to contest in four separate SMCs, voters could have selected two candidates from Team A and two candidates from Team B as the ones they feel most suitable to represent them in Parliament. However, as they can only vote for one team or the other, the result is the loss of two stronger candidates and the election of two weaker candidates. This illustration shows how the GRC system can lead to a sub-optimal outcome for voters.
Former Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong said in 2006 that the GRC system helped the People’s Action Party (PAP) recruitment efforts by giving potential candidates the assurance of a good chance of winning. I interpret this as open acknowledgment that the coat-tail effect was intentional and the GRC was intended to enhance the chances of the PAP winning at the expense of the Opposition. And, indeed, it took more than 20 years before the strongest Opposition party was able to win a GRC.
Such an approach, however, encourages the “kiasu”, or fear to lose, syndrome, breeds a generation of politicians sheltered from tough electoral battles and sets unsustainable expectations. All it took was one electoral loss for Singapore politics to lose some Ministers permanently. PAP has said that if voters do not vote for the PAP's team, key Ministers will disappear from the Cabinet.
Such a portrayal attempts to hold voters to ransom. This is unfair on Singaporean voters. It also hampered the political development of Singapore by setting higher and higher hurdles for the Opposition parties which are much weaker compared to the ruling party. The legislative changes on GRC done in three stages, in the years 1988, 1991 and 1996 saw the percentage of GRC seats rise from 48% in the General Election (GE) in 1988 to 74% in GE 1991 to 89% in 1997. In GE 2020, this eased to 85%.
In an SMC, candidates need the support of their constituents to win elections. Their election outcome is more directly controlled by voters. In a GRC, however, the election outcome is also dependent on which team a candidate is placed in, which is a decision made by party leaders. It becomes unclear whether voters' decision or party leader's decision play a bigger part. Voters' influence on election outcome is thus reduced under a GRC system.
Over the years, many MPs in GRCs have vacated their seats for various reasons. Some passed away, some resigned over conduct that compromised their ability to serve as MPs, and others resigned to stand in Presidential Elections. In each of these cases, no by-election was held to fill these vacancies. This is because by-elections are expressly not required to be called when a vacancy arises in a GRC, unless the entire slate of MPs representing a GRC vacate their seats. The Government explained that this is to prevent any individual MP in a GRC from holding the other MPs in the same GRC to ransom.
However, this also has the effect of depriving residents in these GRCs of an elected representative in Parliament, which is highly undesirable, given our system of representative democracy. This issue has been debated several times before in this House. In 1999, following the resignation of Mr Choo Wee Khiang as an MP of Jalan Besar GRC, Mr JB Jeyaratnam moved a Motion for this House to resolve that a writ of election should be issued to fill the vacancy. During his speech, Mr Jeyaratnam noted that: \"Jalan Besar GRC voters are entitled to four MPs in Parliament\", and \"that is their constitutional right\".
The Government's response to Mr Jeyaratnam's point at that time was most unsatisfactory. Then-Leader of the House, Mr Wong Kan Seng, claimed that there was no diminution of voters' constitutional rights because, \"They voted for the four MPs and the MPs carry on\" and \"the voters, in fact, voted with the knowledge that should a vacancy arise, such a vacancy need not be filled as provided for in our law\". Mr Wong's response does not address the underlying issue, which is that the voters of Jalan Besar GRC voted for a team of four MPs with four votes to represent them in this House. When a vacancy arises in a GRC, the voters of that GRC have lost a vote in Parliament to represent their interest. The other MPs in the GRC cannot take over the voting rights or the Parliamentary Question quota or the right to raise an Adjournment Motion of the MP that has resigned.
At the Parliamentary level, the rights of the GRC voters are unquestionably diminished when an unfilled vacancy arises in a GRC. This is particularly pertinent when the Member of Parliament who has resigned is the minority representative for that GRC. The vacancy undermines the primary objective of the GRC system, which is to ensure minority representation in Parliament.
At the constituency level, while the remaining MPs in the team can help to cover for their former teammate in house visits and Meet-the-People sessions, something somewhere has to give. As former Nominated Member of Parliament (NMP), Prof Thio Li-ann, pointed out in her Motion in 2008: \"MPs have punishing schedules\". MPs have to juggle their responsibilities in their full-time jobs, their Parliamentary duties, their constituency duties, their party duties, and their personal and family lives. If their constituency duties increased due to covering for a vacancy, there must be a corresponding cut somewhere else. The cut could be in the area of Parliamentary duties, the quality in carrying out constituency duties, or sacrificing their personal or family lives, none of which is fair nor desirable.
With the GRC seats comprising 85% of all elected seats in Parliament, the departure of any MP has an 85% chance of the seat remaining vacant. The latest vacancy will be arising in Jurong GRC due to Senior Minister Tharman's decision to contest in the Presidential Election. This is not the first such occurrence. The current President also resigned in 2017 as a PAP MP, leaving a vacant seat in Marsiling-Yew Tee GRC. Does the PAP intend to regularly repeat this? Running in a GE is an inherent promise to serve the residents for a term of five years. Breaking that promise is not something that should be taken lightly. It is, therefore, troubling if such broken promises were to occur at regular intervals. As a vacancy will not be filled via a by-election, residents are underserved and under-represented for the sake of the party's other motivations. Did the party not plan for this expected vacancy when it went into GE 2020? Could it not have informed voters of this possibility or selected its candidate from an SMC so that residents are not underserved?
It can also be argued that a team without Senior Minister Tharman is not what the voters in Jurong GRC voted for. Senior Minister Tharman has served many terms as an MP and in various senior positions in Public Service, while the other team members are relatively new. The case that a team without Senior Minister Tharman makes for a material difference is overwhelming. This is analogous to having the terms of a contract changed materially and unilaterally midway through by one party but the other party remained bound to the contract until expiry. In any other context, this would not have been accepted.
If we do not have GRCs, only SMCs, then these problems would not exist. Ensuring minority representation is the justification for the GRC. While the GRC is purportedly to protect minority interests, it paradoxically entrenches racial lines and promotes the belief that minority candidates are unable to win elections on their own merits.
The Progress Singapore Party (PSP) is confident that Singaporeans do not vote along racial lines and minority candidates are well able to win elections on their own merits. Even though the majority of voters are Chinese, many non-Chinese candidates have won elections. Before the introduction of GRCs, in GE 1984, minority candidates have won in SMCs against majority candidates; for example, Mr JB Jeyaratnam, Mr Zulkifli Mohammed, Mr Abbas Abu Amin, and so on. More recently, we also have Mr Michael Palmer and Mr Murali Pillai. In GRCs, we have the Aljunied team where three out of the five MPs are non-Chinese. Senior Minister Tharman is one of the most popular politicians and his decision to contest in the Presidential Election showed his confidence that Singaporeans do not vote along racial lines.
However, if the PAP is not convinced, there are other ways to ensure adequate minority representation in Parliament without the problems that come with the GRC system. We would like to offer two alternatives here for consideration and debate.
The first alternative is a Non-Constituency Member of Parliament (NCMP) scheme for minorities, similar to the current NCMP scheme for Opposition candidates. With this scheme, minority candidates contest in SMCs just like other candidates. If enough minority candidates are elected, this scheme does not kick in. However, should there be under-representation of minorities, minority candidates who did not win the election but had the highest percentage of votes can be appointed as NCMPs to ensure adequate minority representation in Parliament.
Residents from all constituencies can approach these NCMPs for assistance. As we are all familiar with the NCMP scheme for Opposition candidates, this scheme requires little explanation and minimal disruption to our current model.
Another way of ensuring minority representation in Parliament is to adopt some form of proportional representation. Under this system, a party that obtained 10% of the national votes will be allocated about 10% of the seats.
When responding to a Motion brought forward by Prof Thio Li-ann in 2008, the Prime Minister said that our electoral system is designed to encourage voters to think very carefully not only about the individual that they want to represent them in Parliament but also the party that they want to form the Government.
If we want voters to vote for a political party instead of a candidate, the logical step is to move towards a system of party-list, proportional representation, where parties put forth a list of candidates for election. Voters vote for their desired political party. Seats are then allocated to each political party based on their national vote share. Based on the seats allocated, each party then selects the candidates on its party list to take up the seats.
Currently, the PAP has close to 90% of the elected seats in Parliament even though its national vote share is about 60%. Proportional representation seeks to move the representation in Parliament closer to the national vote share to better reflect the wishes of the voters.
Let us first look at how this is done in other countries.
While there are countries fully on the proportional representation system like Israel and Sweden, there are also a number of countries with a hybrid system containing both first-past-the-post and proportional representation elements.
The election in our constituencies is an example of the first-past-the-post system where the candidates with the highest votes get the seats.
In Germany, approximately 50% of the seats are based on the first-past-the-post system and the other half on proportional representation. In New Zealand, approximately 60% of the seats are on first-past-the-post system and 40% on proportional representation. In Thailand, the split is 80-20.
We can adapt this system to ensure minority representation by stipulating a multiracial slate for SMC contests and a multiracial party list. Each party must select from the list to meet minimum racial representation requirements.
Deputy Speaker, Sir, the GRC system has generated several sub-optimal outcomes such as voters being held to ransom to vote for Ministers, weaker candidates riding on stronger candidates' coat-tails to Parliament and unfilled vacancies leading to residents being underserved and under-represented.
I have presented these shortcomings and offered two alternatives to ensure minority representation in Parliament for consideration and debate. The intention here is not to call for immediate action but for thought and discussion. We are still two years away from the next GE and have time to mull over this matter. In particular, the mixed proportional representation alternative is a major departure from our current system and requires more time and a fuller discussion.
We call on the House and all Singaporeans to consider the alternatives that we have proposed to guarantee minority representation. We believe that unlike the GRC system, these alternatives will strengthen our system of representative democracy and maximise democratic choice for voters. It is time for the GRC system to go. I urge all Members to support the Motion.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Leong Mun Wai.
Mr Leong Mun Wai (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, as my colleague Hazel Poa said, I will be elaborating further on the history of the GRC system and how the PAP has regularly made changes to the electoral rules to entrench its political dominance.
The introduction of the GRC system was part of a package of constitutional innovations during the 1980s which also included the introduction of the Elected Presidency.
The 1980s was a politically significant era for Singapore. It began with Mr JB Jeyaretnam breaking the Parliamentary dominance of the PAP during the 1981 Anson by-election. Later, the 1984 General Election saw a 13% swing against the PAP and the election of two opposition Members – Mr JB Jeyaretnam and Mr Chiam See Tong.
All these took place amidst a changing of guard in the PAP. Mr Lee Kuan Yew and the other old guard Ministers retired. The 2G team led by Mr Goh Chok Tong took over.
The PAP has always denied accusations that the introduction of the GRC system and the elected presidency was to entrench its political dominance.
At the beginning, both Constitutional innovations were meant to fulfil a specific purpose. The GRC system was meant to ensure that there will always be a minimum level of minority representation in Parliament. This became increasingly important as resettlement and the creation of Housing and Development Board (HDB) new towns under the Ethnic Integration Policy meant that there were no longer any more Malay majority constituencies.
The Elected Presidency, on the other hand, was meant to safeguard our increasingly large past Reserves by creating a second key to the past Reserves that was independent of the elected Government.
I think that many Singaporeans would have no objections with these schemes if these schemes stayed true to their original purpose. However, both the GRC system and the Elected Presidency have been subject to many changes over the years. Although these changes had various justifications, it is still difficult for the public to be convinced that these frequent changes are not motivated by political considerations.
For example, when the GRC system was introduced during the 1988 GE, all GRCs had three members. This was later expanded to a maximum of four in the 1991 GE. The reason given by the then-Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong was to provide flexibility so that we could minimise major changes of boundaries to GRCs which have grown too big for the number of MPs serving them.
This reason was still plausible and acceptable. But then in the 1991 General Election, the Opposition won an unprecedented four seats in Parliament. This was followed by further tweaks to the GRC system. GRCs were expanded to a maximum of six members from the 1997 General Election onwards.
Prime Minister Goh justified this move by claiming that he wanted to devolve more authority to the local communities by setting up Community Development Councils (CDCs). Because CDCs needed economies of scale and a critical mass of residents, Prime Minister Goh said that increasing the maximum number of MPs in the GRC from four to six will give more flexibility to the Electoral Boundaries Review Committee (EBRC) to configure a GRC which is the right size for this purpose.
Many Singaporeans, including myself, have never been convinced by this reasoning. Community Development Councils (CDCs) can be formed by forming six adjourning SMCs or two three-member GRCs. There is no need for six-member GRCs.
Instead, many Singaporeans believed that the PAP Government expanded GRC sizes to hamper the Opposition's electoral chances after a strong showing by the Opposition in the 1991 GE.
There are several ways in which GRCs can be used to maximise the PAP's advantages.
Firstly, the varying sizes of GRCs provide maximum flexibility for the EBRC to redraw boundaries in a way that can be advantageous for the ruling party. Since 1988, SMCs that have been absorbed into GRCs have had a higher average vote share for the opposition than the average SMC. In many of these SMCs, the Opposition polled above 40%, such as Braddell Heights, Bukit Batok and Changi in 1991, Joo Chiat in 2011 and Fengshan in 2015. Only SMCs and GRCs that the Opposition have won are consistently spared from changes in their electoral boundaries.
I therefore fully expect West Coast GRC and other constituencies where the PSP contested in the last election to disappear or have their boundaries heavily redrawn in the next election. If that happens, I hope Singaporeans will open their eyes and decide for themselves if these changes are for population shifts and housing developments, or for other reasons.
As a result of the GRC boundaries, many HDB towns and planning areas in Singapore are fragmented among multiple GRCs and by extension, Town Councils and CDCs. For example, Serangoon Town is divided between Marine Parade GRC which is in Southeast CDC, Aljunied GRC which is in Northeast CDC and Ang Mo Kio GRC which is in Central Singapore CDC. The EBRC has never explained the reason for drawing such peculiar boundaries.
Such an arrangement can hardly foster a sense of community among local communities, which the PAP Government has claimed is the purpose of the CDCs. It instead gives rise to suspicion amongst Singaporeans that the PAP is manipulating the GRC system for their political benefit.
Secondly, because GRCs are larger, the demographic composition can be adjusted to ensure that the vote share for the ruling party in GRCs is less likely to deviate significantly from the vote share for the ruling party at the national level. This is unlike SMCs, where a smaller number of voters creates more opportunities for divergence in election results.
Given our first-past-the-post voting system, where the winning party wins all the seats in the GRC, the GRC system magnifies the electoral advantages of the PAP. This is why there is a very high level of disproportionality in the translation of Opposition votes to Parliament seats in Singapore.
In the last election, the Opposition won 39% of the votes, but we only comprise 11% of the elected Members in Parliament. This is due in a large part to the advantages that the GRC system provides for the PAP.
Since the 2006 GE, there has been some positive changes to the GRC system. Prime Minister Lee has pledged to reduce the average size of GRCs and increase the number of SMCs. As a result, the average number of Members of Parliament in a GRC has decreased from 5.4 in 2006, to 4.65 in 2020. Now there are also no more six-Member GRCs.
However, the maximum size of GRCs in the Constitution is still six. So, these jumbo GRCs could still make a comeback in future. It is by the grace of the Prime Minister, rather than by law, that we now have smaller GRCs.
Perhaps Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong can share during today's debate whether he will make the same commitment to having smaller GRCs once he takes over as the next Prime Minister. The Prime Minister exercises great power over electoral boundaries. He gets to decide when the EBRC is formed; who is in the EBRC; and sets the terms of reference for the EBRC. Will Deputy Prime Minister Wong share his future approach towards electoral boundaries?
I have just recounted how the PAP has frequently changed the rules around GRCs over the years. It is a similar story with the Elected Presidency which has been the subject of numerous Constitutional amendments over the years, most notably in 2016.
During the Presidential Election in 2011, Dr Tan Cheng Bock lost to Dr Tony Tan by a razor-thin margin of 0.35%. Many of those who voted for Dr Tan Cheng Bock hoped that he would be able to stand again during the Presidential Election in 2017.
In January 2016, Prime Minister Lee announced that it was timely to review the eligibility criteria of the Elected Presidency and convened a constitutional commission to do so. At that point in time, he stated that any legislation to give effect to the Commission's recommendation would be tabled before the end of 2016, but this did not explicitly mean that any changes would be effective from the 2017 Presidential Election.
The Commission eventually recommended that provision should be made for a Reserved Election if a particular race has not been elected for five Presidential terms. This was because the Elected Presidency had to be an integral pillar of Singapore's commitment to multiracialism.
However, the Constitutional Commission also did not make any recommendation regarding when the changes should be implemented. It was the Government that made the decision to start counting from President Wee Kim Wee, which meant that the 2017 Election would be a Reserved Election for Malay candidates only.
The Constitutional Commission also recommended that the criteria for private sector candidates should be tightened significantly – the share capital criteria raised from $100 million to $500 million. This was also implemented at the 2017 Election.
All this came after Dr Tan Cheng Bock announced his intention to contest the 2017 Presidential Election on 11 March 2016, months before the Constitutional Commission released its report.
The changes meant that Dr Tan Cheng Bock not only could not stand in 2017 but would also be permanently disqualified from becoming President because of the share capital requirement for private sector candidates.
This same criterion was also used to disqualify the two Malay candidates who had wanted to stand in the first reserved Election for the Presidency in 2017. It would not be remiss to say that all this cast a dark shadow over the historic Presidency of President Halimah Yacob, who is our first female President and the first Malay President in 46 years.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I will conclude by saying that from a democratic standpoint, the GRC system ought to be regarded as one of the most undesirable electoral rule in the world. It magnifies the seat share of the PAP beyond its voting strength and creates opportunities for the manipulation of electoral boundaries for partisan purposes. Over time, it breeds cynicism and disillusion in our political system as the views of the public are not properly reflected in the election results.
Over the last 40 years, the PAP has won more than two-thirds of the votes only in the 2001 and 2015 GEs. Yet, throughout this time, it has controlled a Parliamentary supermajority of 90% of the seats.
In our system, any political party commanding more than 50% will be able to form a stable government. One with more than 67% of the seats, or two-thirds majority will be able to amend the Constitution at will and thus, will be able to form a very strong government.
The overwhelming PAP's supermajority of 90% is thus not necessary for a strong government. The supermajority only makes it more difficult for the Opposition to voice out the people's concerns adequately in the Parliament. PSP supports the abolition of the GRC system to create a fairer and more representative Parliament.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I call on this House to support the Motion. For country, for people.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Raj Joshua Thomas.
Mr Raj Joshua Thomas (Nominated Member): Sir, I thank the hon Members from the PSP for raising this Motion.
A call to abolish the GRC system by an Opposition party is not new one. In a 2014 paper, the National Solidarity Party (NSP) called for this as well. It was also in the Workers' Party's (WP) 2020 elections manifesto under the heading \"Accountable Political and Governance Institutions\".
The NSP's key argument against the GRC system was that it essentially gave more power to a voted-in GRC because theoretically, one vote could elect several MPs, while in an SMC, one vote goes to elect only one MP.
NSP's Secretary-General called this a lack of parity between the weight of the votes. The paper further added that in Singapore at that time, winning an election by appealing to the voters on the basis of ethnicity was highly improbable.
Let me give emphasis to this. It said that it was highly improbable, which means that the NSP acknowledged that going down this line was a gamble. It felt that the odds were good, but it was nonetheless a gamble. And it is perhaps in this regard that the people also called for the introduction of a \"constituencies reserved for minority\" scheme in which some SMCs would be reserved for minority candidates.
The WP's argument in its manifesto was that Singapore had matured to a point that there is no evidence now that Singaporeans vote solely along racial lines.
The PSP has made further arguments today about why the GRC advantages the ruling party and disadvantages others and may not be in the interest of Singaporeans.
To quickly touch on the origins of the GRC system – the slated original purpose in 1988 was to guarantee a minimum representation of minorities in Parliament through a structural change to the electoral system. This would eliminate the possibility, however remote, of a Parliament where all elected Members were from a single race. And I must add that a Parliament where all Members are Chinese would have been a conceivable outcome of elections. Given that even as we call ourselves a multiracial society, our population is in fact overwhelmingly Chinese and, as such, it falls to reason that there is likely to be more Chinese candidates from both the ruling party and the Opposition.
Some opposition parties have previously expressed that it was difficult for them to attract enough good minority candidates to field several GRCs at that time. So, it would also have been possible that in the absence of GRCs, the slate of smaller opposition parties may have been entirely, or overwhelmingly, Chinese.
The move to introduce GRCs in 1988 was not the first time that concern over minority representation had been raised and mitigating factors considered. The Government in the early 1980s had considered a twinning model where candidates would have to contest in a pair in some constituencies, with one being a minority. This was dropped upon objection from minority MPs.
And even at the start of Singapore's Independence, minority representation was a concern. The 1966 Constitutional Commission chaired by the then Chief Justice considered this very question. Various proposals were made on how to ensure minority representation in Parliament, including having non-elected minority Members – similar to what the PSP is now proposing – having an Upper House with Members elected to represent various ethnic, religious and linguistic groups; and having representation outrightly proportionate to the racial composition of Singapore – also similar to something that the PSP is proposing. They were all rejected as inadequate structures.
So, this question of minority representation is one we have been pondering from the start of our Independence. Various models have been considered and, ultimately, we landed on the GRC system.
The PSP Motion raises many questions that have been asked before and that have been answered before. But PSP's position is that it is now the right time to reopen the matter and to relitigate on these questions. It appears to be also the position of other Opposition parties.
There is therefore a currency to that proposal and I will come to this point on currency shortly.
But I have some questions as regards the Motion and the proposals made by PSP. And I will also venture to answer my own questions. It is of course open to the PSP and indeed, any other party to disagree or agree with my answers.
My first question is: does the PSP accept that there is no perfect electoral system?
If we were to abolish the GRC system, then we would revert to an SMC first-past-the-post system – it is called the majority-to-reality system, within a Westminster Parliamentary Model.
SMCs have been criticised on various grounds, and alternatives like a party-list system had been proposed, which is a form of proportional representation. As regards to the first-past-the-post (FPTP) system, there are also a large number of criticisms. Such systems have been criticised for excluding minority parties who have won a particular share of the vote but did not manage to get past the post in any or many single-seat constituencies. It can lead to scenarios where a party can win over 40% of the vote but has little or no representation in Parliament. The FPTP system has also been found to be very difficult for minority and women candidates to do well in. They have encouraged the development of ethnic-based parties given rise to regional fiefdoms and resulted in large numbers of wasted votes.
There are many criticisms of the FPTP system. I have mentioned only some of the criticisms that have been raised by analysts and academics. And in fact, the Westminster system itself has been criticised on various grounds, but I would not go into details on this.
Likewise, for other types of systems, proportional representation, for example, is criticised for giving rise to gridlock in decision-making due to fractured legislatures. Of course, there are also advantages. Let me cover my views on what the PSP has proposed.
And the other systems, Sir, block vote systems, transferrable vote systems. There are so many of them and all of them have advantages and disadvantages. In other words, none of these systems are perfect systems and each country must decide on what is the most appropriate system for its own social, political and often, geographic context.
So, the PSP proposal is not a proposal to move to a perfect electoral system. It is a move to revert to a prior electoral system. And it is not even a proposal to correct the system but a proposal to transit to what is, in fact, another imperfect system. Even if we were to abolish the GRC system, Sir, and move and revert to what we had before, there would be criticisms of it – there would be advantages and there would be disadvantages as well. The question really is whether what the PSP is proposing is the best system in Singapore's context.
First, the PSP has proposed an NCMP for minorities. The question that arises here is whether we will be able to accept; will Singaporeans be able to accept a scenario in which many or most of our minority MPs are NCMPs? They would have no constituency experience and is it acceptable for most Singaporeans who have exposure only to a Chinese elected MP? This is a distinct possibility.
Second, as regards to proportional representation, I mentioned earlier some of the disadvantages, but all the countries that the hon Member Ms Poa referred to, are countries that have proportional representation systems that are not based on ethnicity, but they are instead based on party. One of the things that we need to think about is how this proposed system would square with the Westminster parliamentary system. In particular, how would the MPs elected be allocated to their constituencies? And, indeed, one of the criticisms of a proportional representation system is that it fails to provide a strong geographical linkage between an MP and an MP's electorate. And furthermore, a party-list system will subject all MPs, not only minority MPs, to the system, but it will provide a proviso for minorities, and this may lead to fractious legislatures.
Second, does the PSP accept that the GRC system has achieved its original primary objectives? My answer is quite clearly yes. We have good minority representation in the House. But more importantly, we have minority representation without concerns or issues of race being brought up during the elections. Let us understand what this means. It is a phenomenal feat. Race may not now be a consideration in the elections, not despite the GRC system but because of it. And the GRC system simply takes questions of race, religion and all of these other potentially divisive qualities out of the equation. I really hope that we recognise this.
In my view, it is difficult to argue that the GRC system has not met its primary objective and that is, to put it bluntly, to achieve fuss-free minority representation in Parliament, something that all the previous proposals may not have achieved.
Further to this, race is largely removed as a strategic consideration in how parties decide which candidate runs in which constituency.
If we were to abolish the GRC system, I imagine that race would invariably become one of the important considerations in where candidates run or where they are placed. I do not believe that parties would just be deploying candidates around willy-nilly and simply hope for the best. Such a party would not likely do well in the elections.
But what would happen if we abolished GRCs would be that race and religion would creep back into the party's considerations when determining their elections strategy. Furthermore, the GRC system has also worked to ensure that all parties contesting in the elections and in GRCs must themselves be multiracial. This can only be a good thing. And tellingly and surprisingly, I found that both of the PSP hon Members did not address whether the GRC system had achieved its original purpose in the first place of ensuring minority representation in Parliament.
Third, does the PSP accept that in politics, perception, suggestion and allegation can be as impactful as reality and, in fact, can be more dangerous?
Sir, in my Adjournment Motion on racial and religious harmony that I raised almost exactly two years ago, I said that in a multiracial country, the very perception of buyers in voting along racial lines is as dangerous as the reality. Suggestions and allegations play on the minds of the electorate especially now that such a large proportion of our population has access to the Internet. They may not be actionable falsehoods. They may be couched as opinions.
We further know that allegations have a way of continuing to colour impressions even after they had been disproved. These are the realities of politics.
In the various instances where a minority candidate had stood against a Chinese candidate in a SMC, the minority had won. And there are some examples that Ms Poa had raised. But let us just consider what if one of them had lost. Would there have been suggestions, allegations and the perception that he or she had lost because of race? I would venture to say that inevitably, there would be such suggestions and the allegations and the perception of racialism and race-based voting by some. And this could lead to racial unhappiness and distrust.
The current GRC system, in my view, does not even allow such perceptions to form. And I recall just a few days ago, that the hon Member Mr Leong had himself brought up how important perception is in politics. He raised this in relation to various comments he had come across online regarding the rental of the Singapore Land Authority (SLA) properties. So, Mr Leong is probably keenly aware of the need to manage perceptions in politics.
My fourth question is: does the PSP accept that Singapore's racial and religious harmony is hard fought and precious but also fragile? Does the PSP accept that even if we currently have some form of ethnic and religious modus vivendi, that this may change in the future?
I mentioned earlier that I would deal with the point on currency. If we look at the positions taken by all the political parties that I mentioned, they underscore their call for abolishing the GRC system on the fact that at this current point, Singaporeans are unlikely to vote based on race and that there is no evidence showing the same. But inherent in the fact that they qualify that this is the current situation and hence, we should consider abolishing GRCs now, is an admission that it may not have been the same in the past, that things had changed over time. And this is the fundamental flaw in their argument.
If things can change for the better, they can also change for the worst. And history, Sir, is rife with examples of people of different ethnicities, living next to each other peacefully for centuries and then, something happens, it is a small spark, a disagreement. A misunderstanding, and they descend into conflict. Countries have descended into civil war in this way.
In Singapore, we have seen flashpoints of racial unease and tension arise from time to time. This was the trigger for my Adjournment Motion on racial and religious harmony. Even something that, for some, was simple and innocuous, like the use of a cut-out standee, was seen by others as evidence of insensitivity towards ethnic minorities or discrimination and lack of understanding. A Government body was even accused of racism.
There are allegations of Chinese privilege in Singapore. There are uncles scolding interracial couples in the street.
These, Sir, are arguably small incidents, non-political matters that had, nonetheless, evoked significant feeling in minority communities as well as in the majority Chinese community.
Fifth, given all of the above, does the PSP therefore accept that abolishing the GRC system is an experiment? It is a gamble for which if we lose, we stand to jeopardise the very unity of our country. Further to the fact that all the calls for abolition of premise on current situation, they are also premised on likelihood. There is no certainty. The calls are carefully qualified. NSP uses the phrase \"highly improbable\"; WP's proposal is based on there being no evidence that voters vote solely on the basis of race, and \"solely\", of course, is in absolute term. The underlying admission is that it could be one of the considerations but not the sole consideration. And PSP has proposed alternatives that admit that there is yet a concern because they are suggesting something else that will help to ameliorate the concern over minority representation.
I imagine this Motion is timed to coincide with the Presidential Elections where we may see an ethnic minority candidate pitted against one or more Chinese candidates, based just on the fact that several nomination forms were collected. And this was referred to by Ms Poa.
Mr Leong also dedicated a large proportion of his speech to the elected Presidency despite this Motion being about GRCs. But some have been saying that if Senior Minister Tharman, the minority candidate, wins, then this shows that the GRC system has become irrelevant because he had won against one or more Chinese candidates. I do not think this is a fair or logical argument. Senior Minister Tharman can only be described as a rather exceptional creature. And Mr Murali was also mentioned but he had very considerable grassroots experience in Bukit Batok before he ran. So, these are exceptions and we should not use exceptions to make rules.
While we can aspire towards being blind to race, we should not be blind to the reality of ethnic feeling, especially those of minorities. The incidents I previously mentioned tested our unity and we must not dismiss the fact that racial politics is the fastest and most furious means to tear a society apart. It develops quickly, it spreads fast. We may be idealistically thinking that we are beyond all these things now. But we know that our racial unity is fragile. I do not think anybody would argue against this. And we know that we must work hard to keep it together.
In the event that it deteriorates for whatever reason – and we cannot discount this possibility – we must ensure that our structures of Government and elections are able to withstand changing circumstances. The question is how should our institutions be built? Fluffy, feel-good institutions that hope for the best of times or robust, resilient institutions that can withstand the worst?
My final question is: does the PSP accept that the advantages of the GRC system can be ameliorated to a satisfactory extent by reducing the sizes of GRCs and increasing the number of SMCs, while at the same time, preserving its advantages? In particular, a fuss-free minority representation in Parliament.
This brings me full circle to my first point that there is no perfect electoral system. The natural question is whether we can work with what we have to tweak it such that the disadvantages are minimised while maintaining the good in the system.
We should not throw away the baby with the bathwater. The Government has already committed to reducing the sizes of GRCs and introducing more SMCs. And as Mr Leong mentioned, this has already happened. Is this sufficient mitigation to the concerns that the PSP has raised about MPs sitting on the coat-tails of Ministers, voters voting on the \"fear to lose\" basis? And these may be characterised more as political concerns, not social concerns of which the GRC system was built.
Sir, to conclude, in a reply to then NMP Viswa Sadasivan, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, in one of his last major speeches in Parliament, schooled this House in what can only be described as racial realpolitik. Mr Lee was replying to a Motion by the NMP that included a call to move beyond race and to treat everyone as equal.
This call to abolish the GRC system is premised on these very same ideas that Singaporeans have moved beyond race; that in voting, we will consider every candidate only on the relevant merits and be more or less blind to race. It also expects that in a situation where a minority candidate loses, as inevitably one eventually will, there will be little or no perception that race did not contribute to that loss.
In response to that the NMP's call that all are equal and should be treated equally, Mr Lee said, and I quote, \"It is not reality, it is not practical, it will lead to grave and irreparable damage if we work on that principle.\" He went on to say, \"The way that Singapore has made progress is by a realistic step-by-step forward approach.\" He ended his speech by saying, \"Perhaps, I should bring this House back to earth and remind everybody what is our starting point, what is our base and if we do not recognise where we started from and that these are our foundations, we will fail.\"
So, let us be realistic and make decisions not on aspiration or idealism. This Motion invites this House to embark on an experiment; a perpetual experiment if we abolish the GRC system, which we will have to head into every future election with and with every future candidate and every future contesting party must contend with. What if racial relations deteriorate over time? What if we have a troublemaker intent on using race to gain political advantage within the electoral system?
Sir, if this experiment fails, if we lose this gamble, it is the PSP that loses. It is Singapore that loses and it is our fellow Singaporeans who will lose. We should not make this gamble. And it is in this regard that I will not support the Motion. [Applause.]
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Mark Chay.
Mr Mark Chay (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, I am grateful, for the opportunity to express my thoughts on the Motion presented by NCMPs Ms Hazel Poa and Mr Leong Mun Wai regarding GRCs.
GRCs are unique to Singapore's electoral landscape and require political parties to field candidates from different races in the GRC team to ensure that minority representation in Parliament is upheld. This system helps to promote inter-ethnic understanding and cooperation, enabling minority candidates to be elected to Parliament and ensuring that their voices are heard at the national level. The GRC plays an important role in maintaining Singapore's social fabric and promoting racial harmony, which is critical in a diverse nation like Singapore. And this is why I cannot support the Motion.
However, I would like to raise three points on GRCs. First, I would like to propose reducing the maximum number of individuals allowed in a GRC, reducing the area or boundaries covered by a GRC, and increasing the number of SMCs. This would increase the competition and diversity in elections. By reducing the size of GRCs, it is easier for Opposition parties to field credible candidates to contest every seat and could lead to greater voter choice and accountability for elected officials. Additionally, reducing the size of GRCs could help to promote greater representation of minority groups and communities in Parliament.
Second, I would like to propose that more seats be made available in Parliament through SMCs. Singapore's population is increasing and the needs of Singaporeans have also increased. I would encourage the Government to continue to increase the number of Parliamentarians in Parliament to increase the diversity in the discussions here today.
Thirdly, another area where GRCs can be improved is in terms of diversity. The Elections Department of Singapore requires a minimum of one MP representing a minority racial community in a GRC. While GRCs aim to achieve minority representation in Parliament, there should also be diversity in terms of gender representation as well. Mandating having at least one female representative in the GRC would increase the number of female Parliamentarians, adding to the diverse discussions and debates here.
Ultimately, Singapore is a democratic society, and the power rests with the voters, who should decide who represents them in Parliament. All politicians should earn their votes by convincing voters that they are the best candidates to represent Singaporeans' interests and values. This involves engaging with voters, listening to their concerns and communicating a clear vision for the future. This goes for every Member here – PAP, WP, PSP or not.
At this juncture, I would like to address a view shared by hon Member Hazel Poa that GRCs have the potential to enable more popular MPs to carry less popular ones into Parliament, or coat-tailing. Whether this view has merit or not, reducing the number of representatives in a GRC could increase the power of the electorate and enable Singaporeans to hold their elected representatives accountable. It is important for Parliamentarians to be accountable to their constituents and to work hard to earn their trust and support. This means being transparent about their actions and decisions, seeking feedback from voters, and working collaboratively with their stakeholders to achieve common goals.
Like what my fellow NMP Raj Joshua Thomas has mentioned, the PSP must understand that there is no perfect system and we should be striving for the best system for Singapore and Singaporeans today.
Finally, any decision on abolishing GRCs needs to be carefully considered to ensure that it promotes diversity and inclusivity without reducing representation for minority communities. It is crucial to consider the potential impacts of abolishing GRCs before making any changes to the electoral system. Any changes made should promote greater diversity and inclusivity in political representation and not inadvertently lead to a reduction in representation for minorities.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Janet Ang.
Ms Janet Ang (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to join in this debate on the Motion raised by hon NCMPs, Ms Hazel Poa and Mr Leong Mun Wai, that this House calls for the abolition of GRCs. To I start off, I stand not in support of the Motion, but I thank Mr Leong, as always, giving me homework to do. Because of this Motion, I must admit that I learned a lot more about GRCs.
Let me start by first looking at why GRCs in the first place – what are the key reasons for setting up GRCs; then assess if GRCs have delivered on those objectives; and finally, whether GRCs are still relevant today.
Why GRCs in the first place? According to Singapore InfoPedia, the setting up of GRCs was to ensure that Singapore’s Parliament would always be multiracial in composition and representation. The constitution stipulates that teams for candidates standing for election in a GRC must include at least one member from a minority community. GRCs were put into practice in the 1988 General Elections.
To understand better, I researched to understand the history of GRCs-in-the-making. The issue of ensuring minority ethnic representation in Parliament was first raised by then Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew in July 1982. In addition to the concept of GRC, which was then termed the \"Team MP\" concept, there were actually different proposals raised by both PAP and Opposition parties at that time, which included “twin constituencies”, “giving minority voters extra vote”, “communal based constituencies”, “dividing Parliament along communal lines” and so on.
In an article that summarised the history of the making the GRC, it was said that the GRC concept was fleshed out after a long-drawn debate which included representations made to a Parliamentary Select Committee. The Committee was set up to investigate public support for the scheme and see if there was a better proposal to ensure multiracial representation in Parliament. The Committee received public submissions, 81% supporting the need to ensure a multiracial Parliament, 52% supporting to achieve it with the GRC scheme and 29% supporting the need to ensure a multiracial Parliament but with concepts other than the GRC, which were some of those examples I gave earlier.
It was a controversial issue as race was openly discussed for the first time at that time. It was controversial as critics saw it as a ploy to handicap the diminutive Opposition further at that time.
Finally, in January 1988, the GRC was tabled for Second Reading in Parliament by Mr Goh Chok Tong. There were two issues debated: the first is with regard to the principle of ensuring that Parliament is multiracial in composition because Singapore is a multiracial society; and the second is with regard to the “how to achieve it”.
The first issue was agreed to unanimously in the House, including opposition Members of Parliament at that time. The second issue of “how” was of course, hotly debated. Like already discussed by my fellow NMPs, the GRC while not perfect, was decided to have the best chance to ensure that Singapore’s Parliament would always be multiracial in composition and representation. The Bill was passed in Parliament on 18 May 1988.
Thirty-five years on, has the GRC delivered on its promise? Today in Parliament, in 2023, we have 28.3% of all elected MPs in Parliament, excluding NMPs and NCMPs who are from minority communities as compared to 19.5% back in 1987. So, 19.5%, today we have 28.3%, considering I am not even going to talk about all the positives, the achievements, and the growth that Singapore has experienced and attained in the last 35 years.
Next, is the GRC concept still relevant today? Mr Goh Chok Tong in his Second Reading speech in January 1988 to move the Bill to implement GRCs, said, “this Bill is to ensure the long-term political stability of Singapore in two ways: first by ensuring that Parliament will always be multiracial and representative of our society; and second by encouraging the practice of multiracial politics by all political parties. Singapore is a multiracial, multi-religious society, but not by chance. For Singaporeans to enjoy racial and religious harmony, the PAP and the Government consider multiracialism to be a fundamental axiom of politics in Singapore.”
These words still ring true today. Perhaps even more so today as the world is becoming more polarised and social media content carrying falsehoods and rhetoric that are not helpful for building cohesive societies, is everywhere. We can see it across the globe. Closer to home, we might recall the sad incident of a lecturer, Mr Tan, who made racist remarks against an interracial couple, and had to be taken to task. One might say that this was just an incident. But we must face the realities that Singapore is not homogenous, and our multiracial harmony must not be taken for granted.
Well, I added another question to my three questions, because I was just analysing, I have no recommendations for anybody. There is this whole big thing about a conspiracy theory that GRCs was a ploy by the PAP to handicap the Opposition.
As published in an Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) article in 2013, “In fact, the winner-takes-all effect of GRC does not disadvantage credible opposition but in fact, GRC also advantages the opposition, as it can knock out an entire team of PAP candidates in one constituency, as it did in Aljunied GRC in 2011, when the Workers' Party dislodged the PAP slate consisting of three political officeholders and one newbie touted as a future Minister.” I believe the \"newbie\" made it.
The results of the GE 2011 and then GE 2020 should put any conspiracy theory to bed. With the GRC concept, all the political parties need to have the gravitas to be able to attract a strong diverse slate of men and women that reflects multiracial Singapore; to contest in elections on a multiracial platform and not with communal or racial undertone; and when they win, be part of a multiracial Parliament that represents our society.
So, it looks like the key issue is perhaps the size of the GRC and the number of SMCs, which I am sure the Government is listening very carefully to and will make the right call.
For me, before I close, if you may indulge me as I share a few thoughts. I cannot believe I am making my last speech in Parliament on such a matter. But still, please indulge me.
Firstly, I think conspiracy theories and rumour-mongering not backed up by facts and data, and which is plainly untruths, should not be entertained. This is likened to poisoning our own body, that is, Singapore our country and our home, and causing self-harm to ourselves as a nation. I say this not only for politicians, but actually for all Singaporeans.
Secondly, it would do each of us well to remember that we did not get to where we are today on our own but on the collective determination of our founding leaders, Pioneer and Merdeka generations, and the successive generations of leaders in Government, in politics, in Public Service, in civil society and in business, to survive post-Independence and then to build and grow to become the Singapore that we are today, a nation we can call our own home. Let us not mess it up for our children.
Thirdly, Parliament is serious business of governing a country. At the same time, it is political, and those involved can oftentimes feel like it is a thankless job, one that is subject to public scrutiny and even unscrupulous character assassination at the will of dirty politics. To ensure that our Parliament continues to govern well, we will need good leaders to step forward, to serve Singaporeans, to do it out of love for Singapore, for the common good for all in Singapore.
Singapore is a multiracial, multi-religious society not by chance and we need to guard our multiracial harmony very carefully. We will always be a work in progress and we cannot take it for granted.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I do not support the Motion for abolishing GRCs. [Applause.]
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Murali Pillai.
Mr Murali Pillai (Bukit Batok): Mr Deputy Speaker, this is not the first time that this House heard the debate in relation to the merits of having a GRC system which was implemented in 1988.
I do recognise though that there will always be a group of young Singaporeans who will be reaching the age of majority to vote in the next GE. Naturally, they would not have had the chance to follow the debate that led to the implementation of this GRC system some 35 years ago.
Hence, I do see some utility in having this topic raised here, once again, in this House to provide our younger voters an opportunity to appreciate the reasons for the system and the arguments presented on both sides of the aisle as to whether the system continues to be fit for purpose. For that reason, I thank the hon NCMPs, Ms Poa and Mr Leong, for providing me with the chance to speak on this Motion standing in their names.
Sir, I would like to make a case for the GRC system to be retained. I will draw from my own experience in standing for elections as a PAP candidate in an SMC as well as in a GRC. Before I do so, I would like to make three preliminary points.
First, based on the speeches that I have heard thus far, I assume that all in this House are united in the wish to see adequate representation of minority races in this House.
Second, on the quintessential matter of managing race relations, the preferred approach of the Government must be to deal with the facts as they are. Where the assessment is that race continues to matter in our society, the approach of the Government cannot be to blithely ignore it but to address the issue head on.
This is a point that the then hon MP, Mr Chiam See Tong, who was often referred to as a doyen amongst Opposition MPs, agreed to in the Select Committee hearing on the GRC system in 1988.
Third and finally, I accept that the GRC system has its shortcomings. In fact, in my research, I noted that the Government, when it introduced the GRC system in this House, also candidly acknowledged that it is not a perfect system.
One shortcoming perceived among political observers and academics is that the GRC system requires minority representation at the point of elections but not during the subsistence or the tenure of MPs. This is a point that has been settled by the highest Court of our land in interpreting the legal provisions setting up the GRC system in 1988.
The explanation of the Government that was expressly noted by the Court is that the system must ensure that the candidates from the minority race should not be able to hold the other candidates in the team to ransom to force a re-election. This is a point that the hon NCMP, Ms Poa, raised in her speech.
Whilst there is logic in the reasoning, I do accept, as she did, that not all fellow Singaporeans feel comfortable with it. At the end of the day, though, whilst the system is not perfect, the GRC system does reflect the single most important priority for Singaporeans – that the highest law-making power of our land rests in the hands of representatives from all races in order that the way we order our society reflects the interests of all.
Singapore cannot and will not be fractured along racial lines, not just because we ensure that there is an adequate number of elected representatives from minority races but also because the way we do so refuses to allow politics to be conducted on racial lines.
Ms Poa came up with two ideas – the equivalent of the NCMP system as well as a Parliament based on proportional system. She suggested that there is no need to rush with the consideration of these ideas. But what is noteworthy is that this Motion calls for this House to abolish the GRC system. It would be irresponsible for this House to abolish the GRC system and then consider what should be the system to replace it.
The GRC system, to me, is a most underrated structure in giving Singapore politics its unique character. It is a paradox that both elevates race and takes away its sting. The first, it does by ensuring minority representation; and the second, it does by removing the leverages of communal politics.
To illustrate, I now turn to my personal experience.
To my knowledge, I am the second minority candidate that the PAP fielded in an SMC since the implementation of the GRC system in 1988. In fact, I was fielded twice.
When I stood for elections in the 2016 by-election at Bukit Batok SMC, I was not exactly a newbie. I had the privilege of serving in Bukit Batok as a community leader and a PAP branch activist for about 16 years.
My mentor was the late Dr Ong Chit Chung, then MP for Bukit Batok between 1988 and 2008 when he passed away. I was his Branch Secretary. During the three years after he passed away, between 2008 and 2011, when the next GE was held, I worked very closely with our community leaders to hold things together at our constituency.
Also, by 2016, I managed to get some political experience under my belt. Between 2011 and 2015, I served as the Branch Chairman of the PAP Paya Lebar Branch. In my capacity as Branch Chairman, I gained a tremendous amount of experience in leading both political and community outreach programmes for the benefit of residents there. I also stood for elections as part of a team of five in Aljunied GRC in GE 2015. We lost the elections but gained much in terms of practical experience and insights.
So, even though I was going into the 2016 by-election as a first-time candidate at an SMC, I had some lines of experience. In the result, the people of Bukit Batok voted me in as their MP in May 2016.
I would highlight that during the campaign, I had to address the very fair point as to whether, being not conversant in Mandarin, I would be able to engage Mandarin-speaking residents. I did not see this as a racial issue but a practical one. I appreciated that Mandarin-speaking residents would naturally be concerned that if I am not able to understand them, I would have difficulty in representing their interests.
As it turned out, I was able to convince my constituents that I would work harder to overcome the language barrier with my team of volunteers. It also helped that I could hold a simple conversation in Mandarin.
By the time of the 2020 GE, the PAP decided to field me again at Bukit Batok SMC. As an incumbent candidate, I had established a record of service which I put forth before my constituents for their consideration. I had a tough election battle in GE 2020. In the result, I was fortunate to be returned as MP for Bukit Batok once again, albeit with a reduced majority.
To be elected twice as an MP from a minority race in Bukit Batok SMC is certainly one of the high points in my life. To me, I read it as the constituents of Bukit Batok acknowledging that, overall, having regard to my character, record and experience, the fact that I was from a minority race was not an issue to them.
To some, this may seem to argue that we do not need the GRC system, since a minority candidate can win an SMC of majority Chinese. This was something that Ms Poa alluded to in her speech. They may also quote Senior Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam who led his team to secure the highest levels of support in a GRC in GEs twice – also something raised in the debate today. They may say that voters are fair-minded, can see beyond race and we should respect this.
Voters are indeed fair-minded. But having said that, Iet me show you the realpolitik on the ground – attempts to politicise race issues during both campaigns at Bukit Batok SMC which, thankfully, failed.
In the first campaign in 2016, the situation was concerning enough for Prime Minister Lee, as the Secretary-General of the PAP, to speak out against online comments and whispers that went around Bukit Batok asking Chinese voters to cast their ballots along racial lines on 30 April 2016. This was widely reported in the press.
Mr Lee said, \"it is not unknown for racial sentiments to emerge and be exploited during election campaign.\" In particular, he said that he came across comments in the social media making the point about race in \"quite an open way.\" During a press interview on the same day, I frankly acknowledged that race issues are present in our society but expressed my confidence that I can overcome these issues with my team.
In the second campaign in 2020, I continued to encounter politicisation along racial lines. Let me illustrate this through a picture. As they say, a picture speaks a thousand words.
With your permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, may I display a photo on the LED screens?
Mr Deputy Speaker: Yes, please. [A slide was shown to hon Members.]
Mr Murali Pillai: The LED screens show a blown-up photo of a flyer used in my campaign in GE 2020 that was defaced. I think hon Members looking at this slide will straightway appreciate the racial undertones quite quickly. The graffiti was an attempt to make me even more Indian, as if my name and skin colour were too understated.
I got this photo from a resident who was upset about the matter. She pointed out to me that there was a Chinese character written over my chest which was partially hidden through colouring over the character. The character is \"die\". When I had occasion to review the photo whilst drafting this speech, I realised the same character was written on both hands, too.
How Indian must I be to be oblivious to a Chinese calling for my death? And yet, perhaps fortunately, how Singaporean can I be to get the job done and meet my key performance indicators (KPIs)?
When I saw the attempts to politicise the elections on racial lines, I made a decision not to be distracted. I focused on what I believed were the priorities of my constituents.
Hon Members would recall that at the Opening of this Session of Parliament following GE 2020, I said that all of us in politics must grow the skin of a rhino and the heart of a lion. You now know what precipitated my remarks.
When I stood for elections in Aljunied GRC in 2015, I certainly did not see similar attempts at racial politicisation. I personally think that the reason for this is attributable to the fact that I stood as part of a team in a GRC. It would be difficult for any person to exploit matters along racial lines during elections when the political parties in the contest fielded minority candidates in their respective teams. In a GRC fight, we are in it together. The GRC is a compound, not a mixture that can pried away, one element from another.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, on the basis of my experience having fought in three elections at a GRC and SMC, I would respectfully suggest that the GRC system continues to be important to ensure that we will be able to get appropriate representation in this House from minority races.
The fact that I won two elections in an SMC does not provide grounds to do away with the GRC system. I pointed out that I was not a newbie. However, even then, I faced coordinated attempts to politicise the campaign along racial lines, which were rebuffed by Bukit Batok voters. Thankfully, I had thick skin and I was able to focus on my campaign.
About a week ago, I shared with my elder daughter, a teenager, that I will be speaking on race issues in connection with this Motion. In response, she told me that during the 2020 hustings – she would have been in primary school then – she came across an outright racist remark about me on Twitter.
She was upset about the matter. She, however, decided not to tell me about it because she felt that I was already going through a tough election. She was protecting me at a time when actually it is the father's duty to protect the child.
I looked at her carefully when she told me this. She had a habit of biting her lips when she was upset. Thankfully, she did not. She is now at peace, although she had to grow up much faster as a result.
I ask hon Members from the majority race in this House. Imagine that you are from a minority race. Would you want to put your own son or daughter through an election in a situation where there is a good probability that your child may be excoriated simply on account of his or her race?
If the GRC system is abolished, we will have to contend with the scenario that good people from minority races, knowing that there is a danger of elections being politicised along racial lines, may just decide this is too much trouble and not run for elections. They will not be prepared to be made fun of along racial lines.
Is that what we want? Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I have said that the Singaporean approach to difficult issues is to “deal with the facts as they are” and not as we wish them to be. We have made progress from the days of race riots, but we need to be honest and realistic about race relations always.
I can speak simple Mandarin, I can have political experience, I can rise above racial needling, but after all this, let us be honest, I am still “too Indian” for some voters.
There may be a time when race may not matter. But that is not now. Until that day, we will still need the GRC. Because in a GRC, you are not going to go up against any particular race, but a coalition of us, bound together by the collective interests of the GRC and of Singapore. Each of us is constitutive of this group, this compound that forms a protective coating against racial attacks, from wherever they come, and against any of us from any race. Only then, we can hope to succeed, regardless of race, language or religion.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Minister Chan Chun Sing.
The Minister for Education (Mr Chan Chun Sing): Mr Deputy Speaker, I listened carefully to all the speeches made, particularly the ones made by Mr Leong Mun Wai and Ms Hazel Poa to move this Motion. But perhaps, I should just clarify before I stray out of order, that this Motion calls for the abolition of the GRC, and not about the Elected Presidency. Because I appreciate Ms Hazel Poa's various ideas and suggestions, but I was a bit confused by Mr Leong's speech that spent the greater bulk of his comment on the Elected Presidency. So, if I stick narrowly to the Motion, I think I should confine my comments to the debate on the GRC today.
I would also like to thank Mr Murali for sharing his very personal experiences and reflections. I would like to thank Mr Raj Joshua Thomas, Mr Mark Chay and Ms Janet Ang for their very incisive, heartfelt and non-partisan views.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Motion put forth today, calling for GRCs to be abolished, comes down to the fundamental philosophy and principles that underpin why this House had agreed to have the GRC system in the first place. The question is: do we, as a people and as a system, believe in ensuring that the Parliament, our highest legislative body of the land, is representative of a multiracial Singapore? Or, as Mr Raj Joshua Thomas said, are we willing to take the risk of rule by majority without safeguards for our minority communities, without safeguards against racial politics that can easily tear apart the fabric of our nation?
These are the fundamental issues in discussing this Motion and it forms the basis of why we have the GRCs. So, I ask all Members of this House to carefully consider this when we vote on the Motion later.
Members have also given their views on the design of the GRC system, such as the sizes and number of GRCs that we should have. I will address these issues in my speech. But let me first address the Motion put before us, because this is not a Motion for reforming GRCs. This is a Motion that calls for the GRC system to be abolished altogether. It is the principle of the GRC system that is at stake here today.
Finally, I shall conclude by making some observations on how we learn from the experiences of other countries when we design, operate and evolve our own systems, but how we should not copy blindly. We will always seek to develop models, and we must always seek to develop models that best meet our needs and circumstances.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, let me start with the two fundamental considerations for our predecessors when they introduced the GRC system – first, to ensure that this House reflects the multiracial make-up of our people; and second, that our politics do not become racially charged. Both are important.
When Independence was thrust upon us, we could easily have chosen to organise ourselves based on majoritarian rule. But we did not. Instead, since Independence, we have always been sensitive to the needs of our minorities, especially for the majority to exercise greater responsibility to ensure that the rights and interests of our minorities are not neglected.
In our Constitution, we recognise and safeguard the special position of the Malays as the indigenous people of Singapore. We also clearly state, “It shall be the responsibility of the Government constantly to care for the interests of the racial and religious minorities in Singapore”.
We prohibited discrimination against citizens on the grounds of race. We instituted the Presidential Council for Minority Rights, or PCMR in short, to ensure that new laws passed by Parliament do not prejudice any racial or religious community. We put in place guardrails because we value multiracialism.
The GRC system is an extension of this philosophy – to minimise the risk that this House no longer represents our multiracial demography and ride roughshod over the interests of our minority communities. Our GRC system guarantees that Parliament will always be multiracial and representative of the make-up of our society.
Next, because the GRC system requires constituencies to be contested by multiracial teams of candidates, political parties and their candidates have to take a moderate, multiracial approach when campaigning instead of a communal or racially extreme approach. This means we minimise the risk that any party can try to win votes by playing the race card. Ms Poa’s alternative suggestions of minority NCMP and proportional representation do not address this point and I will come back to explain this in a while.
This issue matters, especially in hotly contested seats where an appeal to race could shape the outcome of a contest. This is very real, as the hon Member for Bukit Batok had just shared.
This matters and will continue to matter, even if a GRC loses its minority Member, through illness or resignation, during the Parliamentary term. Because any party that wants to be re-elected will know the importance of winning the support of all races. This is an important safeguard to prevent our politics from becoming racial.
So, contrary to what was claimed by Ms Poa, the GRC system does not divide us by race. In fact, it is designed to disincentivise the appeal of race in politics to minimise the chances and leverage that people can use race in an electoral contest.
Those are the core issues and the fundamental issues. Let me now deal with the second-order executional issues.
First is the claim that GRCs unfairly benefit the incumbent by tapping on the “star power” in each team. Otherwise, in Ms Poa's words, it is known as the “coat-tail” argument. I do not think that “star power” is the preserve of the incumbent. Various speakers before me have shared that. One can argue that the “star power” of Mr Low Thia Khiang would have contributed much to the Workers’ Party’s electoral success in Aljunied in 2011. Likewise, maybe you would also agree with me that few would deny that the “star power” of Dr Tan Cheng Bock has contributed much to PSP's showing in West Coast in 2020, leading to both Mr Leong Mun Wai and Ms Hazel Poa being the two NCMPs in our House today.
Conversely, the “star power” can cut the other way. Should a member of the team, Minister or otherwise, become a liability, he or she can also affect the electoral performance of the entire team to the team’s detriment.
Second is the size of the GRC. Various Members have suggested for the GRC size to be smaller or having more SMCs. As Members have pointed out, the average size of the GRC has come down and the number of SMCs has gone up in the last two elections. There was no six-member GRC in GE2020.
And I want everyone to know that the Government understands the sentiments of our people, and I am sure the Electoral Boundaries Review Committee (EBRC) here can appreciate the aspirations of our people. Ultimately, the EBRC will take into consideration various factors, including what was mentioned today, to decide on the boundaries. It is not for the Government of the day to decide, as suggested by Mr Leong. The Government of the day has made clear our position. Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has made clear our position. And it is the collective decision of the Government of the day, not any particular individual and not whether is it Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong or otherwise.
Next, I want to touch on this other point, which is related to the size and shape of the electoral division. Mr Leong suggested that every of our divisions is rather homogenous in its characteristics. Indeed, so. The question is: are we better served if our divisions are not microcosms of the country but, instead, across our island, we have divisions that have very unique and skewed characteristics, and maybe even along racial lines?
If so, what kind of outcomes do we expect from such electoral contests? The reason and the advantage of all divisions being microcosms – plus or minus a bit – of the national characteristics allows everyone to focus our selection of the candidates to represent them based on our collective national interest, and not on sectoral characteristics or interests. Consider this carefully. In other countries, they have gone exactly that way, where electoral contests are fought on narrow sectoral interests or characteristics.
However, perhaps I have strayed. We can debate and evolve these features. It does not detract from the underlying fundamental reasons of having the GRC system to ensure that our Parliament remains multiracial and our politics non-racial.
Third is on the need to call a by-election to fill a position vacated by a minority or any other Member. This has been debated and clarified in this House and I will not repeat all the arguments.
The Courts have settled the law on this. Members may wish to refer to the 2017 High Court decision to dismiss the application filed by Dr Wong Souk Yee for a by-election to be held in Marsiling-Yew Tee GRC after Mdm Halimah Yacob resigned her seat as Member of Parliament to stand for the Presidential Election. Dr Wong subsequently filed an appeal over the ruling. However, the Court of Appeal ruled that there was no requirement for a by-election to be called in Marsiling-Yew Tee GRC after Mdm Halimah Yacob resigned her seat as Member of Parliament to stand for the Presidential Election.
In a GRC contest, the voters vote for the team and it is the GRC team that represents the GRC and all its constituents in Parliament. Not requiring a by-election to fill the position vacated by a minority or any other Member is to prevent any single team member holding the rest to ransom by threatening to step down, as Members have also pointed out.
This also does not detract from the fact that no one can hope to gain electoral advantage by playing on race, as the team would still be required to be multiracial in their approach and advocacy of Singaporeans' interests to appeal to all races in the next election.
Fourth, the claim that the GRC system has stunted the growth of the Opposition. As Mr Leong pointed out, before the introduction of the GRC system, we had only two Opposition Members in 1984. After the 2020 GE, we now have 10 Opposition Members elected to this House as well as two NCMPs.
I think it would be fair to say that the number of Opposition Members in this House ultimately depends more on the quality of the candidates, and whether they are able to secure the support of the Singaporeans to be elected to Parliament, than just whether they are competing in a SMC or GRC.
If PSP truly believes that the GRC system disadvantages you, then I find it odd that you sent 19 of your 24 candidates to contest in four GRCs in the most recent GE, instead of contesting in all the SMCs possible. Unless the constraint was due to the inability to attract sufficient quality minority candidates. If so, then this is precisely what the GRC system seeks to do – prevent single-race party campaigning along racial lines.
Fifth, why not have other forms of proportional representation system to ensure minority representation in this House, as suggested by Ms Poa? This issue has been debated extensively in this House, and I will, again, not repeat all the arguments. Members may wish to refer to the Hansard, in particular the speech by the Prime Minister on 27 January 2016, during the debate on the President's Address.
In essence, a proportional representation system will result in parties based on race and religion, or a special interest. Some parties will be incentivised to build their base around a particular interest in order to win seats, rather than to appeal to a broad majority of voters.
Ms Poa also suggested having an NCMP scheme for minorities, so that minority candidates who lost the contest in SMCs but have the highest percentage of votes can be appointed as NCMPs. I thought deeply about this suggestion. But unfortunately, I do not think it will achieve our objectives of ensuring Parliament is multiracial and minimising the chances of candidates and parties playing the race card. Let me explain.
First, if we only have SMCs, there is no guarantee that there will even be enough minority candidates among the losing candidates. If we only have SMCs, there is no guarantee that we will even have enough minority candidates among the losing candidates.
Second, more importantly, the NCMP system comes into play when the ruling party has a large majority in Parliament. By Ms Hazel's suggestion, it will come into play when the ruling party has a large majority without minority Members, or with very few minority Members. Would you not agree with me? If that is the case, Ms Poa's proposed system will then bring in the unsuccessful minority candidates who performed the best. And what will be the result? We would then be likely to have, as Mr Raj Joshua Thomas have pointed out, a predominantly Chinese party in power, with minority Members or NCMPs in the Opposition. Parliament would then be divided along racial lines. Our political divide will be along racial lines. And this, if I may suggest, will be most dangerous for Singapore.
Various Opposition Members have also previously criticised the NCMP scheme as being a second-class MP scheme. If this is true, can we imagine a situation where the minorities are all or largely in the NCMPs or party list as a group, while the rest or a vast majority of the elected MPs being the racial majority? Is this a better outcome for us in this House? Is this a better outcome for Singapore?
So, I have thought deeply about your suggestions, but unfortunately, I do not think it will solve our problems. If not, it will complicate things even more.
At the beginning of my speech, I highlighted the twin objectives of the GRC system, and they bear reminding – one, to ensure that our Parliament will always be representative of the racial make-up of our society; and two, to ensure that our politics do not become racially charged. These two objectives are equally important and Ms Poa's suggestions will unfortunately not ensure that our politics do not become racially charged.
Let me move on to another important set of issues. PSP made the argument that we should move beyond race. And Workers' Party (WP) says that \"we are confident that Singaporeans do not vote solely on race\". We agree. I am sure Singaporeans do not vote solely on the basis of race, but that is not the question before us.
The question before us is: \"should race be a critical factor in their decision, even if it is not the only factor?\" And to PSP's and some other Opposition suggestions that we should move beyond race, we all agree with this aspiration. I am sure I have the support of every Member of this House to support this, that we all aspire to move beyond race. Indeed, I will be the first to aspire to the day where we have a Singaporean tribe, regardless of race, language and religion, that we have all gone beyond race.
We recite it in our pledge every day – \"We, the citizens of Singapore, pledge ourselves as one united people, regardless of race, language or religion\". We recite it every day. One united people, regardless of race, language or religion. But having an aspiration is not the same as it being a reality today. Members may wish to revisit the exchange recorded in the Hansard between the late-Mr Lee Kuan Yew and then-NMP Mr Viswa Sadasivan on this issue on 19 August 2009, as referenced by Mr Raj Joshua Thomas in his speech. This was the speech where many of us learned the phrase \"highfalutin\".
More recently in 2021, a survey conducted by CNA and Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) found that there is still in-group preference with respondents preferring those who are racially similar to themselves for many roles. And I will personally be very careful and not ignore the realities that we are still confronting today.
Many Members have shared your own personal stories. Are Singaporeans racists? No. Even if there are a few bad hats, they do not represent us as a people. Are Singaporeans beyond race? I think we have gotten nearer today than yesterday and I am confident we will be even nearer tomorrow. But are we there yet? So let us, and we will, endeavour and commit to making progress continuously. Are all race issues beyond us? I think we all know the answers in our hearts.
I do not take this lightly because I have to deal with them personally, sometimes in life and death situations. Let me share my own personal experiences.
Mr Deputy Speaker: My apologies, Minister Chan. Just before you do that, we need an extension of time before 7.00 pm. So, could I invite Deputy Leader?
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Exempted Business","subTitle":"Business Motion","sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Resolved, \"That the proceedings on the business set down on the Order Paper for today be exempted at this day's Sitting from the provisions of Standing Order No 2.\" – [Mr Zaqy Mohamad] (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Group Representation Constituencies","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"
[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]
Mr Deputy Speaker: Minister Chan.
The Minister for Education (Mr Chan Chun Sing): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Let me continue.
I do not take this issue lightly because I have to deal with them personally, sometimes in life and death situations. Members of this House who are running their constituencies will know how, sometimes, neighbour issues can spiral out of control because of a racial element. We all do not like to hear this, we all do not like to talk about this and we wish that it does not exist. But we know, we have to deal with some issues and we hope that we will have to deal with it less and less in time to come.
But let me share my own personal experience. I have commanded units before, at various levels, of various sizes. In one of my commands, on the first day of assumption of my command, a minority group of soldiers wanted to go absent without official leave (AWOL), at least five of them. If the five of them had gone AWOL, it would have been a critical incident in the Ministry of Defence (MINDEF) lexicon. It would have to be escalated all the way up to MINDEF headquarters. The first day of my command. I had not even had the chance to do anything. I was fortunate. I had a regimental sergeant major (RSM) from the same racial group. He told me: \"Sir, no worries. Let me deal with this. I will bring them back.\" It was something that he could do that I could not have done and certainly, not on the first day of my command.
Another incident during my command, at the passing of my late father-in-law, I was recalled from overseas one day earlier, after the training. As my family was grieving for the loss of my late father-in-law, I received a report that a racial riot could soon break out in my unit, because there were allegations that there had been racial discrimination, injustice, and unfairness in the unit. Just allegations. And I have been with my men, through and through. We promised each other that this will be a unit that will take care of one another, through hell and high water. But it can be stirred up.
In 2013, after the Little India riot broke out, many of us in the leadership had sleepless nights. We wondered whether we would have a repeat of what happened in the 1960s, where the suggestions and allegations of racial problems would spiral out of control. Not just only in Little India, but to every other corner possible in Singapore.
It was a moment that I asked myself, if this goes out of control, will we lose it all again?
These are life and death issues. Hence, I urge Members to have a care when discussing racial issues. They are not abstract, philosophical issues. They are real issues, with real consequences, sometimes of life and death.
These are issues where other mature democracies have to grapple with and many involving life and death situations. The visceral emotions, once stirred, have long lasting consequences. The wounds and scars can be deep. Even with time, the wounds may never really heal completely and the scars will remain.
Today, we have made progress. Every exception that is raised in this House is a point for us to cheer. But as mentioned, exceptions do not make the rule.
The rule is not whether Senior Minister Tharman can get elected or not. The rule is, all else being equal, when someone of Senior Minister Tharman's calibre goes to the polls, does it matter, even at the margins, that his race predominate or is considered as one of the factors although it is not the sole factor?
The GRC system is thus a safeguard to ensuring that every GRC will have at least one minority candidate competing as a team and as a result, Parliament is multiracial, and we do our best to take race and religion out of the contest. It does not prevent parties from filling more than one minority ethnic candidate in a GRC. The PAP and the WP have done so. I welcome the PSP to do so too.
What the GRC system seeks to prevent is for parties to campaign singularly for one race and for Parliament to be represented by one race and have all our minorities in another system, whatever we call it. This is not the Singapore that we want and aspire to be.
Mr Deputy Speaker, before I restate our position on the GRC Motion, I want to make one final point to conclude.
The point is this – we are a young nation. With our unique history, circumstances and needs, we must find and evolve our own way of governance to meet our needs. We must be bold to evolve our own system and processes where needed – from the Presidential Council for Minority Rights (PCMR) to GRC, from CPF to HDB, from the the Economic Development Board (EDB) to National Service (NS).
We must not degenerate into a state where we just blindly copy other people's systems, especially when those systems are struggling to find the right answers to their own issues. We must not get into a state whereby we come to this House and tell people to experiment on this system or that system when it has been proven that those systems cannot even deliver a better outcome than ours.
I will put it to this House. Many of us on the front bench do not believe that we got here by being an exceptional nation just by copying others. We certainly do not believe that we will continue to be exceptional and able to distinguish ourselves by just copying others.
Yes, certainly, we will continue to learn from other people, but we must be fair. When we look at other people's systems and bring them to this House, let us also tell fellow Singaporeans the pluses, the minuses of their systems, of how their systems have performed in their respective countries and, most importantly, even if it has performed relatively well in their country, would it apply to our context? That is our job as Members of this House.
If governance is just about copying best practices elsewhere, we will not be spending so much time trying to find our own unique solutions and models that best serve Singapore and Singaporeans, not just in this generation but also for generations to come.
Just last week, the US Supreme Court struck down race-based affirmative action programmes in universities. The reactions in America have been sharply polarised. To some, this was the right thing to do. You can only end racial discrimination by being colour-blind. To others, this was completely unrealistic and did not take into account the discrimination that blacks and other minority groups continue to face.
We do not judge other systems – they will have to find their own answers to their own issues – nor do we profess that we have found the perfect system for ourselves. We certainly will not promote our system to others without context, understanding and appreciation of their circumstances.
So, Mr Raj Joshua Thomas is right. There is no perfect system. But which is the least imperfect system that serves us best, that serves Singapore and Singaporeans best in this generation and going forward?
But we do not need to be shy to say that our system has largely delivered satisfactory outcomes for our people and country – peace, stability, good governance, multiracial politics and an ethos of stewardship and care for future generations. We have also largely achieved a cohesive society and a non-racially divided Parliament.
These did not just happen fortuitously. They came about because we carefully designed our system to manage the possible race issues that could have been politicised and divided us. By any measure, I suggest that we have not done too badly compared to others.
We will continue to learn from others, but we must never be afraid to chart our own destiny in our own ways. We will continue to evolve our system according to our needs.
I really appreciate Mr Raj Joshua Thomas' comment and Ms Janet Ang's comment about business in this House. I take it to heart.
This House is about governance, of how we run our country. This House is not about experimentation. It is not about just copying other people. If we get it wrong, we lose everything that we have built over all these years. Singaporeans lose everything that we have built. We will not have the chance to strive towards the Singaporean Tribe that I described, regardless of race, language and religion.
It is not a gamble. It is not an experiment. It is serious business.
Finally, let me reiterate why we will not and should not support this Motion.
To support this Motion is to go against our founding philosophy of ensuring that the interests of our minority communities are accounted for.
To support this Motion is to risk having no or inadequate multiracial representation in the highest legislative body of the land.
To support this Motion is to leave to chance the emergence of racial politics and forgo our continued progress towards a system where race is not to be a determining factor in electoral contest.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, if you may just allow me to saw a few words in Chinese.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] We are a young nation, with our unique history, circumstances and needs. We must find and evolve our own way of governance to meet our needs. We must be bold to evolve our own systems and processes where needed. For example, PCMR, HDB, EDB, GRC, CPF and NS. We must not degenerate into a state where we just blindly copy other people’s systems, especially when it is demonstrated that they could not achieve better results, even for themselves in their own circumstances.
Nor do we profess that we have found the perfect system for ourselves. But we need not be shy to say that our system has largely delivered satisfactory outcomes for our country and people, that is, peace, stability, good governance and an ethos of stewardship and care for future generations. We have largely achieved a cohesive society and a non-racially divided Parliament.
These did not just happen fortuitously. They came about because we have carefully designed our systems to manage the possible race issues that could have been politicised and divided us.
By any measure, we have not done too badly compared to others. Today, including the Opposition, when we go overseas, we feel proud. This also demonstrated that we did not do too badly.
We will continue to learn from others, but we are also not afraid to chart our own destiny in our own ways. We will certainly continue to evolve as our needs change.
Finally, let me reiterate why we will not and should not support this Motion. To support this Motion is to go against our founding philosophy of ensuring that the interests of our minority communities are accounted for. To support this Motion is to risk having no or inadequate multiracial representation in the highest legislative body of the land. To support this Motion is to leave to chance the emergence of racial politics and forgo our continued progress towards a system where race is not to be a determining factor in electoral contest.
(In English): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the PAP will vote against this Motion to abolish the GRC because it fundamentally goes against what we have been trying to do in building our country as a nation that we can be all proud of for all these years since our Independence. [Applause.]
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh, you have a clarification?
Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Thank you to Minister Chan for his speech, laying out the reasons why the People's Action Party (PAP) will not be supporting the Motion.
The Workers' Party (WP) has restated its position most recently in 2008 when Nominated Member of Parliament Thio Li-ann put forward a Motion on the Parliamentary Elections Act. So, I did not want to speak because the main subject matter would really cover what Mr Low Thia Khiang and Ms Sylvia Lim had already covered. Over the course of the Motion, we heard the restatement of the party's GE 2020 manifesto position, which we stand by.
But what I welcome from what the Minister said is that the GRC system is imperfect. In all the speeches from the PAP Members of Parliament and the Nominated Members of Parliament, I did not hear a defence to the argument that the GRC system is ridden on for gerrymandering purposes.
There was no convincing argument to me why Fengshan comes out when it is a tight SMC, Joo Chiat is included into a GRC when it is a tight SMC in previous elections. This is another concern, another fundamental core concern that the opposition, specifically, the WP has about the GRC system.
We understand the point. I do not think anybody in this House disagrees about the importance of multiracialism. I take the points that Minister Chan made, and I think he made them respectfully; and respectfully, I agree with the fundamental issues with regard to a multiracial society.
But when the GRC system becomes a political football, as it has been and, as Mr Low Thia Khiang also pointed out in 1996 when the size of GRCs increased to six, he put up a table in this House showing how the tight SMCs inevitably or invariably become GRCs, making it more difficult for the Opposition.
So, I do not think the PAP can walk away from any topic on the GRC by saying multiracialism is important for Singapore. We all agree with that. But what of the matter when the rubber meets the road, when we look at how the boundaries are redrawn – the GRC system is used for that purpose as well. That is the conclusion I draw, respectfully.
So, when alternatives are raised, I think we have heard of – they were only briefly covered – mixed proportional representation and so on. Going by what has happened in 2017, when we introduced the reserved Presidency, I think it shows, indeed, the GRC is not a perfect system and there are other alternatives that can be considered.
How would – not just Minister Chan, but even the Nominated Members of Parliament who spoke – he defend the GRC system from the gerrymandering? This is not an imaginary issue. It is a real issue that has happened repeatedly. And that is a hallmark of the way the PAP has employed the GRC system. And that leads to cynicism and the argument, which I believe some would make every now and then about the problems of the GRC system, notwithstanding the very well-meaning and principled argument about the importance of multiracialism. So, that is my first point.
My second point deals with the introduction and the reasons behind why the GRC system was introduced. This was a quote that came after the 1984 GE and the reason why the GRC system came to bear was, I quote, \"a continuation in the trend of younger voters preferring candidates who are better qualified and suited to serve their own needs because of their education, ability, culture and languages, including dialects. The older voters voted for the party rather than the candidate out of experience and habit. They accepted the need for a multiracial Parliament. But the younger voters have not lived through the same experiences.\"
At the end of GE 2020, Minister Shanmugam came out to say, and I quote him: \"I think the older generation of Singaporeans take one approach on how issues of race and religion are discussed and they have a framework within the law, but it is also clear that the younger generation takes a different approach, and I think we need to find a way in which those aspirations and viewpoints can be dealt with because the younger generation of Singaporeans are going to be in charge of Singapore and their views on these things ought to be discussed, needs a substantial degree of attention too.\"
I would suggest that the conversation also has moved and it has moved toward greater race neutrality. And I say this with reference to the point the Minister raised about the CNA-IPS survey. I have seen those survey results. Yes, nobody is making the argument that it is perfect, that racial incidents will not happen from time to time. I think they will. But that does not represent who Singaporeans are. I am sure the Minister would have also seen the IPS survey in conjunction with onepeople.sg, on the indicators of racial and religious harmony, comparing survey results from 2018 and 2013.
Let me just pull out some very short quotations from this survey. It is not a perfect survey set, for sure, but this is what it says: \"Analysing the results by respondents' age, millennials were found to be more welcoming of racial diversity.\" This is pulled out from page 52 from this IPS report. Conclusion of the report: \"In general, our results show that Singapore is faring well when it comes to inter-racial and inter-religious relations. The majority of respondents embraced religious diversity and adopt colour blindness in the case of social interaction and employment. In addition, most, including racial minorities, perceive little to no discrimination and social exclusion in public spaces in Singapore, which is an important sign for racial and religious harmony. There are also high levels of inter-racial and religious trust in Singapore alongside little perception of inter-racial and religious tension. Most respondents also indicate interest and willingness to interact with and get to know other cultures. These findings demonstrate a strong foothold of multicultural values in Singapore, with most Singaporeans internalising narratives of multiracialism and racial harmony.\"
I do believe the GRC system had some part to play in this. I will concede that point because it forces Opposition parties to field a multiracial slate for the reasons the Minister mentioned. You are already going to be at the starting line without votes if you do not field a multiracial slate. But the reason why I pulled out these quotes was to put into perspective with respect Member Murali's experiences and some of the issues that the Minister raised to just provide a balance to some of the arguments on race and religion issues. But fundamentally, there are systems out there which can accommodate, in my view, a racially balanced Parliament and, more fundamentally, with regard to the first issue, we need to understand where does the Minister stand on how the GRC system has been employed in the past.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank Mr Pritam Singh for his comments and the various points that he agrees with us. First, as I have said, today's Motion is to abolish the GRC. It is not to reform the GRC. So, later, when we vote, it will be on this basis – to abolish the GRC. Because to abolish the GRC, then what do we put in place to safeguard multiracial representation in Parliament? And what do we do to safeguard racial politics from emerging again?
So, I am glad to hear that Mr Pritam Singh – and the WP by extension, I presume – agrees with our two objectives: to have multiracial representation in this Parliament and to do our utmost to keep racial politics away from our political contests. Just as the Member has mentioned, today, nobody can try to go to the starting line without a minority. And that is significant. That is significant. I am glad that the Member acknowledged that the GRC has helped us to get to where we are.
Are there other systems that we can think of, that we can evolve? Certainly. Even in the short history of our country, we have constantly tried to evolve different systems to meet our needs according to the times. And we must continue to do so. Any system that does not evolve according to the needs of the time will be obsolete, and that does not serve Singapore and Singaporeans well.
So, we can continue to discuss how we can evolve the systems and what are the executional issues. But today, the vote on this Motion hinges on this: to abolish the GRC. Do we abolish the GRCs because we do not agree, as the PSP does, with the philosophy? Or do we abolish the GRC because we agree with the fundamentals, but there are some things in the execution that you think that we can evolve? That is the crux.
The second issue that I would like to respond to is this. Like you, I am very happy to see the progress that we have made in overcoming incidents and issues related to race and religion. And we agree. We have made much progress and that is why I said, I am confident we will make even more progress and we will endeavour to continue to make progress. That is our collective aim in this House. No one is claiming that we have not made progress. I did not hear anyone saying in this House that this is no longer an issue that we need to consider at all. I think that would be a fair representation.
And if we all agree that this is something that we still need to consider, then I think let us have a care to see how we evolve and design our systems. We should not fall into this trap where we see the outcome, a satisfactory outcome, and we say \"Voila! We have the outcome that we want and, therefore, we do not need all these measures that have brought us or contributed to the current outcome\". It is like saying that on the roads, our traffic is generally safe because we have traffic rules. And when the traffic is relatively safe, then one makes the argument that we should not have so many traffic rules or traffic rules at all. I do not think we are making that argument. We are all here united in the recognition that we have made progress and we want to make further progress. But we are also under no illusion that this is a job done.
And if I may look at the experiences of other countries, some countries have spent hundred over years trying to overcome this issue and they have not achieved anywhere near even our own system. So, all I am saying is, just have a care. And I thank Mr Pritam Singh for acknowledging that the GRC system has contributed to the development of our multi-party, multiracial democracy.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Leong Mun Wai, do you have a clarification? Because the final right of reply comes from Ms Hazel Poa, your colleague.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Thank you, Deputy Speaker, Sir. I have two clarifications for Minister Chan. First of all, can we agree, Minister Chan, that the PSP position ought not to be distorted? We come to this House for this Motion having the full understanding and support that we need adequate minority representation in Parliament. That is the reason why in GE2020, we fielded 33% of our candidates from the minority group. So, our Motion today is about, yes, we agree with the importance of maintaining or even bettering, or even having a race-blind society in Singapore, that minority representation must be maintained.
But, at the same time, we think that you say that the GRC system had achieved its objective. Afterwards, my colleague, Hazel Poa, will have some insights on that. But first of all, even if I accept that GRC may have achieved part of the objective, there can be better systems for us to consider from this point.
So, what we are proposing today is that we have proposed two systems. We always take the attitude that there should be further discussion. PSP has no monopoly over all the ideas. But we are quite confident that either the NCMP scheme or the modified proportional representation scheme will be a better alternative than the GRC system. So, maybe let us focus our debate on that and then we vote on that basis. If alternative systems are better, then there is a justification for the abolition of the GRC. First question: does the Minister agree on that? PSP is not coming here to say, no, we ignore the minority representation and all that.
The second point is that while all the Minister's explanations had concentrated on minority representation, but I belong to the Merdeka Generation, and the Merdeka Generation is one that has grown up with Lee Kuan Yew. Even when we were a student, in and out of classrooms, we were reading about Lee Kuan Yew. So, when all these constitutional amendments come about, I ask Minister Chan, does he remember what was the thinking of Mr Lee Kuan Yew in 1984? Incidentally, I just got a message that the Government has also circulated this Lee Kuan Yew speech of 1984. So, what is the 1984 speech and what was the thinking of Mr Lee Kuan Yew at that time? Can you enlighten me on that? And thereafter, I will follow up, if Deputy Speaker allows me one more question.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Leong, I am not sure you even posed a question to Minister Chan in relation to your second point. You have asked whether —
Mr Leong Mun Wai: I have asked —
Mr Deputy Speaker: Hold on, Mr Leong. I think you have asked whether Minister Chan agrees with your first point. Sorry, can you pose your question in relation to the second point, please, Mr Leong?
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Yes, thank you, Deputy Speaker. What I mean is that the introduction of a GRC scheme is not just due to the minority representation. There is another piece of thinking of Mr Lee Kuan Yew at that time. So, I am asking Minister Chan, does he know about that piece of thinking, before he says everything about the GRC system being about minority representation? The perception or the understanding of many Singaporeans is that they think that the GRC system was not introduced just because of the minority representation. That is part of the reason.
So, I am asking does the Minister know what was the other reason or what was the thinking of Mr Lee Kuan Yew at that time that could have led to his thinking of introducing the GRC system.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Leong, perhaps, we hear from Minister Chan on these two points. I think the second point is a very, very broad question to the Minister. Minister Chan.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: Mr Deputy Speaker, if you would indulge me. Maybe I will take the second question. If Mr Leong believes that he knows the innermost thinking of Mr Lee Kuan Yew at that time that is not recorded in the Hansard, maybe he should enlighten us because I certainly do not profess to know the inner thoughts of Mr Lee Kuan Yew in 1984 that have not been recorded in the Hansard. I think we can all read, search and find what is recorded in the Hansard and that is the basis of our discussion. But if Mr Leong is suggesting that he knows something about Mr Lee's innermost thoughts that are not recorded in Hansard or publicly, then I must humbly admit that I do not have access to the information.
I come back to Mr Leong's first point. So, can I summarise our position as follows: Mr Leong and the PSP agree that we should have a multi-racial Parliament. Mr Leong and the PSP agree that we should take racial politics out of our electoral contest.
The first point, I think, we have heard quite a lot. The second point, I am not so sure and I invite Mr Leong to confirm this, that Mr Leong and the PSP would also support this Government's efforts to reduce, if not, remove the racial elements or the chance of electoral contests being contested on racially motivated lines.
Mr Leong, the Motion before us is to abolish the GRC system. What it is silent on is, abolish to what?
It will be clearer if PSP comes to present your ideas to Parliament to say, let us abolish the GRC system and this is our alternative system. You have proposed and we have heard two suggestions. And I have also heard, if I am not wrong, correct me if I am wrong, it was said: \"Let's discuss about this\". I believe Ms Hazel Poa said that there are still two more years to the GE – I do not know about that. I am neither confirming nor denying when the GE will be held – but, in your belief, you said there are two more years. But what do we do from now till then?
We are running a country; we are not running an experiment.
If the proposal is to go back to an all-SMC system, then let us be clear. Then, we debate on the merit of that. But if you want us to consider, then we indeed have and I have assured you that I have thought deeply about those two suggestions.
In fact, the experience of other countries, if we may be frank, is that when seats are allocated on party votes or party lines, it is a recipe for people to campaign precisely on the sectoral interest that we hope not to see.
If seats are given to losing Opposition MPs to be NCMPs, then, I have just explained, we will end up in a House with a dominant party with the racial majority and then all our minorities are possibly, if all, if not, most of the minorities, will end up as NCMPs. Is that a better outcome?
Nobody is professing that the GRC is a perfect system. But all we are asking is that even if we take your proposal at the face value, if that a better outcome for us? Consider that carefully. First, we are not running experiments and we have to think through this thoroughly.
Unfortunately, respectfully, I cannot see how the two alternative proposals will lead to a more integrated Parliament, a more cohesive Parliament. It will end up with politics being contested on sectoral interests, if not, racial lines. It will end up with the Opposition in the NCMP seats, dominated by the minority, vis-à-vis the ruling party dominated by the majority. The minority and the majority are no longer working as a team because you do not have to compete as a team, as Mr Pritam Singh himself has pointed out. How does that help us?
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Leong, Ms Hazel Poa has the final right of reply. So, I invite you to make a short clarification. Oh, my apologies. Mr Leong, can I kindly invite you to take your seat? Senior Minister Teo Chee Hean.
The Senior Minister and Coordinating Minister for National Security (Mr Teo Chee Hean): Thank you. I am much obliged, Mr Deputy Speaker. I just wanted to address a point that Mr Pritam Singh raised with regard to electoral boundaries. These are not new accusations and they exist whether we have GRCs or SMCs. I just wanted to ask Mr Pritam Singh whether he knows where the term \"gerrymandering\" comes from, how far back it goes, and whether or not they had GRCs in those places.
Mr Pritam Singh: I am wondering what this session is turning into – an examination? First, Mr Leong asked Minister Chan about the 1984 speech.
Mr Deputy Speaker: To be fair, Mr Singh, you raised the phrase.
Mr Pritam Singh: I certainly raised the point. Firstly, I do not know exactly, precisely, the origins of \"gerrymandering\", the term. But I think, like many people, you will know it when you see it. And I think we have seen it for all and sundry for the two SMCs I had mentioned over the last decade – Fengshan, Joo Chiat. Yes, there could be gerrymandering in SMCs too. But indeed, what we have been dealing with is the GRC system. And the coincidences are quite uncanny and not just the last decade, but I referred to the table that Mr Low put forward in this House. Every constituency, where there is a tight fight between the PAP and WP, what happens? It is gone. So, until we can have some assurance from the PAP, will you stop using the GRC for this purpose?
Mr Deputy Speaker: Senior Minister.
Mr Teo Chee Hean: The accusations of gerrymandering happen in every country where the electoral boundaries are being drawn or redrawn. Gerrymandering goes back 200 years or more in the US; what we consider the paragon of democracy today. And those accusations are still being made for gerrymandering.
So, it is not an issue of whether it is a GRC or an SMC.
In fact, I think as Mr Leong or Ms Hazel Poa has pointed out, it is those GRCs or those constituencies that have been won by the Opposition where it has not been changed at all. And I do not understand why the EBRC has not changed them, but perhaps, you can make a request for them all to become SMCs. That may be an interesting idea.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Singh.
Mr Pritam Singh: Two points, Mr Deputy Speaker. Number one, WP is prepared to contest any constituency on an SMC basis. That is our position in the manifesto, we have laid it out. We went to elections in 2020 with that in our manifesto.
The second point on the EBRC, I think it will be helpful, at least, going forward, for the Government to put its weight and significant influence behind a proposal to the EBRC to please produce a more detailed report when boundaries are redrawn.
I think in the past, we had boundary reports which extended to 30 to 50 pages, explaining why boundaries were redrawn in particular ways. The latest EBRC report, I think is in the single digits for the number of pages. It just tells you this constituency, this number, that is, it was this number; now, it is this number, this is the new boundary, finished.
So, you are going to continue to have cynicism about the GRC system and it is not going to stop. Insofar as this Motion is concerned, I think we have laid our position out quite evidently.
I have given my views on where the GRC system has been helpful for society and I think it is important for me to state that. But it would be remiss of me not to highlight to the public and to Singaporeans at large, why the WP takes the position that it does.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Leong, I am mindful that your colleague has the final right of reply and she is down for a 40-minute speech. So, I ask for the clarification to be short, please.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Deputy Speaker, Sir, thank you. I read her speech. It would not be 40 minutes. [Laughter.]
Just to answer Minister Chan's question, first of all, the first point you made about the minority representation, taking this factor out of the politics, on all these, in this House, I think all of us are all aligned. There is no different between PAP and PSP. I cannot speak for WP, of course.
On the second point, I was trying to give you an examination question, but I think you failed.
In 1980s, just now I mentioned, it was a very significant period for Singapore politics. Because in 1981, Mr JB Jeyaratnam won the by-election. Before that, from 1968 to 1981, it was 100% PAP representation in Parliament. As a result, as a student, when we read the newspaper and we listened to Mr Lee Kuan Yew's views and all that, it came right in and today, I would not forget. And I quote, from Mr Lee Kuan Yew, 1984, \"One man, one vote is a most difficult form of government. From time to time, the results can be erratic. People are sometimes fickle. They get bored with stable, steady improvements in life and in a reckless moment, they vote for a change for change’s sake.\"
Mr Lim Biow Chuan (Mountbatten): Point of Order, Deputy Speaker. I think he is making a fresh speech. It has nothing to do with clarification on the Minister's speech.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: No, no, no; I am asking the Minister whether he knows some of the thinking —
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Leong, let me deal with Mr Lim's point. I will allow you to go on for a little longer but please ask your question. I think this derives from your second point from your previous clarification where you were asking Minister Chan essentially to guess what was in your mind. Now, you are sharing what is in your mind with a quote from Mr Lee. So, after that quote, please, then put your question to the Minister.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Okay. My question to the Minister is that the thinking of Mr Lee Kuan Yew at that time is proof to the fact that the GRC system, at least the perception of many Singaporeans like myself, is not just due to minority representation. It is due to his reservation also – maybe, say, 50-50 – of the one man, one vote system. That is why, put it under the group voting, vote as a group and not one man, one vote.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Minister Chan.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: Thank you.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Leong, please kindly take your seat.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Does Minister Chan understand my question?
Mr Deputy Speaker: I think Minister Chan understands your question that whether or not it remains a one man-one vote; or one lady-one-vote. Minister Chan.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: Mr Deputy Speaker, maybe I will just make two points in response.
So, you quoted Mr Lee. I remember that was what Mr Lee said. But let us bring it back to this Motion. Was that the only reason that Mr Lee talked about the GRC system? Was Mr Lee not expressing this in a wider context of how we formed governments? Would you not accept that? Which then comes to my second point.
So, I think, first point, please do not take things out of context. There was a context why Mr Lee said what he said. And what he said, I personally think was valid and I will come to that in a while. But that has nothing to do with today's Motion about the GRC and minority representation because what you have just highlighted was that, yes, Mr Lee was concerned about the stability and the effectiveness of any government system, especially for a small country like Singapore. And I will share with you my own views, having been in the Government, or served in the Government in various capacities all these years.
Is there a reason for us to think very hard about the kind of governance system we want, be it democracy, or whatever else people call us. Or even democracy, or the variants of democracy that the world practises. It goes back down to two points, if I may say so.
First, are we prepared to find our own solutions for our own problems and challenges, or do we just copy? And if we just copy, who do we copy from? And let us be frank, whether those systems that we intend to copy from have produced better outcomes than ours?
Do not get me wrong. We do not profess that we have found the perfect system and we have delivered the perfect solutions for Singaporeans and Singapore. But is this better than other alternatives that have been considered? That is what we are talking about. It is to paraphrase Winston Churchill: democracy may be the worst form of governance except for all else that have been tried.
So, the first question for us is – are we prepared to evolve our own system according to our needs, or do we just copy? And if we just copy, please tell us why copying another system will serve our needs better.
Second, and this is my heartfelt response to Mr Leong, I have noticed very often in this House that we bring to this House various ideas from other jurisdictions and countries. And I think we all appreciate that. It is part of our DNA to never be satisfied with our own system, but to constantly seek improvement – because we want to defy the odds of history for Singapore to be around for as long as possible, for us to have enough time to evolve into what I call the Singaporean Tribe, regardless of race, language or religion.
We want to be exceptional. We want to distinguish ourselves. But I have never believed that just by copying other people, we will be exceptional, or we can distinguish ourselves. Never.
When I was in junior college, I walked the opposite way that Minister Shanmugam said the other day. He walked out of East Sussex Lane from Ghim Moh Road to Holland Road to take a bus. I alighted at Ghim Moh Road and walked along East Sussex Lane, scrambled down the railway track to Raffles Junior College at Ghim Moh Road. My friends would know that generally, I walk quite fast.
And since that time, coming from a different family background, to say the least, I have told myself that I would never be able to compete with other people if I were to just follow them. I do not have the means and I may not have all their strengths. For me to compete, I must distinguish myself in my own ways. Every morning, when I walked down East Sussex Lane, I reminded myself of it. I have a saying: 跟潮流就是走在潮流的后端; to follow the tide is to follow and be a follower always.
I do not want my country to just follow other people. I want my country and my people to stand tall because we are bold enough to know what our challenges are and come up with solutions for ourselves. And I know we are responsible enough to not try and do experiments, but to consider things seriously.
Is democracy perfect? All of us here will agree that it has served us well, but it has its own flaws as well. One of the biggest problems of democracy is this – how do we ensure that when everybody votes, they do not just vote on this generation's interests but on the future generations' interests?
This is what I have always called the missing-voter problem. When we want to do something, there will always be suggestions, protests or otherwise. But do we not do it just because of what this generation says? Or do we not do it because it does not benefit the next generation?
As the highest legislative body in this country, we have a responsibility not just to this generation but to every generation that comes after.
If you ask me, is democracy perfect, I will tell you that it is not the perfect system. Because no democratic system, or very few governance systems, perhaps minus the monarchy, will think about two or three generations down, because they think that they will still be around.
But for Singapore, if we do not think for the future and do not think that we will be around for the future, we will definitely not be around for the future.
And so, if I put that in the context of what Mr Lee said, that is a wider context. The wider context is: how do we govern a small country with a short history, with no natural hinterland or resources except our people? How do we distinguish ourselves, find our relevance, find our own solutions, and make sure that we take care of people, not just in this generation, but in future generations? How do we evolve a system of government whereby people elected here will think seriously, not just about our generation, but also about future generations?
That is how we govern, and that is how we steward our resources – from the way we manage land to the way we manage resources – that is what distinguishes us. And I hope, long may it be, that whoever runs Singapore will always think about this and never assume that there is a perfect system, or that we can just copy someone else's system and we will be exceptional and distinguished. I do not think so. [Applause.]
Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Hazel Poa.
Ms Hazel Poa: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to thank all Members who participated in this debate.
After all that has been said, I think it is quite clear that there is no disagreement on the importance of multiracial representation in Parliament. Where we defer is simply on how to achieve that multiracial representation.
I disagree with Minister Chan when he said that our proposals do not ensure multiracial representation or prevent race-based parties. Earlier on, when I spoke about proportional representation, I mentioned this only briefly. Perhaps that could be the reason why it was not clearly conveyed. So, let me go into further details now.
Typically, in a hybrid electoral system, which is the one that we suggested, containing both elements of first-past-the-post and proportional representation, each voter has two ballots instead of one.
The first ballot is to vote for a candidate in a local SMC and the candidate with the most votes is elected. So, this should address the hon Member Raj Joshua Thomas' concern about the geographical link between MPs and their residents.
The second ballot will then be to vote for a party at the national level and the seats are allocated to each party based on their national vote share. Each party typically has a party list of the candidates. So, if a party is allocated 10 seats, usually the first 10 candidates on the party list get elected. But I am not suggesting that we copy wholesale the system that is in place in other countries, unlike what Minister Chan is suggesting. I am suggesting that we adapt such a system to meet our needs.
So, how can we adapt this to ensure minority representation?
Currently, we have 17 GRCs in total. Up to three in five must have a Malay candidate, while the other two must be Indian or others. This means that the GRC system currently ensures about 12% Malay and 6% Indians and Others representation.
We can therefore ensure minority representation by mandating that at least 50%, 12% and 6% of each political party's candidates running in SMCs must be from the Chinese, Malay, Indian or Other communities respectively. This is analogous to the Ethnic Integration Policy quota in Housing and Development Board (HDB) flats.
Secondly, we can also mandate that each party list must be multiracial, and the selection of the candidates from the party list must be chosen in such a manner as to meet the racial representation requirements for each party, as I have mentioned earlier. These requirements can be limited to only parties that contest in more than one seat. This is to make room for independent candidates in our electoral system.
So, by imposing these racial quotas similar to the way it is done in HDB flats, we can ensure that parties are multiracial, and they do not play race-based politics.
Another comment earlier about proportional representation is the fear of a fragmented parliament. A common feature in proportional representation is actually a threshold. Only political parties that obtain a minimum national vote percentage are allocated seats proportionally. This feature serves to screen out the parties with extreme positions and insufficient electoral support that prevents parliament from getting too fragmented.
A common range for thresholds in countries that practise the proportional representation system is around 4% to 5%.
The ballot on party list is like a national level multi-cornered fight with participation from all the political parties that wish to contest. If the results of past multi-cornered fights in Singapore elections is any guide, we are unlikely to see too fragmented a parliament.
Minister Chan earlier mentioned that the fear is that a proportional representation system would result in race-based politics and also parties that run on minority interests. I have addressed the point about race-based politics and now on minority interests.
I do not see that that is necessarily a bad thing for there to be parties with minority interests. For example, green parties have always had some minority support. Environmental concerns have now become mainstream but green parties still face great difficulties in winning elections under a first-past-the-post system. So, incorporating some level of proportional representation into an electoral system will ensure that minority concerns are also represented and that can only be beneficial to our decision-making.
When a political party enjoys clear majority support, a first-past-the-post system tends to give that party more seats in Parliament than its national vote share. We see this clearly in Singapore. As I have mentioned before, PAP gets about 60% of the national vote but nearly 90% of the elected seats.
But when political support is more divided, the outcome becomes more volatile. As an illustration, consider the other side of the coin. If 60% of the national vote translates into 90% of the elected seats; then, that means that a national vote share of 40% can result in only 10% of the seats. In other words, a drop of 20% in national support level can result in a drop of 80% in seats.
Of course, national support level does not normally drop 20% that quickly or that easily. This illustration merely seeks to point out that the volatility and unpredictability of election outcomes under the first-past-the-post system when support level hovers around 50%. At this stage, a proportional representation system actually brings greater stability and predictability.
Next, I will move on to the issues relating to the NCMP suggestion. As I have mentioned before, we are confident that our minority candidates can stand on their own and win elections. Because we also agree with the importance of multiracial representation in Parliament, that is why we also proposed two alternatives to ensure that.
The beauty of the NCMP scheme is that it does not kick in when it is not needed. But if it is needed, if not enough minority candidates can win on their own, then we need to know why and address the underlying issues head on instead of sweeping them under the GRC carpet. Racism exists in all spheres, not only during elections.
At this point, I actually have a question to ask of Minister Chan. I did not quite understand why he said that if we adopt this scheme, that all the minorities will be NCMPs in Opposition and the ruling party MPs will be the Chinese majority. Under this NCMP scheme, the NCMP can be from either party, whether the ruling party or the Opposition – unlike the current NCMP scheme, which is just for the Opposition.
Mr Murali Pillai also weighed in with his personal experience, citing examples of the kind of experience he had running his campaign and experiencing attempts by people who exploit the race card. Like I said, racism does exist. I think we all recognise that. To totally eradicate it is probably not practical, even though we would all try our best to minimise that as far as possible.
But I think the point is that they did not succeed, even though they tried to play the race card. Even though racism does exist, it is not to the extent that it actually affects election outcomes.
The hon Member Janet Ang mentioned that an article or report from IPS, I think, in 2013 about the fact that Opposition parties also similarly benefit from GRCs. That was after the Workers' Party (WP) managed to win Aljunied GRC.
I think Minister Chan similarly made the point as well that the WP and the PSP also benefited from the coat tail effect and, specifically, that I also benefited from it. I think the question here is whether GRCs are the right way and the best way for Singapore, and not whether I personally benefited from it.
The doubt is raised by Ms Janet Ang over the Opposition's claim that GRCs have had a detrimental effect on the Opposition. Allow me to quote statistics from our GEs around the time when the legislation was changed to introduce the GRC and to make further amendments to it.
As I mentioned earlier, it was done over three amendments in 1988, 1991 and 1996.
To recap briefly, in 1988, the three-member GRC was introduced and justified on the basis of minority representation. In 1991 and 1997, the sizes of GRC were increased and the total number of GRC seats, the upper limit, was increased.
Let us look at the effect these amendments had on our minority representation and political development in the GEs following these changes, which were GE 1988, GE 1991 and GE 1997.
First, we look at minority representation. In GE 1984, before the introduction of GRCs, 16 minority MPs were elected, making up 20.3% of all elected Members of Parliament. After the introduction of GRCs, in GE 1988, minority Members of Parliament made up 19.8% of all elected Members of Parliament, a slight drop compared to GE 1984. In the next two GEs, minority MPs made up 21% and 22.9% respectively.
In contrast, its effect on our political development is more dramatic. In GE 1984, before the introduction of GRCs, 38% of the seats were uncontested. In GE1988, the percentage of uncontested seats dropped to 13.6%. However, in the next two GEs, after the GRC sizes were further increased, uncontested seats jumped from 13.6% to 50.6% and 56.6% in GEs 1991 and 1997 respectively.
After three amendments, the real effect of the GRC system is this. It made hardly any difference to minority representation but led to a huge increase in walkovers. Faced with raised hurdles, which is the GRC, Opposition parties had to adopt a by-election strategy in response.
Looking at these figures, it behoves us to revisit these questions.
Firstly, why were GRCs introduced? Was it truly for minority representation or was it for political advantage? It is worth noting that in GE 2020, without any further intervention to help minority candidates, the percentage of elected MPs who are minorities has increased to 28%. This happened naturally as part of society's development, similar to the way women's representation in Parliament increased to 30% without any GRC-like intervention.
Secondly, why were the maximum sizes of GRCs increased to six? This does not help minority representation. The justification that this is done so that we need not change the boundaries so frequently is unconvincing. I am sure we have all heard jokes about how residents keep changing constituencies in each election without moving house. Was it for economies of scale? Would not the same be achieved by a few SMCs working together?
Thirdly, why were the upper limit on GRC seats increased? Is it a coincidence that as these changes were made, the number of walkovers increased dramatically?
In the recent GE, the PAP has tried to make the GRC smaller. Six-member GRCs were removed and the average size of GRCs were reduced just slightly. However, as long as GRCs remain, so too remain the problems associated with the GRC system, namely, the coat tail effect, reduced voter influence on outcome, the hampering of political development, and underserved and under-represented residents in GRCs with unfilled vacancies.
The PAP has mentioned before that even though there is a vacancy in the GRC, residents are happy with the arrangements that they have made for the other MPs to cover the duties of the MP who has left. In fact, residents have never been directly asked if they preferred a GRC or SMC system.
If the PAP is certain of this, would it be willing to ask this question to voters, using the Presidential Election as the means to conduct a referendum? I am sure this is a question that many Singaporeans would want a say in. Who better to decide how voters should be represented than the voters themselves.
Minister Chan earlier spoke about the by-election and concluded by saying that the Court has decided. Considering that Parliament is the lawmaker, the Court executes the laws made by Parliament, I think this rather puts the cart before the horse.
In the past, Singapore has benefited from a strong single-party system. At our developmental stages, many countries were ahead of us in development and provided us many examples with which to study. We could emulate where appropriate and discard where not. We could move ahead swiftly, with strong political leadership.
However, without the regular turnover of leadership and political competition, a single-party system also carries the risk of entrenching power within a small group. This can erode democratic principles and perpetuate a culture of nepotism or cronyism. Checks and balances are necessary for the longer term.
Singapore has entered a different stage of development. With each GE, the growing desire of the voters for greater checks and balances and political diversity becomes more apparent. As we move towards a more balanced political landscape, many changes will be needed. One of these is to abolish the GRC.
I urge all Members and Singaporeans to support the call to abolish GRCs and consider alternative ways of ensuring minority representation.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Minister Chan.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. There were a couple of clarifications that Ms Hazel Poa asked of me. I will not go through point by point, given the time, but can I just make the following few points in response to her questions?
First, I think as a generic point, it would be good for the PSP to at least lay out their whole proposal at the beginning of the debate. I am not sure those details that you just presented were a response to my comments or you already had them worked out all before. If I may humbly suggest that if you have got it all worked out before, I think it is good for us to debate the details and know the details right from the onset instead of having it in the concluding speech because then we might have to revisit many of these issues. So, that is just a point.
Let me go to the substantive points.
In the spirit of me taking an examination today, you said that we can have Party A, B, and C, making sure that their slate of candidates has X or Y number of minority candidates to make sure that there will be representation.
So, can I just put it this way? Mathematically, unless each of the minority candidate compete in the same SMC, as you proposed, there is no guarantee that just because Party A, B, or C have so many minorities, we will end up with so many minorities in the Parliament.
Party A fields a Chinese here, Party B fields a Malay there, and Party C fields an Indian there. Does it mean that it will guarantee minority representation? So, mathematically – not correct. Not correct.
Just because people have a slate according to racial profile does not guarantee that the outcome will be a multiracial representation of the Parliament that we so desire. So, that is the first point.
The second point. You mentioned this two-vote system: vote once for the first-past-the-post and one for the proportional representation. This is precisely the problem. Once you have this, there will be a tendency and we cannot escape from the tendency that when you want to win the vote on the proportional representation, go on the sectoral interest. It could be race or religion, or it could be green issues, as the Member mentioned.
But the question for us is this – even if we consider this seriously, do we want our electoral politics where people vote on single issue outcomes, or do we want a matured electorate that we are progressing towards, where people holistically consider all the challenges facing our country? Each and every one of us will have our pet topic that we may be happy or unhappy with this Government or whichever government we want to have, but what serves our interests best?
For those countries that have proportional representation, yes, you have many parties representing many groups all on the sectoral basis. Have they become more effective in mobilising national action, whereby people are prepared to give trade-offs and consider it holistically whereby parties have to internalise the trade-offs within themselves, or is every party going to the Parliament just to contest on the basis of their narrow sectoral interests and end up with horse trading?
Is that a better outcome for Singapore? Is that the kind of system that will allow us to have the strong and decisive government that you say that is required for us to distinguish ourselves as a nation? So, consider that seriously.
Then, the third point. You mentioned – this is new to me – that the NCMP will also apply to the Ruling Party. This is new to me. Today, the NCMP scheme does not apply to the ruling party. But can I just summarise this? If the NCMP scheme applies to the ruling party, then it is essentially called a party list. Then, you just reconsider what I just said in the second point – is the party list a mechanism that will not polarise us and end up with people running on single issues? But this is new. That the ruling party shall also be entitled to NCMP, which I think, boils down to a party list.
And finally, can I just make one plea to PSP. I think we already have enough challenges trying to make sure that we have a clear Presidential Election if it is to be contested and to help Singaporeans understand the role of the Elected Presidency as we have designed it into our system – as the Head of State, as the custodian of our Reserves, Public Service appointments,\t and so forth. Can I just make a plea? Please do not confuse the issue and suggest that we turn the Elected Presidency into a referendum on the GRC. I do not see how this serves our democracy. We have enough challenges trying to get everyone to come on board, understand the role of the Elected Presidency. It is not a check on the Government, it is not an Opposition party; it is the custodian of our Reserves and the Head of State for us. It is not a referendum for the GRC, to say the least.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Hazel Poa.
Ms Hazel Poa: I thank the Minister for his questions. First, let me address the issue about the NCMP suggestion. In our proposal, what we said was that if we do not have enough minority candidates elected, then the NCMP for minorities will be chosen from those with the highest percentage of votes, no restriction on party. So, just those with the highest votes; it could be the ruling party, or it could be the Opposition party.
Secondly, about me being mathematically not correct, I beg to differ. In our proposal, I agree that even though we mandate a multi-racial slate for SMC contest, we have no control over how the outcome is going to turn out. So, it will not work out according to the quota that we have, but that is where the party list comes in. The party list will have multi-racial candidates listed and each party, in the way that it chooses from the party list, is not strictly in order, like as in other countries, but to be chosen in such a way to meet racial representation requirements first.
Let us say, for example, if we are short of a particular racial group, even though that person may be fifth on the list, he gets chosen first. So, in that way, you use the party list to make up for any shortfall in racial representation as a result of unpredictable SMC contests.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Sharael Taha, you have a clarification? Please proceed.
Mr Sharael Taha (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Sorry, just a quick clarification to Ms Hazel Poa. So, she thanked the hon Mr Murali for sharing his experience and I also thank Mr Murali for sharing his experience. But she mentioned that it may not matter because he won anyway. I just wanted some clarification.
Does that imply that she is asking minority candidates and future minority candidates to accept such racial abuse, because it may not matter and because he may win in elections, rather than having a system that prevents or at least reduces the probability of the minority candidate from being subjected to such abuse and yet, at the same time, allows the minority representation in Parliament, because we show up together as a multiracial team?
Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Hazel Poa.
Ms Hazel Poa: I am not suggesting that minority candidates should just accept those treatment. I am suggesting racism be tackled holistically for the whole society because it is not only election candidates who encounter such incidents.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Order.
[(proc text) Question, \"That this House calls for the abolition of Group Representation Constituencies\" put, and negatived. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Motion accordingly negatived. (proc text)]
Mr Deputy Speaker: Leader.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Transportation of Workers on Back of Lorries","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"The Deputy Leader of the House (Mr Zaqy Mohamad): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, \"That Parliament do now adjourn.\"
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, two workers, riding with 16 others on the back of a lorry, died in 2021 after their lorry crashed into another vehicle on the Pan Island Expressway (PIE). Since then, dozens more workers have been injured or killed because they, too, were riding on the back of a lorry. We have all seen these lorries full of workers cruising down our roads.
Back when she was just an eight-year-old, my daughter Ella pointed to such a lorry and said, \"It's not safe, right? If they crash, they will die.\" She took a photo of that lorry which I shared on social media. Over 1,100 people liked that photo and many shared the same view about unsafe conditions, including Lisa Khoo who said, “Exactly...despite many accidents recently. We still see workers being transported this way on a daily basis. Nothing seems to have changed despite a lot of talk about change.”
We have known for many years that transporting people on the back of lorries is not safe. Over the years, we have done so much to make transport safer for our children taking the school bus, and soldiers in Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) tonners. But, we still continue to transport our workers in unsafe conditions on the back of lorries. Why the double standards?
The worker sitting on the back of a lorry is also someone’s son, brother or father; someone’s loved one. All I am asking today is that we give workers the same safety that we expect for anyone on our roads.
Today, we allow passengers to be transported on the back of lorries for “business purposes”. Business purposes are not good reasons for putting our workers at risk of death or injury every single day. We know an accident will happen. It is not “if”, but “when”.
We can all agree that safe transportation is good for everyone. We have worked hard to ensure safe transportation for our school children, our soldiers and even our cargo. We have done well, very well in these aspects.
For our school children, we moved decisively to retrofit seat belts in all school buses when an eight-year-old died in 2008 after being flung out of his school bus in a traffic accident. No expense was spared. We set aside $35 million to help bus companies make our school buses safer. The Land Transport Authority (LTA) appointed workshops to conduct the retrofitting. To minimise business disruptions, workshops even provided replacement buses where feasible. This was a whole-of-nation effort that involved the Government, bus companies, bus drivers, bus attendants and the Singapore School Transport Association.
These efforts paid off. In July 2013, a school bus carrying nine kindergarten students crashed into a road barrier. The children on board escaped without serious injuries. Media reports attributed this to the additional safety measures for school buses.
For our soldiers, the SAF equipped all SAF tonners with safety lap belts for rear passengers since 2011. Other safety features on our SAF tonners now include protective side boards, railings, canopies, rear safety straps, seating capacity limits and vehicular speed limits.
And it is not just our people; even our cargo has to be transported in a safe way. The Road Traffic (Motor Vehicles, Construction and Use) Rules requires loads carried by vehicles to be secured in a way such that danger is unlikely to be caused by the load falling from the vehicle. The rules also require any load higher than the top of the side rails to be securely tied to the vehicle. It would seem that in an accident, the goods will be more protected than the workers sitting on the back of lorries who might be flung out.
We have introduced all these safety measures to keep our school children, soldiers and cargo safe. But why do we continue to allow our workers to be transported on the back of lorries when we already know this is unsafe?
I am sure that we all agree that it is not safe to transport our workers on the back of lorries. Workers tell us it is not safe. In a media article, workers shared horror stories of friends being injured during sudden breaks or swerves. Workers talked about frequent injuries incurred en route to worksites. A worker told the media that workers often talked about their mode of transport, but felt that it was pointless because their bosses were already well aware of the risks. Many workers fear for their safety and lives, but feel that they do not have a choice or a voice. The data backs up their fears.
Over the past decade, there have been so many fatalities and injuries of people on board these lorries. Many examples have been shared in this House so we all know this very well.
Senior Minister of State Amy Khor shared in Parliament in May 2021 that the number of persons on board lorries who were injured or killed in road accidents has been on a downward trend over the last decade. It is good news. But we must remember that “downward trend” does not mean nobody is getting killed or injured. People continue to die or get injured because fundamentally, they are transported in unsafe conditions.
For our school children, one death in 2008 was enough to catalyse an industry-wide change. We know that deaths or injuries will occur every year for our workers who are transported on the back of lorries. Why do we tolerate this?
Even the suppliers of the lorries have said that it is not safe to transport workers on the back of lorries. Minister Iswaran said in May 2022 that the lorry suppliers’ view was that it is not ideal for lorries to carry passengers in their rear decks from a road safety perspective. And the Government agrees with this view.
This is also not a new issue I am raising. Other Members of this House have spoken up repeatedly against using lorries to transport our workers. Many activists, many of whom are seated in our gallery today, have also spoken up on this, and I thank them for speaking up on this important issue. It is almost weird that we allow something which, whoever we ask, agrees it is unsafe to continue. What more do we need to stop transporting workers on the back of lorries?
The Ministry of Transport (MOT) has raised “significant practical and operational considerations” for why it is not currently feasible to install seat belts or use other forms of transport for workers.
The first reason given is that transport by buses mean higher costs for small and medium enterprises (SMEs). SMEs also require lorries which can transport both workers and goods to facilitate their business operations. I understand these valid concerns and will speak about these trade-offs later in my speech.
The second reason MOT has given is that there are insufficient buses. Minister Iswaran said that a full transition to buses to ferry all workers will require many more buses than the available fleet of private buses. Insufficient buses, however, cannot be an excuse when we know for sure that people have died and have been injured every year and will continue to die and get injured. How much more time do we need to increase our fleet of buses for a permanent solution to this problem?
We would never accept this excuse for our school children and soldiers. We cannot accept this excuse for our workers. For all the parents seated here, would you be okay for your children to be transported on the back of lorries? Would you be okay for your son to be enlisted and transported in conditions which are unsafe?
The third reason MOT has given is that retrofitting lorries with seat belts is not safe. Minister Iswaran said that Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) shared that retrofitting of seats, seat belts and reinforcements compromises the structural integrity of the lorry. He said that OEMs said that this may create new safety risks. Of course, the views of the experts manufacturing and supplying the lorries are important. We should listen to them.
But – and this is a big \"but\" – let us not forget that lorry suppliers have also said that it is not ideal to transport workers on the back of lorries. Why do we ignore that view? The long-term solution must be to ban the transport of workers on the back of lorries. I know that MOT has taken some steps to improve transport safety for workers. We require lorries ferrying passengers to be fitted with rain covers. We also require lorry drivers to work no more than 12 hours a day. I am sure Senior Minister of State Amy Khor will mention all these in her reply shortly.
I commend these steps, but they simply do not go far enough to address the root of the problem. The fundamental issue is that it is not safe to transport workers on the back of lorries. All the steps we have taken thus far do not address this fundamental issue. We need a permanent solution.
I have three recommendations, including interim measures that we can take. My first recommendation is that we ban the transportation of workers on the back of lorries. I know I have repeated this many times in this speech. But let me clarify that I am not calling for this to be done overnight but, instead, we should set a timeline for this ban. This is not a radical step.
Under the Road Traffic Act, goods vehicles are already not allowed to be used for passengers. There are clearly safety reasons for this. It is unusual, unreasonable and unsafe that we have carved out a \"business purpose\" exception to the rule. Why do the safety issues disappear when the same exact vehicle is used for business purposes? We should remove this exception and implement a clear rule across the board that for safety reasons, no passengers should be transported on the back of lorries.
If we cannot do this right now, then we should set a target year for this safety goal and plot a roadmap to achieve it. Setting a target year will also give the industry certainty and help build organic industry-driven solutions to achieve the goal.
My second recommendation is that the Government pilot the use of buses to transport workers for the larger construction companies. I understand that we currently do not have enough buses to transport all workers. A pilot with larger construction companies is a realistic interim step while we scale up to a full ban on transporting workers on the back of lorries. Senior Minister of State Amy Khor shared that there have been consultations with trade associations in the construction sector and private bus operators. To transport workers in key sectors by buses, we may need to double or triple the number of large buses.
Senior Minister of State Amy Khor also noted that there are private sector efforts to transport workers using buses. One example is Tong Tar Transport, which was asked by a multinational corporation (MNC) to ferry about 3,000 workers of their main and sub-contractors between dormitories to the construction sites via buses. Senior Minister of State Amy Khor said that this was a large-scale endeavour that involved coordination among various bus operators but showed that it is possible under the right circumstances. She encouraged more in the industry to follow.
This is too important for the Government to just leave to the industry to figure out. As Senior Minister of State Amy pointed out, transport by buses is not impossible but requires coordination. MOT and LTA are well-placed to coordinate this and perhaps even consider providing some funding to make things happen.
I propose that the Government work with the larger construction companies, dormitories and bus operators to coordinate and provide some funding to help in the transportation of workers using buses. This may also involve staggered working hours for workers so that buses can pick them up over multiple trips. We may not be able to fully transition to bus transport for all workers. But a pilot like this is one step in the right direction, and the funding and coordination by the Government will help the workers and companies significantly.
My third recommendation is that we have designated drivers who only perform driving duties. Again, this is an interim measure until we achieve a full ban on transporting workers on the back of lorries. Under the new requirements, lorry drivers cannot work for more than 12 hours a day. Workers who have worked six hours must have at least 30 minutes rest immediately before driving. Imagine working 12 hours a day continuously for six hours in a physically exhausting role under the hot sun and resting for 30 minutes before having to drive a heavy vehicle. Would we allow someone like that to drive a school bus?
Driving a heavy vehicle and transporting human lives is an important task. We should have specifically designated drivers who can fully focus on this task. We should start a pilot for this and, again, the Government can help provide some funding to kickstart this pilot.
Lastly, as an interim measure of this interim measure, can we at least reduce the limit of 12 hours of working before driving? That can go some way towards reducing the risk of accidents.
In conclusion, Sir, I am asking that: (a) we plot a roadmap to achieve a ban on the transport of workers on the back of lorries; (b) in the interim, we pilot the use of buses to transport workers for the larger construction companies and implement staggered working hours – the Government can help coordinate and provide some funding for this; (c) in the interim, we pilot the use of specifically designated drivers to transport the workers, and in the interim and as soon as possible, look into reducing the limit of 12 hours of working before driving for the workers currently driving the lorries.
I believe everyone in this House and in this country agrees that transporting workers on the back of lorries is not safe. All I am asking is that we treat our workers with the same care that we do for our children and soldiers. Why not? The worker on the back of the lorry is also someone's child, someone's loved one. Ms Teo shared in a Facebook comment on a video of workers being transported by lorries that, \"Each worker is the son of a faraway family. Like kids in Singapore, he is the apple of his mother's eye. Accord dignity to the sons who have left their families. It is not a privilege only for Singaporeans. We are better than this.\"
Some have said that this is a migrant issue. Let us not forget that it is not just migrant workers but Singaporean workers, sons, daughters, husbands and wives who are also riding dangerously on the back of lorries, too. We should also remember what Prime Minister Lee said on workplace accidents. He said, \"We must put this right. I call on everyone involved – employers, supervisors and workers – to take safety at the workplace seriously.\"
He said, \"Lives are at stake. We have the responsibility to keep all our workers safe, whether they are local or foreign.\" I hope that we can heed Prime Minister Lee's call, take this safety issue seriously and put this right by banning the transport of workers on the back of lorries. I know that the reply from MOT to this speech will be about practical, operational and cost considerations as well.
But as my fellow colleague Mr Alex Yam put it when he spoke up about the transport of workers on the back of lorries, \"We often quote trade-offs and costs as part of our decision-making matrix, but for the families in the recent accident who have lost their sons in Singapore, that cost would surmount all other costs we talked about\".
Indeed, the real trade-offs that we should be focusing on here are people's lives and the injuries that could disable a person for life. We know that the reality is that none of us sitting here would like to be transported on the back of a lorry. We should put our hearts and minds towards solving this fundamental issue of safety and the fundamental question of whether anyone should be transported in these kinds of unsafe conditions. The lives of our workers matter, too.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Senior Minister of State Amy Khor.
The Senior Minister of State for Transport (Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan): Deputy Speaker, Sir, I thank the Member for raising concerns about the transportation of workers in lorries. We are equally concerned about the safety of our workers. Our goal to improve safety in transportation is a work in progress and we will seek to do more and do better. But this is a goal that cannot be achieved solely through the efforts of the Government. For there to be enduring change, this goal needs to be shared by all stakeholders.
Over the years, Government agencies have been reviewing and studying this issue on a regular basis to ensure that transportation of workers is done as safely as possible. Just last year, I announced four new measures during the Committee of Supply (COS) debate. However, what is less salient perhaps, are the many hours of careful policy consideration, stakeholder engagement before and after the announcements that agencies put in to be able to roll them out with the stakeholders' support. The industry and workers themselves will need time to react, adapt and comply. Thereafter, the Government will also have to review the effectiveness of the measures. These are measures which affect both lives and livelihoods, including those of the workers themselves, and that is why we need to approach them carefully and holistically.
These new measures have been rolled out progressively. We released the Inter-agency Advisory on Safe Transportation of Workers on 31 December 2022, which provides practical guidance to employers and workers on the new and existing legal requirements and recommends practices to enhance safety of workers on lorry transportation. The requirement for dual-role drivers to have sufficient rest and the appointment of a designated \"vehicle buddy\" as well as for all newly-registered lorries used to ferry workers to be installed with rain covers came into force on 1 January this year. The requirement for in-use light lorries used to ferry workers to install rain covers just came into effect on 1 July 2023 and will come into effect for heavy lorries on 1 January 2024. The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) is working with the industry to implement speed management devices in all lorries and will announce more details when ready. These are all in addition to the earlier requirements for lorries to be fitted with canopies and higher protective side railings, lower speed limits and minimum space requirements.
We believe that these efforts will build on the earlier enhancements and further improve the safety of our workers. The average number of fatalities from road traffic accidents involving persons onboard lorries has declined, from around six from 2013 to 2017, to around three from 2018 to 2022, even as we recognise that one fatality is one too many. The average number of injuries has also dropped by one-third, from 522 from 2013 to 2017, to 359 from 2018 to 2022. And as I mentioned earlier, we will need to give the industry and workers time to adjust to the measures. We will then review them and continue to work with the industry to explore further enhancements.
The Member has called on the Government to ban the transportation of workers on the back of lorries. Let me reiterate that from a road safety perspective alone, it will be ideal for lorries not to carry any passengers in their rear decks. We have acknowledged this multiple times in the House.
However, this is not a matter of legislating or imposing rules and expecting compliance from the industry, without regard for the wider implications and unintended consequences. Simply mandating that workers travel on buses or banning the transport of workers on lorries, without considering ground realities and constraints, is not a realistic solution. Setting a timeline without understanding the varied concerns of all stakeholders is also not meaningful or workable. Transporting workers on lorries is a practice that cuts across various sectors and industries. Hence, we must understand the different challenges faced by each sector and ensure that our measures are effective, implementable and sustainable.
Let me recap some of the key challenges.
First, there are insufficient private buses to meet the needs across various sectors. A full transition to transportation via buses would require at least a doubling of the number of large private buses today. This will have knock-on effects on the rest of society, including more congestion.
Second, operating buses also requires a different driver's licence. Members may have seen recent articles about the shortages of school bus drivers, resulting in some bus operators cancelling their service contracts despite underlying demand for school bus services. In fact, the shortage of bus drivers is not limited to the school bus sector. A wider shift to mandate the use of buses will likely exacerbate this shortage and affect other bus service providers, including our public buses.
Third, the nature of businesses of many micro, small and medium enterprises (SMEs), such as those in specialist trades, require them to be able to transport a small crew of people together with some equipment or goods to several locations in a single day. It is neither practicable nor productive for them to have different vehicles to transport workers, equipment and goods. Making it mandatory for them to do so may lead to decisions which impact the livelihoods of their workers.
On a similar note, while the intent of the Member's recommendation to have designated drivers is a good one, smaller enterprises, in particular, will find it challenging to employ full-time drivers. The recent Ministry of Manpower (MOM) measures of at least 30 minutes' rest immediately before driving for dual-role drivers who have worked six hours, and designated a vehicle buddy is intended to address the concern of driver alertness. I do want to assure the Member, however, that the 12-hour daily limit of working hours includes the time spent driving, as that is considered part of work.
The Member has suggested that the Government consider providing funding to larger construction companies, dormitories and bus operators to facilitate this shift. As I explained earlier, at its core, the challenges are not necessarily financial in nature and, if so, funding would not be an effective remedy.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we have therefore taken a different, multi-pronged approach towards addressing the issue. Our agencies are looking at specific sectors, engaging the companies that have been able or are open to shifting to buses or other modes of transportation, understanding the specific pain points and seeing how adoption can be scaled up.
Today, there are already several bus companies that provide such services to transport workers. Besides Tong Tar Transport Services, which I had previously mentioned, other examples include Bedok Transport, Hui Leong Transport Service and JK59 Transport Pte Ltd.
We are similarly studying these use cases to see how they can be scaled up as well as other possible modes of transportation that may be used.
Industry will be best placed to spearhead this effort as they best understand the ground needs and challenges. The Government will work with the industry and consider any further support required, but this will need to be effective and sustainable.
Mr Deputy Speaker, this approach will take time and effort, as well as many difficult conversations as we grapple with the realities and constraints. Our agencies are working hard on the ground and I seek the support of the House as we continue to work together with our workers, associations and industry to bring about further effective and sustainable improvements to the safety of our workers.
In the meantime, we are pressing ahead with the implementation and monitoring of the set of measures we had last announced at COS 2022 to enhance worker safety, even as we look at how we can further transit from the use of lorries.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang: Thank you, Sir, and I thank Senior Minister of State Amy Khor for the reply. Could I just ask whether MOT can consider that roadmap, similar to what we have done with climate change? We have a net-zero emissions target for 2050, something that we said was not possible a few years back. Now, it is possible, and we have set up a roadmap for that. I hope it does not take that long to the ban. But could MOT just look into a roadmap towards a ban on the transportation of workers on the back of lorries?
Second, I am wondering how often does MOT ignore the advice of suppliers? If we look back, fundamentally, the people who supply the lorries tell us, \"Do not put people on the back.\" How often is it that the Government does not listen to the advice of the people who supply us with equipment?
Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan: I think I have given a detailed response to the Member's suggestions and views. What he is asking is still similar with regard to our plans to transit to safer modes of transportation. As I have said, I think this is something that we have to work out with the industry, with the associations. It will take time because we are looking at various sectors.
We will share further when we are ready on this transit. As I have said, we have already implemented various measures and we are implementing a new set of measures. Some have been implemented and another one is ongoing. We will have to review this, but our foot is still on the pedal and we are still looking at further measures to enhance safety for our workers.
With regard to your point about ignoring the advice of suppliers, no. In fact, we were talking about whether we can install safety belts on the back of lorries. The advice of the supplier is that it is not useful, meaningful or safe to do, because lorries were not built for safety belts.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Resolved, \"That Parliament do now adjourn.\" (proc text)]
Mr Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 2(3)(a), I wish to inform hon Members that the Sitting tomorrow will commence at 12.30 pm. Order, order.
Adjourned accordingly at 8.49 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":"Update on Zika Situation and Whether Project Wolbachia Can Be Used to Combat Zika","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"15 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) whether an update can be provided on the current Zika situation; and (b) whether Project Wolbachia has potential to be used to combat Zika, alongside dengue.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: As at 30 June 2023, 22 Zika cases have been reported in Singapore this year; 15 cases were in the cluster at Kovan which has closed and is currently under surveillance, and the remaining seven cases were isolated cases. The National Environment Agency is monitoring the situation closely and will continue to work with grassroots leaders on outreach efforts in and around the localities where Zika cases were reported.
As the Zika virus is transmitted primarily by the same Aedes aegypti mosquito as dengue, Project Wolbachia, which suppresses the urban Aedes aegypti mosquito population in the community over time, has the potential to reduce the risk of Zika outbreaks as well.
Project Wolbachia is intended to complement, and not replace, good housekeeping and basic preventive actions that prevent mosquito breeding. We are currently in the midst of the dengue season. I urge all residents to ensure that their homes and surroundings are free of stagnant water and to take precautions if residing in dengue cluster areas, such as spraying insecticides in dark corners, applying insect repellent and wearing long-sleeves and pants.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Rationale for Allowing Use of Only Single-deck Beds in Migrant Worker Dormitories","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"17 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what is the rationale behind the proposal to allow the use of only single-deck beds in migrant worker dormitories; (b) when has this proposal been revised to allow the use of double-decker beds; and (c) what are the reasons behind the revision.
Dr Tan See Leng: The Ministry of Manpower did not promulgate any regulation that only single-deck beds should be used in migrant worker dormitories. In 2020, we trialled the use of single-deck beds in Government-built and -owned Quick Build Dormitories to reduce risks of disease transmission.
The new dormitory standards introduced in September 2021 did not incorporate the use of single beds. While single beds may reduce disease transmission, it is only one factor in managing transmission risks within dormitories while it reduces the usable space for residents in the room. Instead, the new standards adopted other features, such as en-suite toilets, room capacity caps and self-contained sections on each floor, to strengthen public health.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Status of Discussions for Potential Johor-Singapore Economic Region","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"21 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for Trade and Industry with regard to the potential Johor-Singapore economic region announced by the Malaysian Economy Minister in May 2023 (a) what has been discussed with the Malaysian federal government and the Johor state government; and (b) what is the status of these discussions.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Singapore welcomes closer economic cooperation with Johor and Malaysia. We look forward to discussing the proposed Johor-Singapore economic region with Malaysia at the upcoming 16th Joint Ministerial Committee for Iskandar Malaysia Meeting scheduled for 14 July 2023, which will be co-chaired by Minister for National Development Desmond Lee and Malaysian Minister of Economy Rafizi Ramli.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Trend for Annual Deaths Attributable to Second-hand Smoke","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"22 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Health whether the estimated number of annual deaths attributable to second-hand smoke for Singapore based on studies, such as the Global Burden of Disease, has increased over the past 10 years.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: According to the Global Burden of Disease 2019 study, the estimated number of annual deaths attributable to second-hand smoke for Singapore has increased from 245 in 2010 to 296 in 2019. After adjusting for the effect of population ageing, the age-standardised death rate has declined from 5.2 per 100,000 population to 4.0 per 100,000 population over the same period.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Target Green Plot Ratio for BTO Projects","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"23 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether new BTO projects are built with a target Green Plot Ratio and, if so, what is the target ratio; and (b) what is the average Green Plot Ratio of BTO projects completed in the last three years.\n
Mr Desmond Lee: Green Plot Ratio measures greenery in a three-dimensional manner by capturing the density of greenery provided within the development.
Since 2016, all new public housing developments are required to meet a minimum Green Plot Ratio of 4.5. A Green Plot Ratio of 4.5 means that the total leaf area of all plants in the development needs to be at least 4.5 times of the site area. In the past three years, 56, or about 95% of the 59 completed projects were able to achieve the minimum Green Plot Ratio of 4.5. Three projects were not able to meet the requirement due to limited space within the site for planting. The average Green Plot Ratio was 5.5 for the 59 completed projects over the last three years.
The Housing and Development Board is committed to providing affordable public housing that is sustainable and liveable by ensuring that there are green spaces within new public housing developments for all to enjoy.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Review of Past Cases Given Recent Advisory on Malware-related Unauthorised Bank Transactions","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"24 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Prime Minister (a) in the past year how many fraudulent bank transactions have been made as a result of SMS one-time password (OTP) diversions; (b) whether MAS has a timeline for requiring banks to phase out the use of SMS OTPs in favour of other multi-factor authentication (MFA) methods; and (c) whether MAS will require banks to provide customers with the option to stop the use of SMS OTPs in the interim, if they are already using other MFA methods.
25 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Prime Minister in view of the Police advisory informing the public that malware was used to compromise mobile devices resulting in unauthorised transactions made from bank accounts, whether MAS will consider reviewing previously closed cases of customer disputes with banks where unauthorised transactions were reported despite one-time passwords not being divulged or received.
Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam (for the Prime Minister): My response will cover the questions raised by Mr Gerald Giam and Dr Tan Wu Meng in today’s Order Paper.
Globally, and in Singapore, scam cases have been rising. Scammers have been quick to evolve their tactics to trick consumers into divulging their banking credentials as well as to evade detection. As previously explained in this House, Singapore has adopted a multi-layered strategy to combat scams. Agencies are continuing to work closely with the industry to strengthen our anti-scam measures to fight the evolving threats.
Before 2021, there were cases reported where malicious actors diverted short message services (SMS) one-time passwords (OTPs) to perform fraudulent bank transactions. These occurred between September and December 2020. The attacks were caused by unauthorised access to the systems of overseas telecommunication operators to divert the SMS OTPs sent by the banks to their customers, which were then used to authenticate fraudulent online card payment transactions. While our local telco networks were secure and not compromised, the telco operators had since implemented additional security safeguards to mitigate the risk. Hence, the risk of SMS OTPs being diverted has now been largely addressed. The Singapore Police Force has also not found any confirmed cases of SMS OTP diversions since January 2021.
Nevertheless, given the inherent vulnerability of the SMS channel, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) has required banks to phase out SMS OTP as a sole factor to authenticate high-risk transactions. Banks in Singapore have already moved away from sole reliance on SMS OTP for high-risk online banking activities, like adding of payees and changing of fund transfer limits. MAS expects the same for high-risk card transactions such as authorising online card payments. The transition has commenced and MAS will set a deadline for all retail banks to complete this.
MAS does not currently see the need to require banks to provide customers the ability to opt out of SMS OTPs as this would limit the authentication toolkit that the banks have and dilute the effectiveness of multi-layered security for protecting customers. When used in combination with other authentication factors, such as biometrics or digital tokens, SMS OTP provides an additional layer of security that fraudsters have to overcome. In addition, SMS OTP is an authentication method that is accessible by all customers as it can be received on any type of mobile device. It allows all customers to perform low-risk activities, such as viewing of account balance and paying of bills, conveniently without the need for an additional device. Removing SMS OTPs entirely will exclude a significant number of online banking customers who do not own mobile devices that can install digital tokens.
The transition away from sole reliance on SMS OTP for high-risk online banking activities will, however, not deal with other scam types, such as those related to phishing and malware to steal banking credentials, that has been growing recently.
Scam cases involving malware infections of customer devices are not new. However, scammers are exploiting newer technologies. In more recent cases, they have acquired the ability to control customers’ devices using malware. In such cases, the customer may not be aware that SMS OTPs had been delivered to his mobile device, or that unauthorised transactions had been performed, as the scammer who has obtained control over the mobile device has deleted both the SMS OTPs and transaction notifications. Such cases are concerning.
The Cyber Security Agency of Singapore has published an advisory on an ongoing malware campaign targeting Android devices in May 2023. Members of the public are strongly reminded and urged to take these necessary measures, which have also been amplified by the banks, to protect themselves against malware:
(a) Pay attention to the security permissions requested by the application and be wary of applications that ask for unnecessary permissions on mobile devices.
(b) Install applications only from the official Google Play Store.
(c) Uninstall any unknown applications that are found in mobile devices immediately.
(d) Perform anti-virus scans and keep regular backups of important data.
(e) Ensure that mobile devices’ operating systems and applications are updated regularly to be protected by the latest security patches.
When customers discover any unauthorised transactions in their accounts or suspect that their mobile device may have been compromised by malware, they should immediately contact the bank or activate the “kill switch” that the banks provide to freeze their accounts. They should work in cooperation with the bank to establish the facts surrounding the transaction. They should also report fraudulent activities to the Police. For malware cases, the Police may request that customers submit their mobile devices for investigation.
MAS expects banks to treat customers fairly in all cases of dispute over unauthorised transactions. Banks must consider whether they have fulfilled their obligations and whether customers have done their part in protecting their accounts. Customers can ask banks to reassess their cases should new information relevant to their disputes surface.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Volume of Duty-unpaid Cigarettes Seized and Individuals Charged for Related Offences","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"26 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) in each of the last three years, what is the volume of duty-unpaid cigarettes seized; (b) what is the number of individuals charged for offences relating to duty-unpaid cigarettes and what percentage of these are foreigners; and (c) whether any further measures will be taken to deter and reduce the import and consumption of duty-unpaid cigarettes.
Mr Lawrence Wong: From 2020 to 2022, the quantity of duty-unpaid cigarettes seized averaged around two million packets per year. About 350 persons per year were charged for duty-unpaid cigarette offences; 70% of them were non-residents.
Our enforcement agencies will continue to work together to deter and reduce cigarette offences. This includes sharing of intelligence with one another and making good use of technology to increase the chances of catching the culprits in action.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Rebuilding Local Football Ecosystem following National Team's Poor Results at SEA Games 2023","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"27 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth following the Singapore national football team’s poor results at the 32nd SEA Games (a) how does the Ministry intend to rebuild our local football ecosystem; and (b) whether the pipeline of our young football talents should be under greater scrutiny.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: We acknowledge the poor performance of our football team at this year’s Southeast Asian (SEA) Games. Everyone, including the team, is disappointed with the results and agrees that they need to perform better.
The Football Association of Singapore has commissioned a panel to conduct a review of the team’s performance and will share their findings and recommendations soon.
Regardless of our national team’s performance at the recent SEA Games or other competitions, the Government is committed to supporting the “Unleash the Roar!” (UTR!) project and will work hard to uplift the standards of Singapore football. This endeavour will also require a whole-of-society effort and we encourage Singaporeans to support the UTR! project.
However, we should not expect results overnight. This will be a long-term endeavour that will require collective action from many stakeholders. I am pleased to share that there is steady progress on the UTR! project. Earlier this year, we shared with Members of the House on the progress of our School Football Academies (SFAs) and our partnership with Spain’s LaLiga Academy to provide overseas training opportunities. We also set out concrete measures to uplift Singapore football in the longer term.
First is to establish a national framework to systematically select and develop the best players from the broad base of participation that we have from the SFAs, the Singapore Sports School, ActiveSG Football Academy as well as private clubs and academies.
Second is to set up a national football development centre as the main training centre to develop more structured opportunities for training and competition for those who aspire to be selected and represent Singapore in the national teams.
Third is to progressively roll out training on talent identification for coaches and strengthen our scouts’ capabilities in identifying the best of our young footballers.
Fourth is to launch the inaugural UTR! scholarship to provide promising footballers the best environment to train and compete alongside their academic pursuits. The scholarships will be launched later this year.
These are being implemented and we will share more details in the coming months.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"ASEAN's Assessment of China's Recent Declaration of Support for Myanmar's Junta","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"28 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs what are the likely consequences of China's recent declaration of support for the Myanmar junta on (i) ASEAN's Five-Point Consensus, (ii) intra-ASEAN cooperation on Myanmar and (iii) prospects for peace in Myanmar.
Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: The Five-Point Consensus remains the basis of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)’s position on Myanmar. ASEAN’s external partners, including the United Nations (UN), as affirmed by the UN Security Council resolution 2669 of 21 December 2022, have important roles to play in working with ASEAN to uphold the Five-Point Consensus and facilitate national reconciliation in Myanmar. Singapore will continue to support the ASEAN Chair Indonesia and fellow ASEAN member states to press the Tatmadaw to cease violence and implement the Five-Point Consensus swiftly and fully.
The key to peace in Myanmar lies with all Myanmar stakeholders concerned and their willingness to engage in constructive dialogue to seek a peaceful solution in the interests of their people.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reviews on Impact of Baby Support Grant and Increases in Amounts for Baby Bonus Scheme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"29 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Prime Minister whether the Government has conducted reviews on the impact of the (i) one-off Baby Support Grant and (ii) past increases in the quantum of amounts paid out under the Baby Bonus Scheme.
Ms Indranee Rajah (for the Prime Minister): We have put in place a comprehensive suite of measures to support Singaporeans at every stage of their Marriage and Parenthood journey. Our surveys and engagements have found that these measures, including the Baby Bonus Scheme, have been helpful in providing reassurance to couples and supporting them with the costs and pressures of child-raising. The one-off Baby Support Grant introduced during the COVID-19 pandemic had also given some couples the assurance to proceed with their parenthood plans. In a 2021 Marriage and Parenthood survey of over 3,000 married respondents, about three in four said that the Baby Bonus Scheme made it easier for them to have children. In another survey of 1,500 married Singaporeans in 2021, of those who said they intended to delay their parenthood plans due to COVID-19, about seven in 10 said they were influenced by the Baby Support Grant to have a child earlier.
However, it is not meaningful to review the effect of the Baby Bonus Scheme or the Baby Support Grant in isolation from the impact of other measures in place to support marriage and parenthood. Moreover, parenthood decisions are complex and based on many different factors. These include the costs of raising children and being able to manage work and caregiving commitments, as well as exogenous factors, such as the overall economic climate. Beyond Government measures, it is, therefore, also important to continue our whole-of-society effort to strengthen support for marriage and parenthood and build a Singapore Made For Families.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Inclusion of Other Relatives under Sponsorship Scheme for Seniors with No Children or Siblings to Hire Migrant Domestic Workers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"31 Ms Carrie Tan asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether the Ministry will consider including other relatives under the Sponsorship Scheme for seniors with no children or siblings and are in urgent need of hiring a migrant domestic worker due to their declining health; (b) if so, what are the documents needed; and (c) whether the Ministry will consider an expedited approval process for such cases.\n
Dr Tan See Leng: The Sponsorship Scheme allows for senior citizens who are 60 years old and above, not earning an income and not staying with any working adults, to hire a migrant domestic worker (MDW) based on the income of up to two sponsors. The sponsor(s) and the elderly employer are jointly responsible for the upkeep, maintenance and well-being of the MDW. In view of these obligations, the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) requires the sponsor to have a direct familial relationship with the senior, such as being the senior’s child, grandchild or sibling.
Nonetheless, we recognise that there will be instances where the senior citizen has no such family members. MOM allows other family members to be the sponsor on a case-by-case basis. MOM will ask for information that explains his or her circumstances and his or her relationship with the sponsor. If the senior citizen requires the MDW urgently, MOM will expedite the approval process.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Government Agencies' Expenditure on Management Consultancy Services","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"34 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) how much has (i) Ministries and (ii) Statutory Boards spent on management consultancy services in each of the last five years; and (b) what is the nature of the consultancy services provided.
Mr Lawrence Wong: From CY2018 to CY2022, Ministries and Statutory Boards procured consultancy services worth about $125 million and $145 million respectively per year on average. These make up about 1% of total annual Government procurement value. These figures include consultancies for design services and feasibility studies for construction projects, consultancies for the development and implementation of IT systems, consultancies for environmental studies, consultancies for organisational improvements and other types of consultancy services.
We do not have a breakdown for how many of these consultancy contracts were for management consultancies.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Probe into Recent Disruptions of DBS' Digital Bank and Physical ATM Services and Preventive Measures Implemented","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"35 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Prime Minister (a) what is the cause of the disruption to DBS Bank's digital banking services and physical ATM services on 5 May 2023; and (b) what is being done to strengthen the reliability and resilience of retail banks with significant market share in Singapore, especially with regard to digital banking services.
Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam (for the Prime Minister): My response will cover the questions raised by both Dr Tan Wu Meng in today’s Order Paper and by Mr Desmond Choo filed for 4 July 2023’s Sitting.
The disruption of DBS Bank’s digital banking services on 5 May 2023 intermittently affected customers’ access to Internet and mobile banking, electronic payment and automated teller machine (ATM) services. DBS fully restored affected services after 6.5 hours. The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) has stated publicly that it regards this second disruption within a period of two months as unacceptable and that DBS had fallen short of MAS’ expectation for banks to deliver reliable services to their customers.
DBS’ preliminary investigations showed that the disruption was due to human error in coding the programme that was used for system maintenance. The error led to a significant reduction in system capacity which, in turn, affected the system’s ability to process Internet and mobile banking, electronic payment and ATM transactions. According to DBS, the cause of the incident was unrelated to the earlier March 2023 disruption, which was caused by inherent software bugs.
Following the March 2023 incident, DBS convened a Special Board Committee to oversee the root cause investigation and a comprehensive review of the bank’s IT resilience. Following the May 2023 disruption, MAS has required the Special Board Committee to extend its review to cover the latest incident and to use qualified independent third parties for the review. More details on the disruptions will be provided by the bank publicly when the review is completed.
The imposition of capital requirements on DBS reflects the seriousness with which MAS views the recent disruptions and the impact that they have had on customers. MAS may vary the size of the additional capital requirement imposed on the bank and take other regulatory actions depending on the outcome of ongoing reviews.
MAS requires all retail banks in Singapore to ensure that their mission critical systems supporting digital banking are resilient. This includes having the ability to recover quickly from any system disruptions.
Banks are subject to regular inspections and off-site reviews by MAS to ensure their adherence to regulatory requirements and expectations. Further details on MAS’ supervisory approach have been explained to this House on 21 April 2023. [Please refer to \"Banking Disruptions That Have Lasted More Than an Hour in Last Five Years\", Official Report, 21 April 2023, Vol 95, Issue 101, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer not Answered by End of Question Time section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Evaluating Prevailing Societal Values towards Single Unwed Parents and Adjusting Provision of Children-related Tax Reliefs for These Parents","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"36 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) how does the Ministry evaluate the prevailing societal norms and values with regard to being single unwed parents; and (b) whether the Ministry considers it timely to re-evaluate the provision of the Working Mother’s Child Relief and the Parenthood Tax Rebate for such parents.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The Government reviews and updates our policies from time to time, taking into account various factors, including changing societal norms and values. This is also the case when it comes to support provided to single unwed parents. Among other sources of information, we look at various statistical as well as survey indicators to assess Singaporeans’ attitudes towards single unwed parents.
Single unwed parents are already eligible for all Government benefits that support the growth and development of their children. These include subsidies for education, healthcare, childcare and infant care, the foreign domestic worker levy concession and the Child Development Account (CDA).
In addition, low-income single unwed parents can also approach their nearest Social Service Office for assistance. The Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) also works with community groups to strengthen support for single unwed parents in need.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Non-Singaporean Tamil Language Teachers Employed in Schools and Language Centres","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"37 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for Education (a) whether the Ministry has data on how many non-Singaporean Tamil Language (TL) teachers are currently employed in schools and TL centres; and (b) whether schools will consider hiring more non-Singaporean TL teachers from abroad, given the limited availability of TL teachers.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: As of December 2022, the Ministry of Education (MOE) employed 24 Tamil Language teachers who are Work Pass holders.
MOE’s focus is on recruiting suitable individuals with the right disposition and competencies to teach, with a priority on hiring local teachers. However, for certain teaching subjects, including for Tamil Language, we do recruit foreign teachers, given the limited availability of local applicants. When doing so, we carefully select those with good track record and experience, and who demonstrate potential to assimilate into our local cultural context.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reviewing Background Screening Companies Responsible for Verifying Qualifications of Employment Pass Applicants","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"38 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Manpower (a) how frequently does the Ministry review the background screening companies responsible for verifying the qualifications of Employment Pass (EP) applicants; (b) how are conflicting verification results resolved to ensure accuracy and consistencies; (c) whether further information can be provided on the selection criteria in assessing these background screening companies; and (d) what steps will be taken to ensure a smooth implementation of the new requirement for employers who may be unfamiliar with the process.
Dr Tan See Leng: As I had announced in my Committee of Supply (COS) 2023 speech, the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) will require employers submitting new Employment Pass (EP) applications to provide verification proof for diploma-level and above qualifications from 1 September 2023. These qualifications will then be accorded the correct points under the Complementarity Assessment Framework. Employers can use background screening companies that are listed on MOM’s website. Otherwise, employers can use online verification portals of local governments or educational institutions, or submit digital certificates verified through the OpenCerts portal.
MOM conducted an Expression of Interest exercise in April 2023 and have selected 12 background screening companies. These companies were carefully selected by a panel comprising representatives from MOM, tripartite partners, business and human resource associations. The background screening companies will be subject to regular MOM checks and annual reviews by the panel. Companies which fail to meet MOM’s requirements, quality and service standards at any point will be removed from the listing.
If there are inaccurate or conflicting verification results, MOM will ask the companies to explain the discrepancies and audit their verification process, including their correspondences with the institutions, to ascertain the accuracy of the verification checks.
The companies were assessed by the panel based on the following criteria:
(a) Scale of operations and geographical coverage;
(b) Cost of verification services;
(c) Time taken to verify qualifications;
(d) Processes to ensure accuracy of verifications;
(e) Capabilities for customer support; and
(f) Processes to protect confidentiality of client information.
MOM will take various steps to ensure a smooth implementation of the new requirement for employers. First, we have listed the 12 selected companies on our website, along with links to their respective websites. MOM has required these companies to have a dedicated page on their websites for employers to understand the coverage, cost and processing time of their verification services. Second, MOM will require the companies to adhere to the processing times they have declared in their proposals to MOM. Third, MOM will work with the associations represented in the panel to educate employers on the new requirement.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Total Value of Unauthorised Credit Card Charges in Last Five Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"39 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Prime Minister (a) in each of the last five years, what is the total value of unauthorised credit card charges that have been reported; (b) what proportion of such unauthorised charges comprised individual transactions that are below S$50 in value each; and (c) what regulatory measures are being considered or implemented to protect Singaporeans against Bank Identification Number attacks.
Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam (for the Prime Minister): A Bank Identification Number (BIN) attack is a type of card fraud, using software to generate possible credit and debit card number combinations, expiration dates and card verification values. Low value transactions are systematically attempted in order to test for valid card details and higher value transactions are subsequently made using those valid card information.
The statistics requested by the Member are not readily available. Unauthorised credit card transactions, in particular, arising from BIN attacks, are not specifically tracked. Banks, however, track credit card dispute cases, which may comprise disputes over goods purchased or services rendered, card fraud, lost or stolen cards or scams. Of these, scams continue to be the main driver of losses suffered by consumers.
In BIN attacks, the fraudster typically targets merchants that do not require one-time password (OTP) authentication, as the fraudster would not ordinarily have access to the OTP. In such a case, a card user will not be liable for an unauthorised transaction. Rather, the merchant involved will be liable for the loss, as long as the card user reports the case on a timely basis.
The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) expects that card issuers in Singapore and card scheme operators, such as Visa and Mastercard, have strong card security measures to protect customers from card fraud, including BIN attacks. Measures implemented include real-time card fraud monitoring, providing transaction alerts to customers, implementing OTP to authenticate customers before approval of online transactions at merchants, and chargeback mechanisms to reverse unauthorised transactions. Card issuers also work quickly to replace cards whose BIN numbers have been compromised.
Members of the public are strongly encouraged to monitor their card transactions regularly, and immediately notify their card issuers if they notice any fraudulent or suspicious transactions and also report such transactions to the Police.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Rise in Resident Employment in First Quarter 2023","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"40 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for Manpower of the rise in resident employment by 2,800 in the first quarter of 2023 (a) what percentage of the increase is due to non-residents becoming residents; and (b) what is the breakdown of the increase by full-time permanent employment and part-time employment, respectively.
Dr Tan See Leng: Data on the net change in resident employment by worker’s prior residency status and whether they were in full-time or part-time roles is not collected in the quarterly labour market reports.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Financial Institutions Investigated for Breaching Anti-money Laundering and Anti-terrorism Financing Rules","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"41 Mr Ang Wei Neng asked the Prime Minister (a) how many financial institutions have been investigated for breaching anti-money laundering and anti-terrorism financing rules in the past five years; (b) how many of these are related to the Wirecard scandal; and (c) what are the additional preventive measures MAS has put in place to minimise anti-money laundering activities following the Wirecard scandal.
Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam (for the Prime Minister): The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) has strict requirements on Anti-Money Laundering and Countering the Financing of Terrorism (AML/CFT), in line with international standards. MAS also actively supervises financial institutions (FIs) for adherence with our requirements and expectations.
In the past five years, that is, from 1 June 2018 to 23 June 2023, a total of 20 investigations were opened against FIs for suspected breaches of MAS’ AML/CFT requirements.
Enforcement actions were taken against 17 FIs. The licence of one FI was revoked. Composition penalties were imposed on 14 FIs, including the four recent cases related to the Wirecard scandal. Reprimands were issued to two FIs.
Even prior to the Wirecard scandal, MAS’ inspections had covered FIs’ controls against the misuse of legal persons, which was a risk that arose in the Wirecard-related cases. Arising from these supervisory interventions, FIs were already in the process of strengthening their controls.
Active collaboration among FIs, the regulator and law enforcement is essential in the fight against financial crime. MAS and the Commercial Affairs Department (CAD) work closely with key FIs to share analyses of emerging Money Laundering/Terrorism Financing (ML/TF) risks and information on specific cases. This partnership has helped identify suspicious accounts and activities and resulted in investigations. We will be able to do more under this partnership when the Collaborative Sharing of ML/TF Information and Cases (COSMIC) platform is implemented in the second half of 2024. COSMIC will allow participant FIs to securely share information on customers who exhibit suspicious behaviours that signal potential illegal financial activities. This will enhance FIs’ ability to detect and report to the authorities suspicious activities earlier and with greater accuracy.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Annual State Costs for Provision of Ministerial Security at 26 and 31 Ridout Road","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"1 Mr Leon Perera asked the Prime Minister how does the average annual state costs for providing Ministerial security at No 26 and No 31 Ridout Road compare with the average for such costs.\n\n
Mr Teo Chee Hean (for the Prime Minister): Residential security measures for Cabinet Ministers are determined by the Singapore Police Force (SPF) based on their professional assessment of the security threat and risks. This takes into account primarily the threat and risks to the Minister, including the portfolio he or she holds, and not just the residence where the Minister lives. Wherever the Minister’s residence happens to be, SPF provides the appropriate level of security. As such, the level of residential security measures and the cost vary for different Cabinet Ministers and a meaningful comparison cannot be made. SPF is not able to divulge more details, as this could undermine security.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Returns for Dynamic, Balanced and Stable Funds under Saver Premium Fund","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"2 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Defence (a) what are the returns for the Dynamic, Balanced and Stable funds under the Saver Premium Fund in their (i) first year, (ii) fifth year, (iii) tenth year and (iv) since their inception respectively; (b) what are the performance benchmarks against which the respective funds are compared to; and (c) how have the funds performed relative to their benchmarks in the respective time periods.
Dr Ng Eng Hen: The SAVER-Premium Fund is a superannuation fund that aims to generate sustainable long-term returns that exceed the rate of inflation. The annualised returns for the last five years, 10 years and since inception of the three Fund Plans are shown in Table 1.
Over those periods, all the three Fund Plans delivered annualised returns that were above the long-term average core inflation of 1.6%1.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : The Monetary Authority of Singapore's (MAS) 10-year average core inflation rate."],"footNoteQuestions":["2"],"questionNo":"2"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"ASEAN's Most Recent Humanitarian Needs Assessment for Rohingya Refugees","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"3 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs what are the results of the most recent humanitarian needs assessment conducted by the ASEAN Coordinating Centre for Humanitarian Assistance on Disaster Management (AHA Centre) for Rohingya refugees.
Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: The Preliminary Needs Assessment (PNA) conducted in March 2019 was the most recent humanitarian needs assessment. The report identified three potential areas of collaboration: (a) enhancing the capacity of reception and transit centres; (b) strengthening information dissemination; and (c) support for the provision of basic services.
The ASEAN Secretariat’s Ad-Hoc Support Team was established to monitor the implementation of PNA. Comprehensive Needs Assessments (CNAs) will be conducted once repatriation commences. However, progress has stalled, given the COVID-19 pandemic, ongoing political instability in Myanmar and the recent Cyclone Mocha.
Singapore has strongly supported ASEAN’s efforts and contributed over S$1 million in bilateral aid to meet the urgent humanitarian needs of displaced persons from Rakhine State. We are prepared to send further consignments of aid and stand ready to support future CNAs once repatriation commences.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Authorisations Sought and Granted for Statement to be Recorded in Absence of Appropriate Adult","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"4 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Home Affairs in each of the past five years (a) how many times has an authorisation for a statement to be recorded in the absence of an Appropriate Adult been sought from an investigation supervisor; and (b) how many times has such an authorisation been (i) granted and (ii) not granted.
Mr K Shanmugam: As mentioned in Parliament on 8 May 2023, we do not track the number of instances when an Appropriate Adult was not activated for an interview. [Please refer to \"Clarification by Minister of State for Home Affairs\", Official Report, 8 May 2023, Vol 95, Issue 102, Clarification section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Returns for Dynamic, Balanced and Stable Funds under Home Affairs Uniformed Services INVEST Fund","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"5 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) what are the returns for the Dynamic, Balanced and Stable funds under the Home Affairs Uniformed Services INVEST Fund in their (i) first year, (ii) fifth year, (iii) 10th year and (iv) since their inception respectively; (b) what are the performance benchmarks against which the respective funds are compared to; and (c) how have the funds performed relative to their benchmarks in the respective time periods.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Home Affairs Uniformed Services INVEST Fund is a superannuation fund with a long-term focus to achieve returns that exceed the rate of inflation over time.1 The returns for the last five and 10 years and since the inception of the three plans in the INVEST Fund are shown in the Table below:2
6 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) in each of the past five years, what is the number of people who have refused conveyance via SCDF ambulances to hospitals after the arrival of the ambulances; (b) what are the top five reasons given by these people for their refusal; and (c) whether SCDF or any other Government agency follows up with such people on their medical conditions after their refusal.
Mr K Shanmugam: The number of people who have refused conveyance, in each of the last five years, is set out in the Table below. This is about 10% to 12% of the total calls received for the Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) Emergency Medical Services (EMS). The annual increases are in line with the increases in the overall EMS call load.
SCDF does not track the reasons for refusal. Should patients refuse conveyance to the hospital, SCDF cannot compel them unless they are assessed to be mentally incapacitated. SCDF requires them or their next-of-kin to sign an indemnity form. SCDF will also explain the potential medical consequences and advise them to seek medical treatment on their own or call 995 again if necessary.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Singapore's Adoption of IMO 2020 Regulation","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"7 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Transport whether Singapore has adopted IMO 2020, a global regulation where the upper limit on sulphur content of ships’ fuel oil is reduced to 0.5%, on ships (i) entering Singapore waters and (ii) registered in Singapore, regardless of their jurisdictional locations.
Mr S Iswaran: The Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore (MPA) has incorporated the requirements of the International Maritime Organization (IMO) 2020 regulation in its Prevention of Pollution of the Sea (Air) Regulations 2022. The Regulations are applicable to Singapore-registered ships and all other ships while they are in Singapore waters.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Studies on Costs of Air Pollution from All Domestic Sources","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"8 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) whether the Government has conducted studies on the (i) economic costs, (ii) healthcare costs and (iii) excess mortality associated with air pollution from all domestic sources; and (b) if so, whether these findings can be shared.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Similar questions were answered in this House in March 2017 and November 2022. Since then, we have not been informed of any new published studies on health costs associated with air pollution in Singapore. The Member may wish to refer to the answers given. [Please refer to (a) \"Link between Better Air Quality and Reduction in Healthcare Costs\", Official Report, 1 March 2017, Vol 94, Issue 36, Oral Answers to Questions section; and (b) \"Studies on Annual Mortality and Cost Associated with Air Pollution from Human Activities\", Official Report, 28 November 2022, Vol 95, Issue 76, 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":"Non-Singaporeans from High-income Countries Studying and Receiving Tuition Grants in Local Universities","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"9 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Education what proportion of undergraduate students currently studying at (i) the National University of Singapore, (ii) Nanyang Technological University and (iii) all other autonomous universities are non-Singaporeans from high-income countries and receiving tuition grants or fee offsets for their studies.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: The Ministry of Education's (MOE) tuition grants are awarded based on an applicant’s merit, rather than their country of origin or its income level. All international students who receive the tuition grant are required to work in Singapore or in a Singapore-based company for at least three years upon graduation, as part of their service obligation. Eighty percent of international students at the autonomous universities receive tuition grants while the remainder are paying full fees.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Take-up Rate among Parents for Voluntary Workshops Dealing with Child Mental Health Issues","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"10 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Education (a) what is the uptake rate among parents for voluntary workshops conducted by the Health Promotion Board (HPB) that aim to provide support and guidance on dealing with mental health issues of their children; (b) whether schools will consider including mental health screening in their health screening programmes; and (c) how do schools collaborate with parents to identify and support students who may be experiencing mental health difficulties.\n\n
Mr Chan Chun Sing: The Health Promotion Board (HPB) conducts Colours of the Mind workshops to enable parents to support their child's mental well-being. In 2022, over 3,000 parents participated in them.
Whilst there may be some merits of mental health screening, this is an approach that is not straightforward and warrants further study. Parents are best placed to notice when their child is experiencing mental health issues. Schools work closely with parents to support students with mental health concerns through early identification, referrals to professionals and community resources, as well as interventions.
The Ministry of Education (MOE) also supports parents with resources and tips as well as access to networks with other parents on good parenting approaches and fostering mental well-being.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Foreign Students Taking GCE \"A\" and \"O\" Levels in Singapore Schools","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"11 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Education (a) in the past five years, how many foreign students took the GCE \"O\" and \"A\" levels in Singapore schools; (b) how many years were they studying in Singapore before they sat for the GCE \"O\" levels; and (c) what is the foreign student proportion of junior college enrolment in Singapore.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: Over the last five years, foreign students made up around 5% of enrolment in our secondary schools and junior colleges. Similarly, foreign students formed about 5% of the GCE \"O\" and \"A\" level school candidature. Foreign students studied for six years, on average, in our national schools, that is, primary and/or secondary school, before sitting for the GCE \"O\" level examinations.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Feasibility of Hospital-provided Accommodation at Concessionary Rates for Healthcare Workers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"12 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for Health whether the Ministry has studied the feasibility of hospital-provided accommodation at concessionary rates, as part of supporting healthcare workers who cannot easily afford their own accommodation but wish to stay near the hospital workplace, including for what may be operational or operational-related reasons.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Healthcare workers in the public healthcare clusters have the flexibility to source for their preferred accommodation and live within the community. The public healthcare clusters provide their foreign healthcare workers with a housing allowance to help defray their accommodation expenses.
MOH Holdings has been studying the feasibility of facilitating hostel-type accommodation to support new foreign healthcare workers when they first arrive in Singapore, before transiting to housing options available in the market after they have had some time to settle in.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Waiting Time for Appointments for Mental Health Treatment at Public Healthcare Institutions","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"13 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Health (a) what is the average waiting time for initial and follow-up appointments for mental health treatment at public healthcare institutions; and (b) can more accessible and affordable options be provided to mental healthcare patients who are seeking private treatment due to long waiting times in the public healthcare system.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The median waiting time for a new subsidised appointment was 45 days to see a psychiatrist and 42 days to see a psychologist. The interval for follow-up appointments varies from patient to patient and is based on the healthcare professional’s assessment of the patient’s needs.
Public hospitals employ a triage system to ensure that patients are seen in a timely manner based on the urgency of their condition. Patients whose conditions are more severe or who require more urgent assistance are given earlier appointments. Persons in need of urgent mental healthcare can also access various mental health counselling helplines operated by social service agencies, support groups and hospitals, or seek medical help at the 24-hour Emergency Services located at the Institute of Mental Health (IMH). In addition, IMH has crisis teams that provide on-site crisis interventions to persons with a known or suspected mental health condition who are at risk of harm to self or others.
Patients with mental health conditions can also receive care from primary care doctors in the community. As at end-2022, there were over 410 trained general practitioners (GPs) who provide mental health services. Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS), Pioneer Generation and Merdeka Generation cardholders are eligible for additional subsidies of up to $540 annually for the management of mental illnesses under the Chronic Disease Management Programme (CDMP), which include major depression, anxiety disorders, including obsessive compulsive disorder, bipolar disorder and schizophrenia, at CHAS GP clinics which provide mental health services.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Subsidies for Continuous Glucose Monitoring under Chronic Disease Management Programme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"14 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Health whether the Ministry will consider providing public subsidies for Continuous Glucose Monitoring in place of self-monitoring via finger pricking under the Chronic Disease Management Programme.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Devices for continuous glucose monitoring have been around for a while, but they are not cheap and the health outcomes not straightforward. The Ministry of Health (MOH) has, therefore, been gathering more evidence, reviewing the clinical and cost-effectiveness of these devices and speaking to suppliers on pricing. Based on the results, we will consider whether they can be included under the Chronic Disease Management Programme.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"NParks' Review of Cat Management Framework","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"15 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether NParks’ review of the cat management framework is on track for completion by late 2023; (b) what are the results of the six-month public consultation exercise on the framework launched in September 2022; and (c) whether the review will give due consideration to responsible cat owners, in deciding whether to allow cats as pets in HDB flats.
Mr Desmond Lee: The key findings of the National Parks Board (NParks)'s public survey on the proposed cat management approach were shared at the Pets’ Day Out event on 6 May 2023. NParks is further engaging the community on the proposed approach, including through focus group discussions with various stakeholder groups. NParks aims to share more details on the proposed approach in the later part of this year.
In deciding whether to allow cats as pets in Housing and Development Board (HDB) flats, we will continue to carefully balance the needs of different segments of the community. This was explained in our response to a Parliamentary Question from Mr Louis Ng, which was issued on 7 November 2022. [Please refer to \"Review of Pet Cat Ownership in HDB Flats\", Official Report, 7 November 2022, Vol 95, Issue 73, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer not Answered by End of Question Time section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"HDB Flats with Outstanding Mortgage Loans","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"16 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for National Development (a) what is the current number and percentage of HDB flats with outstanding mortgage loans; (b) what is the median and average loan balance outstanding, broken down by mortgage loans owed to (i) private financial institutions and (ii) HDB respectively.
Mr Desmond Lee: As of the first quarter of 2023, there are about 431,000 Housing and Development Board (HDB) households with an outstanding housing loan from HDB or financial institutions (FIs). They comprise 41% of all HDB households.
The breakdown of the outstanding loan balance among HDB households is in Table 1.
17 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether he can provide an update on HDB’s collaboration with Evonik Industries to study the incorporation of a high-performance insulation material into the roof panels of flats; and (b) what are the results and likely policy thrusts arising from the study, preliminary or otherwise.
Mr Desmond Lee: The Housing and Development Board (HDB) and Evonik (SEA) Private Limited (Evonik) signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) during the Urban Sustainability R&D Congress 2019 to explore solutions to mitigate the effects of climate change and enhance concrete manufacturing processes for productivity and sustainability. Evonik is known for its expertise in materials science. As part of the MOU, HDB is exploring the use of Evonik’s \"Calostat\" insulation panel to mitigate heat gain of buildings, to enhance the living environment of HDB residents.
The research is still in its early phases and we will share more when ready.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Audition Requirement to Renew Busking Licences","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"18 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) what are the reasons why the audition requirement to renew busking licences cannot be fulfilled with technological solutions, such as live video conferencing; and (b) if auditions via live video conferencing are allowed, whether this alternative will not be limited to only those with good busking track records.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: This question has been addressed in the reply to Question No 31 for Oral Answer on the Order Paper for 9 May 2023. [Please refer to \"Simplified Busking Audition Process\", Official Report, 9 May 2023, Vol 95, Issue 103, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer not Answered by End of Question Time section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Median and Average CPF Account Balances and Principal Amount Withdrawn for Residential Properties by Age Decile","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"19 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what are the current median and average (i) CPF Ordinary Account, Special Account and MediSave Account balances; (b) what is the current total principal amount withdrawn for residential properties, broken down by age deciles respectively.
Dr Tan See Leng: The median and average CPF Ordinary Account, Special Account and MediSave Account balances, and median and average amounts withdrawn for residential property broken down by age bands as at December 2022 are shown in Table 1 below. As members aged 55 and above can make CPF withdrawals in cash from age 55 depending on their needs, the comparison between their CPF balances and amount withdrawn for housing would not be meaningful.
20 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Manpower whether the Ministry can require the Employment Claims Tribunal to publicly issue written judgments by default, with sensitive personal details redacted as necessary, to guide the development of employment law and protection of workers and businesses in Singapore.
Dr Tan See Leng: Today, the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) may make applications to the Employment Claims Tribunals (ECT) to publish the judgment and grounds of decision that are assessed to be useful references to parties, including employers, employees and mediators. As to whether the ECT should be required to publish these as default for all cases, the Ministry will consider this as part of the workplace fairness legislation review.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Employees Making Restitution for Damage or Loss of Property Caused at Workplace by External Individuals","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"21 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether there is available data on the number of cases over the past three years of employees being asked to make restitution for property at the workplace which has been damaged or stolen by external individuals when this requirement is not explicitly stated in the employee's terms and conditions of employment; and (b) if data is available, what is the outcome of these cases.
Dr Tan See Leng: The Ministry does not track employees being asked to make restitution for property at the workplace that has been damaged or stolen by external individuals.
The Employment Act already provides some protection for employees in such situations. While employers can deduct from the salary of an employee for damage to or loss of goods due to the employee’s fault, such deductions must not exceed 25% of the employee’s one month’s salary, except with the Commissioner for Labour’s permission. Before deducting the employee’s salary, the employer should hold an inquiry to determine if the employee is directly at fault and give the employee an opportunity to explain.
Employees who feel aggrieved by such salary deductions may seek help from the Tripartite Alliance for Dispute Management.
The Ministry also investigates complaints on unauthorised or excessive salary deductions and will take enforcement action against the employer if the deductions are found to have contravened the Employment Act.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null}],"writtenAnswersVOList":[],"writtenAnsNAVOList":[],"annexureList":[],"vernacularList":[{"vernacularID":5662,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Chan Chun Sing","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20230705/vernacular-Chan Chun Sing GRC 5July2023-Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Chan Chun Sing GRC 5July2023-Chinese.pdf"}],"onlinePDFFileName":""}