1 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Defence what lessons can Singapore learn from the recent drone attack in Saudi Arabia and what is the Government doing to prevent and counter a similar potential attack in Singapore.
\tThe Minister for Defence (Dr Ng Eng Hen): Thank you, Mr Speaker. To ensure that Singapore's air defences are robust to deal with drone attacks, we must draw important lessons from the recent drone attack on Saudi oil facilities and any such related incidents. Indeed, the SAF monitors closely the development of these drone incidents, so that we can assess the adequacy of our defence systems and to plug gaps when identified. Over the past decade, the SAF has enhanced our air defence systems against possible drone attacks.
The recent Saudi attack reflects the growing and evolving capabilities of drones that are available to both state and non-state actors who mean to do us harm. Let me provide first the spectrum of drone capabilities that we need to protect ourselves against, before elaborating on specific defence responses. Let me start with the Saudi attack. While reports still need to be confirmed, that attack shows clearly that the range and manoeuvrability of drones have increased – depending on the reports you read, from 700 to 1,500 km. These medium- and long-range drones are able to avoid radar detection and also hit their targets with great precision. I think many Members would have seen the pictures after the attacks and how precise those attacks were.
The Saudi attack was conducted by sophisticated weaponised drones and that represents one extreme of sophistication in terms of drone capabilities. If we take the other extreme where you have simple drones that can be bought in retail stores and that would intrude into restricted air space, but even though they are very simple devices, they can disrupt civilian or military air traffic because they pose safety hazards. The impact is not trivial, as the past incidents in Gatwick and Changi Airport showed. In both incidents, planes were diverted and grounded which resulted in both real and opportunity costs – amounting to millions – to airport regulators, airlines and passengers. These simple off-the-shelf drones can be modified with some know-how to avoid detection by conventional means that most commercial airports employ.
So, on one hand, very sophisticated, weaponised drones that can go up to 1,500 km; and the other extreme, toy drones that you can buy from the stores that create great impact. Between these two extremes are the class of drones that can carry simple munitions such as grenades and small arms. For example, ISIS had been successful in modifying and weaponising small drones with explosives to attack ground forces and facilities. It is documented. In August 2018, drones carrying explosives were used in an attempted attack on the President of Venezuela.
So, taken as a whole, the security threats posed by drones are therefore real and the impact can be damaging, even devastating, depending on the platform used. Against this wide spectrum of threats, there can be no single counter-response. It would neither be proportionate nor sustainable to employ sophisticated assets worth hundreds of millions of dollars to take down hobbyist drones that can be bought for less than a thousand dollars. For these threats, other tools would be required, such as regulations, deterrent fines and penalties, education, and working with relevant stakeholders including drone-hobbyist communities themselves. And I think MOT has been very busy doing that and we are passing some Bills to enhance penalties. For Changi Airport, MOT and CAAS deal with possible intrusions from drones. MHA and SPF take the lead in defending against drones in specific areas of security concern and during major events. The SAF will assist them when called upon and when needed.
Beyond these specific responsibilities by various agencies against drones in their geographic domains, the SAF remains responsible for drone attacks against Singapore by would-be aggressors, especially towards key installations. For example, the SAF recognises that terrorists can use drones as a form of attack. Within our region, an ISIS-linked individual had planned to use commercial drones to conduct bomb attacks in Malaysia. Singapore continues to be a target for regional terrorist groups, as demonstrated by the foiled terrorist attack on Marina Bay Sands in 2016. These incidents are sober reminders that the risks are not theoretical and we must remain vigilant.
Let me go through specific enhancements that the SAF has put in place over the past decade to buttress our air defences against drone attacks. First, early-warning systems. The RSAF has enhanced its early warning capability with more capable sensors like the G550 Airborne Early Warning Aircraft and Multi-Mission Radars. The assets we have in place now would have been able to detect the alleged drones used in the attack on oil facilities in Saudi Arabia.
After identification, these drones would be taken down by our Ground-Based Air Defence (GBAD) systems, which have now been upgraded with new platforms. The SPYDER system has replaced the older RAPIER system and the ASTER-30 missile system will replace the I-HAWK system. Some Members as NSmen and GBAD units would have been familiar with the old systems. The SAF is confident that these systems can protect Singapore against aerial threats from both manned and unmanned aircraft. Our air defence system is live, 24/7.
I also mentioned drones in the middle part of that threat spectrum. What do we do against these? These threats are rapidly evolving and while they may not cause large scale damage, can cause bodily harm, undermine confidence and disrupt our society. Just imagine if grenades were dropped or suicide attacks with minor explosives were used. Against such threats, as we did in NDP or during the Trump-Kim Summit held in Singapore, the SAF puts up additional sensors and counter-offensive capabilities when required during high signature events or when intelligence assessments indicate specific risks.
The SAF will continue to monitor threat developments and learn from all incidents that occur globally to provide appropriate responses to the spectrum of potential drone attacks that are commensurate with the level of threat, sustainable and cost-effective.
\tMr Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah): I thank the Minister for his response. Two supplementary questions, Mr Speaker. First, do we have military hardware, the assets, to counter the military threat of a military-grade UAV attack or a military drone attack? In particular, would our air defence continue to provide a protective umbrella over Singapore, notwithstanding the advent of military-grade drones and UAVs, and the threat they pose? The second question – I agree that the solution does not depend solely on MINDEF. Therefore, how will drone hobbyists be made to abide by rules such as to avoid air space close to key installations which in turn will help our authorities quickly detect, isolate and neutralise the real and harmful threats?
\tDr Ng Eng Hen: Mr Speaker, both questions are good ones and reflect the complexity of our mounting counter-responses to specific threats. So, let us take the first threat that Mr de Souza mentioned about – the sophisticated drones. There, I think, as a whole, most militaries including the SAF are more confident. Because once you go beyond a certain size, whether it is manned or unmanned, your air defence systems are up. They are low-flying, they try to avoid radar detection, you can have counter-offensive measures which deal with that using a different array of sensors, as well as responses. I would say, there, I think, the short answer is that, if the alleged components or platforms as in the Saudi attack were used, we are quite confident that we would have detected it as well as been able to neutralise it.
It is the other spectrums that are more troublesome, sometimes. Hobbyists drones – how do you deal with them? It is inappropriate to use the systems that we use against large weaponised drones, for them. Sometimes, it is ineffective. There, I would say that the industry is busily working because it is a global issue. Many airports can be affected as we saw in Gatwick and Changi; and our own scientists and SAF are also looking for appropriate measures that are sustainable and cost-effective. As well as against the intermediate set of spectrum that I talked about; in other words, larger sized drones, not as quite as big as the ones that are used in the Saudi attack but nonetheless, can carry small arms, small ammunitions and grenades, and so on and so forth.
\tMr Murali Pillai (Bukit Batok): Mr Speaker, may I ask the Minister whether there is scope to require the manufacturers of these hobbyists' drones to cooperate with MINDEF such that action can be taken?
\tDr Ng Eng Hen: The answer is yes. In fact, the industry has responded. For instance, certain class of drones that are by certain manufacturers have built-in software that you can key in, which incorporate coordinates of restricted zones so that the drones can never fly in. But they can be easily altered. So, you can require it and regulations will form part of our tool box against such aspects. In the main, that will help reduce the noise. In other words, you put in those regulations and, by and large, the majority of distributors and hobbyists will comply with the rules, and that reduces the noise so that you can focus on the errant drone operators.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of Attack at Saudi Arabia Oil Supply Facilities on Singapore’s Economy","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"2 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for Trade and Industry in light of sudden incidences of disruption of Saudi Arabia's oil supply and the potential risk of such incidences happening (a) what is the impact on Singapore's economy; (b) how will this affect the prices of our electricity supply to consumers; and (c) how will this affect prices of petrol for motor vehicles.
3 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Trade and Industry with regard to the recent attack on Saudi Arabia's oil production facilities (a) what has been the impact on Singapore's oil imports from Saudi Arabia; (b) whether oil prices are expected to rise and impact inflation as a result of these attacks and their aftermath; and (c) what is being done to manage the risk of rising oil prices.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Trade and Industry (Dr Koh Poh Koon) (for the Minister for Trade and Industry): Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to answer Question Nos 2 and 3 together, please?
\tMr Speaker: Yes, please.
\tDr Koh Poh Koon: In the immediate aftermath of the 14 September 2019 attacks on Saudi Arabia’s oil infrastructure, the benchmark Brent crude oil price surged from US$60 to US$71 per barrel. However, it retreated when Saudi Arabia and the US pledged to maintain a steady supply of oil, and has since stabilised at around US$59 per barrel. For 2019 as a whole, the Brent oil price is projected to average US$63 per barrel, lower than the US$71 per barrel in 2018.
Given that global oil prices have stabilised and oil production capacity in Saudi Arabia has returned to normal, MTI's assessment is that the impact on the Singapore economy is likely to be limited. First, our oil supply remained sufficient throughout the period of outage. Second, the impact on consumer prices is likely to be small.
However, this incident is a useful reminder to us about the importance of energy security, especially given on-going tensions in the Middle East. This is particularly pertinent to Singapore as we import almost all our energy.
The Government adopts several strategies to secure our energy supply and keep energy prices competitive. First, we ensure resilience in our energy supply by diversifying our sources of crude oil and gas. We encourage our oil and gas traders to import from multiple sources, while our oil refineries leverage their global resources and supply chains, as well as the wider oil trading eco-system, to ensure a continuous supply of crude oil if there is a disruption in any supply source.
Second, while electricity prices in Singapore cannot be insulated from global energy price movements, Singaporeans can enjoy competitive electricity prices because we continue to promote competition in our electricity market. The Open Electricity Market (OEM) is one such initiative to give households and small businesses more choices of retailers to buy electricity from. Since we launched the OEM in May this year, households and small businesses have reported savings of about 20% to 30% on their electricity bills.
\tMr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): I would like to thank the Senior Minister of State for the answer. I only have one supplementary question. As the Senior Minister of State had noticed, when oil prices abroad rise, it is usually symmetrical. When oil prices rise, prices at the petrol kiosks rise as well. But my question is related to the Senior Minister of State's first point, in terms of our strategy to search for alternative sources of energy. Can MTI share what are our plans in terms alternative energy sources for Singapore, going forward? My concern is that the incidence of such things happening in the Middle East may intensify or increase, particularly from drone attacks and possibly from geopolitical tensions arising out of the Middle East as well.
\tDr Koh Poh Koon: Mr Speaker, I can re-assure the Member that our oil trading eco-system is pretty well diversified. Our traders have sourced for oil not just from the Middle East, but places in the US as well. So, I think the diversification is a robust strategy to make sure that we are not threatened by a single source, where there may be problems that occur with that supply.
In terms of electricity, the generation comes largely from gas – whether it is piped or Liquefied Natural gas (LNG). So, in terms of electricity supply, that ensures our needs. That is something that we can be well assured about. With the diversified sources of LNG, where we can source from different places, our electricity supply is well take care of.
\tMr Cedric Foo Chee Keng (Pioneer): Sir, I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State, since the introduction of electricity market contestability, especially for households, what percentage of households has elected for alternatives other than Singapore Power (SP)?
\t
\t
Dr Koh Poh Koon: Mr Speaker, this is something that changes from month to month, but on average, it is about 18% to 20% of the households have chosen to switch. Of course, over time, more households may come on. I do not have the updated number as of this moment, but we do see that there are fluctuations from month to month.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reasons for Cancellation of “Dialogue and Dissent” Programme at Yale-NUS","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"The following question stood in the name of Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar –
4 To ask the Minister for Education (a) what are the reasons and concerns leading to the cancellation of the Yale-NUS programme \"Dialogue and Dissent in Singapore\"; (b) whether the cancellation of the programme signals a more controlled and rigid education environment in our education institutes; and (c) whether this curtails academic freedom and the critical discourse necessary for academic richness and excellence in our education institutes.
5 Mr Seah Kian Peng asked the Minister for Education whether there are clear rules on what topics and activities are or are not allowed in our Autonomous Universities.
6 Assoc Prof Walter Theseira asked the Minister for Education (a) what are the reasons for the cancellation of the \"Dialogue and Dissent in Singapore\" programme at Yale-NUS College; (b) whether and under what conditions political dissent and activism in the Singapore context is a legitimate topic of academic inquiry in our Autonomous Universities (AUs); and (c) what can be done to assure AU staff and students that they continue to have the academic freedom to responsibly and critically examine social and political issues in Singapore.
\t
\tMr Darryl David (Ang Mo Kio): Question No 4.
The Minister for Education (Mr Ong Ye Kung): Mr Speaker, Sir, can I take Question Nos 4 to 6 and part of Question No 7 together, please?
\tMr Speaker: Part of Question No 7? So, will Question No 7 be asked again, subsequently?
\tMr Ong Ye Kung: Yes, it will be.
\tMr Speaker: Okay, proceed.
\tMr Ong Ye Kung: It is a bit of a long answer. I beg your indulgence. Members have raised three areas of concern with regard to Yale-NUS College (YNC)'s withdrawal of the project originally titled \"Dissent and Resistance in Singapore\".
First question they asked, what reasons underpinned the cancellation of the project. Second, the implications for academic freedom arising from the withdrawal of the project. And third, what are the rules on what topics and activities are or are not permitted in our Autonomous Universities (AUs). I will lay out the facts of the case, state MOE's views on the issue, and finally, set out the principles guiding what activities are permitted or not in all our educational institutions.
First, the facts of the case and YNC's reasons for withdrawing the project. The project was to be run by Mr Alfian Sa'at, a playwright. There have been some media exchanges between YNC and Mr Alfian Sa'at on the details of their correspondences. Rather than dwell on the details, Mr Speaker, Sir, let me focus on the pertinent facts for the House, which are as follows.
First, the \"Dissent and Resistance\" project was one of 14 projects on the slate for YNC’s Week 7 \"Learning Across Boundaries\", or LAB programme. LAB is a compulsory, credit-bearing programme for all first-year YNC students and they are required to take it. It is not an elective or a campus activity. There are clear learning and academic objectives to help students deepen and synergise different subjects they have learnt during the semester, through experiential learning.
Second fact, there was no special invitation to Mr Alfian Sa'at. He had previously been hired by YNC as a part-time instructor to teach a playwriting course and that was in the first half of 2019. So, when YNC called for project proposals, faculty members and other teaching staff like Mr Alfian Sa'at were invited, and he responded.
Third, from the moment YNC received the outline of his proposal in May 2019, it had questions about how academic objectives were to be achieved. But the discussions that followed resulted only in a cosmetic title change, from \"Dissent and Resistance\" to \"Dialogue and Dissent\". There were some adjustments to the itinerary, but no substantive change to the overall structure, content or objective of the programme.
Fourth, when YNC received the revised itinerary in September 2019, it became even more concerned. The proposed project lacked academic rigour and did not expose students to a sufficient range of perspectives. Furthermore, specific activities – a workshop to make protest placards and a visit to the Speakers' Corner – would have put students at risk of breaking the law. From YNC's perspective, if that happened to foreign students, they could lose their student visas.
So, to answer Ms Anthea Ong’s question, which was posed to the Minister for Home Affairs as Question No 7, the legal risk was real. AUs and their staff and students are not exempt from the law.
YNC continued to engage Mr Alfian Sa'at to register their concerns and work with him to revise and refine the project itinerary. Eventually, YNC concluded that there was insufficient time to revise the project before the start of the Week 7 LAB programme. It therefore decided to withdraw the project and informed affected students on 13 September 2019. YNC informed MOE of its decision as it expected some public reactions. MOE looked through the itinerary and fully supported YNC's decision.
Fifth, YNC accepts that it could have done better in its administrative processes, in organising the project and communicating their concerns on the project. It will strive to improve. But this does not change the basic fact that the proposed project was inappropriately designed. YNC tried in good faith to work with Mr Alfian Sa'at to make the necessary changes, but ran out of time and then decided to withdraw the project.
Finally, all the key facts and observations above are also stated in Yale University's own investigation report – this is Yale New Haven. The report was authored independently from YNC and based on interviews with staff, students, faculty, and Mr Alfian Sa'at.
This episode has drawn many comments. While a few disagree, most academics, including those from YNC, support the College's decision and its reasons for the decision.
As Assoc Prof Eugene Tan, a law professor from SMU and former Nominated Member of Parliament told the Straits Times, \"For me, the biggest concern is…the lack of even-handedness in engaging with competing and conflicting perspectives… (There is an) absence of even a rudimentary theoretical framework to approach and to understand dissent and resistance.\"
Many members of the public supported YNC's decision too. But reading their comments on social media and letters to the newspapers, it is clear their reasons differ from those of academics. Their concerns were simpler and more fundamental: they did not see why inciting and teaching students to protest should be condoned in our educational institutions. This is a valid view that we cannot ignore.
One of those who made this point was Mr Goh Choon Kang, in an opinion piece published in Lianhe Zaobao, which The Straits Times later translated and published too. He worried that there were people seeking to initiate \"colour revolutions\" in Singapore, that is, revolutions which aim to overthrow governments. In particular, he was concerned that political dissidence had found its way into our Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs) and asked if foreigners who backed colour revolutions were trying to extend their influence in Singapore. Zaobao and Straits Times published several letters from readers sharing Mr Goh's concern.
I know that these views make some academics and leaders within our AUs a little uncomfortable. I think this is not because they disagree with the views, but because they worry that the public and the Government will overreact, which would affect the academic freedom enjoyed by our AUs today. They also worry that the Government would henceforth disapprove of Liberal Arts education.
Let me provide the Government's take on this issue.
The worry that IHLs may be used to conduct partisan political activities to sow dissent against the Government is not unfounded. MOE had that concern too when we saw the itinerary of the \"Dissent and Resistance\" project. Besides making protest placards and visiting the Speakers' Corner, the programme included dialogues with personalities such as Mr Jolovan Wham and Mr Seelan Palay – both of whom have previously been convicted of public order-related offences.
It also included talks by Ms Kirsten Han and Dr PJ Thum. Dr PJ Thum has publicly suggested that “Singaporeans should celebrate Malaysia’s independence day”, and that Dr Mahathir should “take the lead in lobbying for the promotion of democracy and freedom of expression and inquiry in Southeast Asia”, because Malaysia was “a beacon for many who are struggling for democracy. Not just in Singapore but in other parts of Southeast Asia.”
Both Ms Kirsten Han and Dr PJ Thum have since announced that while the \"Dissent and Resistance\" project was withdrawn, they will continue their work through New Naratif, an outfit they had set up which receives significant foreign funding.
Another part of the project would have entailed watching films celebrating foreign dissidents, including Joshua Wong, the young Hong Kong activist, on the topic \"Teenager versus Superpower\". As for Mr Alfian Sa'at himself, in 1998, he wrote a poem entitled \"Singapore You Are Not My Country\". Let me quote some lines to give you a flavour of his thinking:
\"Singapore, I assert you are not a country at all,
Do not raise your voice against me,
I am not afraid of your anthem\"
And a later part of the poem says:
\"…how can you call yourself a country, you terrible
hallucination of highways and cranes and condominiums ten minutes’ drive from the MRT?\"
This is a poem and we might concede some artistic licence. But Mr Alfian Sa'at continues this attitude consistently in his activism. In 2013, when 21 Malaysians protested illegally at the Merlion Park, he apologised to Malaysians \"on behalf of the Singapore Government\" when the protestors were arrested by the Police.
After the 2018 Malaysian General Election, he praised the \"new Malaysia\", juxtaposed it favourably against Singapore, and dismissed the fear of \"chaos in the streets, clashes with riot police, traffic at a standstill.\"
In a post over the weekend, Mr Alfian wrote of \"a revival of student activism in Singapore, especially in areas such as political conscientisation\". The term \"political conscientisation\" comes from radical left wing thought. It means agitation aimed at making people conscious of the oppression in their lives, so that they will take action against these oppressive elements. And I think this is how Mr Alfian saw his project.
I should add that a talk by AWARE was also listed in the programme, but AWARE has since clarified with YNC as well as the media that they had not agreed to participate in the programme, though they had received an invitation. [Please refer to \"Clarification by Minister for Education\", Official Report, 7 October 2019, Vol 94, Issue No 112, Correction by Written Statement section.]
These individuals responsible for the programme are entitled to their views and feelings about Singapore. They can write about them, even vent them on social media; in that process, even have a following. But we have to decide whether we allow such forms of political resistance free rein in our educational institutions and even taught as compulsory, credit-bearing programmes.
Some may argue that academic freedom grants universities the licence to run such programmes, in the spirit of critically engaging the minds of our undergraduates. A few may go even further to claim that dissent is good for democracies and hence so is teaching students to become dissidents.
I much prefer the test of an ordinary Singaporean exercising his common sense. He would readily conclude that taking into consideration all the elements and all the personalities involved, this is a programme that was filled with motives and objectives other than learning and education. And MOE's stand is that we cannot have such activities in our schools or IHLs. Political conscientisation is not the taxpayer’s idea of what education means.
Dr Intan and Assoc Prof Walter Theseira asked about the implications on academic freedom arising from the withdrawal of this project. Let me first make it clear that the withdrawal of the project does not undermine in any way academic standards or open inquiry. Various academics have indeed acknowledged this, and Yale University's independent assessment also came to the same conclusion.
MOE values academic freedom, as do our AUs. With academic freedom, our Universities can create new knowledge, innovate and contribute to scientific, technological, economic and social progress. Our AUs have always been places where different ideas are explored and debated, and public discourse carried out vigorously and also rigorously.
This is why a liberal arts school like YNC will have a place in Singapore's education landscape. In fact, in all our AUs, there is increasing focus on inter-disciplinary learning and development of critical thinking skills in our students. But thinking critically is quite different from being unthinkingly critical; and any course offered by our AUs must be up to mark. Otherwise it does not deserve to be part of a liberal arts programme.
\t
Political dissent is certainly a legitimate topic of academic inquiry. Our students read and assess classic works by revolutionary figures such as Marx, Engels, Lenin, Sun Yat Sen or Mao Zedong. It would also be valuable for students in the social sciences to examine critically present day issues, such as the causes and implications of protests against climate change or globalisation, or the demonstrations currently happening in Hong Kong. Students can and should also discuss the implications of such political developments on a small country like Singapore. Such open academic inquiry will continue.
Finally, let me address Mr Seah Kian Peng's question on what activities are permitted or not on our AUs' campuses. It would not be practical or wise to be overly prescriptive in specifying what should or should not be taught in each subject. We have to leave room for AUs to exercise their good judgement. But certain principles should be made clear.
First, all educational institutions must operate within the laws of Singapore. Our laws are enacted by Parliament, which comprises Members of Parliament who are in turn elected by voters. These laws are the democratic expression of the will of the people. Our educational institutions must operate and exercise their academic freedom, within those legal limits.
This is a principle that the founding President of YNC – and the current Vice-President of Yale University – Prof Pericles Lewis, publicly committed to in 2012. Clarifying YNC's policy regarding freedom of expression, he said \"any college or university must obey the laws of the countries where it operates\".
Every country has their rules and laws, red lines unique to themselves. For example, I do not think the US would tolerate an American university course designed by Jihadists to promote violence, or that France or Germany would accept a course teaching that Nazism is good. These would fall foul of their laws.
Second principle: our educational institutions must not deviate from their missions to advance education and maintain high academic standards. Exploring and debating issues within the context of academic study helps students develop important critical thinking skills. This should be underpinned by rigorous intellectual reasoning, with students required to understand and interpret events and facts within a coherent intellectual framework, and at the same time to examine theories against the facts and empirical evidence, and against competing theories or arguments. This is especially important when studying complex and potentially controversial issues.
Third principle: our educational institutions should not be misused as a platform for partisan politics.
Prof Rajeev Patke, Director of YNC’s humanities division, put it very well. In an email to the College leadership, he wrote, \"To study is distinct from to practise: to study 'contemporary resistance' or 'contemporary violence' or 'contemporary prejudice' is not the same as to practise resistance, violence or prejudice. We have to ensure that in our educational institutions, academic study does not get confused or compromised by courses of action and intervention which belong to the realm of individual choice.\"
In Singapore's democracy, there are many avenues for political parties and activists to champion their causes, and for people to make their choices and exercise their political rights. Educational institutions, and especially the formal curriculum, are not the platforms to do this.
When elections are impending, AUs will always host panel discussions comprising representatives from various political parties and seek to present a balanced range of viewpoints. Otherwise, politicians of any political party – government or opposition – may not campaign, mobilise support or advance their party politics in any of our educational institutions. This has always been the position – always been. When Political Office Holders attend events, give speeches or conduct dialogues with students, they will do so only for the purpose of discussing national policies, not to mobilise partisan political support.
Fourth principle: educational institutions must recognise Singapore's cultural and social context. Every society is a product of its history, culture and unique circumstances, which set the context of what is acceptable and how things are done. Singapore is no exception.
Our governance approach is shaped by our unique realities. We are a small, multi-racial and multi-religious country. Our margin for error is very small compared to bigger countries. Imagine if the demonstrations and riots on the streets of Hong Kong, or the political confusion in the UK, were to take place in Singapore. Our international reputation would be destroyed. Trust and confidence in Singapore, whether by Singaporeans or others, would be severely damaged. Our future would be in grave jeopardy.
Singapore has been able to progress and develop, not least because we have maintained stability. We have built strong governing institutions, engendered respect for the rule of law and engaged deeply with citizens. We have found solutions and struck compromises before the problems become so severe.
Tripartism is an example. We did not wait for protests and strikes to break out before solving the problems downstream. But instead, Government, employers and unions forged a compact amongst themselves, resolved problems and disputes upstream, and thus maintained industrial harmony. This also made Singapore an attractive investment destination.
We adopt the same approach in tackling many other challenges, be it housing, ageing population or climate change. Recognise the challenges early, take a long-term view, find solutions, discuss, find compromises and prevent problems from spiralling beyond control. We should strengthen this collective, constructive approach and avoid falling into the divisions and dissensions that plague other societies.
Mr Speaker, let me conclude. It is a fact of life that good things always get carried to excesses and then get misused. Free market competition is a good thing, and so is capitalism; they promise more jobs and better lives for people, but they are often marred by greed and exploitation. Democracy remains the best system of governance known to humankind, but faith in the system can be weakened by populism and divisive politics. Social media connect people and give voice to the previously voiceless, but falsehoods and manipulation can also proliferate in that space too.
In all these instances, society needs to recognise the problem and respond, and governments need to intervene in order to preserve the positive objectives and merits of the systems, what they set out to do. It is the same with academic freedom. We believe in this fundamental value. Modern day Galileos would not exist without our academics and researchers being free to pursue the truth, understand nature, wherever it may lead. But let us also be aware that given the state of the world today, there will be people who want to misuse it as a cloak to advance their hidden agendas, sometimes not even very hidden.
To preserve what we cherish, we must be ready to protect it when the situation calls for it. Academic freedom cannot be carte blanche for anyone to misuse an academic institution for political advocacy, for this would undermine the institution's academic standards and public standing.
Academic institutions should internalise the principles I stated earlier. At the minimum, they should not undertake activities that expose their students to the risk of breaking the law. They should not work with speakers and instructors who have been convicted of public order-related offences, or who are working with political advocacy groups funded by foreigners, or who openly show disloyalty to Singapore.
Governance everywhere, of countries, companies and educational institutions, has become far more complex because of technology and the free flow of information. Governance calls for judgement and that judgement has to reflect the country's norms. Most countries share fundamental values such as the rule of law, incorruptibility and open discourse. But the way these values are expressed will vary from country to country, depending on their histories, social values and cultures.
In some societies, individuals are more concerned about how far can I extend my fist; but in Singapore, Singaporeans worry when my fist will reach your nose. I have tried to explain Singapore’s approach. In an increasingly globalised world, we must not try to impose one country’s values and culture on others, or unthinkingly import values and culture from elsewhere into our society. We must certainly work across boundaries and learn from one another, but we must do so while understanding and respecting each other’s contexts and norms. That is the best strategy for Singapore to progress and live peacefully in a diverse and inter-connected world.
\t
Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar (Ang Mo Kio): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister for the detailed explanation of what happened in Yale-NUS College. I have two supplementary questions. One is, with this incident, what does it mean for the future of Yale-NUS College? Will the Ministry sort of exercise greater scrutiny on YNC over the programmes it carries out or the lecturers or academics that it engages? And two, can we still continue to have a liberal arts education here in Singapore bearing in mind our local context?
Mr Ong Ye Kung: I will answer the second question first and then the first. As I mentioned earlier, we value open inquiry and critical thinking amongst our students, and liberal arts education will continue to have a place in the Singapore education system. So, from that perspective, we value the partnership with Yale in running Yale-NUS College because they bring us a good quality liberal arts education. From Yale University's perspective, they value that partnership too because they can then have a liberal arts education delivered in Asia in Singapore.
In fact, I would like to add that in NUS, there is a University Scholars Programme, which is quite similar to a liberal arts education.
For the partnership between Yale and NUS to work, both sides must agree to abide by the principles I set out earlier. The withdrawal of this project does not affect the partnership. The standard of the project is so far off the mark, I think both sides agree there are no implications on academic freedom. But I would not rule out that in time to come, there will be incidents that test our partnership. When that happens, I expect both sides to have to constantly evaluate the strength of our understanding and adherence to the principles I stated earlier.
\tAssoc Prof Walter Theseira (Nominated Member): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I just have two supplementary questions for the Minister. The first is, would the Minister agree that the AUs should develop clear guidelines for assessing academic rigour and to communicate that clearly to faculty and external parties? The governance concern here is that these standards were not communicated early and properly to the relevant parties; and that makes the decision seem arbitrary.
The second question is that the Minister expressed concerns about the suitability of numerous individuals connected to the case and he outlined criteria for what makes a suitable educator or facilitator. I wish to ask if this means that the policy is, that there should be a black list of sorts, that our AUs should not engage individuals on this kind of list that would meet these criteria. I think this is concerning, because it raises the risk that Universities will overreact and put people on such a list when they should not be.
\tMr Ong Ye Kung: The first point is a fair one and I would expect AUs to have clear guidelines on how they set their academic standards. I believe they do have these. If it is not done robustly or detailed enough or not communicated well enough, I would encourage them to do so.
As for the second issue, I think we have to leave a lot of room for educational institutions to decide for themselves. Whether a person is suitable to be a teacher or instructor at all, that is a relevant consideration. Because, in universities, to be a tenured professor, it is a very high bar. So, it is not a new concept – it is not just the course content but the person has to meet certain standards.
I do not think it is practical to have a blacklist. We have to leave room for the Universities to exercise judgement.
Is a person who is an activist, therefore, not suitable to teach? I think, no. In fact, it is the reverse. The world over, academics and faculty are encouraged to be activists because you cannot just focus on publications and citations. To realise the impact of research and your work, faculty are encouraged to be active. So, translate your findings into patents, enterprises or, if it is in the social sciences, discuss with the Ministries your ideas and see if you can contribute to policy making. So, activism amongst faculty is actually quite encouraged.
The second question then is: how about political activism? Then, that depends on professionalism. You cannot conflate your teaching and your political activism. You cannot conflate them within a classroom; you have to keep them separate. And so long as they are kept separate, there is actually no problem. In fact, we have Members of Parliament – both PAP Members of Parliament as well as Opposition Members of Parliament – who are faculty members. And so long as they can keep those two activities separate, it is not a problem at all.
But, of course, there is a third aspect, which is, what political activism does the person stand for? I think that matters. Remember, in many American universities, if someone, if a faculty is sexist or racist, he will not be engaged, no matter how good his research is or teaching is. In Hollywood, we see the same thing. If you are convicted of a sexual offence, even if you an Oscar Academy Award winner, the studios will not engage you. Therefore, it is not just the content of the course but also what the instructor stands for. So, depending on the person's history and track record, educational institutions, I am sure, will consider carefully whether this is someone they want to engage at all.
Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, I have one clarification for the Minister. Earlier in his answer, he mentioned that for this particular incident when the project was pulled, Yale had its own independent report after it reviewed the incident. And at the same time the Minister also articulated the Ministry's position on the matter. So, I just need to clarify whether the review of this particular project was initiated by the Ministry or was it YNC's own introspection that led them to review the matter.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The simple answer is that it was their own introspection and then they informed us after that. And, of course, as they expected, Yale University then raised an eyebrow, they wanted to find out what happened and so they did an independent report by Yale University's Vice President, Prof Pericles Lewis, and they confirmed and they are satisfied that this withdrawal does not affect academic freedom in the University.
Mr Seah Kian Peng (Marine Parade): I thank the Minister for the very comprehensive answer which I have found very assuring. I have two supplementary questions.
The first is on the four principles which the Minister had outlined. Assuming all the AUs come up with their own guidelines on what would guide them in terms of the curriculum, in the event these principles and their guidelines are not complied with, how will the Ministry intervene, if at all, and what form of interventions could these take?
My second supplementary question – and this is something I have raised previously – is that in the area of certain topics, whether it is political science or liberal arts, I think a good sensing of the local context is very important. This is where my bias is towards having more local academics than ones who are foreign-based, whether we need to achieve some form of or calibrate the right balance. So, my question to the Minister is whether something more deliberate and comprehensive could be put in place to address that.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The first question on the four principles I outlined are for all educational institutions. We would not want them to each come up with their own principles. But they have to abide by these four which, I think, are eminently reasonable principles while protecting academic freedom. If it is breached, whether there will be an intervention from the Ministry, all I can say is that I stand before this House to answer on behalf of AUs issues about sexual misconduct in campus, about how their endowment funds are raised and used, and recently about international students in AUs. So, I, as well as my colleagues in MOE, we are accountable to the House about what happens in the AUs. So, should something go wrong, it is our duty and responsibility to also work with the University to resolve the problems and be accountable to the House.
Having said that, I would not characterise the relationship between MOE and the Universities as a regulator-regulatee kind of relationship. In fact, we are constantly in conversation. They express their concerns to us and likewise; and we find compromises, consensus on how to move forward. And that is the kind of relationship we want. Just last week, we had a workplan seminar. So, one foreign academic from the UK who attended it, said that \"In the UK, we will never have a forum like this where the university leadership and MOE get together to discuss about the future of universities.\"
On the second question, the Member has raised that several times. It is a concern that MOE shares. We are taking various steps and I would be happy to outline maybe on another occasion all the steps we are taking to encourage more local academics to join our Universities and make sure we have a strong local core.
But apart from that, on the issue of context and understanding Singapore's context and teaching and doing research within Singapore's context, I would say that it is not just for locals. A foreign faculty can also acquire that sensitivity to our context. So, I would say it is not so much on that front. It is not so much a local versus foreign issue but that I think all academics and our institutions will have to understand Singapore's context and operate within it.
\tMr Speaker: Can we have the next Parliamentary Question? Ms Anthea Ong.
\t
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Freedom of Speech and Political Activities by Foreigners in Singapore","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"7 Ms Anthea Ong asked the Minister for Home Affairs with respect to the cancellation of the Yale-NUS \"Dissent and Dialogue\" course (a) whether he agrees that the course entails \"elements that may subject students to the risk of breaking the law and incurring legal liabilities\"; (b) what laws may be broken and what kinds of legal liabilities may be incurred by (i) students (ii) faculty and (iii) institution; (c) whether the Ministry provides guidelines to academic institutions on such legal risks; and (d) what is the Ministry's position on online sentiments that having a course on dissent is an \"unpatriotic act\" and the hate speech that is directed at Yale-NUS students.
8 Assoc Prof Walter Theseira asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether and to what extent the Ministry regulates or monitors the political activities of student groups in our Autonomous Universities; (b) what are the guidelines or laws under which foreign students may participate in student activities which may have community, social, or political impact in Singapore; and (c) what can be done to assure students that they have the right to associate and act for political and social causes in Singapore responsibly and within the law.
\tThe Minister for Home Affairs (Mr K Shanmugam): I will answer part (d) of Question No 7. The other three parts have been answered by Minister Ong. And with your permission, Sir, can I take Question No 7(d) and Question No 8 together?
\tMr Speaker: Yes, please.
\tMr K Shanmugam: The Minister for Education had earlier answered parts (a), (b) and (c) of Ms Anthea Ong's question. On part (d), I think that the heart of the Member's question is about freedom of speech and the limits to that. I think her question relates to people expressing their views that there was dishonesty, unpatriotic actions, and whether they should be allowed to say those things; and the Member has asked for the Ministry's views.
There are criminal, civil laws that govern what people can and cannot say in public. These laws apply to the online space as well. If you defame, there can be civil action; sometimes, it can be criminal defamation as well. If you harass people, that can be an offence, sometimes. Civil action is also possible, civil remedies are possible. If there is speech that has been directed at some students and they believe that a criminal offence has been committed, the students can file a Police report – I am sure they are aware of that.
If the Member is of the view that more regulation of the online space is necessary, going beyond the current laws and that such speech should be regulated, she can let us know – precisely what she has in mind to be regulated? I assume that she is not suggesting that we prevent people from expressing their views on whether some actions are patriotic or unpatriotic. And I think the Member will know that in the online space, people will say what they like. We strengthened the Protection from Harassment Act (POHA) a few months ago to allow people to take action and give individuals more power. If what is said about them is untrue, they can take steps. If they are harassed, they can take steps. So, we are empowering the individuals. But if the Member feels that is not adequate, she can let us know.
As regards Assoc Prof Walter Theseira's question, the Home Team agencies have to ensure the safety and security of Singapore. They focus on persons who engage in activities that endanger national security. Like terrorist acts and acts that could lead to violence, public disorder. And they take measures, including pre-emptive actions.
Let me give an example. In May 2015, a 17-year-old Singapore student was arrested under the Internal Security Act after being self-radicalised and planning to engage in armed violence alongside the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS). It does not mean that agencies look at all 17-year-olds.
Let me provide another couple of examples. Last month, my Ministry announced that three domestic helpers from Indonesia had been detained for terrorist related activities. That does not mean our security agencies monitor all domestic helpers – there are close to 260,000 of them. And in 2016, we picked up eight Bangladeshi Work Pass holders who were planning to stage terror attacks in their own home country. There are about 1.4 million Work Pass holders in Singapore. We do not, and we cannot and we are unable to monitor all of them.
The agencies have their ways of identifying security threats and they will take appropriate action, in context.
The Member also asked about the guidelines or laws under which foreign students may participate in student activities. There are laws that set the boundaries for political activities by foreigners. They include the Public Order Act and the Public Entertainments (Speakers' Corner) Exemption Order 2016 and other legislation.
Of course, in an academic setting, as part of a course, foreign students are free to engage in discussion and debate, no different from their fellow Singaporean students.
On the third sub-question, I agree with the Nominated Member that it is important for students to know their rights and responsibilities. I think if you put it in a broader context, it is important that our young people know: (a) what their rights are; (b) the different political systems around the world; (c) how they work; (d) what is happening in the US, Western Europe, Asia and why; (e) our own path in the last 60 years; (f) why we have been relatively successful; (g) how the balance between state power and individual autonomy is struck in different societies; (h) what roles and responsibilities of individuals, groups play; and (i) how to identify charlatans, those who promise the world and deliver nothing, and more.
So, we do our best. But if the Nominated Member has ideas on how we can bring these points across better to younger people, we will be very happy to hear from him. Thank you.
\tAssoc Prof Walter Theseira (Nominated Member): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister for that reply. Earlier, the Minister for Education outlined some examples of individuals who may pose some risk in the educational setting and I wish to ask the Minister for Home Affairs whether he believes that these non-violent but political and social activists who have had certain controversies or issues with the law, do they pose a threat to our student organisations? And if so, does the Ministry monitor that or take any measures to discourage, for example, student organisations working with them and so on?
\t
\t\tMr K Shanmugam: I do not quite understand the question. Can the Member explain a little bit more clearly what exactly he is asking?
\tAssoc Prof Walter Theseira: Earlier, the Minister for Education noted that several individuals who are noted social and political activists may be unsuitable for an educational environment for one reason or another, ranging from conviction under certain public order acts to notable acts of potential disloyalty, perhaps, to Singapore, and other issues.
So, I just wish to ask the Minister for Home Affairs whether he believes that this also means that they should be restricted from participating in, or being engaged by student groups. In other words, would there be some kind of security risks, for example, to the students.
\tMr K Shanmugam: I think there are two different issues being conflated here – whether they should be engaging with students and student unions, in the context of universities, I leave it to the Minister for Education. He has explained the principles. That does not ipso facto mean that they become security risks. If they do become security risks, they will be monitored.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Efforts to Reduce Greenhouse Emissions by Industries in Singapore","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"9 Ms Anthea Ong asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) whether there are plans to reduce greenhouse emissions by industries; (b) how much fossil fuel is (i) imported into and (ii) refined in Singapore every year; (c) how do the volumes in (b) measure up against Singapore's annual carbon emissions; (d) how much percentage increase in carbon emissions is expected following an expansion of refinery facilities; and (e) what is the strategic plan to support industries to make the urgent shifts to changing market and consumer demands to promote climate crisis responsibility.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Trade and Industry (Dr Koh Poh Koon) (for the Minister for Trade and Industry): In 2017, 190 millions tonnes of oil equivalent (Mtoe) of fossil fuels were imported into Singapore. About 55 Mtoe were refined into higher value chemicals and fuels and mostly exported for use in other countries. The rest is largely for power generation and transportation. Singapore generated 52.5 million tonnes of greenhouse gases in 2017, of which industries contribute about 60%. Around three-quarters of industries’ emissions is from the refining and petrochemicals sectors.
Under the Paris Agreement, Singapore has pledged to reduce our emissions intensity by 36% from 2005 levels by 2030 and to reduce our total carbon emissions beyond 2030. To achieve this, we have to make our economy much more carbon efficient.
For existing industries, we are encouraging companies to adopt energy efficient technologies. This year, we implemented an enhanced set of Industry Energy Efficiency schemes. From January 2019, the funding support for the adoption of energy efficient technologies under EDB’s Resource Efficiency Grant for Energy (REG(E)) and NEA’s Energy Efficiency Fund (E2F) has been increased from the previous cap of 30%, to 50% of the qualifying costs. From 2021 onwards, companies regulated under the Energy Conservation Act must establish energy management systems and regularly assess energy efficiency opportunities. NEA is also planning to launch a new grant to help companies digitalise their energy management systems.
When firms expand their operations or new firms invest in Singapore, the Government works closely with them to ensure a high standard of efficiency. For instance, the Government supported the Singapore Refining Company (SRC)'s upgrade on Jurong Island, including its co-generation plant, which has led to greater energy efficiency, higher quality products and reduced sulphur oxide emissions. This is also the case for ExxonMobil’s recent expansion of its Singapore manufacturing complex, which is one of the most efficient refineries globally. Beyond the refineries and petrochemicals sector, we also encourage companies in other sectors to be energy efficient. For instance, Facebook’s first data centre in Singapore will be a leader in energy efficiency, with features that also minimise the use of land and water.
But beyond industries, all of us as consumers, as citizens have a responsibility to mitigate climate change. For example, saving electricity, using public transport and reducing waste are good ways to cut carbon emissions. As a country, we will do our part to help address global climate change and global climate challenges.
\tMs Anthea Ong (Nominated Member): I thank the Senior Minister of State for the response. Can I just find out if part (d) on how much percentage increase in carbon emissions is expected following an expansion of refinery facilities, has been answered, please?
\tDr Koh Poh Koon: Mr Speaker, I think individual refineries' expansions and their emissions are commercially sensitive. So, that is not something that I am able to share with the Member at the moment. But I would say that in principle, when we expand the presence of our refineries here, whether it is a new and or an existing one, the aim is to ensure that they are carbon and energy efficient. And let me also say that we are committed to our Paris Agreement goals that regardless of industry expansion of new plants, we want to make sure that we still cut our Emissions Intensity by 36% from 2005 levels and to peak at 2030, and to reduce beyond that.
\tMr Speaker: Ms Anthea Ong.
\tMs Anthea Ong: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Can I check also with the Senior Minister of State, in terms of the contribution that we have shared that we contribute 0.11% of carbon emissions globally – does that number include the emissions from the oil refinery facilities, please?
\tDr Koh Poh Koon: I believe that takes into account the whole of Singapore's emissions.
\t
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Hike in Childcare Fees Following Increase in Government’s Childcare Subsidy","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"10 Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked the Minister for Social and Family Development since the announcement of the increase in childcare subsidies (a) how many childcare operators have raised their fees; (b) what is the increase quantum; and (c) how much savings can be expected, taking into account the increment and subsidies.
11 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Social and Family Development how does the Government intend to assist parents who will not benefit from the recent increase in Government childcare subsidies, to cope with childcare fee hikes by the 220 childcare centres as well as possibly other childcare centres.
\tThe Minister for Social and Family Development (Mr Desmond Lee): Mr Speaker, in 2020, 330, or one in five childcare centres —
\tMr Speaker: Minister, are you taking both Questions together?
\tMr Desmond Lee: I am sorry. Mr Speaker, I am taking Question Nos 10 and 11 together, with your permission, please.
\tMr Speaker: Please proceed.
\tMr Desmond Lee: Mr Speaker, in 2020, 330 or one in five childcare centres will be increasing their full-day childcare fees for Singapore Citizen children. The other 1,200 childcare centres will not be making any adjustments to their fees. The number of centres increasing fees in 2020 is broadly comparable to previous years. In 2018, 540 centres raised fees. In 2019, 220 did so.
From time to time, pre-schools adjust their fees to keep up with operational costs but most manage their fee increases, in order to remain competitive. In fact, with the large number of operators, every year some operator or other will make some adjustments. Of the centres raising fees in 2020, the median increase is within 5% of fees, comparable to previous years. In absolute terms, the median increase is around $35.
All pre-schools are required to inform parents and ECDA of any increase in fees by 1 September of the preceding year, so that parents can make an informed choice about their child’s pre-school. Of the centres raising fees next year, a large majority had informed ECDA even before subsidy enhancements were announced at the National Day Rally.
Among some of the centres raising fees are those run by Anchor Operators and Partner Operators. These are centres operating below the stipulated fee caps, which have been maintained at their current levels since 2014 for Anchor Operators and 2016 for Partner Operators. The industry median fees have thus remained unchanged at $856 since 2016. In fact, in 2021, we will lower fee caps for Partner Operator centres when their new five-year term begins, further reducing industry median fees.
With enhanced childcare subsidies from January 2020, the majority of working families will pay less for childcare, even with the fee adjustment in one-fifth of the childcare centres. Compared to the median fee increase of about $35, families will see the Additional Subsidy for full-day childcare increase by up to $240 per month from January 2020, depending on their income levels.
Allow me to illustrate what working families will pay for full-day childcare at an Anchor Operator pre-school with the enhanced subsidies. Suppose the fees are below fee cap, say $740, and an increase by 5% to the fee cap of $770 next January, after GST.
Family A earns $3,000 a month. They pay $40 per month at this pre-school today; from January next year, they will pay $3 per month.
Family B earns $5,000 per month. They pay $340 per month today; from January next year, they will pay $130.
Family C earns $8,000 per month. They pay $440 per month today; from January next year, they will pay $280 per month.
As you can see, pre-school expenses should fall for most families receiving Additional Subsidy, even with the fee increase in one-fifth of the childcare centres.
Let me take this opportunity to clarify that the enhancements in Additional Subsidy apply to all eligible families, regardless of the centres their children are enrolled in, as long as these childcare centres are licensed by ECDA. They do not apply only to Anchor Operator or Partner Operator childcare centres.
For families with non-working mothers or those who are earning more than $12,000 a month and hence do not qualify for the enhanced Additional Subsidy, we provide additional help for those who need it. For example, if the mother is not working because she is providing full-time care for a younger child aged 24 months and below, or is looking for employment, she may qualify for higher subsidies under Special Approval. Low-income families who face difficulties paying their monthly childcare fees even after subsidies may also apply for financial assistance.
Over the next few years, parents will increasingly have more affordable and quality pre-school options to choose from, as we increase the number of Anchor Operator and Partner Operator pre-schools, and a few more Ministry of Education (MOE) Kindergartens. By around 2025, the share of Anchor Operator, Partner Operator and MOE pre-school places will rise to 80%, up from just over 50% today.
In the medium term, as Government-supported preschools grow and come under the stipulated fee caps, we will lower their fee caps so that parents will pay around the equivalent of Primary school fees plus after-school student care fees for full-day pre-school, before means-tested subsidies kick in.
These enhancements will more than double annual Government spending on preschool, from $1 billion today. We are committed and will continue to make quality preschool more affordable and accessible to give every child a good start in life.
\tMr Speaker: Dr Lim Wee Kiak.
\tDr Lim Wee Kiak (Sembawang): Mr Speaker, let me thank the Minister for the clarifications as well as for clearing the air on this issue. In fact, many of us have received feedback from our residents. They have given comments that every time the Government increases subsidies, the childcare operators will increase their fees – it seems to be corresponding. But I think I thank the Minister for producing the data as well as the statistics which are very important.
It is still quite tough for middle-income families which have a few children in childcare centres, especially for those who, even with the subsidy itself, may find it tough with their monthly incomes.
The other group that I am a little bit concerned with is the non-working mothers. I think that I understand there is already additional subsidy for non-working mothers if they fulfil the criteria. My question is, currently, how many of these children who enjoy the subsidies are children of non-working mothers? Can we equalise both groups, instead of making them apply to these criteria? If we were to put working mothers or non-working mothers aside, how much more increase in terms of subsidies would the Government have to bear, rather than make the non-working mothers go and apply for additional subsidies.
\tMr Desmond Lee: I thank the Member for his questions. Every year some pre-school operators will make some adjustments to their fees. There are many operators – private, not-for profit, as well as MOE kindergartens. So, every year there will be some adjustments, whether or not we make adjustments to our subsidies. So, I hope that clears the misunderstanding. In fact, the vast majority of households earning $12,000 and below ought to see a reduction in childcare fees.
There are, of course, some centres, private operators, that charge, say thousands of dollars in fees that make adjustments in the hundreds of dollars. That is quite a different situation altogether. But for the vast majority, they should see a fall in childcare fees from January next year. And as I said, from January 2021, for Partner Operators, we will bring down the fee caps even further; and thereafter, the Anchor Operators will see a fall as well. So, that is on the Member's first question.
\tThe second point is on families with many children. Apart from looking at total household income, for families with many dependents and more children in pre-school, we will look at it from a per capita basis, so that they can get even more support.
On non-working mothers, the support provided to them takes into account the fact that because they are working, they will need full-day childcare. By working mother, we are talking about working two days a week and that can include the informal sector as well. So, there is a degree of flexibility. In fact, working mother status is conferred if a mother works for two days a week, or roughly 56 hours a month.
We do grant special approval if mothers have care-giving needs for children younger than 24 months or if they are looking after other dependents. For those who are looking for employment, we make concessions for them and allow them to benefit from the full subsidy. And for those who are non-working mothers, what they can do is, they can go for the basic subsidy for full-day childcare, or if not and they are at home with no other care-giving responsibilities other than their young children, then, there is the option to go for kindergarten with KiFAS subsidies. So for half a day, they get pedagogical support; the other half a day, time with the parents, time with the family, family-bonding time.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Effectiveness of Recent Measures Related to PMD Ownership and Use","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"12 Mr Alex Yam asked the Minister for Transport (a) what is the public feedback so far since the implementation of a ban on PMD use at void decks and common corridors at 15 towns on 1 September 2019; (b) whether the number of reported incidents has reduced since the implementation; and (c) whether the ban has had any impact on food and goods delivery during the last one month.
13 Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked the Minister for Transport what is the estimated cost of LTA's early disposal incentive for e-scooters which do not meet the UL2272 safety standard and who will bear such costs.
14 Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for Transport since the start of the mandatory registration of e-scooters in July 2019 (a) how many illegally modified e-scooters have been seized; (b) how does LTA keep check on e-scooter users who illegally modify their vehicles after being certified LTA-approved; and (c) whether the penalties will be enhanced for owners of illegally modified e-scooters.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Transport (Dr Janil Puthucheary) (for the Minister for Transport): Mr Speaker, may I take Question Nos 12, 13 and 14 together, please?
Mr Speaker: Yes, please.
\tDr Janil Puthucheary: On 21 September, a young e-scooter rider collided with an elderly cyclist, Mdm Ong Bee Eng, at Bedok North Street 3. Mdm Ong sustained serious injuries and passed away a few days later. We are deeply saddened by the incident and would like to offer our deepest condolences to Mdm Ong’s family.
This particular accident happened not on a pedestrian footpath, but on a dedicated cycling path where the speed limit is 25 km/h. Furthermore, the e-scooter was an unregistered and non-compliant device. It was bought online and that particular device model can go up to 80 km/h. Its usage is illegal.
This accident has caused public alarm over the dangers that personal mobility devices (PMDs) pose to others and has heightened fears for the safety of pedestrians using footpaths, particularly the old and the young. We share Singaporeans' concerns. With PMD use increasing, the number of accidents involving PMDs has gone up. We need footpaths to be safe for pedestrians again.We are determined to improve footpath safety back to the levels we had before PMDs were allowed onto footpaths.
On 5 August 2019, Senior Minister of State for Transport Dr Lam Pin Min explained in this House our plans to strengthen public path safety and reduce PMD-related fire risks. Given the recent developments, we will revisit these plans to see where we need to rethink our approach and to introduce additional measures. Please give us a month or two to do this thorough review.
PMDs are useful devices for first-and-last mile connectivity, if they are used responsibly. But their usage must not endanger device users and pedestrians. Ideally, there should be a clear separation of traffic – pedestrians on footpaths, active mobility devices on dedicated paths for PMDs and bicycles, and motor vehicles on roads. Because of infrastructure constraints, we allow pedestrians and bicycles to use footpaths as a second best practical solution. New towns will allow such separation, but existing towns currently do not have many dedicated paths for PMDs. This poses an immediate challenge for PMD users.
LTA is working with Members of Parliament to identify hotspots where we can do something quickly to improve safety, for example by widening footpaths and installing speed-regulating strips. We will also speed up development of dedicated paths for PMDs and bicycles. Full implementation of such infrastructure enhancements will take time, years. Meanwhile, we have to make a decision on where to allow PMDs to be used, other than on dedicated paths for PMDs and bicycles – on footpaths, or on roads, or not at all until the town is ready?
These are difficult choices. We will re-examine them and re-discuss with the stakeholders. In the meantime, we strongly urge PMD users to be extra responsible and mindful of others. If their behaviour does not improve, we may have no choice but to ban their usage completely from Singapore. This would be a loss.
Meanwhile, LTA is working with the Town Councils to implement Pedestrian Only Zones (POZs) at all town centres. As there are implementation details to iron out, we will create POZs in stages. We will do so as soon as the Town Councils are ready.
Let me now address the questions posed by Mr Alex Yam, Er Dr Lee Bee Wah and Mr Lim Biow Chuan. Mr Alex Yam asked about public feedback on the 15 Town Councils’ ban of bicycles, power-assisted bicycles and PMDs in void decks and common property areas. There have been mixed reactions, with some welcoming the move to enhance safety and others expressing concerns about reduced connectivity. There has not been a noticeable drop in reported incidents yet, as we are still in a two-month advisory period until 31 October 2019. We expect the full impact to be clearer, after the Town Councils begin enforcement action. With regard to Mr Yam's question about the impact on food and goods delivery, LTA does not have such statistics. But we have not received adverse feedback from delivery companies, as deliveries are largely done via motorcycles and delivery vehicles.
To Er Dr Lee Bee Wah's query, LTA had seized 161 non-compliant PMDs from July to September 2019. These included some which were illegally modified. Beyond mandatory inspections at the point of registration, e-scooters will be called up for inspections every two years. LTA is studying upstream measures, including import controls, to tackle the problem of non-compliant PMDs. LTA is also reviewing the penalties for illegal modification of PMDs and other offences.
Mr Lim asked about the costs of LTA's early disposal incentive for non-UL2272 devices. Under the scheme, Government covers the disposal costs and owners of registered e-scooters will qualify for an incentive of $100 if they dispose of their devices before 30 November 2019. Between 23 September and 3 October 2019, LTA received more than 2,800 applications for the early disposal incentive scheme and collected more than 940 PMDs at the designated disposal points. We strongly urge owners of non-UL2272 devices to come forward early with their devices. Every non-UL2272 device safely disposed of is one less potential fire risk.
\tEr Dr Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon): Mr Speaker, Sir, I have five supplementary questions.
Mr Speaker: We may not have time for that.
Er Dr Lee Bee Wah: I understand that some depend on PMDs for their livelihood, but this cannot be at the expense of the safety of millions of pedestrians using the footpaths. I would like to ask will the Ministry consider mandatory licensing for PMD riders which will only be issued after they have passed the highway code and bought third-party insurance. The second question is, can LTA get PMD owners to display their registration numbers clearly, big-big, in front and at the back of their PMDs? Recently, I was trying to look for the number; I could not find it! I hunted high and low for it. It was hiding, inside!
The third question is, will the Ministry take action against shops or individuals who help to do the modifications? The fourth question is, will the Ministry consider making speed limiter installation compulsory so that it will cut off when the PMDs exceed allowable speeds? And lastly, what is the recourse for victims of hit-and-run accidents caused by PMDs? I have just received feedback from my resident – his grandparents were hit by PMD riders at night and the youngsters did not stop to help the poor grandparents. So, what is the recourse?
\tDr Janil Puthucheary: I thank Er Dr Lee Bee Wah for the questions, Mr Speaker. Indeed, with respect to her first question, there are opportunities for livelihood and jobs created through the use of PMDs. We want to get the right balance between responsible behaviour and making sure that our public spaces are safe for everybody. She mentioned mandatory licensing, a test involving the equivalent of a highway code as well as third-party insurance. Some of these have already been reflected in the Active Mobility Advisory Panel report that came out recently. We are studying that and we are likely to adopt some of these measures. Certainly, as we undertake a thorough review of our process, we will be including many of these ideas in that process. For the display of the registration number, indeed, the registration number is supposed to be very prominently displayed. The reality is that there are many unlicensed PMDs that are still on our paths, on our roads, on our Park Connectors, and which is why, perhaps, the Member was unable to detect the registration number easily. The registration numbers of properly registered devices are to be properly displayed so that action can be taken against errant riders if necessary.
Indeed, once we have our compulsory inspection for each device, both in terms of the existing devices and then, going forward, for each device that is brought in, we will take action if an illegally modified device is detected. Certainly, then, we will also work to find and take action against those businesses that do this.
Compulsory speed limit would potentially be possible if we had access to every device, and again, is something that we will study comprehensively.
The Member asked about the recourse, as the fifth question, having had the experience of a hit-and-run. Certainly, the Police and LTA – depending on the exact location and the exact circumstances – will try to put together information from whatever sources we have to catch the perpetrators. But ultimately, the key message is that in all of these issues, what we are dealing with is a small number of very irresponsible and dangerous individuals. We need to find a way to educate them, to enforce against them when they act in this way and try to find ways to develop a new safety culture in our public spaces so that people can have the assurance of a safe experience on the footpaths.
Mr Liang Eng Hwa (Holland-Bukit Timah): Sir, while the Ministry conducts this comprehensive and thorough review, in the meanwhile, would the Government consider stopping new sales and new imports of PMDs, at least, we do not add further to the problem that we already have to manage?
\tDr Janil Puthucheary: Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for his suggestion. The steps we have already taken will mean that new devices and new imports need to be compliant and need to be registered. So, going forward, any new device would need to be compliant and registered with our current framework. And so, the likelihood is that what we are dealing with is the errant behaviour by people who have previously brought in very large devices, very fast devices or have illegally modified the devices. It is something to consider. We will look at it. But given the number of these devices that are already here in Singapore, on our footpaths and on our roads, I think there are other steps that we need to consider for early intervention in the first place.
\tMr Speaker: End of Question Time.
\t[\tPursuant to Standing Order No 22(3), Written Answers to Question Nos 15-29, 31-32, 34-36, 38-39, 42-51 and 53-70 on the Order Paper are reproduced in the Appendix. Question Nos 30, 33, 37, 40-41 and 52 have been postponed to the next available sitting of Parliament.\t]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Air Navigation (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"to amend the Air Navigation Act (Chapter 6 of the 2014 Revised Edition)\", (proc text)]
[(proc text) presented by the Minister for Transport (Mr Khaw Boon Wan); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Home Affairs Uniformed Services Superannuation (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"to amend the Home Affairs Uniformed Services Superannuation Act (Chapter 126B of the 2012 Revised Edition)\", (proc text)]
[(proc text) presented by the Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Amrin Amin) on behalf of the Minister for Home Affairs; read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Women's Charter (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"to amend the Women's Charter (Chapter 353 of the 2009 Revised Edition)\", (proc text)]
[(proc text) presented by the Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs (Ms Sun Xueling) on behalf of the Minister for Home Affairs; read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"to amend the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (1999 Reprint)\", (proc text)]
[(proc text) presented by the Senior Minister of State for Law (Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai) on behalf of the Minister for Law; read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Judges' Remuneration (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"to amend the Judges' Remuneration Act (Chapter 147 of the 1995 Revised Edition)\", (proc text)]
[(proc text) presented by the Senior Minister of State for Law (Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai) on behalf of the Minister for Law; read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Supreme Court of Judicature (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"to amend the Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Chapter 322 of the 2007 Revised Edition) to provide for the renaming of the High Court as the General Division of the High Court, to provide for the jurisdiction and powers of the Appellate Division of the High Court, to make amendments to provisions relating to the Court of Appeal, to make amendments relating to requirements for leave to appeal against decisions of the General Division of the High Court and to make consequential and related amendments to certain other Acts\", (proc text)]
[(proc text) presented by the Senior Minister of State for Law (Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai) on behalf of the Minister for Law; read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Goods and Services Tax (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"to amend the Goods and Services Tax Act (Chapter 117A of the 2005 Revised Edition\", (proc text)]
[(proc text) recommendation of President signified; presented by the Second Minister for Finance (Mr Lawrence Wong); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Central Provident Fund (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"to amend the Central Provident Fund Act (Chapter 36 of the 2013 Revised Edition)\", (proc text)]
[(proc text) presented by the Minister of State for Manpower (Mr Zaqy Mohamad) on behalf of the Minister for Manpower; read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Income Tax (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Second Minister for Finance (Mr Lawrence Wong): Mr Speaker, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\"
The Income Tax (Amendment) Bill 2019 covers seven changes which were announced in this year's Budget, as well as 18 other changes arising from the periodic review to refine and to clarify Singapore’s income tax regime.
We sought views from the public on the draft Bill earlier this year. MOF has evaluated all the feedback received and incorporated them where they are relevant to the draft text of the Bill.
Let me start by highlighting the key changes that give effect to the announcements made at Budget 2019 this year.
First, as part of the Bicentennial Bonus, a Personal Income Tax Rebate of 50% of income tax payable capped at $200 will be granted to all tax resident individuals for Year of Assessment (YA) 2019. Clause 46 of the Bill provides for the change.
Second, the Not Ordinarily Resident (NOR) scheme, which was introduced in Budget 2002, will lapse after YA 2020. The last such NOR status will be granted for YA 2020 and expire in YA 2024, because it is a five-year scheme. Individuals who have been accorded the NOR status and continue to meet the conditions will continue to be granted the NOR tax concessions until their status expire. Clause 12 of the Bill provides for the change.
Third, to continue to grow Singapore’s asset management industry, the tax concessions relating to Qualifying Funds will be extended till 31 December 2024. These tax schemes will also be refined to keep them relevant and to ease compliance burden. Clauses 8, 15, and 17 of the Bill provide for these changes.
As mentioned earlier, the Ministry of Finance regularly reviews and refines the income tax regime. I will now highlight two changes arising from this periodic review of the tax regime which are found in the Bill.
First, we will ease the compliance burden for individual tax residents who are self-employed commission agents and are earning gross annual commission income of up to $50,000. This is by introducing an option for self-employed commission agents to apply a prescribed deemed expense ratio, which is set at 25% of their gross commission income. Those who do not take up this option can continue to claim tax deduction based on the actual amount of expenses incurred in the production of their commission income. This change, found in Clause 22 of the Bill, will take effect from YA 2020 for income earned in 2019.
Second, to align with international trends, and to improve accountability and promote open justice, tax proceedings before the Courts will no longer be heard privately by default. We will also discontinue the practice of redacting taxpayers' names in published decisions of such judicial proceedings. Clause 38 of the Bill provides for the change. Similar changes will be tabled for the Goods and Services Tax Act (GSTA) in relation to proceedings before the Courts under the GSTA. The changes relating to Court proceedings, under the Income Tax Act and the GSTA, will take effect on 1 January 2020. Mr Speaker, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Ms Anthea Ong (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, I stand in support of the Bill as it is generally procedural in nature. In particular, I welcome the amendment in clause 29 that amends section 39 of the current Act to broaden the Grandparent Care Relief to working mothers with \"handicapped\" and unmarried children.
However, I would like to outline some significant and urgent housekeeping changes that we must make in definitional interpretations with the current Income Tax Act and the amendments of this Bill.
The Explanatory Note of the Bill used the term \"handicapped\" and the amendment in clause 29(b) sub-paragraph used \"incapacitated by reason of physical or mental infirmity\".
Sir, I was shocked to find that under section 2(1) of the Act, an \"incapacitated\" person means infant, lunatic, idiot or insane person – a definition that, in my research through the legislative history, has not been changed for 72 years since the Income Tax Ordinance 1947 when income tax was first imposed. The reference is derogatory and as you would know well, is not reflective of the current narrative and ground realities of the disability community and our social policies. In case the House thinks that I am just concerned with semantics, let me share why this is more than just a euphemistic concern.
First, definitions and terminologies we use in our legislature reflect how far we have come as a society and have an impact on how the rest of the society carves out their responses and examines their attitudes. So, we must not leave definitional updates as an afterthought as we update our laws. As the Executive Director of the Disabled Persons Association or DPA shared with me when I checked with her on this particular definition, \"for any law to define disability by incapacitation or to locate the inability to interact in the world within the disabled person goes against the UN Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities or CRPD which locates the barriers in the environment and not the person\". Singapore became a signatory of CPRD in August 2013.
Specifically, the term \"incapacitated by reason of mental infirmity\" goes against the spirit of the Mental Capacity Act introduced in 2008. In section 4(3), the Act says that a lack of capacity cannot be established merely by reference to (a) a person’s age or appearance; or (b) condition of theirs which might lead others to make unjustified assumptions about their capability.
Second, this discovery I made also unveiled the inconsistency and misalignment of the definition of \"disability\" across the legislature. As an example, the Women’s Charter defines an \"incapacitated person\" as a person who is wholly or partially incapacitated or infirm, by reason of physical or mental disability or ill-health or old age.
In general, the English-speaking disability rights movement has moved away from the term \"handicapped\" and reclaiming and attributing positive associations with the term \"disabled\" or \"disabilities\". It is seen as \"outdated\" by the community in Singapore. \"Handicap\" is still used across a multitude of legislation including the Health Sciences Authority Act, Health Products Act, the Copyright Act, and so on.
I am thankful for the numerous tax relief schemes that we have to support our disability and vulnerable communities, but I urge the Ministry to update the awful definition of \"incapacitated\" from 1947 and all references to \"handicap\" to reflect the current social norms. We should take the lead from the Singapore’s Enabling Masterplan which also implements the CRPD. The Masterplan’s definition and terminology of \"disability\" reflects the current and aspirational needs of the community. \"Disability\" is defined as \"those whose prospects of securing, retaining places and advancing in education and training institutions, employment and recreation as equal members of the community are substantially reduced as a result of physical, sensory, intellectual and developmental impairments.\"
I also urge all other ministries to review and update all current provisions for our disability community, and in making new laws, to take the lead from MSF who leads and updates the Enabling Masterplan with the community.
Mr Speaker, I would now like to take this opportunity with the Bill to discuss how we can better engage our private sector towards achieving greater social impact with the Business and IPC Scheme, or BIPS and supporting the growth of social enterprises.
BIPS was approved during Budget 2016 for two and a half years from July 2016 to December 2018, and then extended for three more years till December 2021. The intent of the scheme is to encourage businesses to send their employees to volunteer and provide services in various areas such as legal, human resources and accounting, or even general voluntary services for institutions for public character (IPCs).
Yet both businesses and IPCs face an administratively onerous process in applying for BIPs thereby resulting in low usage of the scheme. In response to my Parliamentary Question in November 2018, we know then that between July 2016 and December 2017, or 1.5 years, only 48 businesses contributed about 17,000 volunteering hours through BIPS projects. To put this number in context, there are more than 500,000 business entities in Singapore.
I urge the Government to consider the three suggestions below gathered from conversations with community-based organisations and companies that are keen to realise the policy and impact intent of BIPS.
First, this scheme is only available for the 610 approved IPCs which are held to a higher governance standard out of 2,277 registered charities in 2018. Given that, the scheme could be made fully flexible through disbursing the $50,000 tax deduction limit to each IPC and allowing them to use the funds as they deem fit. A random audit could be conducted to deter abuses. This will also allow charities to distribute this $50,000 deduction tax limit across corporate partners in more meaningful ways that would better meet their beneficiary needs. With the current application process, there is a tendency to rush into partnerships on a first-come-first-serve basis.
Second, the current BIPS offers tax deductions based on the actual salary rates of the employees of the businesses which could be problematic given (a) the need to disclosure such sensitive information and (b) the BIPS do not have the industry knowledge and/or bandwidth to audit salary figures given by corporate partners to determine if they are true and fairly reported. I understand from the reply to my Parliamentary Question in August that the Government is currently considering using fixed man-hour rates for BIPS to increase the administrative ease of claiming tax deduction under the scheme. This is very much a step in the right direction.
But I would further suggest that the value of voluntary method be tied to the actual value of the voluntary service rendered, independent of the corporate volunteer’s salary. This value could be pre-set by the Government in the form.
Lastly, BIPS should also consider including food donations, particularly nutritional food donations which I shared in my speech for the Resource Sustainability Bill last month as part of our climate change strategy. Countries like the US and France have already legislated tax deductions for food donations. In the US, companies can claim 15% tax deduction of their taxable income based on the value of the donated food. In France, if a company makes a food donation to a registered charity, they can claim up to 60% of the value of the food as a tax rebate, depending on how near it is to the food’s expiry date.
Mr Speaker, between private businesses and social service agencies are social enterprises. Social enterprises are businesses that have a social and/or environmental agenda woven into its primary business. They help to reduce inequality and create livelihood opportunities for vulnerable communities by generating income through innovative products and services in the marketplace.
At this juncture, I would like to declare my interest as the founder of Hush TeaBar, a social enterprise that employs Deaf persons and persons who live with mental health conditions to provide a curated silent tea experience to promote mental wellness and social inclusion at workplaces. I am also a small-time impact investor.
The growth of social enterprises in Singapore has generally been organic because we do not yet have a clear national strategy on this, including recognition of these enterprises as separate legal entities in their own right. As such, we do not know the total number of social enterprises in Singapore but we do know from a response to my Parliamentary Question in February that 336 of them chose to be members of the Singapore Centre for Social Enterprises, or raiSE, as at March 2018. Out of these, 92 or 27% had an annual revenue of at least or more than $200,000, including Hush.
I remember having a conversation with an impact investor a few years back who shared that she would not think to invest in Singapore social enterprises since there are already grants given by the Singapore Government, through the Tote Board and administered by raiSE. As much as grants are welcome, they encourage innovations differently from investments.
Investments into social enterprises could be encouraged with tax rebates for impact investors. This may also help to shift mindset from conventional donations to investing in social enterprises and eventually building a larger ecosystem. The UK government introduced the Social Investment Tax Relief (SITR) in 2014 to help social enterprises attract capital in order to drive and grow their business.
I urge the Government to consider such legislative innovations to incentivise market-driven investments into local social enterprises. We must do more to create the right environment for more of these impact businesses to grow from micro-businesses to SMEs and eventually bringing our Singapore brand of social innovations overseas as part of our global citizenry.
To conclude, I would like to quote Deputy Prime Minister Heng Swee Keat at the Building our Future Singapore Together Dialogue in June 2019. I quote, \"beyond partnering you in specific areas, we will work with you to create a shared future, one where every Singaporean will have a part to play.\"
Mr Speaker, this commitment must surely include every differently-abled and vulnerable Singaporean by recognising them in a respectful, dignified and consistent manner across our laws and policies, as well as creating enabling environments to invite and support every business and every social enterprise to contribute to a nation that cares. Because the Singaporean society that we want to be is not about bringing people into what already exists but about making a new and better space for everyone to thrive.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Mr Speaker, I thank Ms Anthea Ong for her support of the Bill, and let me take this opportunity to address some of the points that she had raised.
First, I will touch on the Business and IPC Partnership Scheme, or BIPS. As Ms Ong mentioned, this is a relatively new scheme introduced in Budget 2016 to encourage businesses to support their employees to volunteer. Since then, MCCY and NVPC have been exploring ways to refine the scheme and to make the administrative processes more convenient and seamless for both businesses and the Institutions of a Public Characters or IPCs.
Among the enhancements made to BIPS, we will, as Ms Ong highlighted, provide an option for businesses to claim tax deductions on wages based on a fixed man-hour rate. So, this will address the issues that I think the businesses and IPCs have been raising about administrative burden and confidentiality concerns. The fixed man-hour rates will be differentiated with a higher rate for skill-based volunteerism. This will also serve to encourage businesses to tap on the expertise of their employees and their services to better support the needs of the IPCs.
To further simplify the administrative process, we will be introducing a \"safe harbour\" for related expenses, such that IPCs need not verify supporting documentation for related expenses that make up less than 5% of the total qualifying expenditure.
We hope these enhancements will reduce the administrative burden on both our IPCs and businesses who are part of the scheme. Ms Ong also offered other suggestions for BIPS, including having food donations recognised as part of the scheme. We will take all these suggestions into consideration as we continue to improve and fine-tune this scheme.
Of course, besides BIPS, there are other existing schemes that provide more direct support for charities and IPCs. For example, under the Bicentennial Community Fund, the Government provides up to $400,000 in matching grants for donations made to each IPC this year. The VWOs-Charities Capability Fund supports charities in areas such as governance and the adoption of technology to enhance operational efficiency. Government agencies overseeing this sector will continue to review the various schemes that we have, be it on the tax side or through grants, and find ways to continue to encourage and promote a more giving society.
Ms Ong also suggested having tax relief for investors of social enterprises. Besides grants and tax incentives, she highlighted the role of impact investors and she suggested having tax reliefs for such investors to encourage the growth of social enterprises. As Ms Ong highlighted, we are currently helping social enterprises through raiSE (the Singapore Centre for Social Enterprise), and the Minister for Social and Family Development had elaborated on this, when he responded to a question in Parliament last month on the support provided to help social enterprises to grow. We will likewise study Ms Ong's suggestion on this particular area and see how we can do more to encourage the growth of our social enterprise sector in Singapore.
Finally, I would like to thank Ms Ong for her comments on the definitions of terminologies used in the Act. I would like to first assure her that we are in full compliance with the Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities, and if you look at the terminologies and definitions used in our Acts, there is internal consistency across all our various Acts. We have taken legal advice on this, and I think there is no doubt about that matter. Nevertheless, I agree with her that language can play an important role in promoting inclusion in society and some of the terminologies do need to be updated. So, we will consider this at the next review of the Income Tax Act.
Mr Speaker, I believe I have addressed the Member's concerns and questions, and I would like to assure all Members of this House that MOF will continue to review our tax regime and our schemes regularly to ensure their relevance and effectiveness. Mr Speaker, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr Lawrence Wong]. (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":"Maintenance of Religious Harmony (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Minister for Home Affairs (Mr K Shanmugam): Mr Speaker, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time\".
This Bill proposes amendments to Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act, referred to as MRHA. The MRHA was passed in 1990 and came to effect in 1992. In those 27 years, society, attitudes towards religion, the environment and more have changed. We reviewed the MRHA and we decided to amend it, keep it relevant, keep it effective.
In this speech, I will touch on three aspects. First, the background to the MRHA, reasons why it was introduced in 1990; second, a brief look at relevant events around the world, the extent of religious harmony and our experience over the past 27 years; and third, set out the rationale for the amendments. My colleague, Senior Parliamentary Secretary Sun Xueling, will speak on the specific provisions in the Bill. Let me now deal with the context and background to the MRHA.
The rationale for the MRHA was set out in a White Paper. It was published in December 1989. It highlighted several important aspects. One: religious harmony is a necessary condition for us to survive as a country. The Government needed to set out a set of “working rules” on how different religious groups interact with each other. One such rule was that religious groups should not do anything that causes disharmony, ill-will or hostility between different religious groups. This is especially so for proselytisation. A key tenet of many religions is to propagate their faith, but in Singapore, we want it to be done sensitively.
Another rule, if I may highlight, is that religious groups should not venture into politics and political parties should not use religion to get popular support. The White Paper also recognised it would be unwise to assume that all religious groups will recognise the Rules of Prudence. But, in our context, in fact in any country, if these rules were ignored, that could seriously damage our social fabric and our political, economic fabric. The White Paper then said legislation was therefore necessary because we wanted to take pre-emptive action to maintain religious harmony.
The MRHA was passed, had these key features: one, it covered conduct that harmed religious tolerance; two, there were powers for the Minister to issue orders restraining harmful conduct; and three, a Presidential Council for Religious Harmony (PCRH) was set up, which could consider these orders. It could also consider other matters that affected the maintenance of religious harmony.
Let me give a bit more context on the reasons for the introduction of the Act then.
I think we all recognise the power of religion. It has been and it is a force for much good. Major religions have transformed societies in positive ways. They are the bedrock of core societal values: compassion, kindness, generosity. The collective efforts of a number of different religious organisations and groups, their values and their faith have also helped to make Singapore what it is today.
At the same time, we recognise that religion has also been used and can be used by bad actors as a rallying point for violence. Also, by bad actors as a rallying point to pursue political power, often with bad outcomes for societies.
In 1990, the Government was very aware of the good that religion can bring about, but also how it can be abused by some. So, the question was how to keep the good, allow a large measure of freedom and also keep out the bad? The Government decided on two key principles.
First, emphasise the constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion – the right of every person to practise his or her beliefs. And the Government, as a matter of policy, made sure that religion remained accessible to all Singaporeans who wish to access it.
For example, land is continuously set aside in our residential estates. Every time we plan an estate, we take into account religious needs for worship for all religions. The Government helped to establish the Mosque Building and MENDAKI Fund, which made it easier to mobilise the community and build mosques.
At the same time, the Government itself is secular. Secularism in Singapore is unique. It is not like secularism in some other countries. The example I spoke about in April this year before this House was France.There, the state will not intervene in religious matters, even if an act or speech offends other religions.
We take a different position. I explained this in some detail, in my Parliamentary Statement in April before this House.
The Government does not privilege any religious group. But we also do not allow any religious group to be attacked or insulted. And we actively encourage inter-faith dialogues, activities to foster mutual understanding and respect. At the same time, we keep to the position that no religious group should influence Government policy and decision-making.
That was the background for the passing of the MRHA in 1990. In the last 27 years since it was passed, there have been some significant changes. I will touch on four.
First, growing religiosity and increased reliance on identity politics around the world; second, increased violence committed in the name of religion; third, the Internet and social media; and fourth, increased possibilities for interference by countries in the affairs of other countries.
First, rising religiosity. If you look at the 2015 Pew Research Centre survey, it is projected that by 2050, 87% of the world's population will be religiously-affiliated. That, we can see, is particularly so in this region – look at Indonesia, for example. Rising religiosity by itself can be a force for considerable good, as I explained earlier. But there can be trouble when it is exploited by bad actors, for example, for identity politics. And it can be so exploited. We see this in many places.
If we look at Europe – far-right movements play up anxieties against Muslims and other minorities. If we look nearer in this region, in Myanmar, there is religious conflict between the majority Buddhists and the Rohingya Muslim minority. Buddhist monks enter the political scene and say they are defending the Buddhist Myanmar against Islamisation.
If we look at Sri Lanka, some have sought to radicalise Buddhists by claims that all of Sri Lanka should be exclusively Buddhist. We had a 2013 Buddhist attack on a mosque; 2014, anti-Muslim riots which resulted in a 10-day national state of emergency; and last year, more anti-Muslim riots. The Buddhist monks have also disrupted Christian church services.
The developments in India are worth nothing. India was established in 1947 as a pluralist nation and home that comprises people of many religions, sects and ethnicities. Their constitution provides no particular religion with special status.
A writer points out that the party that champions secularism, the Congress Party, during the 1984 national elections, moved away from being tied to secularism. It won by riding on Hindu majoritarian politics. By 2019, to regain power, the Congress Party dropped the word \"secularism\" from its manifesto. It tells you how far things have come – this is the party of Nehru and Gandhi.
The writer, Kanchan Chandra, says that through the years, Indian politicians have swayed from one side to another, overly championing minority interests, or giving in too much to the majority's desires. And over time, this generated feelings of unfairness, from both the minority and majority religionists.
Secularism is an ideal but it is difficult to get it right and get the balance right.
Our Constitution guarantees the freedom of religion, but so do the constitutions of many other countries, including the United States. And that has not prevented the rise of identity politics.
The second trend that I want to touch is the increasing violence from conflicts that have been fueled by religious hate speech. Once hate speech is systemically developed and normalised, it destroys social cohesion, erodes shared values and lays the foundation for violence.
I spoke about this quite extensively, to a great extent in this House in April. I will not go through it again. Hate speech is also fuel for religious violence. In 2018, Pew Research Centre did a studythat showed that two years earlier in 2016, more than 25% of the countries in the world experienced a high incidence of hostilities involving religion. I think the point is made – if you look around, you see many examples and I gave many examples a few months ago.
The third trend that I want to touch on is the Internet and social media. The Internet has been used to mobilise hatred and mob attacks. It has provided for anonymity that allows unfettered expressions and religious intolerance. Internet access has made it easier for people to be influenced by extremist ideologies. And collectively, social media can invoke irrational fear of both the majority and the minority groups. Parts of the Internet are already turning into hothouses of hate – like-minded bigots find each other and gather online. They are helped by Internet platforms where algorithms allow hate to go viral.
There are many examples. If we look at India, in 2014, photos of venerated Hindu figures were morphed in \"derogatory\" manner and circulated on social media. They went viral. Lots of people took to the streets, asking for the blood of the offenders. In Indonesia, you have preachers, some of whom have vast followings on social media and are influencers with a force of their own. They can mobilise huge crowds and can make part of the Muslim community susceptible to identity politics.
Right next to us, on the other side, you have the \"Buy Muslim First\" campaign in Malaysia. It has been been gaining momentum, going around on WhatsApp messages. It is now seen as a boycott of goods and services produced by non-Muslims. Government leaders have attempted to intervene but so far, the impact has been minimal. If this continues to grow, it will stoke Muslim versus non-Muslim sentiments.
The fourth trend I will touch on is foreign interference. Again, I will not go into details. It is well-documented. Members know about it and the Internet makes it much more possible.
So, let me now turn to the situation in Singapore. We have been spared most of this trouble in Singapore. Over the last 60 years, the Government has been even-handed in the treatment of all religions and religious groups. We actively protect religious diversity, but also emphasise our common spaces and our shared experiences.
Earlier this year, more than 300 religious organisations affirmed the Commitment to Safeguard Religious Harmony. The Commitment encourages day-to-day positive interactions so that people can work and live together harmoniously. Beyond institutional structures, we also have laws in place that seek to ensure that no one exploits fault lines.
Because of these policies, the laws and enforcement, we have created some norms and values within Singapore which make us unique and different from many other places. We have peace and harmony.
If we go back to a Pew Research Centre study in 2014 on religious diversity, it showed that Singapore was the most religiously diverse country in the world. That could make us particularly susceptible to fault lines deepening, because you are so diverse in such a small place. Yet, a 2016 Gallup World Poll ranked us first out of 140 countries for tolerance of ethnic minorities. The poll deals with ethnicity, not religion, but I think you can draw some conclusions from that.
A 2019 IPS and OnePeople.sg joint study also found inter-religious harmony in Singapore improving. Nine in 10 said the level of racial and religious harmony in Singapore is moderate, high, or very high.
I think you take the surveys and studies in context. Just because people say we are number one does not automatically mean we are number one. But I think we look our lived experiences, lived realities and the findings are consistent with our lived experiences in Singapore.
Let me now come to the reason for the amendments. I have described the developments around the world that we should be concerned about. It is easy for religious movements in other countries to affect us. A new way of thinking, or revolutions like the 1979 Iranian Revolution swept through the world; the ideas, come through here too.
We have to put in some circuit breakers to prevent events relating to religion from affecting us negatively. You want to allow for those religious influences but at the same time do not want them to affect us negatively.
We are updating the MRHA to deal with some of the challenges that I have spoken about. Let me touch on three key proposed changes to the MRHA.
First, we are moving over the religion-related offences from the Penal Code and housing them under the MRHA. The amendments will make it an offence to knowingly urge violence, on the ground of religion or religious belief, against any person or group. Protection is provided to religious groups and its members, as well as non-religious groups and the members of such groups.
Action can be taken if any religious group or its member attacks another religious group using religion. But action can also be taken if a religious group, using religion, attacks a non-religious group – say, for example, they attack a LGBTQ group or individuals on the basis of religion. But equally, if a religious group or its member is attacked by any non-religious group or person – say, again, LGBTQ – then action can also be taken. So, it is even-handed.
Second, we need to put in place measures to safeguard against foreign actors who attempt to use religion to divide our local communities. The Bill introduces requirements on religious organisations to disclose foreign donations and affiliations. It also introduces local leadership requirements for religious organisations. We will not apply these requirements to spiritual leaders and preachers. It is not possible. Many of them come from overseas and it is not our intent to constrain the practice of religion.
Third, the MRHA allows the Government to issue a Restraining Order to anyone who threatens religious harmony – that has been there all along. Currently, it requires a 14-day notice period to be given. With the Internet and social media, 14 days is too long. So, we will amend for the Order to to take immediate effect.
We will introduce the Community Remedial Initiative (CRI). It is a new tool that focuses on restoration and rehabilitation.
I would like to mention, in this context, a recent interesting incident which captures the essence of what we are trying to do. Some Members may recall an incident a few days ago where the Young Sikh Association reached out to a social media influencer, Ms Sheena Phua. She had uploaded a picture showing two Sikh men in white turbans at the recent F1 Grand Prix, and referred to them as “huge obstructions”. The online firestorm began – she was accused of being racist and slighting Sikhism.
It would have been entirely understandable for the Sikh community to criticise her, but the Young Sikh Association took a different path and in many ways a very commendable path. They reached out and invited her to visit the gurdwara so that they could educate her about Sikhism. These young men understood that at times, insensitive and derogatory comments can come from a place of ignorance and that the better and more sustainable path is not of hate or taking sides, but of friendship, respect and learning about each other.
Mr Malminderjit Singh, the secretary of the Sikh Advisory Board, called the actions of these young men and, I quote, a \"First World response to a Third World incident\". I agree. This incident in fact encapsulates the spirit of the CRI. It will not be compulsory because we do not want to force a person of one religion to compulsorily, say, step into another place of religious worship if there are religious reasons why that person may not wish to do so. We do not want to compel them to do some things that they may not wish to do. We will leave it as a matter of their own conscience and what they are prepared to do. But that will be taken into account in when deciding on the actions that are subsequently taken. The philosophy is that, it is much better if people reach out to one another and get a better understanding of each other's religion. This will foster a better environment.
So, these are the changes and they are being proposed after a lot of thought, consultations and, as Members will know, with considerable support from the different religious communities from all the major faiths. They have come out after they saw the Bill and after it was introduced in Parliament to give their support. And I hope that Members will likewise support it.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs (Ms Sun Xueling): Mr Speaker, Sir, I will be speaking in my capacity as Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the Ministry of Home Affairs.
The Minister for Home Affairs has set out the broad rationale on the need for the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act, otherwise known as the MRHA. He also explained why we need to amend the MRHA to ensure that it remains effective.
I will now set out the Government’s position and provide details on the key amendments. There are five key areas.
First, introduction of safeguards against foreign influence that affect religious harmony; second the updating of the Restraining Order; third, introduction of the Community Remedial Initiative; fourth, porting over of religion-related provisions from the Penal Code to the MRHA; and fifth, related amendments to the Penal Code.
First, safeguards against foreign influence that affect religious harmony. The Minister for Home Affairs has presented examples worldwide that show how foreign influence have impacted religious harmony in those communities. We will take active steps to prevent foreign influence from affecting our religious harmony.
Sir, all our major religious faiths and traditions originated elsewhere. Many of our religious organisations take guidance on key tenets of their faith from their counterparts or superiors who are overseas. Our religious groups serve both Singaporeans and non-Singaporeans.
So, it is not possible to say that we cannot have foreign influence. But we must safeguard against malicious foreign influence which seeks to undermine religious harmony here.
Let me provide one example from overseas. In Sri Lanka, as a result of the 2019 Easter Sunday bombings, investigations uncovered a link between extremism and funding and donations from the Middle East. The founder of the Centre for Islamic Guidance in Sri Lanka, Mohamed Aliyar, was arrested on charges related to the financing of terrorism. The Centre for Islamic Guidance was partly funded by countries in the Middle East and he was closely linked to Zahran Hashim, a radical preacher who allegedly mentored many of the Easter attack bombers.
In looking at the safeguards against foreign influence, they are structured so that there will be baseline requirements which all religious groups will be subject to. If there are specific threats, the Government can take more targeted action. These baseline safeguards were developed after extensive discussions with apex religious organisations.
First, on donations. We will require religious groups to disclose single foreign donations that are S$10,000 or more. Clause 13 gives effect to this. The disclosure threshold of S$10,000 was set after discussion with the major apex religious organisations. We wanted to balance the objective of preventing foreign influence, and not make it too onerous at the same time for religious organisations. We are not saying that any donation below S$10,000 is not a concern. Or that any donation above S$10,000 is malicious. The Government will make assessments to determine if there is malicious foreign influence. The requirements apply to monetary donations.
To reduce the administrative burden on religious groups, we have provided for exemptions to this requirement in the Bill. For example, anonymous cash donations received through donation boxes at religious institutions, or received during a collection during worship rites or services are exempted. Donations received from PRs as well as foreigners who are on long-term passes issued by ICA or MOM do not need to be disclosed. The Minister will be able to set out other types of donations that can be exempted from disclosure requirements through subsidiary legislation.
Second, on leadership. We will require the President, Secretary and Treasurer of the religious group to be either a Singapore citizen or PR. If a religious group is incorporated as a company, the requirements will apply on the positions analogous to President, Secretary, or Treasurer – for example, the Chairman, Managing Director, and Directors of the company. If the religious group was set up as a partnership, the equivalent position would be the Partners. In addition to this, the majority of the executive committee or governing body of the religious group must be Singapore Citizens. Clause 13 inserts the new sections 16D and 16E which give effect to this.
The leadership requirements do not apply to spiritual leaders, unless they hold such executive positions in the religious group.
We recognise that there are some religious groups which would not be able to meet these requirements, such as those who serve primarily foreigners who live and work in Singapore, or which are set up as single entities operating across different countries. We have been engaging some of these groups and are prepared to consider exemptions from these new leadership requirements for them. This will be granted on a case-by-case basis, as long as there are no security concerns.
Third, on foreign affiliations. Religious groups will be required to declare any foreign affiliations. Foreign affiliation is defined in the new section 16B as an arrangement with a foreign principal where the religious group is accustomed to act in accordance with its instructions, or where the foreign principal exercises total or substantial control over the religious group’s activities. The safeguard for foreign affiliations is for disclosure purposes.
We have sought to set the baseline requirements at a level that minimises regulatory burden on the religious groups. If however we have indications that there is a risk of foreign influence that can affect religious harmony, the proposed Bill will allow us to take more targeted actions in the areas of foreign donations and leadership.
Clause 5 specifically expands the current scope of the Restraining Order, otherwise known as the RO, under section 8 of the MRHA. This allows the Government to take targeted action in the areas of donation and leadership of local religious groups where there is indication that there is a risk of foreign influence that can affect religious harmony.
Under the new clause 5, a RO can be issued against a religious group to pre-empt, prevent, or reduce any foreign influence affecting the religious group which may undermine religious tolerance between different religious groups in Singapore, and present a threat to public peace and public order in Singapore.
The RO can impose additional safeguards on religious groups: (a) to prohibit or restrict receiving of anonymous donations, or of foreign donations by the religious group; (b) to ensure that every member of the governing body is a citizen of Singapore, or prohibit a specific foreigner or PR from holding office in the governing body in the religious group.
The safeguards for the issuance of the RO against religious groups will be the same as those for the issuance of RO against individuals. The Presidential Council of Religious Harmony, or PCRH, will hear representations and review the RO after it has been issued. The PCRH will be able to call any person to provide information to them and the PCRH will make a recommendation to the President, who will continue to have the power to confirm, cancel, or vary the RO.
The additional safeguards will require religious groups to take on more work. They understand that more work is required, but at the same time, the religious groups acknowledge the importance of such safeguards. They support these amendments. Any religious group that needs more time to comply with these requirements can work out appropriate interim arrangements with MHA.
I will now move on to the updating of the RO that can be issued against individuals. The MRHA currently provides that an RO can be issued against: (a) any individual who does or says anything that causes religious disharmony; (b) any religious leader or member of a religious group that mixes religion and politics, and any person inciting a religious leader or religious group to do so.
The RO can prevent this individual from addressing religious groups, or being involved in producing or distributing publications produced by religious groups.
The scope of the RO was drawn up nearly 30 years ago, before the advent of the Internet. It caters primarily to offline modes of communication. Social media has enabled offensive posts to go viral in a matter of seconds. There is now, thus, a need for the Government to update the RO to take swift action against such posts.
First, we will remove the 14-day notice period for the issuance of ROs. The RO will now be issued and take immediate effect. This allows us to stem religiously offensive posts at its source quickly, before it spreads.
Second, the scope of the RO will now include requiring the individual to stop undertaking any \"communications activity\" relating to the religiously offensive material. This will include the removal of any material that has been posted on the Internet.
The safeguards remain unchanged from what they were before. The individual and the religious group which the individual belongs to can make representations to the PCRH. The RO will be considered by the PCRH, and ultimately confirmed, canceled or varied by the President.
Clauses 2, 5, and 6 give effect to this.
I will now speak about the Community Remedial Initiative (CRI). To maintain religious harmony, it is not enough to just restrain bad behaviour. When there has been some damage, we need to find a way to soothe communal tensions and repair disrupted ties between the communities.
Our experience with cases of religious disharmony is that the most effective resolution occurs when the offender displays remorse over his actions and makes amends directly to the offended party. This is frequently facilitated by their religious groups.
In such cases, the benefits are twofold – first, the offender reflects on his actions and better understands the multi-religious context in which he lives; second, the offended community is given a chance to speak with and accept the apology by the offender. This goes a long way in soothing communal tensions.
There is hence a need for a new tool in the MRHA which focuses on restoration and rehabilitation. This is the Community Remedial Initiative, otherwise known as the CRI. Clause 13 introduces the new section 16H which gives effect to this.
The CRI is offered by the Minister to an alleged offender which will set out the remedial actions that can be taken to mend ties with the aggrieved community. Some examples of remedial actions under the CRI include issuance of a public or private apology, or participating in activities that promote religious harmony. In determining the appropriate actions, the Minister will consult with the religious leaders, though the final decision rests with him.
The CRI is not mandatory. The alleged offender can refuse to take up this offer and the non-completion or refusal of the CRI, will not be a criminal offence. At the same time, if the offender agrees to complete the remedial actions and does so, the Minister undertakes not to refer this case for criminal prosecution. The CRI will not be issued to every case where an individual engages in conduct which leads to religious disharmony. The Minister will have to exercise judgment in each case, to take the most appropriate course of action. For example, if the conduct is very egregious, such as when the offender incites violence, then this case is clearly not suitable for the CRI.
Cases of egregious conduct relating to religious disharmony used to be dealt with under the Penal Code, in sections 267C and sections 295 to 298A. I will now speak about the porting over of these religion-related offences from the Penal Code to the MRHA.
We wanted to make the MRHA a comprehensive Act which provides for a full range of legislative levers to deal with the maintenance of religious harmony. In the porting over of these offences, we approach it in two ways.
First, what is the offence? An offence of urging violence against another person or group is more serious than offences of insulting or ridiculing a religion. Second, who is the offender? Religious leaders have a greater ability to influence and mobilise their followers, as compared to lay persons. This is the case even when they speak to their followers in private capacities. As such, religious leaders will be subject to a lower threshold for offences.
Clause 14 inserts the new section 17E, which introduces offences of urging violence on religious grounds against any person or group, and offences of urging violence against religious groups or persons who belong to these groups. This sends a strong signal that the weaponisation of religion to urge violence or force to be used against any person is unacceptable in our society. Because of the seriousness of the outcome, that force or violence is likely to occur, any person who commits this offence will be subjected to the maximum punishment of 10 years’ imprisonment, or fine, or both. This is the most serious offence in the MRHA.
Clause 14 also inserts the new section 17F, which introduces offences of inciting hatred, ill-will or hostility against a religious group, and offences of insulting a religion or wounding the religious feelings of a person.
For offenders who are not religious leaders, an additional element needs to be proven for these offences. That is that their conduct would threaten the public peace or public order in Singapore. For religious leaders, there is no need to prove this element.
The defences for these offences are different for religious leaders and non-religious leaders. It will be a defence for offenders who are not religious leaders to prove that their conduct could reasonably be taken to indicate that the parties desired for it to be heard or seen only by themselves. In other words, private conduct will not be covered by the offence.
For religious leaders, in addition to proving that they were engaged in private conduct, there is an additional requirement that the private conduct was a domestic communication. This would cover situations where the religious leader is speaking with close family members in their household, or a small group of very close friends in his house.
There will be extra-territorial coverage for these offences. If the offence is committed overseas, targets Singapore and has an impact in Singapore, this will be covered. An example would be if a religious leader in another country urges his affiliate group in Singapore to rise up and attack another religious group, this will be considered an offence. We acknowledge that it may be difficult to enforce these offences extra-territorially. But this signals our commitment to protect our religious harmony, even when the threats originate from beyond our shores.
With the porting over of religion-related offences from the Penal Code to the MRHA, we will repeal religion-related offences in sections 295 to 297 and remove references to religion-related offences in sections 298 and 298A of the Penal Code.
We will also make related amendments to section 74 of the Penal Code. Section 74 of the Penal Code currently provides for enhanced maximum punishments of up to one-and-a-half times, where a specified list of Penal Code offences is committed in a racially or religiously aggravated manner. This includes situations where the offender demonstrates hostility towards the victim based on the victim’s religion.
The scope of section 74 will be expanded two ways. First, the scope of section 74 will be expanded to cover all offences in the Penal Code. Second, the enhancement of maximum punishments will be increased from one-and-a-half to two times, except those which are punishable with death or imprisonment for life. We will also exclude offences which have incorporated a racial aggravating factor, such as sections 298 and 298A. Clause 17 gives effect to these amendments to the Penal Code.
Mr Speaker, I have given Members an overview of the key amendments which we are proposing to the MRHA. These amendments are necessary to refresh our tool box of legislative levers, so that we can continue to respond effectively to the growing threats to religious harmony in Singapore. The amendments we have proposed today are testament to the Government's commitment to continue to safeguard religious harmony, which is vital to the peace and progress that we enjoy today.
Mr Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah): Mr Speaker, Sir, a look around the globe will show why a Bill such as this one is needed. Around the world, enmity between religious groups have created an inability for people to practise their religion in peace. In some countries, practising one's faith has cost property, safety, lives.
Allow me, Sir, to share some examples.
In the Czech Republic, the construction of a mosque was met with petitions, street demonstrations, public hearings and vandalism to the homes of Muslim families.
In Egypt, over a span of 13 months from October 2017 to October 2018, 15 churches were violently protested against by Muslims, 11 had to be shut. Stereotypes and misconceptions about Christians and Christian practices were rampant even among school children.
In 2014, in India, altered images of Hindu kings of medieval India and a right-wing political leader sparked stone pelting, violence and damaged vehicles and religious places of a minority community.
In February 2019, in the United States, a synagogue's window was smashed on a Sabbath while the rabbi and his family, including young children were inside.
In 2014 and 2018, in Sri Lanka, Buddhist extremists attacked Muslim Sri Lankans, spreading rumors that planted fear and insecurity as well as hate speech that caused violence and riots to break out. The Christians in Sri Lanka are also not spared. In 2018, there were 86 verifiable cases of discrimination, threats and violence against Christians in Sri Lanka and 26 such incidents occurred this year, before the Easter bombings, including the disruption of a Sunday service.
Having seen what is happening around the world, should our Government just sit by and not do anything? Or should the Government take a more proactive role in securing and protecting our precious religious harmony?
Some may say that we do not need this Bill since we have never issued a single Restraining Order since the Act was passed in 1990. I respectfully take a different view, I take a different position. Why? Because the mere presence of the law does have an educative and even a deterrent effect. Just because a law is not actively used or enforced does not mean it is useless.
Some may question the need to amend the law because it seems to have been efficacious in preserving religious harmony which we still enjoy today. But, my own view is that the law needs to be amended especially to address the swiftness with which messages of violence and hatred can spread. Therefore, the amendments today, are necessary.
The virality and speed at which hate speech which harms religious harmony travels has increased greatly through the use of technology and social media. The Facebook post with altered images of venerated ancient Hindu warrior kings and a political leader is one such example. United Nations Secretary-General Anotonio Guterres told a Security Council Ministerial meeting that \"the new frontier is cyber-terrorism – the use of social media and the dark web to coordinate attacks, spread propaganda and recruit new followers\". The threats we face are morphing and what is needed are updated tools to be able to address these potential harms. Just because there are more tools does not mean the tools need to be utilised. Just as how the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act was not enforced these 28 years,similarly, the powers under the amended Maintenance of Religious Harmony we are debating today should continue to be used judiciously.
To address concerns of abuse of power, Restraining Orders and extensions of Restraining Orders have to go through the Presidential Council for Religious Harmony per sections 11 and 13. They also need to be confirmed or varied by the President per section 12. These safeguards are good. However, may I ask the Minister to explain why it is that the Presidential Council for Religious Harmony can recommend varying a new Restraining Order under section 11(5) whereas the power of the Council regarding an existing order is available only to confirm or cancel but not to vary it. I ask this question in relation to the amended section 13(3).
But, overall, my view is that there are safeguards. For example, for a Restraining Order under the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act, not only does the Presidential Council for Religious Harmony need to scrutinise the restraining order, the President also needs to confirm it, vary, cancel or refuse to confirm it. This is not just provided for under section 12 of the Act. It is also provided for under Article 22I of the Constitution. This is similar to the President's discretion to concur with a Detention Order under the Internal Security Act under Art 151(4) of the Constitution.
Even as this Bill is updated to meet the morphing threats of our times, it is important to reiterate some key principles undergirding religious freedom and the preservation of religious harmony in Singapore.
Firstly, rights must be exercised responsibly. Article 15 of the Constitution states that every person in Singapore has the right to profess, practise and propagate his religion. Paragraph 3 of Article 15 also states that every religious group has the right to manage its own religious affairs, to establish and maintain institutions for religious or charitable purposes and to acquire and own property and hold and administer it in accordance with the law. Flowing from this constitutional right, it is important that religions be given the space in Singapore to exercise those freedoms. However, freedoms must be exercised within proper boundaries. Freedoms must be used responsibly. For instance, someone cannot use the freedom as a licence to intentionally promote enmity, hatred, ill-will or hostility. This is addressed in the new section 17F(1) and (3).
The duties under-girding the offences in the new section 17F are gradated based on whether or not the person is a religious leader. It is appropriate to hold leaders to a higher standard. Since they wield greater influence and have others entrusted to their care, they should bear greater responsibility for their actions and words. However, there needs to be clarity as to who this standard applies to.
Would the Minister clarify the scope of religious leaders in the Bill? The explanatory statement states that it includes lay leaders. Would that include part-time staff, those invited to speak to recount their experience and give testimonies to a religious group; counsellors who help families overcome financial, family or marriage difficulties or the loss of loved ones; those who do or organise charitable work, such as providing rations for families in the neighbourhood? What constitutes a leader? Some religions require making an oath or taking certain vows, or going through certain ceremonial rites. Other religions do not require such a formal commissioning process to become a leader. Some religious groups formalise mentorship or open up the facilitation of small group discussions. These people still do great service as volunteers. Therefore, it would be helpful if the Minister explains the definition of \"religious leader\".
We need to prevent the spread of foreign radicalised teachings that promote violent extremism. One of the ways in which this objective has sought to be achieved in the Bill is by limiting the involvement of foreign persons.
However, the good work of religious groups should not be unduly hampered by safeguards against foreign influence. Historically, religious leaders from other countries have contributed greatly to Singapore’s development. Religious leaders from other parts of the world, such as England, Australia, Portugal, Ireland, China and India came to spread or practise their religion through charitable deeds. They helped set up schools, hospitals, hospices, offer midwifery services, cared for the sick and wounded during the Japanese Occupation, doing good work for the communities here. Some of these charitable institutions have been corporatised. Do the same requirements relating to Singaporeans and foreign persons apply to corporatised religious charitable groups? If so, can exemptions be granted?
Furthermore, many religious groups in Singapore have links to foreign institutions, for example, the Catholic Archdiocese of Singapore with the Vatican, the Anglicans with Canterbury, Buddhist groups with Sri Lanka and Thailand. I agree that disclosure is needed to prevent situations where there is a deliberate intent to create enmity. It is also a good move to anticipate potential divisions that hate speech can create, but I hope the discretion to give exemptions will be exercised wisely, tactfully and delicately because of the universal nature of charity, honest hard work and integrity, often found in religious values and organisations. Considering the longstanding contribution and ties that Singapore religious groups have with overseas religious groups, how flexible and nimble enough is our law to ensure that the intent of this Bill is achieved without reducing the good work of institutions here? How can we ensure that the limitations on foreign persons will not be overly onerous in institutions, orders and missionaries who continue to do sterling work in Singapore?
Allow me to say, Sir, that there is strength when people of different religions come together to work for the common good. I was touched by a recent exercise conducted by the grassroots leaders involving porridge distribution in the constituency I serve in Ulu Pandan. The rice was donated by the Singapore Buddhist Lodge, it was then cooked into delicious porridge or bubur by members of the Al Huda Mosque and then distributed by volunteers from St Ignatius Church. In fact, there were Christians, Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists who distributed the porridge within my constituency. We came together – different religions in Singapore – to offer the less-advantaged residents lovingly cooked porridge. It was very meaningful for me and those present. Many hands, one product. Being able to come together to contribute to a meaningful cause testifies to the precious religious harmony we enjoy in Singapore.
In conclusion, even as the colour red in our flag stands for universal brotherhood, we still need the legislative tools and levers to promote such a harmony in our daily living in Singapore. It is a constant work in progress. This Bill is part of that work, that constant work in progress and, therefore, and I support it.
Prof Yaacob Ibrahim (Jalan Besar): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in this debate.
The Bill was crafted and passed in 1990. Since its passage, the Government has not had to invoke the Bill. Now, 27 years later, observing a different environment, the Government has identified the need to update and improve this piece of legislation. So, what has changed? One could argue that the fact that we never invoked the Bill shows that our society is harmonious despite our religious differences and that perhaps we could even repeal the Bill entirely.
Sir, that would be foolish. Human societies are not static and the world has changed since 1990. Human habits and attitudes have not changed, especially when it comes to dealing with differences and diversity. The ability to provoke and incite violence may be as old as mankind. And, in recent years, we continue to see violence sparked and perpetuated in the name of religion. So, in general, Sir, I support these amendments. But, forgive the pun, the devil is in the details. I have two concerns.
The new section 17F raises several concerns to me. The provisions are meant to curb and restrain any attempt at creating ill-will and feelings of hatred towards other religious groups by either a religious leader or an individual who is not a religious leader. But for the latter, it is an offence when the action is deemed to “threaten the public peace or order in Singapore or any part of Singapore”. So, clearly, for religious leaders, given their level of influence, the bar to make their actions an offence is much lower than those of lay persons.
However, I have two concerns with this provision. In the first instance, how do we define being wounded by words of the other parties? Insults are clear. But what about genuine differences of opinions or views? After all, is religion not, by its very nature, exclusive? This was pointed out by the White Paper of 26 December 1989. I adopt a certain religion because I believe it to be the truth and everything else to be untrue. And if I utter my views about what I understand and believe to be untrue of the other religions publicly, will I be guilty of an offence?
A similar concern could be raised for those without any religious belief but who believe that certain practices of certain religions are not right and may make public statements about it. The bar in this case would be if it threatens public order or public peace. If only one person feels wounded by the words of a non-religious person expressing his or her negative views of that person’s religion, would that be sufficient condition to deem this action an offence? And what if the “wounded person” can claim publicly on social media that his religion has been insulted and others from his religion feel equally wounded, would that make it an offence? Would there be any difference if 10 others, or perhaps a thousand others, express support for him online?
And in this respect, hatred could be directed towards the person who started this all. Can that person then seek protection under the Bill as his life is now being threatened by those feeling wounded? This scenario I have painted is already happening on social media. The to-ing and fro-ing of claims and counterclaims of who is right and wrong about views of religion and religious practices is likely to spark unintended consequences, even though the origins of these spats may merely stem from a difference of views and are not motivated by hate of a particular religious group.
My concern is that the ambiguities of what being wounded constitutes and, when public order or peace is threatened, can lead to some claims of ill-will that lead to an unintended escalation and expansion of the conflicts. Hence, I hope the Minister can enlighten us.
Sir, the concerns I have raised earlier equally apply to intra-religious differences. The White Paper of 1989 also raised this as an issue for the attention of our Government. I support this, especially when we see sectarian violence in different parts of the world within the same faith community. I am particularly concerned about the Sunni-Shia divide that is evident in some parts of the world and has found its way into the region. We must not import the religious divides and violence of other countries into Singapore. I have expressed my concern about this trend on other platforms and have called for better understanding between my Sunni compatriots and the Shias who, while not great in number in this part of the world, are also Muslims. We must respect and adopt an attitude of live and let live towards each other, while feeling equally attached to our faith and our desire to do good. But I would welcome the force of this Bill to be applied to those seeking to divide the community or, for that matter, any faith community. We know that there are different sects in almost every religion and there are tensions of varying degrees between groups in every religion. So, whether in Islam or in any other religion, I believe that religious harmony must start at home and every faith community must respect differences within their own faiths.
Sir, my final point pertains to one of the reasons for the 1990 MRHA, as raised in the 1989 White Paper – aggressive proselytisation. Religious consciousness is on the rise. More people are turning towards religion. Article 15 of the Constitution guarantees the freedom of religion where “every person has the right to profess and practise his religion and to propagate it”. Again, how do we define “aggressive proselytisation”? If I merely state the truth as I believe it to be about my religion to another person of a different faith and make claims that his religion is not true, is this considered aggressive? Sir, in this era of political correctness, some would consider this aggressive.
I am not opposed to proselytisation. It is about how it is conducted. In fact, the 1989 White Paper provided many examples by different groups of what they deemed to be aggressive proselytisation. Egregious cases can be easily ferreted out. But what about those who do it through actions which are not religiously related, like showing preferences in hiring or giving certain advantages to those from the same faith? The White Paper highlighted in its section on religion and politics on the need to keep the public space as secular as possible. Interestingly, the paper also cautions that it is almost impossible for someone who is voting to base his decision on his secular half and not his religious half. Such compartmentalisation, it notes, is “neither possible nor desirable”. That is why it is absurd to ask me to decide whether I am first a Muslim or a Singaporean. So, if we agree that if it is not possible to compartmentalise ourselves, then we must be alert to the breaching of the barriers of secularism in our public life. That is, we must continue to strengthen our common spaces and ensure that religious actors cannot impose their will on public policy to the detriment of other religious groups or the public good.
Apart from these concerns of definition and interpretation, we need to be careful about how we go about implementing or prosecuting these cases. A real question is at what point do we impose aggressive punishments and restrictions. The need for strong and decisive measures against egregious cases – threats, open harassment and incitement to violence – are clear-cut. Such a posture not only protects against the stirring up of religious conflicts but sends a strong message that any attempt to incite ill-will or violence will not be tolerated. Yet, where engagement and dialogue are possible, the imposition of community service work or engagement with community groups would be more appropriate.
Sir, we can all agree on the need for the Bill to be updated to deter insidious attempts to stir up religious discord that divides communities. The digital revolution has made it easy to spread extreme opinions and such people may feel that they can be more abusive online without having to face consequences. We need to send a strong signal that the harmonious relations that we have built up over the last 54 years are precious and must be guarded jealously. Like a piece of good China, once broken, it is very difficult to put the pieces back together.
Yet, Sir, the need to be careful must not end up silencing all discussion of religious topics by making it so that the definitions of illegal behaviour are so ambiguous that no one can be sure what might be judged hateful. Ironically, this might end up deterring meaningful interfaith efforts between groups as people steer away from any activity or topic for fear of causing unintended offence. Likewise, we need to be careful not to silence civil interfaith and intrafaith conversations and debates, even about sensitive issues which can yield important insights and further deepen understandings on all sides.
Sir, we must also not lose sight that legislation can only be a part of an array of policy responses to promote tolerance and harmony. In fact, the use of law is the last resort. The basis for religious harmony also cannot be the fear of the law. For religious harmony in a society to be strong and enduring, the citizenry must uphold the values of mutual respect and appreciation towards religious diversity. In this regard, in Singapore, educational efforts as well as outreach toward youth and community groups enable people to better understand the beliefs of religious groups and to forge friendships across communities. All these efforts must continue and be strengthened. Where there are transgressions, providing platforms and avenues whereby religious groups respond and confront hateful views with arguments and information remain important.
Sir, finally, this amendment is thus about preserving our way of life and strengthening the Singapore approach to dealing with diversity and differences. Mistrust among the different faith communities can lead to the breaking up of our society. There is a need for this legislation in dealing with those planning to split the communities in Singapore. While no one can disagree with the need to use a legal response to clear-cut egregious cases, I would urge the Government to exercise sensitivity in cases where there is some ambiguity on both the alleged culprit and alleged victim. Perhaps, in such cases, the Government could consider a range of engagement efforts involving leaders from all the communities involved to resolve the dispute. So, let us not be quick to condemn the slightest provocation as it could all be a simple misunderstanding.
Sir, even though the amendment excludes what is said privately and to a small group, I would urge my countrymen to aim for a higher bar. I understand this exclusion stems from the practical difficulties in policing all corners of Singapore. Yet, the best restraint must come from all of us. What we believe is the right thing to say in public must also be the right thing to say privately. What underpins our behavior publicly and privately must be the belief that what all Singaporeans hold dear as their faith deserves to be respected, irrespective of our own beliefs and faith.
Sir, I have expressed some views that, hopefully, will help this legislation better safeguard our religious harmony. Having said that, it must be the desire of all our faith groups and leaders that we interact freely with grace and mutual respect, without the need for the law to kick in. Sir, I support the amendment.
Mr Speaker: Minister Grace Fu.
The Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien): Mr Speaker, I support the Bill.
Since coming into effect in 1992, the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act (MRHA) has been a critical complement to Singapore’s work on strengthening religious harmony. It protects our religious freedom, by making clear the boundaries of our mutual engagements. Since then, the world around us has evolved and changed. The world is at far more risk of polarising forces that divide rather than unite people. It is timely that we amend the Act to ensure that it continues to serve its original intent, today.
Globalisation has increased our connectedness with foreign cultures and communities; social media has transformed how we communicate; hate speech and violence in the name of personal beliefs and faiths are on the rise. We are facing heightening polarisation of views. Singapore is not immune to these trends and they threaten the religious harmony that we have spent decades carefully tending. We need new responses to new challenges.
The Government is not alone in holding this view. I chair the National Steering Committee on Racial and Religious Harmony, whose members comprise apex leaders from the major faith and ethnic groups. These respected leaders, and many more in Singapore, have expressed similar concerns when we discuss issues of race and religion. They understand the importance and urgency of dealing with the risks unequivocally and they have expressed strong support for the proposed amendments.
We have built a strong foundation for social cohesion in Singapore, which we must vigorously safeguard. We have proven that our communities can come together to discuss sensitive issues of race and religion seriously, candidly but respectfully, with the common goal of making Singapore a better home for everyone. This is the case whenever we discuss religious radicalisation activities, or when we discuss results of studies on race and religion in Singapore. It was the same when we debated the introduction of the Reserved Presidential Election. It was also the same when we debated the ban of the Swedish black metal band Watain from performing in Singapore, because the band advocated violence against a religion. It demonstrated the desire of our people for a cohesive society that will deal with such emotive issues publicly, transparently and calmly.
Although we are here to debate the Act, laws alone do not bring about the cohesive society that I have described. Legislative solutions cannot address the many challenges that we face. For instance, although we can implement policies, such as the Ethnic Integration Policy, we cannot legislate neighbours to interact with others of different faiths. Our schools cannot dictate that classmates must eat and play together. The same applies to our workplaces. At a more fundamental level, we cannot legislate to remove irrational fears and stereotypes, nor to accept that a set of different beliefs can coexist with ours. In other words, legislation, though important, is not sufficient.
Our social harmony has been built painstakingly over time. It is through individual actions and efforts in our everyday lives to engage one other. We offer help to one another, do business together, and attend one another’s life events, such as weddings and funerals. This approach has served us well and survey results show both inter-racial and inter-religious trust is high and rising. This requires continued effort and we, as Singaporeans, must all do our part. This was emphasised 30 years ago, in the original 1989 White Paper on Maintenance of Religious Harmony. I quote, “So long as all Singaporeans understand that they have to live and let live, and show respect and tolerance for other faiths, harmony should prevail”.
Underlying this is a shared commitment to build a home together. It is a home built on the ideal of a multiracial and multi-religious society where everyone has the freedom to choose and practise his or her religion, provided the same freedom is afforded to others. When Singapore became independent, our founding fathers made a deliberate choice to build our nation based on such a multiracial, multi-religious society, as an expression of what Singapore stands for. It was a novel idea at the time, when most newly-independent countries opted to entrench a dominant race, language and religion, because it was the easier and primordial path. It is done out of a tribal instinct to protect its identity and ensure its existence. Multiculturalism, of sharing the societal space with all races, on the other hand, has become an integral part of our Singapore identity. All of us want a society where all Singaporeans, regardless of background, feel that they are equal members of the same community. The social compact will allow us to broaden our common space, even as our society becomes more diverse.
We, the Government, are committed to working with Singaporeans, at all levels, to safeguard racial and religious harmony.
We have remained steadfast in this approach since our beginnings. The People’s Association was set up in 1960, with promoting social cohesion and connecting people from all walks of life as one of its main objectives. Grassroots organisations help to resolve local issues and bridge communities through dialogue and engagement. When faced with the communal riots in 1964, we established goodwill committees comprising racially diverse community leaders to calm the situation. This was the foundation for the Inter-Racial and Religious Confidence Circles (IRCCs) which was formalised in 2002 to foster community bonding at the local level. Today, IRCC members help resolve local issues that may arise from time to time, work on projects jointly, such as emergency preparedness, and help one another. During this year’s Hari Raya Haji, a Buddhist organisation helped to manage traffic for a neighbouring mosque so that its prayer service could run smoothly. This idea arose during an IRCC meeting, and was carried out by IRCC members.
We support efforts by religious and community leaders to promote racial and religious harmony. An Inter-Religious Harmony Circle (IRHC) comprising religious leaders and Government representatives developed and launched the Declaration on Religious Harmony in 2003. This Declaration is still recited at inter-faith events.
In June 2019, our religious leaders launched the Commitment to Safeguard Religious Harmony that affirms the shared values to safeguard our religious harmony and the norms of social interaction across religions to foster a cohesive society. The Government helped facilitate multiple engagement sessions with a wide group of religious leaders. More than 300 religious organisations have since affirmed the Commitment. Dozens of secular community organisations, companies, social service agencies and educational institutions have also expressed support for this.
Ground-up effort to promote racial and religious harmony is rising. Several community groups have facilitated candid and open dialogues on race and religion. For instance, The WhiteHatters organised a series of conversations called Ask Me Anything (AMA) where participants of diverse faiths engage religious leaders to clarify their understanding of their religions. In June, the organisers brought together the Christian, Jewish and Muslim representatives to discuss the Abrahamic faiths. In September, OnePeople.sg collaborated with CNA and Roses of Peace, a non-government organisation, to conduct dialogue sessions on race relations.\tThe IRO, in conjunction with its 70th anniversary, held a Harmony of Faiths exhibition that showcased efforts in promoting inter-faith understanding throughout its years. The sight of 10 religious leaders representing different faiths, conducting prayers side-by-side, simultaneously and jointly, would be familiar to Singaporeans who have been to, for instance, SAF Officer Cadet Course commissioning parades, the World War II commemorative ceremonies, or watched their pre-race blessing of the F1 races. We want to tap on the collective wisdom and ideas of Singaporeans, and encourage the community to leverage MCCY’s Harmony Fund to continue developing innovative projects that promote racial and religious harmony.
Beyond programmes, more Singaporeans are also expressing interest and respect for diversity in our daily lives. In the work place, management plays an important role in creating a conducive work environment for a diverse workforce. For instance, IBM has a Cultural Adaptability Programme to enhance the level of awareness and appreciation on different beliefs and practices among their employees through structured workshops and resources. These have helped strengthen understanding among its employees and enhanced the contributions of the diverse teams. More companies should, similarly, pay attention to building race and religious competency.
Mr Speaker, at Independence, our society started out with tolerance and accommodation between communities. We grew to appreciate what we have in common and how our differences make us richer, not poorer. Today, we harness our diversity as our strength and we are a society with genuine friendships built on goodwill, trust and confidence in what it means to be Singaporean.
During my recent house visit, a Chinese resident, who is a Christian, shared with me how her Muslim neighbour would help watch her young child whenever she has to fetch another from school and her Hindu neighbour on the other side would share food with her from time to time. And their children would often be found in each other’s homes. The resident brought this to my attention because she truly appreciated the kindness and generosity of her neighbours. But above all, she knows that this relationship transcending differences in race and religion is not to be taken for granted. Such trusting and warm relationships between neighbours of different faiths can be found all around Singapore. It is the beauty of Singapore and Singaporeans.
We must continue to uphold our values and keep working hard to preserve social harmony. We must ensure that this is in the DNA of every Singaporean, so that we remain as one united people regardless of language, race and religion. Mr Speaker, Sir, I welcome and support the Bill.
Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, amongst a number of reasons detailed by the Minister, the amendments to the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act aim to make the Act relevant for the information age. The Bill updates what is essentially a preventive regime, albeit one that gives the Cabinet executive authority to endeavour that religion is kept out of politics. To that end, it is important to remember the socio-political context of 30 years ago, when the Bill was first debated in the House.
Generally, that era was known to be a time of heightened religiosity. The Bill was mooted only about one month after the detention of some Singaporeans who were accused of being Marxists. It is important, if not critical to note that the passage of the underlying Act in 1990 itself did not go without significant apprehension from religious groups and Members of Parliament, including differences of opinion amongst even Ministers.
Even Mr Shanmugam's speech, in his capacity as a backbencher then was noteworthy because it raised fundamental points about the separation of powers and the potential for an irrational exercise of Executive power. This was not the only difficulty. Prime Minister Lee, in his capacity as Minister of Trade and Industry and the then-Minister of National Development, Mr S Dhanabalan, both disagreed about the interplay between politics and religion in special situations where religious bodies would have no choice but to get involved in politics to overthrow a government – for example, in the event the government turn corrupt, oppressive, tyrannical.
Sir, I raise the historical difficulty with the passage of the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act because the points and apprehensions expressed about the underlying Act continue to be of relevance today. While the Marxist arrests clouded the passage of the Act somewhat then, this Government today is not similarly encumbered insofar as the amendments to the Bill are concerned. To that end, the Workers' Party does not find the amendments mooted in the Bill before the House objectionable. Racial harmony remains a critical and important national value that must be upheld alongside the spirit of tolerance between believers of all religious groups.
Today, the confluence of the regional environment, social mores and the ubiquity of social media are perhaps of equal, if not more concern in the maintenance of religious harmony than in the 1980s. For example, the political narrative that has been developing within our closest neighbours, Indonesia, Malaysia and even regionally in Southern Thailand, while strictly speaking is not our business, is nonetheless cause for concern.
Only last week a Malay civil rights group openly called for a Vote Muslim First campaign with regard to the upcoming by-election for Tanjung Piai in Johor. The recent Indonesian Presidential Elections also saw candidates speaking to burnish their religious credentials. Mr Speaker, the age-old problem of the mixing of religion and politics has not gone away. If anything, it has become more acute. And with social media, it has become a more sensitive matter.
Going forward, this is something the Government and politicians and political party members of all political parties in Singapore need to keep an eye on as well in view of our unique context and political circumstances, and consider whether there may be some things that have to be tightened. With a difficult subject – the mixing of religion and politics – at the heart of the Act, the signals a one-party dominant government and its politicians send on the subject will have a direct bearing on how the Act will be applied and deemed relevant in years to come.
I will spend the first part of my speech to share some examples about how things can be perceived on the ground in Singapore, in spite of the spirit of the underlying Act which seeks to keep religions and politics separate.
Firstly, the more visible appearance of religious leaders alongside politicians. A well-known leader of a religious group – fronting many national initiatives including being a very senior party member and highly visible leader of the Inter-Religious Organisation and separately with links to the People's Association was seen with Prime Minister Lee during the 2015 elections. While it is unclear if the individual concerned was the Prime Minister's election agent, it is nonetheless useful for the House to pause and consider the optics of a respected member of a religious group appearing to canvass support for a politician.
To that end, how would some members of the same religious group with a different political view from that espoused by their religious leader or elder feel if they openly support another political party? Could it create or ferment tension within that religious group? Should another group or individual from within any particular religious organisation or faith rise in stature because of a disagreement or internal politics, would it be fair game for a politician from another party to canvass support for him or her? What can we reasonably foresee may happen next?
Mr Speaker, I would argue respectfully that the selection of established and well-known religious and even community personalities – who are probably forces for good in their stead – in party politics in capacities such as election agents, notwithstanding their secular appointments, muddies the already difficult distinction between religion and politics.
Secondly, all political leaders must also be mindful of their signature when engaging religious events such as large-scale prayer sessions and gatherings of any religion. Going forward, we should pause and consider the effect of politicians of all political parties attending places of worship of any faith as political leaders, as opposed to just lay congregants, visitors or well-wishes. For example, the imprudent timing of invitations by religious leaders and organisations to politicians, particularly in the run-in to elections would inevitably have a signaling effect on the religious laity of any faith to support the politician in question.
Thirdly, even events that take place in this House can be open to close scrutiny and test the long-held approach of the state as a neutral arbiter when it comes to matters of faith. In the first sitting that took place in this House following the tragic mosque shootings in Christchurch in March this year, this House observed a moment of silence for the victims of that massacre. Only a mere month later, many Christians perished in Sri Lanka in a series of suicide bombings there. I am aware that some Christian Singaporeans privately wondered why Parliament did not observe a moment of silence for those Christians who perished in Sri Lanka as well.
Sir, perceptions, particularly when it comes to matters of faith can take a life of their own and it behooves politicians of all stripes, and our religious leaders to take a moment to reflect on how we should navigate this space in future so the House can ensure that this Government remains trusted as a neutral arbiter in matters of faith. Would more religious or quasi-religious invitations or relationships between the state and citizens be better managed through the unifying and ceremonial role of the President or some other platform? This is something the Government would need to assess and consider carefully.
Sir, why is this renewed conversation in the context of the MRHA relevant? Firstly, it is because the Minister and Cabinet have significant powers under the Act to slap a Restraining Order on anyone the Government deems to be moving in the realm of politics from the safety of the pulpit or under the garb of religion. With no prospect of judicial review to adjudicate the rationality of executive fiat, clarity in how the law is applied and impartiality from the Government is paramount, not just in words but in action.
Secondly, it must not be that politicians, or it must not be interpreted or perceived that politicians are allowed to engage religious groups how they deem fit, but the faithful can only engage a political matter if, for example, they speak positively about the Government or its policies. But if they publicly raise objections or disagreements about government policy, in line with the Second Reading of the Act in 1990, the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act portends that action could be taken against them. What the perception of such a one-way conversation or approach would ultimately do is to undermine and damage the Government’s case if it seeks to use the Act in future to move against elements that it deems to be mixing religion and politics.
As we look towards tomorrow’s Singapore, and as we enter the 4G era, this House must ensure that the public space continues to be a secular and safe space for all Singaporeans, regardless of creed. While the terrain of religion and politics is not without its difficulties, it is critical that restraint, mutual respect and equanimity define how both politicians and religious leaders operate in Singapore where being a successful multi-racial and multi-religious society is a significant value proposition in our neighbourhood and for our survival as one people.
Mr Speaker, it is worthwhile to note that the original Act has not been employed since its passage into law and to my understanding, no Restraining Orders have been issued in the last almost 30-odd years. I have one clarification on the Bill. One important change is the removal of a check on Executive power. Under the Act today, a 14-day notice period operates to inform the Presidential Council for Religious Harmony about the impending issuance of a Restraining Order. Under the Bill before the House today, the Government seeks to remove any requirement to notify the Council, ostensibly because it seeks to move quickly against an offender. I wish to clarify with the Minister, in the event a religious leader is slapped with a restraining order to remove an offending post – from his or her Facebook page for example – and he or she does not do so, what recourse, legislation or regulations will the Government turn to, to see that the offending statement or statements is speedily removed particularly if it cannot be classified as a false statement of fact?
In conclusion, Sir, the Workers’ Party notes the challenges presented by the interplay of religion and politics in a multi-racial and multi-religious society like ours. Whatever our political views, religion can be exploited and the use of religion to split communities is a renewed concern given the advent of fast-moving communications technology. A multi-racial and multi-religious Singapore and the way our people accommodate differences and diverse views and display a genuine tolerance towards one another is a key strength of this country. Therefore the Workers' Party supports these amendments, notwithstanding our concerns about the application of the underlying Act.
Er Dr Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon): Mr Speaker, Sir, religious views are a personal matter. But when they threaten the multi-racial harmony of our society, the Government needs to step in to protect our hard-won harmony.
The Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act (MRHA) has served us well in preserving the peace and harmony in our multi-racial society. But we need to update the law to reflect the current needs. The media has exposed how many users of the Internet have used it to promote hidden agendas. Today, there are also less scrupulous religious groups that use these platforms to attack, disrupt and spread extremist views or hostility towards other religions.
And we know how a post on the Internet can go viral rapidly, especially when it relates to sensational topics. We cannot afford to wait 14 days or more to allow Restraining Orders (RO) to kick in for the offending online content to be removed. I would like to ask, if a post is suspected to be both fake news and hurting religious harmony, how will these orders interact with the mechanism under POFMA? Can the Minister consider penalties for those who deliberately circulate such offending content, especially if they are influential pages?
Under the framework of offences, any individual who urges violence against any person or group on the basis of religion or violence against any religious group or member faces imprisonment of up to 10 years or a fine, or both. A religious leader or anyone posing a risk of disturbing public peace who incites hostility against a religion, insults someone's religion or wounds their religious feelings face imprisonment of up to five years or a fine, or both.
While I agree that these acts have potentially serious consequences that deserve heavy penalties, things like wounding religious feelings can be rather subjective. Sometimes, it may simply be due to misunderstanding or clashing cultures and no ill will was truly intended. May I ask how does one determine if something is to be considered sufficiently offensive to breach the law? The Government has consulted with religious groups in enacting this Bill and I hope they will continue to consult with the relevant religious groups when applying the laws too, as well as conduct dialogues with relevant stakeholders and affected parties after the laws are applied. The end goal should be to determine why certain acts are deemed offensive and how to prevent them from happening in future.
On this note, I am glad to see the introduction of the Community Remedial Initiative (CRI), where offenders will be asked to make amendments to offended parties and be given opportunities to understand how they did wrong in the context of a multi-racial society. After all, many offences happen as a result of a lack of empathy and ignorance, rather than pure malice.
I also hope we can nurture a society that is more sympathetic but act decisively when the need arises. In previous cases, some people who insulted other races and religions were doxxed and had their livelihoods affected, with some even losing their jobs. If we can rehabilitate criminals, can we do the same for cases under MRHA?
Religion has a huge impact and influence on many. Certainly, it can evoke strong emotions. Hence, there is reasonable cause for concern over foreigners taking advantage of this fact to try to abuse religion to establish their own agenda. The Bill aims to deter this by requiring key appointment holders or equivalent to be Singaporeans or PRs. However, for smaller organisations, this requirement may be hard to meet. I understand the Government is willing to grant exemptions on a case-by-case basis, or for cross-border or historical organisations.
For foreign appointment holders who get exemptions, it may be good for them to be given some basic education on the framework of our religious harmony practices so that they know the consequences if they breach the MRHA law.
Sir, religious harmony is always work in progress and the Bill brings about many necessary improvements to preserve this harmony that is responsible for making Singapore a safe and stable country to live and do business in. In Chinese, please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] With the advancement of communication technologies, foreign groups and social media will have an increasing influence on our religious groups. Sometimes, they may bring in views that could damage religious harmony here. Hence, the amendments this time are targeted at these two areas.
Sometimes, what is considered as an insult to other religions can be subjective. Therefore, I hope the Government can consult religious leaders first before banning certain types of remarks, and hold dialogues with relevant religious groups after the enforcement.
I am also pleased to see that the Government can order the offenders to understand other religions or issue a public apology. It is a more proactive way of correcting wrong views besides banning.
Key appointment holders of religious groups must be Singaporeans or Permanent Residents. However, for smaller religious groups, it may be a tall order. I hope the Government can make decisions on a case-by-case basis. If foreigners are to become key personnel, they must first attend lessons to understand the principles of maintaining religious harmony in Singapore. I support this Bill.
Assoc Prof Walter Theseira (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act reflects a shared consensus among Singaporeans that religiously driven politics and divisive speech would be fatal to the One People that we aspire to be.
This Bill gives us the opportunity to ask if we share the same consensus today, in a globalised world where religious ideas, for good or ill, flow as easily across borders as trade does, and where people feel affinity with religious and social causes far away. I believe the answer must be yes. While religious Singaporeans can be proud that they share the faith with brethren in many countries, we must have a consensus that the practice of faith here must be sensitive to our own multi-religious context. If so, then we must accept that the state must have some means of enforcing this.
This principle is not against religious teachings. In the New Testament, Jesus was asked whether Jews should pay taxes to the Roman authorities. He responded that they should \"render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.\" It is legitimate for the practice of religion to adapt to the requirements of the secular state and society.
All religions have a right to make rules of moral and ethical conduct that followers are expected to live up to. But when these rules of conduct contrast with secular law, or with the established norms of society, then the proponents of any religion face a hard decision.
Do they seek to explain why the way of life prescribed in the religion is superior, more ethical or moral, to persuade those who wandered astray to return to the fold? Or do they condemn such behaviours, portray those who have lapsed as sinners, encourage followers to ostracise or ex-communicate those who do not live according to their principles?
Sir, we must welcome religious movements and leaders who constructively articulate their vision of a moral and just life. We may disagree with some of their precepts but not their commitment to bettering humanity. However, we must caution against the condemnation of our fellow Singaporeans simply based on behaviour which strays from the precepts of a particular religion. And we must be cautious even when such criticism applies only to co-religionists.
Let me put this in the context of the question of the family. Nearly every religion is concerned with the nature of the family. There are rules for marriage and separation, proper sexual relations and other family affairs. Sir, the facts are that the nature of the family today is very different from that existing when most of our great religions were founded. Women can, and do, live independent of men today. A divorcee or widow is no longer condemned to penury or forced into a second marriage by society. Single parents and blended step-families exist. There are Singaporeans of different sexual orientations. While many different types of family relationships exist, I believe all aspire to having a happy family life.
Sir, we accept today that for the most part, how a Singaporean chooses to love and live their life is a private matter. The state may have some interest in it to promote social order and the national interest, but this interest cannot and must never be religiously motivated. The exception, of course, is Muslim Law for the family life of Muslims. But the general policy must be secular in a multi religious society like Singapore.
But this position that the state should refrain from interfering with private family life is at odds with the position taken by many great religions. Today, religious leaders in many countries routinely demand changes in family policy so that religious principles are enforced with the full weight of the state. They do so either because in those countries the right of free speech is nearly absolute, or because there is a state religion and hence there is little difference between theology and public policy. Their situation is not the same as in Singapore. This right, if applied indiscriminately in Singapore, would lead to the shrinking of the secular space in Singapore.
In recent years, some religious leaders here have established clear positions against the repeal of section 377A of the Penal Code and have thrown their moral weight behind this. The language used has, sometimes, been alarmist and unaccommodating. Some have also stigmatised those whose personal lives do not conform to religious precepts, including single parents and persons of different sexual orientations.
It is true that several mainstream religions do not accept these ways of life. But a common view among some religions does not by itself justify the use of the pulpit to influence public policy. Nor does it mean that these acts from the pulpit have no consequences; they harm the feelings of those they condemn and they create real risks of discrimination or violence against these minority groups. Thus, while the primary aim of MRHA must be to protect religious harmony, I ask the Ministry to also have regard to protecting social harmony.
Again, Sir, I support the right of every religion to prescribe principles of life for their followers. But I hope religious leaders will promote their precepts constructively, rather than destructively. I hope that they will speak to our common humanity, rather than divide us.
Sir, in closing, I believe MRHA has been effective precisely because it reflects a shared consensus. Singaporeans who disturb the religious peace accept that they are in the wrong and they voluntarily change their ways. This consensus is hard won. Indiscriminate use of the law would create contention rather than consensus. The significant expansion of powers under this Bill raises that risk. While this Government has demonstrated that moral suasion and dialogue are the preferred tools to enforce the law, I pray that a future Government will also respect that wise precedent. I stand in support of the Bill.
Mr Alex Yam (Marsiling-Yew Tee): Mr Speaker, Sir, I am a practicing Roman Catholic and a person of faith.
When we speak of the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act or the MRHA, it is oft said that its mark of success for this legislation is the fact that it has not been invoked since it was first codified into law almost 30 years ago.
With revivalism of religious faith in 1980s, the Government and society in general has been concerned with how religious fervour may prove to be fertile ground for fanaticism or radicalism. The late 1980s and the early 1990s saw numerous incidents that were citied in the Internal Security Department’s report that was annexed to the White Paper proposing the enactment of the MRHA.
Examples of aggressive and insensitive proselytisation, of intra-religious sectarianism, as well as issues of the use of faith for political ends are still as important today as they were when the MRHA was first formulated. At this point, I would like to ask if the Ministry would be able to update the House that besides the reasons already publicly raised by a number of political office holders for updating of the Act, are there any other concerns such as those raised in the previous ISD report that have also accelerated the need to amend the Act at this point in time.
Equally, the concerns on the reach of the MRHA that were raised when the law took effect in 1992 also remain today and should be rightly addressed so that we are without a doubt of the pure and noble intent of this Bill – which is to safe guard the harmony of Singapore, that we have fought hard to build.
Let me quote you just some of the reactions I read online after this Amendment Bill was presented to Parliament. They include lines such as: \"Patriotic Church much like China\", \"Will we ban fasting too?\", \"Aggressive atheism in disguise\", \"All religious heads must now be pro-Government\".
I must hasten to add that while these are minority views, a few come from level-headed people who I know. I would perhaps say that if not for this Amendment Bill, there would be many who would not be aware of the content of the MRHA, to begin with.
On this front, my next request is for the MHA to engage more publicly with religious organisations and assist in the information dissemination process of what the amendments of the Act itself would mean or not mean for the practice of religion. What are the plans that MHA have to engage people of faith as well as the society at large?
Religions like Islam and Christianity are what some would term as holistic religions, ones where adherents follow a code of life that is all-encompassing, where participation in the political life of society is informed by faith as well. Section 8(1)(b) and (d) were points of concern in 1990. It may be helpful today to state clearly what would constitute offences.
Would it therefore be an offence if, in the event that the government of the day, enacts or proposes a law that would run counter to the core tenets or beliefs of an established religion or religions in Singapore, and religious leaders of those faiths issue a public letter to their faithful or preach a message against it, against the intent of the law, I must add, and not the Government itself? Would it constitute something that a Restraining Order will be issued against as the message – even though religious and measured in nature – may cause some members of the congregation to be dissatisfied? Would it constitute a political cause in this case?
In addition, while the Government is accommodatively secular, allowing religions to function and practice freely in Singapore, we cannot guarantee that a future Government will not become aggressively atheistic and therefore apply the MRHA beyond what it was originally drafted for. What safeguards are there to prevent this?
Returning to a point I made earlier about how the Act is being more responsive, as pointed out by a number of Political Office Holders who spoke when the Bill was introduced. The key component of the Act will now be able to respond to the alarming speed by which hate speech and fake news can spread on social media, and how something inflammatory that may have been a slow boil during the 1990s can now heat up in the web in mere minutes and translate to real, explosive tensions offline.
I last spoke about how Singapore can easily be a target for disinformation operations because of our openness and connectivity during the Second Reading on POFMA. Over one third of the world is on Facebook alone. Much of how we interact with each other today is through social media. As a majority of the world moves into the unfettered online world, it also means old tropes of racism, misogyny and hate now have a free amplifier to spread and reinforce their views and perhaps even encourage others to violence.
In the amendments to section 8(4), (5) and (6), the Minister can now directly and immediately issue a Restraining Order rather than the 14 days later stipulated under the current section 8(6). Speed is of the essence, and as seen in the Christchurch massacre and also in the recent Sri Lankan Buddhist-Muslim clashes, having the ability to shut down hate speech to viral is paramount.
That, however is in theory, could the Ministry share with the House how in practice the new powers granted would improve the effectiveness of curbing the spread of speech that would incite hatred? In addition, what recourse by which those who have been issued a restraining order can seek redress if they truly believe that they have expressed a legitimate view and not hate speech? With regard to POFMA, how will the MRHA interface with it so that we have a seamless process to target fake news, hate speech and rumour-mongering?
It is heartening that in proposing the amendments, MHA has consulted broadly, and the apex organisations of religious groups in Singapore have accepted and supported the proposals. Can I ask that the Minister share with the House what were the concerns, if any, and perhaps even objections that were raised by religious leaders who were consulted, and how those concerns were appropriately addressed.
I applaud the Act’s innovativeness, especially for the introduction of the Community Remedial Initiative – CRI for short. As mentioned by Minister Shanmugam earlier, it has taken fruit even before we passed this amendment, from the recent example of a young influencer who accepted the invitation of the Young Sikh Association to learn more about their faith and traditions after posting an insensitive social media comment about two Sikh men she encountered at an event. Under what circumstances would a CRI be effective and are there examples in other jurisdictions that has shown its effectiveness? Also, if the Minister does not issue a CRI, but one is undertaken independently, at the initiative of both the offender and the aggrieved, will this be taken into consideration?
I agree with the need to prevent foreign influence in Singapore but am cautious about how we would qualify “foreign influence” in practice. The amendments propose restrictions on the leadership appointments of religious organisations and donations, for example. However, the appointment of religious leaders is complex. Most religions are universal by nature, belonging to global networks, alliances and associations. Some, like particular Buddhist sects and Roman Catholicism, or different denominations in Christianity, have global leaderships. How would the Act, in practice, address the peculiarities of some leadership appointments that may involve a global or external decision?
In addition, according to the Ministry, the proposed Act would mean out of around 2,500 religious organisations here today, about 100 will not be able to meet this requirement. Could the Minister provide examples of organisations that would be required to seek exemptions? What would happen to these organisations should the exemptions not be provided? Could the Act also become a prohibition for the entrance of new religious movements or denominations and sects if they do not already have a local presence? How would this be of impact to the constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion under Article 15 of the Constitution?
Mr Speaker, Sir, we live in an increasingly polarised world. Singapore is fortunate as an example of a country that has bucked the trend of racial and religious tensions. Just looking at a recent Pew Research Centre survey makes for cold sweat. In this research, it points out the percentage of people who agree that people should be able to make statements that are offensive to minority groups publicly, and this was done in just 2015. In the United States, 67% of people agree that they should be able to do so. In the Asia Pacific, of which Singapore is situated, 27%, close to 30% of people, believe that they should be allowed to make inflammatory statements that are offensive to minority groups publicly.
Mr Speaker, we should not allow ourselves to be polarised like that which has happened in other countries, and the amendments are much needed so that we avoid the vitriol that comes from misunderstanding, and avoid any tears that would come from our inaction, and avoid walls that may be erected to divide us because of distrust, and most of all, Sir, never allow blood to flow on our streets because we fail to confront hatred. Mr Speaker, not withstanding the questions I have posed, I support the Bill.
Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, in the Ministry's press release on this Bill on 2 September, the Government restated the two principles underpinning the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act passed nearly 30 years ago. The two principles stated were: first, that followers of different religions should exercise moderation and tolerance towards each other and their beliefs, and not instigate religious enmity and hatred; and secondly, that religion and politics should be kept separate.
I would like to touch on both aspects in my speech and also seek a clarification on a specific clause of the Bill.
First, moderation and tolerance. The debate on any curtailment of religious freedom is difficult because our Constitution guarantees freedom of religion as a fundamental liberty. Article 15(1) provides that every person has the right to profess and practise his religion, and to propagate it. Thus, it is a fundamental right of a person not only to believe in the god he chooses, but to manifest that belief in action, and to spread the belief to non-believers. Today's debate is really one about the extent of this right.
Singaporeans value the peaceful co-existence of multiple religions in Singapore, and the Workers' Party values this as well. Over the weekend, I visited the home of a resident who was obviously a devout follower of his faith. When I asked him about his views on other faiths, he said, \"I believe what I believe, not because you are wrong, but because my god is the right god for me.\"
Singaporeans on the whole embody a spirit of moderation. To that end, we agree that the agenda setting in religious matters should be done by Singaporeans. The Government has expressed concern that some foreign brands of religiosity, if imported, may not be appropriate and may cause tensions on religious grounds to arise. We do not dismiss this risk.
The Bill imposes reporting requirements on religious groups regarding their foreign affiliations and donations, and may require certain donations from foreign principals to be returned or surrendered. The Bill also empowers the Minister to require the removal of foreigners from the governing bodies of religious institutions if such persons are deemed by the Government to have priorities that are inappropriate. There have been news reports that the major religious groups in Singapore support these amendments.
Nevertheless, Article 15(3) of the Constitution provides that every religious group has the right to manage its own religious affairs. It could be argued by some that the powers in the Bill constitute an erosion of the autonomy of religious groups. Earlier in his Second Reading speech, the Minister did say that it was not the intention of the Government to constrain the practice of religion – and that is a welcome statement. To this end, it is important for the Ministry to further elaborate on why the Government believes that the Bill is fully consistent with Article 15.
Next, separation of religion and politics. Although this Bill does not specifically deal with the separation of religion and politics, it is useful to remind ourselves of what the separation of religion and politics entails. This is especially timely, in view of the impending General Election.
During the debate on the Act 30 years ago, it was acknowledged that it is not possible to strictly divorce religion from politics. This impossibility is true today and probably for all ages. Like Mr Alex Yam before me, I am a Catholic myself and I am to be guided by the Church’s teachings. The tenets of Christianity exhort Christians to promote social justice. In the Biblical book of the prophet Isaiah, it is written: “Seek justice, encourage the oppressed. Defend the case of the fatherless, plead the case of the widow”.
Advocacy for the voiceless is every Christian’s calling. This is a force for good in Singapore as we address concerns about class divides and move to foster an inclusive society. However, while individuals may order their actions based on their faiths, the picture takes on a more sensitive hue when religious leaders openly champion social or political causes. The Government has previously voiced its concern about the possible misuse of religious authority.
While the focus of today’s Bill is on foreign interference, we should be vigilant that Singapore’s own religious leaders do not polarise their congregations along party political lines. On this, I wish to share some observations.
In the run-up to the debate on this Bill, there has been open support for the Bill expressed by religious leaders. Religious authority is being thrown behind the Government’s legislation, both publicly and also to specific congregations. Is that mixing religious authority with politics? As far as I know, the Government has welcomed this open support. But if the religious leaders had instead gone the other way, that is, express concern or opposition to the Bill, would the Government have put its foot down and issued an order requiring them to stop?
Let us look at other examples. Is it appropriate for a religious leader to exhort his congregation during a General Election to “Vote for Stability”? Or is it right for a religious leader to be publicly seen, walking into a Nomination Centre in party uniform with a political party’s candidates on Nomination Day? It is already brewing on the ground that some religious institutions are developing reputations for being supportive of certain political parties. Any decision by religious leaders to take an openly partisan stance bears the risk of causing tension between followers who ascribe to their leaders’ political allegiances and those who do not. If unchecked, there is a possibility that, over time, there would be a polarisation of society along political lines, caused not by foreign influences, but by Singapore’s own religious leaders. Such a prospect could fracture social cohesion and divide society.
Sir, before I end, I would like to ask for a clarification on the Bill regarding the proposed section 16F. This section states that a Restraining Order issued by the Minister has effect “despite the provisions of any other written law in force.” The explanatory note to the Bill touches on section 16F but is not clear as to how a restraining order could be contrary to a written law. Without clarification, the section reads as if a Restraining Order may breach other laws or be illegal in some manner. Could the Ministry explain what this is all about, please?
Finally, Sir, let me conclude. The Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act was controversial at the time it was passed. The then First Deputy Prime Minister Mr Goh Chok Tong told the House that the Cabinet had not been unanimous in deciding whether to legislate, and decided to mull over it and consult widely for several years. When the Bill was presented, he said, “In a sense, this Bill is a recognition of a retrogression, or potential deterioration, in religious harmony.”
Sir, the Workers’ Party shares this concern of the Government and is prepared to work with the Government on this aspect.
Mr Seah Kian Peng (Marine Parade): Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill promises a more robust approach to safeguarding religious harmony. By restricting foreign influence on our religious institutions, we also allow our national and religious identities to intersect more closely. Last, this Bill is built for speed, given the very large harm that can result from religious insult within a very short time.
I see this Bill as one among a slew of others to protect our rights and the kind of society we have pledged to be. The Singapore model of protecting rights has always been one that relies on restrictions of freedoms, in an explicit recognition that rights without restrictions are empty.
If everyone is completely free to do whatever we want, then we yield our individual freedoms to those with the most power, which in modern society has tended to be those with the most wealth. Countries which we consider to be democratic today are perhaps merely plutocracy well disguised.
I give two examples of laws which appear to trample on freedoms but yet provides the most freedoms for the most of us. The Land Acquisition Act is recognition that the rights of private property owners are sometimes subordinate to the claims of the state. The ethnic quota guideline in our public housing estate is evidence that the right to freely transact on the market is conscribed by the larger goals of racial harmony through every day lived experience of all races. The restriction of hate speech is the latest in a series of these, a vital link in preserving the high quality of public discourse.
Each restriction of vital freedoms is not to deny that such freedoms are important, but is our way of recognising that such freedoms exist within a universe of rights.
In his Ministerial Statement on Restricting Hate Speech to Maintain Racial and Religious Harmony, the Minister for Home Affairs and Law Mr Shanmugam had defined hate speech as \"all forms of expression which spread, incite, promote, or justify racial hatred, xenophobia, or other forms of hatred based on intolerance.\"
Our revulsion for hate speech stems from two sources. First, it is morally wrong, that is, wrong in principle; second, it has the potential to cause great harm. And it is this latter which carves out the three main areas which the current legislation address.
First, the harm against society. Hate speech divides us, sets man against man, tribe against tribe; it stirs us up, it inflates and inflames our emotions.
Second, and on the other end of the spectrum, it dampens our responses to and normalises outrageous behaviour. What may once have given us pause may now be shrugged off and accepted. In this way, we lose our collective public morality. In February 2019, the United Nations Secretary-General Mr Antonio Guterres called hate speech a \"menace to democratic values, social stability, peace\". And he pointed out the dangers of allowing hate speech to move onto the mainstream. He said, and I quote him, \"With each broken norm, the pillars of humanity are weakened.\" We cannot allow the norms of Singapore to become so lax that hate against each other's religion goes unpunished by law.
Third, hate speech moves individuals to take radical action. In the name of overweening but ultimately false causes, we have seen Nazis against Jews during the Holocaust, Hutus against Tutsis in Rwanda, Sinhalese Buddhists against minorities in Sri Lanka.
In Singapore, our Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs, Mr Masagos has said that there have been external influences trying to \"re-shape\" how Muslims live their lives, including being \"exclusivist\". There is also the longstanding risk, with terrorist groups calling on Muslims to establish an Islamic caliphate. Let me now quote Mr Masagos again. He said, \"All these ideas are new ideas, which are ideas from old texts or interpretation of old texts. So, these need to be addressed by our own scholars.\"
So, what can we do against the force of religious beliefs? Other countries have found their own solutions. In the US, speech is prohibited if it is likely to lead to \"imminent lawless action\". The German Criminal Code criminalises the incitement of hatred against, or insult of, a racial or religious group. And in the UK, it is a crime to incite hatred on the grounds of religion. But it protects freedom of expression to a high degree, to such an extent that one can ridicule and insult, abuse any religion or its followers.
The Singapore approach. Like many countries, Singapore finds hate speech wrong in principle. Like some of these countries, Singapore is willing to use the strongest institution at our disposal – our laws – to bind this wrong because of the harm it does to our society.
Our approach distinguishes itself in two ways.
First, we are nesting it within an eco-system of laws that promote a high quality of public life and discourse. The Select Committee on Deliberate Online Falsehoods, which I was a Member of, heard expert advice which argues that the \"visible hand\" of the state is needed to fight fake news. Lies mixed with religious fervor presents an explosive cocktail.
Second, our willingness to give force to this \"invisible hand\". This is not always the case – in some countries, something can be recognised to be wrong and harmful but still remain unbound either because there is a lack of political will or because it lies outside the political culture.
In Singapore, we recognise that in our best selves, we can rise above our primordial instincts, we can forbear from rash, unreasoned action, we listen to others, we can be dispassionate and rational. We value religious and racial harmony. But let us not be conceited enough to think that we are our best selves all the time, or even most of the time. Let us not be naive to think that what happened in history cannot and will not happen again. From this principle, we are therefore are justified in making our laws more robust, in a climate where strident views are rising, and much that cannot be said in the past, is now freely promulgated online.
There will always be critics who say that yes, they agree that religious harmony is important, but we should not be so ready to make new laws. We should trim our legal reach and give more respect and freedoms to the citizens. To do otherwise is to disrespect the ability of citizens to hold mature political dialogue.
Mr Speaker, Sir, I have spoken on the need for realism above. A second, perhaps more sustained argument could be that the amendments make the laws more robust, which runs the risk of over-zealous application.
Sir, if the risk is between over-zealous application of the law, which can be ameliorated by members of the Judiciary, or that of under-protection of vulnerable groups of minorities, which does not appear to have any recourse, save the mercy and fair-mindedness of online mobs, then, to me, the former is far superior.
In short, Sir, I support this Bill because we, in this House, we cannot say something is important and, at the same time, we shirk from the hard work of regulating it.
Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap (Aljunied): Sir, my speech will be in Malay.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Sir, the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act was enacted in 1992. The two key principles of this Act are; first, that followers of religions in Singapore live their religious lives moderately, practise tolerance towards religious differences and do not do anything that can cause hatred and enmity. Secondly, politics and religion should be separated.
I will touch on these two principles but before that, I would like to seek a clarification from the Minister on one new section being introduced which can be found in this amendment Bill, which is section 17(F). Briefly, what I understand from the Explanatory Note is that a person is deemed to have committed an offence if he wilfully becomes involved in acts that insult a religion or the religious beliefs or the activities of others in Singapore, whereby those acts; one, cause hatred towards another religion; two, injure the feelings of followers of other religions; and three, will affect the law and public order.
I will share an example and I hope that the Minister can provide a clarification based on the example given, whether an offence had taken place as stated under section 17 in the following situation.
An Islamic religious leader or preacher said during a sermon that Islam teaches that Jesus was a prophet and not the son of God as taught in Christianity. He then says that any religion that says otherwise that Jesus is the son of God, then the followers of that religion will be punished in hell. While delivering the sermon, the preacher also delivers that message in a fervent manner. If a video recording of that session is shared on the Internet. I think it is very likely that the majority of Christians will feel offended and angry because they feel that the preacher has insulted their faith.
However, from the perspective of the preacher, his intention was simply to deliver Islamic teachings to Muslims and he had no intention or motive to injure anyone's feelings or cause any friction in a multi-religious society.
Sir, based on my interpretation of section 17(F) and the next section, that is section 17(G), which states that motive or intent is irrelevant in determining whether a person has committed an offence as stated under section 17(F). The preacher that I mentioned in my example will be deemed to have committed an offence under the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act even though the preacher's real motive is to share the teachings that are found in the Quran.
I would like to seek some explanation and clarification from the Minister on this matter, and if such a situation occurs, whether the preacher will be charged under section 17(F).
Sir, moving on, I would like to touch on two key principles of the Act, which are; first, to live a religious life moderately and practise tolerance towards religious differences and not do anything that can cause hatred and enmity. The second principle is that politics and religion should be separated.
Sir, Singaporeans are constantly reminded of the importance of integration between the difference races and religions to create and preserve harmony. There is constant emphasis on messages stating moderation and tolerance as key elements to achieve integration.
Every religion directs its followers to work towards achieving and maintaining racial harmony. I believe that every religion calls for moderation and tolerance for the sake of harmony amongst humankind. But, Sir, what is the meaning of moderation and tolerance in religion? Does moderation and tolerance mean that the followers of a religion have to compromise their religious values and practices, like making themselves ‘less Islamic’, and so on? Do the followers of a particular religion have to do something prohibited or that contravenes the values and teachings of the religion, before he can be considered as someone who practises moderation and tolerance? Personally, I believe that tolerance, as a pillar of religious harmony in a plural society like Singapore, is achievable without having to sacrifice the values and faith of any follower. In short, there is no need to be less Islamic.
Sir, I would like to share my experience while studying in Australia. I was amazed by the way Australian society practises tolerance by respecting the beliefs and teachings of a religion. My father's friend, Mr A, sent his daughter to a renowned public secondary school for girls in Melbourne. Mr A sought permission from the school to allow his daughter to practise Islam by wearing an attire that covers her modesty based on Islamic teachings. The school allowed Mr A's daughter to wear the tudung. In fact, his daughter was also allowed to wear long-sleeve blouses and loose-fitting clothes which, nevertheless, still comply with the school's uniform requirements in terms of colour and pattern.
Although Australia is a multi-ethnic country where its people come from all over the world, they still adhere to their country's principle of religious freedom. As a nation and a plural society, they recognise the need to respect the teachings and beliefs of followers from various regions. They do not practise tolerance by asking followers of a religion to compromise their faith or ‘to be less Islamic’ for the sake of integration. Instead, tolerance is practised in Australia by respecting the beliefs and principles of a religion and by taking steps to render support so that the religious practices of any follower of religion is not impacted, which was what took place in the example I just shared.
Sir, another principle of this Act is the separation of religion and politics. I do not quite agree with this principle. As a Muslim, Islam is understood as a way of life. Islam encompasses all aspects of life, including politics and the way to practise politics. And I understand that Christianity also believes that it is unlikely that religion can be separated from politics.
Sir, Parliament, as the highest institution in creating laws, also allows for religious elements in the process of appointing Members of Parliament through the swearing-in and oath-taking ceremony. We can see during the ceremony that Members of Parliament who are Christians can hold the Bible when taking their oaths and they conclude their oaths with the phrase \"So, help me God\".
However, Sir, I agree that it is certainly wrong to use religion in order to gain political advantage. I believe such a thing is prohibited in any religious teaching. This is because religion is meant to shape individuals who are morally upright and pure of heart so that he can contribute as best as he can towards the development of society and nation, and not to use it for one's own interests or certain interests.
Sir, the maintenance of religious harmony is a collective role and responsibility, particularly among religious and community leaders. Each member of society must strive to give mutual respect to other faiths and to practise true tolerance in order to maintain and further strengthen religious harmony in our nation. Thank you, Sir.
Mr Desmond Choo (Tampines): Mr Speaker, Sir, in October 1965, Mr William Cheng, Principal Assistant Secretary of Administration of MOE mooted the idea of a pledge. It was meant to inculcate national consciousness and patriotism in schools. The then Minister for Education, Mr Ong Pang Boon, sent two drafts worked out by his Ministry's staff to the late Mr S Rajaratnam, then Minister for Foreign Affairs.
Mr Rajaratnam believed that language, race and religion were potentially divisive factors, and the Pledge emphasised that these differences could be overcomed if we stay united as a country. He believed that the Pledge emerged against the backdrop of a struggle to forge a sense of nationhood and to build “a Singapore we are proud of”.
More than 50 years after our Pledge was written, in Singapore's very first study by the Institute of Policy Studies and OnePeople.sg on the state of racial relations, four out of 10 Singaporeans said that they decide what a person's behaviour and views will be like based on their race even before they interact with them.
Every now and then in the papers things happen that reflect very vividly the complexities of race and religious tensions in Singapore. The changes to the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act are timely as it deals with the complex trends the world and Singapore are currently facing.
The rolling news flows in the global village have given race and religious phenomena increased visibility and potency. Our people are not immune from that. For example, attacks against Christians in Pakistan or against Muslims in India, new incidents of anti-Semitism in Western Europe and hate crimes against Muslims in the US or Europe immediately take on a global dimension. The worldwide ripples of these incidents have vividly underscored the sensitivity of religious issues in the global village. It is even more critical now as compared to 50 over years ago and Singapore must safeguard itself from these changes.
I do have a couple of clarifications on the Bill. First, the distinction between private and public speech and foreign interference. Under section 17F, if a religious leader is accused of inciting religious hatred or ill will, he would be able to defend himself by proving his message was meant only for a domestic gathering and that he could not have anticipated that it would reach unintended audiences. However, this is potentially problematic. Incitement – unlike insult – can cause serious harm even if the leader's words are heard only by a small circle. If someone had secretly video-taped the speech and then propagate it, the harm would still have been done. The speaker must still be as culpable as the propagator because he had spoken the words.
Next, the Community Remedial Initiative is laudable. It matters because when everything is viewed starkly in black and white and no one is given the chance to make amends, mistrust flourishes. It splits communities down religious fault lines even more starkly than ever. Once communities are divided in this way, tensions will spill over quickly. The connection between religious tolerance and stable societies is clear. However, the question remains: how many times will we allow a person who makes religiously intolerant comments to participate in this initiative? Even though inflammatory comments can be removed online, this digital age ensures that the impact is immediate and long lasting. Nothing is really quite forgotten. The damage is done. Should there be a limit to the Community Remedial Initiative to not only individuals but also organisations on how many times they can participate in it?
Next, it is encouraging to note that our youths clearly care about religious harmony. It was nearly unanimous among the 18- to 25-year-old Singaporean respondents in the same survey that it was either unacceptable or very unacceptable for religious leaders to make insensitive comments on other religions. In addition, 97.2% of those in this age group felt that it was either unacceptable or very unacceptable for religious leaders to incite violence or hatred against other religions. However, the very same younger netizens might also guard online spaces more vigorously through accepting views of different nature, even though these views might seem offensive to some. How can we better bring about awareness amongst our youth that while people can express their views, they should also be cognisant that some discourses should not be accorded a platform, especially in multi-racial and multi-religious Singapore, that the enhancement of this Act is not the restriction of what they can say, but it is for the pursuit of higher ideals?
“Regardless of race, language or religion” cannot be words recited daily in our National Pledge for a brief moment in the morning and then conveniently ignored for the remainder of the day. Let us always remember that Singapore worked hard to lay the foundation for religious harmony and maintain it over the years. We did not achieve this by accident. The timely changes to this Bill are welcomed as they deal with the nuanced, complex trends in this world today. With this, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 3.20 pm.
Sitting accordingly suspended
at 2.54 pm until 3.20 pm.
Sitting resumed at 3.20 pm.
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]
[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]
Ms Anthea Ong (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, I support this Bill as it takes a strong stance against religious intolerance that would threaten the public peace and public order of Singapore. It also expands the scope of protection beyond religious groups against such intolerance and discrimination.
I especially applaud the new provisions in sections 17E(1) and (2) which explicitly state that it is an offence of any person knowingly urging, on the ground of religion or religious belief or activity, the use of force or violence and the target group or target person is distinguished by religion or religious belief or activity, or by ethnicity, descent, nationality, language or political opinion, or any other characteristic whether or not of a similar kind.
The target group was elaborated in unambiguous terms in the Explanatory Statement on Page 77 of the Bill. I quote, \"the target group need not be confined to persons who practise a certain religion. The target group may be made up of atheists, individuals from a specific racial community, who share a similar sexual orientation, or have a certain nationality or descent like foreign workers or new citizens.\"
In April 2019, the Minister for Home Affairs said that hate speech dehumanises marginalised groups, which enables individuals to justify violence against them. These new provisions serve to protect our vulnerable groups, including the LGBTQ community, from hate speech and institutionalised discrimination which, to my mind, always constitutes violence.
This is indeed an important change that signals the coming of age of a progressive and inclusive society that we are and must be. I recall the 2016 case of a Singaporean man who threatened to \"open fire\" at the LGBTQ community in a Facebook community based on certain religious beliefs and was subsequently charged for \"making an electronic record containing an incitement to violence\". Would the Minister clarify, as an illustration for the Bill, that the man’s action could be an offence under the new provisions of section 17E(1) and (2)?
Mr Speaker, beyond physical safety, our laws must also protect the psycho-social safety and mental well-being of vulnerable groups against religiously-motivated violence.
In the last three to six months alone, a community project I co-founded called A Good Space, has been approached by three different groups who support people who suffer from mental distress because of religious discrimination – some call this religious trauma which is sometimes defined as when religion has been been weaponised to cause guilt, shame and a feeling of unworthiness in people.
One of these groups was set up four years ago to address religious trauma for young girls and the group has supported a range of issues that were raised from micro-aggression with remarks like \"your skirt’s too short, too tight\", \"why aren’t you in a hijab\", to outright sexual harassment and violations.
Another is an interfaith group that was set up last year by a 35-year-old man and his wife. He shared his traumatic experiences of deep religious indoctrination, peer pressure, pastoral surveillance and being asked to participate in the many disciplinary actions that his church did to those who were not faithful. He eventually became, in his words, an \"evangeliser climbing the church ladder who have lost my identity, my education and all other passions\". Now, his group brings together, and support, many pro-pluralistic believers regularly to share with each other their experiences of religious trauma.
Another community practitioner, in her 30s, who set up a healing group in December 2016 to support Muslim women from the LGBTQ community just shared this story with me. She attended a parenting talk by a psychologist recently at a mosque and was shocked to hear the speaker tell parents to treat their LGBTQ children like drug addicts and also encouraged them to put these children through conversion therapy. Despite a large body of scientific evidence showing that being LGBTQ is normal and healthy, and the World Health Organization having removed homosexuality as a disease 42 years ago in 1977, punishments are still imposed by religious communities.
Both religion and spirituality can have a positive impact on mental health which is the basis for harmony and peace in our society. But we cannot and must not dismiss the religious hurt and victims of religious abuse in this effort towards religious harmony. I hope the new provisions will go some way in deterring these practices.
Open dialogue about such emotionally-harming practices needs to take place more often. There needs to be more support for those affected by religious trauma. I am glad to see interfaith groups like Interverse by Saiful Anuar emerging in this area and hope to see more religious and interfaith communities take on such support roles. I also hope that the Government proactively encourage intra-faith dialogue beyond just interfaith ones to maintain not just religious harmony but also the mental well-being of our fellow Singaporeans.
Mr Speaker, let me now move our focus to another key amendment of this Bill. For the Bill to truly work in achieving religious harmony as its intent, its implementation should heavily engage various religious groups. Instead, the Bill allows for the expanded powers of the Minister in being able to make a Restraining Order without 14 days’ notice of his intention to the person against whom the Order is made or to the religious group that is implicated. The Minister can decide without affected persons and religious groups nor relevant stakeholders consulting and advising on the Order.
I am concerned that the lack of notice and consultation may not sufficiently take into account the sensitivities of religious issues and the need to ensure good governance. A decision that is made without notice nor consultation may be seen as heavy-handed and controlling of the religious landscape in Singapore. While affected parties can appeal within 14 days of the order, the Restraining Order having been made would cast negative public attention on the particular religion affected. The absence of consultation may also mean that the Minister has less information to decide whether making an Order is the best way to achieve religious harmony. While the current Government may believe itself to be competent in making Orders appropriately, we may not be able to say the same of future governments. I think it is important to keep the safeguard procedures of notice and consultation to ensure that the law is properly enforced.
Moreover, Mr Speaker, allowing swift issuance of the Order is efficient but may not be appropriate in all instances. For online communications, such a swift issuance may be more suitable. Yet, for restraining orders relating to not accepting, returning, or disposing of donations and the composition of the governing body, these are decisions that can be undertaken less urgently. Hearing the affected person or religious group’s side of the story, such as on how the sources and necessity of these donations are, and the nature of contributions of the governing body members, would be extremely useful in decision-making.
I strongly urge the Minister to clarify on the removal of the notice period and the non-requirement of notice or consult. And to enlighten us with the implementation and training guidelines for the \"competent authority\" with these new provisions.
Mr Speaker, let me invite us to think about the other side of this religious coin. As much as we enhance our laws to protect against religious intolerance, how can we also ensure that engaging in honest dialogue made in good faith for the purpose of intellectual and spiritual advancement will not make a person liable under the Act and other related legislation like the section 298 and section 298A of the Penal Code and the Sedition Act?
Section 17F(10) in the Bill is implicit yet limiting in this regard. I urge the Minister to consider the inclusion of a \"Stephen’s Code\" into our laws to provide protection for reasonable speech made with good intentions for the sake of protecting public interest – like Canada and New Zealand have. New Zealand’s version of this code reads, I quote, \"It is not an offence against this section to express in good faith and in decent language, or to attempt to establish by arguments used in good faith and conveyed in decent language, any opinion whatever on any religious subject.\"
This ensures that highly intolerant segments of society who deliberately take offence will not be able to silence reasonable and well-intended speech. Non-religious individuals in Singapore can feel restrained providing a fair response to religiously-motivated opinions for fear of causing offence, even if unintentional.
Finally, Mr Speaker, this brings me to the scope of inclusion in our policy and social narratives for religious harmony. Singapore is the world’s most religiously diverse country. Yet one in four Singaporeans do not follow a religion, according to the 2019 survey by the Institute for Policy Studies. Religious harmony, which is the intent of this Bill cannot be complete if we do not actively invite and include all the non-religious in our current interfaith initiatives.
The Humanist Society Singapore had to insert itself in interfaith programmes through its assiduous efforts. Five years ago, they had to intently knock on the doors of initiatives such as RSIS conference, NUS interfaith, NTU Path, UnConference, RosesOfPeace, CIFU, OnePeople.
People of faith must know and understand that fellow Singaporeans who do not have a religion do not necessarily oppose religion, they simply hold a different set of beliefs. I urge the Government to consider using \"interbelief\" instead of \"interfaith\" in our official narrative so that we are not alienating 25% of our Singaporeans and for all interfaith communities to do the same.
Mr Speaker, diversity may be the hardest thing for a society to live with and yet perhaps, the most dangerous for a society to be without. Someone once said that, \"Diversity is having a seat at the table. Inclusion is having a voice at the table. And belonging is being heard at the table.\"
The Bill recognises the need for us to protect our vulnerable and minority groups and is a step in the right direction by bringing them to the table. Yet we must do more to make sure we give everyone a voice to be heard – whether they be those who suffer from religious trauma, LGBTQ persons, atheists, unwed mothers, foreign workers, new citizens and many more minorities.
Because religious diversity may be a given but religious harmony, whether inter or intra, is not. A top-down approach may risk creating merely facades without sentiment and could in fact perpetuate the divisions. We must go beyond mere proclamations of peaceful co-existence to develop the ability to understand and communicate with each other across all kinds of divisions, within and between religions and cultures, as a fundamental prerequisite for our society to remain cohesive and robust. The Government must not over-regulate peace and harmony or intervene too early as it might rob us of the opportunity, as a people, to develop this ability. This inter-cultural competence, and not merely multi-culturalism, must be a collective responsibility and priority for a Singapore that citizens from communities can call home, truly.
The Senior Minister of State for Defence and Foreign Affairs (Dr Mohamad Maliki Bin Osman): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Singapore Muslim community welcomes and supports the proposed amendments to the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act, or MRHA, which will further strengthen religious harmony in Singapore.
The community recognises the importance of practising one’s religion in a way that is respectful towards those who may profess a different belief from oneself.
Singapore is a multi-religious society. Singapore is a successful, thriving nation-state not just because Muslims and non-Muslims live side-by-side in peace and prosperity, but because many Singaporeans deeply believe that our diversity does not divide us and instead is a source of strength. We believe that Singapore can flourish as a cohesive society and as one united people, only if we safeguard the common space for people of all races and religions, including those who do not profess one.
While religion is a deeply personal matter, the community recognises the need for laws as an important enabler to allow communities of different faiths to co-exist in harmony. The law sets the tone for the norms that we treasure and uphold as a society, and in the case of the MRHA, the laws are the ultimate safeguard for religious harmony.
The amendments proposed in this Bill are aligned with our approach of managing Muslim affairs in Singapore. Our Muslim community is a confident one and how we practise our faith is founded on the strong underpinnings of Islam and contextualised to our way of life in Singapore. It cannot and should not be influenced by foreign forces, as our community must chart our own way forward, based on the set of values that have allowed Singapore and Singaporeans to thrive in an increasingly polarised world.
In support of the launch of the Commitment to Safeguard Religious Harmony in June 2019, Mufti Ustaz Mohamed Fatris Bakaram had said that MUIS’ efforts have always been guided by the vision of establishing a common space and advancing the common good for all in our society, and to keep out divisive and isolationist tendencies.
The practices in our mosques and religious institutions under MUIS are already aligned to the enhanced safeguards in the MRHA amendments, in particular, to ensure local leadership in our religious institutions, as well as regulations on foreign funding. For example, all members of the MUIS Council and the board members of our madrasahs, are Singapore citizens. We are also proud that the strong support of the Muslim community in Singapore – through the monthly contributions to the Mosque Building and Mendaki Fund (MBMF) – has allowed us to raise funds from our community to build and upgrade mosques in all our estates and to support education in our madrasahs without the need for foreign funding.
We can and must continue to be self-reliant so that as a Singapore Muslim community we are able to address our own needs without becoming susceptible to manipulation by foreign parties for their own agendas and risking the peace and harmony we have enjoyed as a society.
We will not condone any foreign preacher advocating violence, segregationist or intolerant teachings that could divide our multi-racial, multi-religious society, and build up unhappiness across different faith communities. In 2017, Imam Nalla, a preacher from India, was charged and repatriated for making remarks against Christians and Jews. Our community leaders and those of other faiths met with him. Before leaving Singapore, he apologised, and showed that he understood the implications of his remarks on trust between communities in Singapore. Both the Muslim community and non-Muslim Singaporeans welcomed his apology and gesture of reconciliation.
However, we need more than MRHA laws to ensure that our Muslim community remains strongly grounded in how Islam is practised in Singapore’s multi-religious context.
Workers’ Party Member of Parliament, Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap, earlier mentioned about how integration is done in Australia. But here in Singapore, we must determine what works best for our unique multi-religious context. We must always uphold our common spaces. And our schools are critical common spaces where we nurture a shared identity and a shared experience among our children regardless of race and religion. This has worked well for Singapore.
Our entire community, our religious teachers and our leaders, must continue to be proactive and have the conviction that religious harmony is imperative to the survival and success of Singapore, and then to equip ourselves with the knowledge and skills to live out these values every day.
This is why to be registered under the Asatizah Recognition Scheme, or ARS, one must possess the necessary qualifications as well as abide by the Asatizah Code of Ethics, which states that religious teachings must not encourage extremism or violence, nor denigrate other faiths, and instead inculcate respect and understanding toward others. The ARS was introduced as a voluntary scheme in 2005, and community support, including amongst the asatizahs, has been strong. This was underscored when community and religious leaders asked in 2016 for the ARS to be made mandatory.
Today, we have more than 4,500 asatizahs registered under the ARS. Several crucial ingredients make the ARS work. First, the Asatizah Recognition Board (ARB) – comprising senior and respected asatizahs in the community – oversees the ARS, supported by MUIS. Second, the Board and MUIS take ARS registration seriously, instituting provisional periods of observation and requiring additional interviews as the Board deems necessary. Third, ARS asatizahs are required to attend regular Continuous Professional Education training programmes, and their suitability as an asatizah is periodically reviewed. Their accreditation will be revoked if they breach ARS standards. For example, Murad Mohd Said, who was placed on a Restriction Order in December 2018, was struck off the ARS earlier in May 2018 for his segregationist teachings that contravened the ARS Code of Ethics. In summary, the ARS is a robust, community-led system. It shows the Singapore Muslim community’s strong sense of ownership and commitment to ensuring that its religious teachers are credible and that their teachings are in line with Singapore’s multi-religious context.
To enhance further, starting next year, all returning religious graduates from overseas Islamic universities must also undergo the Postgraduate Certificate in Islam in Contemporary Societies, or PCICS, programme to be registered under the ARS. The PCICS will enable local asatizahs who have been trained in overseas Islamic institutions to remain anchored to Singapore’s multi-religious context. Under the PCICS, they will learn about other religions in Singapore, and through this, appreciate the importance of inter-religious understanding in strengthening social cohesion.
Mr Speaker, I chair the Committee on Future Asatizah, or COFA, that looks at supporting the development of our future religious teachers to confidently lead and provide guidance in the religious life of the community that is suited for Singapore. In my conversations with the asatizah community as part of COFA’s engagement, I am heartened that they recognise the importance of teaching Islam that is suited to our multi-religious societal context and support the introduction of PCICS. COFA will submit its recommendations to the Government early next year.
Our community’s religious leaders also lead by example. They have a strong tradition of working closely with the leaders of other faiths to strengthen interfaith trust and understanding. For instance, our mosques officials are active members of the Inter Racial and Religious Confidence Circles, or IRCCs. Several asatizahs have been involved in deepening interfaith dialogue and mutual understanding, through the \"Ask Me Anything\" and the Common Senses for Common Spaces (CSCS) dialogue series promoting interfaith conversations, while others volunteer as docents at the Harmony Centre.
The religious leaders of the different faiths mooted and developed the Commitment to Safeguard Religious Harmony that was launched during the International Conference on Cohesive Societies in June this year. The Commitment emphasises the common values across different faiths and sets out how Singaporeans of different faiths should interact with one another in a manner that grows trust and social bonds in our society. How we can dine together and express good wishes for and attending each other’s festival celebrations and life events. MUIS and the leaders of key Muslim religious and community institutions, including all mosques in Singapore, have since endorsed the Commitment. Mr Speaker, in Malay, please.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The Muslim community in Singapore recognises the importance of practising one’s religion in a way that is respectful towards other religions.
Singapore is a multi-religious society. We are a successful nation not just because Muslims and non-Muslims live side-by-side in peace and prosperity, but also because Singaporeans understand that our diversity does not divide us, but instead it is our source of strength. We believe that Singapore can flourish as one united people, only if we safeguard the common spaces in society, regardless of race or religion, including those who do not profess to any religion.
Although religion is a deeply personal matter, our community recognizes the need for laws as an important enabler to allow communities of different faiths to co-exist in harmony. The law sets the tone for the norms that we treasure and uphold as a society, and in the case of the MRHA, laws are the ultimate safeguard for religious harmony.
The amendments proposed in this bill align with our approach in managing Muslim affairs in Singapore. Our Muslim community is a confident community. The way we practice our religion is founded on the strong underpinnings of Islam and is contextualized to our way of life in Singapore. It cannot and should not be influenced by foreign forces, because our community must chart our own way forward, based on the set of values that have allowed Singapore and Singaporeans to thrive in an increasingly polarised world.
The practices in our mosques and religious institutions under MUIS are already aligned to the enhanced safeguards in the MRHA amendments to ensure local leadership of our religious institutions, as well as regulations on foreign funding. For example, all members of the MUIS Council and the board members of our madrasahs, are Singapore citizens. We are also proud that the strong support of the Muslim community in Singapore – through the monthly contributions to the Mosque Building and Mendaki Fund (MBMF) – has allowed us to raise funds from our community to build and upgrade mosques in all our estates and to support education in our madrasahs without the need for foreign funding. We can and must continue to be self-reliant so that, as a Singapore Muslim community, we are able to address our own needs without becoming susceptible to manipulation by foreign parties for their own agendas and risking the peace and harmony we have enjoyed.
However, we need more than MRHA laws to ensure that our Muslim community remains strongly grounded in how Islam is practised in Singapore’s multi-religious context. Our entire community, our religious teachers, and our leaders, must continue to be proactive and have the conviction that religious harmony is imperative to the survival and success of Singapore. We need to equip ourselves with the knowledge and skills to live out these values every day.
This is why we have the Asatizah Recognition Scheme or ARS. To register under ARS, one must possess the necessary qualifications as well as abide by the Asatizah Code of Ethics, which states that religious teachings must not encourage extremism or violence, nor denigrate other faiths. Instead, it must inculcate respect and understanding toward others. The ARS was introduced as a voluntary scheme in 2005, and received strong support from the community, including amongst the asatizah. This strong support was clearly displayed in 2016, when community and religious leaders themselves asked for the ARS to be made mandatory.
Today, we have more than 4,500 asatizah registered under the ARS. Several crucial ingredients make the ARS work. First, the Asatizah Recognition Board (ARB). Comprising senior asatizah who are respected in the community, it oversees the ARS and is supported by MUIS. Second, the ARB and MUIS take ARS registration seriously, by instituting provisional periods of observation and requiring additional interviews as the Board deems necessary. Third, ARS asatizah are required to attend training under the Continuous Professional Education programme, and their suitability as an asatizah is reviewed periodically. Their accreditation will be revoked if they breach the ARS Code of Ethics. Essentially, ARS is a robust system that was built through the community’s own effort. It shows the Singapore Muslim community’s strong sense of ownership and commitment to ensure that its religious teachers are credible and that their teachings are aligned with Singapore’s multi-religious context.
To enhance this further, starting next year, all returning religious graduates from overseas Islamic universities must also undergo the Postgraduate Certificate in Islam in Contemporary Societies (PCICS) programme, before they can register under the ARS. The PCICS will enable local asatizah to remain anchored to Singapore’s multi-religious context. Under the PCICS, they will learn about other religions in Singapore, and through this, appreciate the importance of inter-religious understanding in strengthening social cohesion.
Mr Speaker, I chair the Committee on Future Asatizah, or COFA, that was established to support the development of our future religious teachers to confidently lead and provide guidance in the religious life of the community that is suited for Singapore. In my conversations with the asatizah community as part of COFA’s engagement, I am heartened that they recognise the importance of teaching Islam that is suited to our multi-religious societal context and support the introduction of PCICS. COFA will submit its recommendations to the government early next year.
Mr Speaker, the Singapore Muslim community recognises that we cannot take for granted today’s harmonious state of inter-religious relations today, and we cannot underestimate the influence, ideas and practices from outside our borders that are dangerous to our community and social cohesion. Muslims and non-Muslims in Singapore have shown our region and the world that it is possible to have a model anchored on harmony, peaceful co-existence and honest, genuine relationships between the leaders and followers of different faiths.
Hence, we believe that, as the global socio-religious landscape continues to evolve, the amendments to the MRHA will ensure it remains an effective legal safeguard to protect religious harmony, and bolsters the community’s ongoing efforts to strengthen our social cohesion. The Bill underscores Singaporeans’ conviction that we will not allow others and foreign influences to prescribe for us how we should live our religious lives. MUIS has been consulted on the specific amendments to the MRHA, and MUIS supports the amendments. I too welcome and support this Bill.
(In English): The Singapore Muslim community recognises that we cannot take today's harmonious state of inter-religious relations for granted nor underestimate the influence of foreign ideas and practices that are inimical to our community and social cohesion. Muslims and non-Muslims in Singapore have shown our region and the world that it is possible to have a model anchored on harmony, peace, coexistence and honest, genuine relationships between leaders and followers of different faiths.
Hence, we believe that as the global socio-religious landscape continues to evolve, the amendments to the MRHA will ensure it remains an effective legal safeguard to protect religious harmony and bolsters the community's ongoing efforts to strengthen our social cohesion. The Bill underscores Singaporeans' conviction that we will not have others prescribe for us how we should live our religious lives. MUIS has been consulted on the specific amendments to the MRHA and supports them. I, too, welcome and support this Bill.
Ms Rahayu Mahzam (Jurong): Thank you, Mr Speaker. In Malay, please.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] We often speak about our country's uniqueness as a multi-racial and multi-religious society where all races live in harmony. History has shown us that nothing we have achieved today happened by chance and we are aware that the necessary efforts should continue in order to preserve this harmony. This includes maintaining the good relations between the different races through community activities, providing a safe space for dialogue and discussions of sensitive issues, providing infrastructures such as schools and housing where we can live and gain common experiences, and also having laws that can specifically hinder acts that can divide our society.
Some of the existing legislation include the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act. This Act was introduced in 1990 and enacted in 1992. It was established based on several principles. First, to maintain religious harmony by ensuring that the different religions practise moderation and tolerance, and do not do anything that can create any discomfort with one another.
Second, to ensure that religion does not influence national politics.
This Act has actually never been used or amended. However, with changing times and rapid digital breakthroughs, we need to review the effectiveness of this Act in order to protect the nation's well-being. For instance, fake news can become viral at an amazing speed. Hate commentaries towards any particular religion can also spread very quickly. With technology, influences beyond our borders can easily reach out and damage the trust within society without us realising it. The Government must have the ability to manage this quickly. The Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act needs to be strengthened so that we can continue to ensure the country's well-being and interest are protected. Therefore, I fully support this Bill.
(In English): Today, we are debating the amendment of an Act that has not been invoked but holds great significance as a symbol of the nation’s commitment to the preservation of harmony in Singapore. I am heartened that continued and consistent efforts are being made by the Government to ensure that we guard against acts that could tear at our social fabric.
The advent and proliferation of technology has made the world a different place. With social media, a lot of information, both positive and negative, can go viral very quickly. There is a need for appropriate legislation in place to ensure that there is ability to quickly respond to acts that could incite hate and ill-will amongst members in the community and respond to foreign interference that could create distrust and divisions in our people, without us even being aware. This amendment is therefore timely and welcomed.
I would just like to comment on several provisions in this Bill.
Firstly, I refer to section 17F of the Bill, in particular to the defence to the offence, at sections 7 and 8. The defences appear to make a distinction between acts that are carried out privately and in the public domain. I would like to gain a better understanding of the rationale behind the defences as well as how the distinction between the private and public domain will be made.
I appreciate that it may be impractical to expect the authorities to police private communications. Any enforcement of the law for action done within certain confines, may also be seen to infringe on certain human liberties of privacy. Further, I appreciate that believers of a certain faith would have views on non-believers and any articulation of that may be perceived as offensive. However, the fact that there had been an incitement of enmity, hatred or ill-will, even if it is in a private setting, could be a cause for concern. A more profound hatred could develop over time, through repeated private discussions and with different groups of people.
I am therefore wondering if we could take a more calibrated approach in practice, when such a situation of a private expression of hate or ill-will that is made known to the authorities occurs. In appropriate circumstances, especially when the hate or ill-will arises out ignorance and could worsen if left unchecked, could recommendations be made for the individual to be referred to a community engagement, akin to the Community Remedial Initiative?
This leads me to the second provision I would like to comment on. I would like to laud the inclusion of section 16H of the Bill relating to the Community Remedial Initiative. I feel that this approach is potentially a powerful mechanism to really challenge beliefs and behaviours. In Malay, there is a saying, “Tak kenal, maka tak cinta” which means, “You do not know, so you do not love.” Often, resentment or hatred arises from ignorance and lack of understanding of another’s beliefs and practices. The Community Remedial Initiative presents that opportunity to edify, clarify and rebuild relations and I am happy that it is being introduced. I note though that the process is not mandatory. The offer must first be made by the Minister and the person may choose to enter into this scheme.
I acknowledge that one must be given the choice as compelling anyone into this process would be counter-productive. However, I hope that in the implementation of this legislation, efforts will be made to encourage the application of the Community Remedial Initiative in most cases.
Minister Shanmugam said at the recent dialogue organised by One People.Sg and CNA, that there is no silver bullet to solving racism, but Singapore has had a fair amount of success over the years. The issues of race and religion are intertwined in this country and we need to continue to take effort to address them. As a management committee member of OPSG, I am happy to note that there have been many platforms put forth by OPSG to allow for discussions and meaningful engagements amongst people from different races and religions. The dialogue was one such platform. There are also various focus-group discussions, learning journeys and camps for youth, to name a few, that are targeted towards promoting understanding and embracing the diversity of race and religion in our community. These efforts augment the legal framework that we put in place to preserve and protect our social fabric.
I have faith that with the appropriate combination of legal measures as well as community engagements, and a conscious effort to consistently and vigorously protect the interests of our multi-racial and multi-religious community, we would be able to maintain our harmony. Mr Speaker, I stand in support of the Bill.
Mr Gan Thiam Poh (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in firm support of the Bill.
Our Government has been putting in great effort to strengthen racial and religious harmony in Singapore since we gained Independence. Our policies have been carefully reviewed and updated over the years. This round, as usual, we are not taking things for granted and will be introducing Restraining Orders (ROs) which will take immediate effect. This is a significant change, compared to the current 14 days' notice. However, in view of the speed and reach of online communications, we must do this to minimise potential damage.
There is a Chinese saying, 星星之火可以燎原，that a single spark of fire could burn down an entire grassland. Likewise, a comment, a single sentence or a single paragraph on the Internet could trigger discord between groups of people, leading to violence and destruction within hours. It is far better to err on the side of caution even though we might be criticised for being too strict or too sensitive as the stakes are simply too much for our small nation.
This challenge is how the Government could increase surveillance over social media and stop any comment or posting that could sow discord among religious groups, especially from offshore. The scope of this task could be overwhelming due to the sheer volume of online postings. Would the Ministry share how it will filter feedback, conduct online checks and whether it will utilise technology, such as artificial intelligence or AI?
After identifying online threats, how could we enforce our ROs against online service providers to remove such provocative posts immediately to prevent them from being circulated in Singapore? Many of the providers may resist or ignore our demands, on the pretext of freedom of expression, even when such expressions include untruths, insults and calls to do harm. Are we able to impose effective restraints and meaningful penalties upon uncooperative companies?
In addition, would the law be applied to foreigners who have attempted to infiltrate and impose such provocative expressions from offshore? Do we maintain a blacklist of such perpetrators which Singaporeans can also access so that institutions and organisations will be mindful and think twice about giving them a platform to share their thoughts or give public talks? In Mandarin, Mr Speaker.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Here in Singapore, we must not allow anyone to attempt to sow mistrust among our racial and religious groups. Nobody is allowed to cross the OB markers using the pretext of freedom of belief and speech. However, we should not assume that everyone is clear about the OB markers. Therefore, public education is very important and it should be complemented with regular reminders.
I hope the Ministry will share its plans and measures for public education to continue educating Singaporeans, to strengthen mutual understanding of one another’s faiths and practices as well mutual respect and help. In addition, more can be done to encourage inter-religious cooperation. For example, we are already seeing many religious groups coming together to support each other e.g. recently, a Buddhist group helps with traffic control for visitors to a mosque. Another example is mosques working with churches and temples to help the needy regardless of race and religion.
Finally, I would like to ask about efforts to help with mediation when disputes involve different religious groups. For example, we have come across neighbours’ disputes arising from different religious and cultural practices, such as the burning of joss paper and even the placement of altars. Would the Ministry consider having a special mediation team to help resolving such disputes and to ensure that these cases can be handled sensitively and fairly? Thank you.
Ms Joan Pereira (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Speaker, Sir, I strongly support the amendments to the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act (MRHA).
Singapore is ranked as the most religiously diverse nation in the world by the Pew Research Centre. This is really quite remarkable, considering our small population and land size. Our religious diversity and social stability attest to the success of our policies to treat everyone equally, \"regardless of race, language or religion\", as stated in our citizens' National Pledge. This commitment extends to residents of other nationalities living and working here. Maintaining peaceful co-existence of people from so many different religious and racial groups and of different nationalities in a densely built-up city is no easy feat. We must never take religious harmony for granted nor let our guard down but continue to work on strengthening our social fabric through constant reviews and adjustments.
The MRHA has been instrumental in preventing anyone or group from inciting feelings of hostility towards people of different religious groups. To ensure that its powers remain effective, we need to revise its coverage to keep up with the times. The ways of communication have changed significantly and I view the expansion of the scope of Restraining Orders (ROs) as a necessity.
Today, unfiltered messages can spread through the Internet and social media like wild fire, reaching tens and hundreds of thousands in minutes and hours. Within that time, much damage can be done if ROs do not take immediate effect. As we have seen in incidents in other countries, the harm is not just hurt feelings, but the loss of precious lives, irreparable injuries, destruction of infrastructure and, worse, when people react emotionally and violently, often without checking the basis of what they have heard or read. We also need to factor in the precious time used up in the process of recognising verifying and identifying such online threats before issuing the RO. The current 14-day notice before the order can take effect is inadequate in our current environment.
Next, I want to state my support for the introduction of the Community Remedial Initiative which is non-mandatory and intended to be rehabilitative and restorative. I believe that a significant portion of the offenders will benefit from the opportunities to better understand themselves and their religion in the context of our multi-religious Singapore, and the religion or religions they have denigrated, through counselling or participation in activities. I am hopeful that ties can be mended.
While these individuals are going through CRI, they may not be able to earn a living or take care of their families as usual. Would there be help provided for their family members, such as counselling on financial and household management and even religious guidance, similar to assistance for families of the incarcerated? I am particularly worried about how the elderly and children in affected families will be impacted. I appeal to the Ministry to ensure that they will not go hungry and the children will also get to continue their schooling uninterrupted. This may also be a good time to identify how much influence the offenders' beliefs have on their family members, so that they can be similarly assisted and led away from misguided beliefs.
I have another concern which I seek clarification. It is stated that if the offender completes CRI, criminal prosecution cannot be taken against him. What is the risk of offenders choosing to undergo CRI, going through the motions without any sincere intention, in order to avoid criminal prosecutions? What is the Ministry's assessment of this scenario and the consequences of the offenders being let off, in a way, without penalties?
One of the safeguards against foreign influence is to require religious organisations to only open key positions to Singaporeans or permanent residents, with \"exemptions granted on a case-by-case basis\". Would the Ministry share some of the guidelines which inform such exemptions? My concern is that too much discretion will be given to the officers in charge and evaluation standards may be uneven.
Another safeguard is the requirement to disclose affiliations to foreign organisations. Many of the smaller religious bodies rely on volunteers and have very lean resources to draw upon. I seek the Ministry's assurance that the demands of the disclosure are not too onerous.
Next, would the Ministry elaborate on how to facilitate whistleblowing so that the authorities can pick up news and information of individuals or religious leaders fanning the flames of ill-will and hatred towards targeted groups as early as possible? On one hand, we want to deter unwarranted complaints or prank calls; on the other hand, the screening process should not be too onerous and discourage genuine reports. We also need to provide protection for whistleblowers and ensure anonymity.
Lastly, I want to ask about efforts to ensure the spread of public education on basic religious knowledge which is suitable for our multi-religious nation. It is very important that citizens and residents here at least attain a basic level of discernment and knowledge. Add these to mutual respect, tolerance and a gracious attitude, we will be able to enjoy the fruits of a harmonious and vibrant society for years to come. Sir, in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] (In Mandarin): Lastly, I want to ask about efforts to ensure the spread of public education on basic religious knowledge which is suitable for our multi-religious nation. Most people will not actively seek out general knowledge about other religions. For this reason, the Government must take on the task of pushing out key nuggets of information to the public, including young and old, on a sustainable basis. It is very important that citizens and residents attain at least a basic level of discernment and knowledge so that our community's foundation for religious harmony is firmly set. In addition, with mutual respect, tolerance and a gracious attitude, we will be able to enjoy the fruits of a harmonious and vibrant society for years to come. Thank you.
Mr Mohamed Irshad (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, the Pew Research Centre's ranking of Singapore as the most religiously diverse country in the world is an accolade that we ought to embrace proudly. All the world's great religions have a presence in Singapore – Christians, Buddhists, Taoists, Muslims, Hindus, Jains, Sikhs, Baha'is, Jews and Zoroastrians. This is a consequence of Singapore – from the time of historic Temasek – having been a Faith-Hub for leaders and missionaries of all the major religions. However, being a faith-hub, also brings its own set of challenges.
To deal with these challenges, in 1990, we enacted the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act (MRHA). The Act had two main objectives: firstly, to guide followers of different religions to exercise moderation and tolerance towards each other and their beliefs and not to instigate religious enmity or hatred; and, secondly, for religion and politics to be kept separate.
After almost 30 years, these two principles remain relevant. The proposed amendments are timely, well-calibrated and much needed in the face of technological disruptions and global threats to uphold peace, security and even sovereignty.
Today, I wish to speak on three areas – issuance of Restraining Orders, Community Remedial Initiative and foreign influence.
Firstly, on issuance of Restraining Orders. At an international hearing on fake news and disinformation in London on 27 November 2018, a Facebook executive admitted, in response to a question by Senior Minister of State Edwin Tong, that the company \"made a mistake\" in not removing a post that incited racial and religious hatred and violence in Sri Lanka and caused people to lose their lives. Perhaps, it was fitting that Facebook's founder and Chief Executive, Mark Zuckerburg, had earlier this year said that there was a need for governments and regulators to have \"a more active role” on how the social media and and Internet are regulated.\"
With the Internet and social media, quicker actions need to be taken to prevent statements which are offensive to religious communities from spreading here in Singapore. Social media is akin to forest fires, where a lit matchstick on a beautiful summer day can cause a massive wildfire. We, Singaporeans, know full well the effects of forest fires. Therefore, I welcome the move for the Restraining Order to take immediate effect before the offensive statement starts spreading like wildfire and causing irreversible damage to our social fabric and communal bonds.
Mr Speaker, we are also witnessing the rise of many charismatic and fanatic preachers who have built massive followings in the tens of millions online, espousing divisive values and teachings. A single offensive or thoughtless post by such figures can be seen by millions within a few hours thus creating a tense situation. How can we safeguard Singaporeans from having access to such content on social platforms given the introduction of the extra-territoriality clause in this amendment Bill? The revised process of Issuance of Restraining Orders is a step in the right direction.
Secondly, on Community Remedial Initiative (CRI). In keeping with the ethos of MRHA not being a punitive act, the CRI is a welcome addition. We have seen CRI in action on a few notable occasions in Singapore in recent times.
In 2017, an Imam of a mosque who had made controversial remarks about Christians and Jews apologised for his actions to a group of faith leaders. In 2018, a Pastor apologised to Muslim leaders for a guest US preacher’s hurtful statements on Islam. More recently, last month, as quoted by Minister, a social media influencer apologised for an insensitive remark about two Sikh gentlemen’s head-gears at the F1 Grand Prix and subsequently joined and took part in the community outreach efforts of the Sikh community.
In all three incidents above, the apologies rendered and subsequent interactions with the faith leaders and communities concerned were restorative, rehabilitative and I would say reconciliatory in nature. CRI was a reality without a name in all three incidents. For those who genuinely, without malice, cross the religious harmony line, CRI offers a fair and balanced means to set right what was made wrong. Can the Minister share how the CRI will be administered practically, and more specifically what sort of activities does the Ministry have in mind in carrying out the CRI?
Thirdly, on foreign influence, the term \"foreign influence\" need not connote a negative meaning completely. The Inter-Religious Organisation in Singapore is a living example of what constructive foreign influence can do for a multi-religious environment like Singapore. In 1949, Maulana Muhammad Abdul Aleem Siddiqui – known as 20th century’s roving ambassador of Islam – landed on our shores to great acclaim to deliver a message of peace. Representatives of the major religions were catalysed and met again in a series of two further meetings and it culminated in the formation of the body known as the IRO which marked its 70th anniversary just this year.
Singapore is very fortunate that our founding generation laid the foundations for a harmonious and peaceful country, with subsequent generations working hard to strengthen the trust, tolerance and mutual respect between the different faiths. Unfortunately, the world we live in today is starkly different and is definitely not a bed of roses. Going back to the second objective which I shared earlier on MRHA, religion and politics must be kept separate. However, it is simply not the case in today’s context where we find numerous nefarious examples of religion being used to advance political causes.
Just last month, Prime Minister Lee spoke in New York at the Appeal of Conscience Foundation Annual Awards Dinner where he warned about weaponisation of religion as a growing phenomenon in countries around the world where foreign actors influence and/or interfere in local religious organisations to exploit religious fault lines, cause social upheavals, and create political instability. We are witnessing many of these on our television screens every passing day and we must never allow religion to be weaponised in Singapore, or to be used as a front for other conflicts.
Mr Speaker, just recently, I attended a multilateral ASEAN engagement where I had the opportunity to interact with our ASEAN counterparts. In one of my discussion, it was shared that in the years leading up to the general elections, huge amounts of money from foreign sources were routed through local foundations and religious bodies to fund political campaigns and their agendas. We cannot allow religious bodies to be manipulated in the same fashion and the need to mitigate foreign influence is a necessary amendment to the Bill.
Mr Speaker, in my discussions with some key stakeholders, a few concerns were raised with regards to the amendments which I would like to put forth to the Minister to address:
Firstly, several of our religious leaders are deeply concerned about the repercussions of any possible genuine oversight on the disclosure of any one-time donation of $10,000 and above from foreign sources. This is especially so in the case of \"goodwill donations\" and \"cash gifts\" that are presented when a prayer is answered, or a vow is fulfilled or simply to seek the blessings of a guru or deity. They shared that they may not have adequate resources to dedicate for this disclosure purpose. How will the Ministry view and act on such cases?
Secondly, to allay the concerns of our religious leaders who fear that the regulations might be too onerous for them to fulfill, can I propose the Ministry set up a help desk or a resource centre to educate and assist religious groups to fulfill and comply with the necessary requirements?
Thirdly, Mr Speaker, what is the Ministry’s view and stand on foreign donations received by non-registered local religious groups affiliated with international religious organisations? In particular, those operating under the banner of private enterprises or social organisations in the form of educational establishments, training agencies, meditation centres or any such other entities?
I believe that the amendments will not affect the work of religious organisations in Singapore, but it will certainly require greater transparency from them in terms of who they are getting their funds from, who are their leaders, and who they are affiliated to internationally.
The possibility of manipulation by foreign agents is very real and religious organisations should view these amendments positively to protect their congregations and Singapore. Of course, no one likes controls, but it is inevitable to maintain harmony. For the larger common good, these are necessary. Mr Speaker, allow me to conclude in Tamil.
(In Tamil): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Religious Harmony is a uniquely Singaporean effort. While many of us may disregard this, we must remember in Singapore we have made a concerted effort over many generations to achieve this.
This did not happen by chance; many years of forging friendships, fostering understanding, building mutual trust, and creating legislative structures, Singapore is an inevitable \"Faith-hub\" today.
In the past 30 years, we did not have the need to use this Maintenance of Religious Harmony law.
The proposed amendments in this Bill should ensure religious harmony in our society, not just for the next 30 years but for many more years beyond. This is a testament to the will and courage of our religious, community and political leaders – both past and present.
It is therefore for these reasons of meeting today's challenges and needs that I stand in support of the amendments to this Bill.
(In English): Mr Speaker, we have never had the need to use the Act in almost three decades of its existence. I pray that the amendments will be deterrent enough to warrant many more years of the Act not being used. Mr Speaker, I stand in support of this Bill.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, this Bill relates to a very fundamental tenet of Singapore society. Singaporeans often proudly cite the fact that Singapore is a country where many religions can co-exist peacefully and even thrive. We cannot take this state of affairs for granted.
This Bill is acknowledgment that we must constantly update our legal framework to address new challenges. The most pressing ones we face right now are the challenges posed by social media and the Internet, as well as the trend of foreign influence exploiting religious fault lines. The Ministry has closely consulted religious leaders in drafting the Bill and I understand that there is strong support from religious leaders for these amendments. I am heartened to see that while the challenges have evolved, the Government’s consultative relationship with religious leaders and groups when it comes to religious matters has not changed.
Sir, I support the amendments proposed but my concern is how effective they would be and I would like to seek some clarifications.
The Bill seeks to prevent foreign actors from adversely affecting religious harmony in Singapore by imposing requirements relating to citizenship or permanent residence requirements on the leadership of religious organisations and the disclosure of large donations, amongst others.
A Restraining Order can also be issued to prohibit a religious organisation from receiving donations from specific or all foreign donors, to require the entire governing body to be Singapore citizens and to require specific foreigners to be suspended or removed from office. However, citizenship or permanent residence is a very rough proxy for whether an individual is under foreign influence.
Earlier this year, Senior Parliamentary Secretary shared that 24 radicalised Singaporeans have been dealt with under the Internal Security Act since 2015. Just this year alone, two Singaporean men were detained in January, while another two were detained in May and July. All four men had been radicalised by pro-ISIS elements. They were Singapore citizens but acting under the influence of foreign actors.
How does this Bill propose to address foreign influence on religious organisations where the influence does not come directly from foreign actors, but from citizens or permanent residents who are acting under foreign influence?
Section 8(2A) specifies the reasons for which a Restraining Order may be made. On what grounds under section 8(2A) can a restraining order be made to address foreign influence exerted through Singapore citizens in a religious organisation?
Next, I support the requirement for religious organisations to disclose \"foreign donations\" of $10,000 or more. But with so many exemptions proposed, my concern is whether this requirement will be effective. We are exempting \"foreigners in Singapore on long-term passes\". Why? It is probably more justifiable to exempt Singapore Citizens and Singapore Permanent Residents. But since the amendment is proposed to safeguards against foreign influence. Can the Minister clarify why the exemption is extended to \"foreigners in Singapore on long-term passes\"?
The exemption is also for anonymous donations like those made via donation boxes placed at the religious site. This exemption seems quite straight forward since we do not know who made those donations. However, how will we prevent people from exploiting this loophole? A foreigner could inform a religious organisation that he or she is making a donation to of $10,000 or more but to circumvent the need to disclose this donation to authorities, he or she will drop the donation in the donation box. He or she could also ask a foreigner in Singapore on a long-term pass to help make that donation but still alert the religious organisation that the donation is from him or her.
I suggest that we also require religious organisations to disclose any correspondence with foreigners with regard to donations of large amount. This can be similar to the proposed requirement for religious organisations to disclose affiliations to foreign individuals or organisations, which are in a position of control or power over the religious organisation. Can I also ask if the Ministry is tracking how much foreign donations a religious organisation is receiving annually and also how much it is receiving anonymously?
There might be cases where a religious organisation who receives a significant amount of foreign donations but does not need to disclose their foreign donations as it is from different sources and each source pf donations is under $10,000.
I do believe that we should monitor this, be alerted when and pay attention to religious organisations who have significant amounts of or sudden increases in foreign donation which does not need to be disclosed. This should apply also to sudden increases in anonymous donations.
Beyond these suggestions, can Minister provide more assurances that the exemptions proposed will not become loopholes, which makes it harder to safeguards against foreign influence?
Lastly, section 16H provides for the Community Remedial Initiative or CRI as a reconciliatory approach for addressing offending behaviour that has wounded the feelings of a religious community. The CRI has a similar objective as a Community Service Order or CSO, which is a sentence that can be imposed for an offender to make amends to the community by performing unpaid community service under the supervision of an authorised officer. The difference between the CRI and a CSO is that the decision to offer the CRI is made by the Minister, making it different from a CSO, which is a punishment imposed by a judge.
The CRI is intended to be offered at the pre-trial stage as opposed to a CSO which features at the post-trial, sentencing stage. A CSO may not be a sentencing option for some of the new offences in this Bill because a CSO cannot be imposed for an offence, which is punishable with a term of imprisonment which exceeds three years. The offence of inciting hatred and ill-will is punishable with imprisonment of five years while the offence of urging violence on religious grounds or against religious groups is punishable with imprisonment up to 10 years.
However, both the CRI and a CSO have similar underlying rationales of rehabilitation and education. The need to rehabilitate and re-educate an offender is still present even after an offender has been tried. Yet, under section 16H(5)(b), a CRI cannot be entered into after the commencement of trial. Will the Minister consider extending the CRI as a sentencing option?
Sir, I stand in support of the Bill. However, beyond the MRHA or the proposed amendments, what is even more remarkable is the collaborative relationship between the Government and our religious organisations. The religious groups have a close relationship based on mutual trust and respect, and frequently interact through platforms such as the Inter-Religious Organisation. The success of our multi-religious society lies not just our laws but also our approach in managing inter-religious relations.
In the press coverage leading up to the second reading of the Bill, it has been often highlighted that the Act has never once been invoked since it came into effect nearly 30 years ago. I hope our focus will continue to remain on education and building inter-religious ties, and that we never have to resort to the mechanisms under the MRHA.
Mr Murali Pillai (Bukit Batok): Mr Speaker, Sir, I join the hon Members who spoke before me such as Mr Mohamed Irshad as well as Mr Louis Ng, who stated that the MRHA has a strong signalling effect even though it has not been invoked to date.
The late Dr Ong Chit Chung, former Member of Parliament for Bukit Batok and my predecessor, stated presciently in this House at the Third Reading of the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Bill on 9 November 1990, and I quote, \"This Bill is a preventive measure. It need not be used at all if all is well. But its very presence will help to check mischievous or misguided persons. It helps to maintain law and order, without which no religious beliefs could be upheld or practised in peace.\"
After almost 30 years, it is timely to review the MRHA to ensure that it is strengthened to deal with evolving issues that potentially have an impact on maintenance of religious harmony in Singapore.
I note that the principal aim of Amendment Bill is to deal with the challenge of social media which can cause a viralling and deleterious effect on our society very quickly, and possible foreign interference in local religious organisations. It also consolidates all the criminal provisions dealing with religious harmony, previously under the Penal Code, under the MRHA.
I support the aims of the Bill in principle. I note also that it also has broad support of the local religious leaders. The hon Member, Ms Sylvia Lim, has some reservations that the religious leaders made statements to this effect. The suggestion, I believe, she made is that by making such statements, they may have crossed the religion-political divide. With respect, I disagree.
These statements as I recall were issued after MHA actively sought the leaders’ views. This is a responsible thing to do because a number of the provisions in this Bill are focused on religious leaders. In fact, the Select Committee in 1990 also benefited from the views of the religious leaders. It should be borne in mind that the religious leaders consulted, whether they supported the Bill, was not, pardon the pun, preordained. As it turned out, after the consultative process and after their views had been taken into account into the Bill is presented in this House, they gave their support. So, the leaders’ expression of support, or for the matter, even if they have expressed reservation or dissent to the Bill in these circumstances, does not, in my respectful view, equate to mixing religion with politics.
I have three points to make on the Bill proper and one query on the proposed Minister’s powers to make subsidiary legislation under this Bill.
First, the removal of the requirement that the Minister may issue an RO only after sending of notice and receiving of representation to the person within a 14-day period. A number of hon Members spoke about this.
I join Ms Anthea Ong in making the point that the focus of the removal of the 14-day period appears to be because of the fact that you have such statements being made on the Internet and there could be a viralling effect very quickly. But the wording of the provision applies broadly. So, in those circumstances, I wonder whether the rationale behind this provision in the first place that has been identified by the Select Committee, as a the safeguard, which is through requiring the Minister to take notice of the individual’s representation before proceeding further, can be adopted for situations which do not involve the Internet. And what is not clear is that at this point in time, whether the Ministry could say that, most likely, all the situations, or most of the situations, we are dealing with representations or statements made through the Internet. That part is not clear and I would be grateful for the hon Minister’s views on this point.
Next, I move on to the proposed section 16H which deals with the Community Remedial Initiative (CRI) and many Members spoke positively about this. It is meant to rehabilitate the person in question, and to promote reconciliation with the wounded community and victims. The hon Minister’s reference to the laudable initiative by the Young Sikhs Association, inviting a blogger who made a statement which can be seen as offensive, to a Sikh gurdwara with a view to rehabilitate her is an excellent example of how the CRI can work in future.
The starting point, however, is that the person in question is believed to have committed offences of causing ill-will between different groups or wounding religious feelings of any other person. These are offences under Penal Code provisions which are proposed to be ported over to MRHA.
I agree with the porting over, but my concern is the interplay between the Attorney-General’s powers and the Minister’s powers. Under article 35(8) of the Constitution, it is the Attorney-General who has the power, exercisable at his discretion, to institute, conduct or discontinue any proceedings for any offence.
Here, Minister decides whether or not to offer the CRI, and while the CRI is implemented, there can be no prosecution. So, you could have a situation where the Attorney-General may decide to prosecute a person only not to be able to proceed with the issuance of the CRI by the Minister. Would it not be better to vest with the Attorney-General this power, or at least require Minister to get the Attorney-General’s consent beforehand.
The final point, Sir, is on section 18: all orders and decisions made under the MRHA are not justiciable, meaning it cannot be called into question by the Court. Now, in this regard, I declare my interest as a lawyer in private practice. This provision invited much scrutiny in this House when the Bill was debated in 1990. The decision to oust the jurisdiction of the Court is based on mainly the following reasons. A decision to issue an RO is a political decision, not a judicial decision. The Executive Government is ultimately accountable to our people through the ballot box. This compares in stark contrast to judges who are appointed to their post. Court proceedings would not be suitable to deal with such matters because they are open proceedings and may unwittingly incite hatred between different religious groups. And one good example of this is the Maria Hertogh riots which happened in the 1950s where a Christian judge ordered a girl, who was brought up in a Muslim community, be returned to her Christian biological parents. This caused riots in which 18 people died. There was widespread property damage and fire too. There is also a need to move fast and decisively, and this is something where Court proceedings may not necessarily be an answer.
I have previously made a suggestion in this House this provision be re-looked with a view to allow Court scrutiny and welcome this opportunity to elaborate on my reasons.
At the heart of the issue is to ensure that the MRHA will continue to enjoy legitimacy amongst our people. Allowing decisions under the MRHA to be judicially reviewed by the Court does not lead to a replacement of a political decision with a judicial one. The focus is on the process and whether there are reasonable grounds to support the decision of the Executive. This is already the case for orders of detention made by the Minister under the Criminal Law Temporary Provisions Act (CLTPA).
Any concerns that the Court proceedings which are open to public may inflame tensions can be dealt with procedurally. Most importantly, there is a safeguard against abuse of power in the future.
It is not enough to say that Executive is still accountable to the public through elections. The concern I have is to ensure legitimacy of MRHA. This is not gained just by obtaining the imprimatur of the majority who voted in the Government. It is also important to deal with minority interests. This is to ensure that all segments of our society are united.
Lord Sumption, a retired UK Law Lord, pithily put this point across extra-judicially in the 2019 Reith Lectures. He said, \"Majority rule is the basic principle of democracy, but that only means that a majority is enough to authorise the State’s acts. It isn’t enough to make them legitimate. That is because majority rule is no more than a rule of decision. It does nothing to accommodate our differences, it simply restates them in numerical terms.\"
[Deputy Speaker (Mr Lim Biow Chuan) in the Chair]
One good example of taking care of the minority interests is that the Presidential Council of Minority Rights (PCMR)'s articles in the Constitution dealing with Acts that may discriminate against minorities. Now, this is a point that was raised by the Prime Minister when he was Deputy Prime Minister during the Second Reading of the MRHA in the House. Our Courts should be allowed to act as a safeguard against abuse of power against individuals in future. Members of the public are not necessarily in a good position to parse through evidence and draw the necessary conclusions. Judges on the other hand have the skill and ability and they are also highly regarded as an independent pillar in our Westminster-style Government.
The point I make is not new, as the hon Member, Mr Pritam Singh noted. The Minister himself made the same points at the Second Reading of the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Bill in 1990. I stress, my concern is ensuring that for the next 30 years and beyond, the MRHA provisions will continue to enjoy legitimacy.
The hon Minister spoke about the rise in identity politics in the world. That is something may catch root even in Singapore. And having judicial oversight would help keep our community together. And I would welcome his views on this.
Finally, Sir, I wish to refer to the proposed section 19(g) of the Act. There is a reference to creation of offences which shall be punishable with a fine not exceeding $5,000 or with imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or with both. The way it reads is that it is proposed that the Minister creates these offences. The punishment provisions are not light. Would it not be better for the Parliament to create the offences arising from breach of regulations that the Minister prescribes? Or in any event, what are the offences that are being proposed? With that, I support the Bill.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Deputy Speaker, in Malay, please.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, this review of the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act is a timely move. Growing connectivity, be it the widespread proliferation of social media or convenient travel across physical borders, has allowed religious organisations and followers around the world to reach out to one another. And with our nation located at the crossroads of this region, it is increasingly common for religious leaders to travel to Singapore to conduct seminars. In this age of the internet, their books, for example, are readily available online. Some have made their way into local book stores. Some speakers may even make use of social media to broadcast their seminars via Youtube and other platforms without stepping foot in Singapore, and believers can learn from them in the comfort of their own homes.
For those who have religious beliefs, religion gives one guidance and comfort when one is going through a bad patch in one’s life. As Singapore is a cosmopolitan city with people from around the world taking up permanent or semi-permanent residency, it is important that their religions remain accessible to them. Mutual respect and understanding of various religious practices have allowed Singapore to remain a safe, stable and prosperous nation, and this must continue.
This was demonstrated, for instance, in Toa Payoh East-Novena recently, when non-Malay/Muslim volunteers jointly helped to pay for the airfare costs of a Malay/Muslim grandmother whose grandson was fatally shot by extremists in Chrischurch.
Nevertheless, I note that there are some people who teach religion or preach in the privacy of their own domains, such as at home, private halls and so forth. These are not open to the public, and only people who have been invited are allowed. These mostly consist of their own circle of friends, who would then, through word of mouth, invite their own friends, and so on. This is common among non-Singaporeans or foreigners who may prefer a group that shares their nationality and language, but it also happens among some locals. Some are splinter groups with a small following; perhaps they could not agree with the mainstream ideologies of their religion, so they decided to improvise.
My concern is that, since we do not know what goes behind closed doors, the organisers may try to promote a political cause, or even impart extremist ideologies under the guise of religion. How do we monitor such groups to ensure that they conduct their activities without breaking any laws, when regulators are unable to monitor what they say or communicate?
Moreover, if foreign guest speakers are invited to speak without a permit, as would likely be the case given the private nature of the group, would this be against the law?
In addition, the topic may not have any religious connotation. For example, it could have an innocuous title like “Challenges we face in our life”, for example, and the speaker can then weave in religious ideas and so forth.
Then there are cases of religious teachers who are self-proclaimed religious experts, who approach individual places of worship, get a small audience of people, preach, collect a donation, then disappear. Or if they are foreigners or non-Singapore citizens, they may leave the country. Sometimes, they don’t lecture, but they may screen a video. Could the Minister clarify if this constitutes as a definition of preaching? Ultimately, it would likely boil down to one of the attendees to tip-off the police, or their loved ones to realise that something is amiss and make a police report.
The recent case of domestic helpers who were radicalised is indeed an eye-opener. We must remember that radicalisation can affect anyone, man and woman, young and old, and from all walks of life. How do employers look out for such cases? For instance, domestic helpers have their days off and are able to go out and mix freely. Once these amendments are made, local religious organisations are required to declare their associations or affiliations to foreigners or foreign organisations, if any. But what if the organisation is affiliated to an overseas organisation that is unapproved under local regulations? Would the local organisation have to delink itself?
Next, I would like to ask, what if a speaker is from a diplomatic mission? If he addresses an audience on religious matters, would he be governed under this law or is he exempted because of his diplomatic status?
I applaud the government’s determination to prevent the spread of offensive statements against any religious group. I think it could also happen the other way around when a religious group unintentionally offends another religious group or group of people. And there are words, for example, like “heathen” or “pagan” or “infidels”, or “idolater” which can inflame feelings and be regarded as offensive under certain circumstances. Could Minister offer some guide on the usage of such words in terms of their definition and their use within this Act?
Finally, I applaud the introduction of the Community Remedial Initiative. Many offensive and insensitive acts to other religions or races occur due to lack of awareness rather than out of hatred. I note one recent incident, that was already highlighted by several Members in this Chamber, where a social media influencer offended members of the Sikh community with her controversial remarks. The Young Sikh Association (YSA) reached out to her and invited her to the Central Sikh Temple so they could share more about their religion with her. She even got to participate in some of their activities and it was a good learning experience for everyone.
This is a great example of a remedial initiative to educate the offender. Had the incident simply ended with angry netizens heaping criticisms on her, there would only be tension and anger between all parties, and nothing constructive comes out of this. I hope this initiative can be made mandatory for all offenders. And certainly, those who may not have broken the law, but affected a group of people with their remarks in relation to race and religious matters, should be encouraged to take up the opportunity to learn from such initiatives. Religious organisations and communities can play their part in actively reaching out, like what YSA did.
Therefore, Mr Speaker, I support the Bill. Thank you.
Ms Irene Quay Siew Ching (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we are witnessing a sharp increase in sectarian and religious violence in the world and Singapore is not unsusceptible to such external influences. As such, we need to be mindful of the aspects which could pose challenges to religious harmony in our society.
Immigration is one such aspect. New citizens and foreigners may not be familiar with living in a multicultural and multi-religious environment and there may be more diversity in the practice of faith, which can cause potential rifts and conflict among practitioners.
While I was going through the Bill, I thought of Muhammed Haniff Abdul Razak, my long-time family friend, who has devoted a big part of his life to inter and intra-faith harmony work. Haniff was previously serving on the Islamic Religious Council in Singapore and was tasked by the MUIS President Encik Alami Musa to set up a Harmony Centre in Singapore. Together with Imam Habib Hassan and Ms Hairani Hassan, they came together to devise a concept and pioneered this initiative that provides inter-faith services in Singapore.
This Singaporean concept of a Harmony Centre has deeply impressed many interfaith organisations across the world. And, with that, in 2010, Haniff was invited by the esteemed Prof Venerable Master Chin Kung and the Late Mr Ng Kim Suan to set up a similar centre in Australia, and since then, shared and replicated this model with many other countries such as UK, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Thailand, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and many others. This clearly demonstrates how our little red dot can be an incubator for innovative models and influencing practices all across the world.
I was introduced to several religious leaders, educators and interfaith advocates through Haniff and while most of them are generally supportive of this Bill's amendments, they do have some concerns that they have laid out in the hope that the Government will consider them.
First, I would like to talk about the introduction of mandatory declarations for foreign donations of $10,000 per transaction to safeguard against foreign influence. Mr Deputy Speaker, while they are supportive in principle of the mandatory declaration for foreign donations, they would like to find out how was this quantum decided, because the value seems modest in today's day and age.
We must place trust in our respected and learned religious leaders to be accountable, and reduce the administrative burden on these organisations. Can MHA provide evidence or examples of past cases where foreign countries exerted influence and control over religious organisations through donations? How much were such donations? How is the proposed quantum compared with figures used, let us say, to monitor for money laundering activities or terrorism financing activities in Singapore?
Some religious leaders are concerned that this requirement will add on more administrative work and may deter future donations needed to support their community work, as some donors may prefer to remain anonymous.
As there are many ways for external influence to act on a country and disrupt societal harmony, would it not be possible to deal with these concerns as a whole through a Foreign Interference or Social Harmony Act? This way, if practices are breached, regardless of whether they are religious in nature or not, they can be dealt with similarly, instead of incorporating into this Bill and putting an unflattering spotlight on religion.
Another concern is about leadership requirements placed on Singapore’s religious organisations. It is stipulated that their governing bodies and top leaders are required to be Singaporeans or Singapore Permanent Residents. All religious societies in Singapore have their origins overseas and it is not uncommon that their leaders are appointed from their head organisations overseas. I understand that MHA do have provisions for exemptions on a case-by-case basis. Can I ask if MHA can elaborate further on the criteria for exemptions, so that this process is more open and transparent? Can it provide assurance that this change will not compromise their leadership appointment process?
MHA has been very vigilant in monitoring religious matters happening in Singapore. We all know the stakes are very high when it comes to maintaining racial and religious harmony and any imbalance can severely affect security, peace and stability.
We can do more to strengthen community cohesion and engagement through forming a conclave of renowned, highly respectable community leaders, and empower them as spokesmen to front religious sensitive matters. Such an initiative is apparent to MUIS, but more can be done to extend this to other religious organisations. This can help to promote community ownership for sensitive matters related to religion. A select group of official, religious mediators can also support these leaders through mediation and cross religion practice awareness training, also coordinated and assisted by MHA.
Allow me to posit a case where religious sensitivity was involved. An elderly Muslim man lived alone and was neglected by his family. To stave off loneliness, he joined a Church, participated in Christian activities and over the years decided to embrace Christianity. However, he became very ill and one of his last wishes was to die as a Christian and be buried according to Christian rites.
Subsequently, the family came to know of this and made a Court injunction to stop him from being buried with Christian rites. The Church countered this challenge and brought the matter to Court. For such a scenario, religious mediators are much needed by the authorities to step in and find an amicable solution.
Greater emphasis should also be placed on intra-faith harmony. While the IRO Council promotes inter-faith harmony, it is equally important for us to focus on intra-faith harmony. There are many examples of intra-faith conflicts all around the world for us to learn from such as the Shia-Sunni conflict in the Middle East.
Hence, it is important for us to follow the principle of \"every Singaporean matters\". Despite the occurrences of sensitive disputes, we are all Singaporeans regardless of religion, and one has to acknowledge that all religions form part of our social fabric too. So, perhaps the IRO can consider expanding its membership to include other faith sect representatives, so that we can work together towards a more inclusive society.
I also understand that the National Steering Committee (NSC) on Racial and Religious Harmony is a national platform built to bring together top levels of community, government and faith leaders. With the growth of inter-faith organisations in Singapore, perhaps NSC can be the central body to bring these inter-faith groups together to discuss how each organisation can work in synergy, and be aligned with the national strategy and direction. One of the potential areas of collaboration could be developing authentic religious educational materials for MOE to raise awareness in students.
Currently, there is no syllabus in schools imparting knowledge about our various religions. This prevents citizens from having a stronger understanding of each religion so that they feel comfortable and safe to engage in discussion. A successful, harmonious society should be one where we understand each other’s religion and are able to openly share without causing tension, rather than one where people choose to be silent and harbour ignorant ideals of another’s religion.
Mr Deputy Speaker, as we ended our conversation, Haniff also shared that there are still day-to-day challenges and religious harmony efforts remains a work in progress. I quote Prime Minister Lee’s recent speech in New York that \"Singapore is ranked the most religiously diverse country in the world, but its harmonious society did not come about by chance.\"
His words remind me of the numerous unsung heroes in Singapore, committed to their vital roles to bring peace and harmony to our country. They include our inter-Ministerial colleagues, our Home team, religious leaders, interfaith advocates, responsible media and a strong Singaporean community.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to summarise. Firstly, to form a conclave of official and religious mediators to strengthen community ownership regarding sensitive religious matters. Next, IRO should be as inclusive as possible with the various faiths to ensure religious harmony. Finally, the Government should empower NSC to bring in faith groups together for a common cause and promote religious awareness education in Singapore.
I look forward to MHA’s response to my proposals and the concerns raised by some of our religious leaders.
Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar (Ang Mo Kio): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to speak on this Bill. The maintenance of religious harmony, the upkeep of and the elimination of any threat to public peace and public order, are paramount to Singapore. We must do all we can to preserve the religious harmony that is critical for the survivability of Singapore. I fully support the amendments in this Bill which are aimed at maintaining this harmony.
There are some areas of the Bill to which I seek clarification. Before I seek my clarifications, please allow me to speak in Malay.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] We all fundamentally agree that it is important for Singapore to maintain racial harmony. This peaceful and harmonious environment is created by establishing trust between the different races and religions that was imbued since independence by many of our community leaders, including our accredited asatizahs, as well as our other community leaders.
However, the racial harmony that we enjoy can become fragile and easily destroyed if we are not careful and vigilant in maintaining the strong bonds that exist between us.
We must recognize and admit that there are certain groups that want to unravel or destroy the bonds of trust between the different races and religions in Singapore. Religious beliefs and ethnicity are matters that are close to the hearts of Singaporeans. As Singaporeans, we can practice our own religions peacefully and undisturbed by anyone. This situation did not exist by chance, and must be looked after judiciously and wisely. Hence, I welcome the Ministry of Home Affairs’ move to propose amendments to this act in order to further strengthen the laws that safeguard racial and religious harmony in Singapore.
(In English): As mentioned earlier, Mr Deputy Speaker, there are some areas of the Bill in which I seek clarifications.
First, I support the need for immediate, pre-emptive and decisive actions to be taken to maintain racial and religious tolerance and harmony, and to remove threats to public peace and public order. Hence, I support the amendment to allow the Minister to “make a Restraining Order against any religious group for the purposes specified in subsection (2A) if the Minister is of the opinion that it is necessary or expedient” to do so.
However, can the Minister give the assurance that: (a) the expanded powers conferred on the Minister are justified and grounded on relevant intelligence gathered and established facts; and (b) that no particular religious or racial groups would feel that they are being unfairly targeted?
Second, the definition of “anonymous donation”. I understand the need for a “Know-Your-Donor” process or KYD to be carried out, but the way in which “anonymous donation” is defined in the Bill may bring about potential disputes and loopholes. For instance, there may be a donor who is known to a person or persons in a religious organisation, but who decides to give an “anonymous donation” by dropping in a sum of money to a donation box of the organisation, and where the act and purpose of the donation has been made known to the organisation.
In this case, in terms of audit and accounting, the donor is anonymous. But in reality, the donor is known to someone in the organisation and the act, and purpose, of the donation, is also known. In this case, how can the proper KYD be carried out? How will the donation be returned to the donor? Will interactions and communication between the donor and known person or persons in the organisation be more closely scrutinised? Are there ways in which the Minister can exercise his power to obtain further information about the donor?
Third, the appointment of a “competent authority”. What are the qualities expected of this “competent authority” that provides advice to the Minister on matters pertaining to Restraining Orders? To what extent does the Minister seek the counsel of this “competent authority” on matters pertaining to Restraining Orders? Will this “competent authority” be someone from the Presidential Council of Religious Harmony (PCRH)?
Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to reiterate the need for a cohesive and strong multi-religious and multi-racial Singapore society where our diversity strengthens our social fabric, rather than weaken it. Both our diversity and social cohesion are equally precious and important to us, and it is imperative that both are upheld and protected. I am confident the amendments in this Bill will help to further strengthen our social cohesion, provide greater protection to our religious and racial harmony, and ensure public peace and order in our society. Notwithstanding the clarifications I seek, I support this Bill.
Mr Terence Ho Wee San (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, maintaining religious harmony in Singapore. In Mandarin, please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Singapore is multi-religious and multiracial society. For many years, Singaporeans have witnessed that different races and religions co-existing harmoniously, but we cannot take it for granted.
The Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act (MRHA) was enacted in 1990 to lay out fundamental principles in a multi-religious society so that different religions can co-exist peacefully. According to the Act, the Government has the power to take actions against those who instigate hatred between religious groups, issue Restraining Orders, and forbid them to make speeches to religious groups or distribute publications. The Act also established the Presidential Council for Religious Harmony which provides information and reports to the Government in relation to religious harmony matters.
As time changes, ill-intended radicals can make use of the various new media to create xenophobia, and extremist groups will even stage terror attacks to stir up social unrest. What is unsettling is that terrorism is also threatening Singapore. According to statistics from MHA, the past few years have seen a rising trend of radicalisation. The Government is aware of this worrying trend and has taken more measures to prevent the problem from getting worse. Hence, I agree that MRHA must be kept up-to-date to safeguard Singapore's religious harmony.
We must work together to maintain and strengthen our religious harmony. We have also set up the Inter-Racial and Religious Confidence Circles ( IRCC) to strengthen social cohesion and expand our contact network. MCCY set up SGSecure Community Network two years ago to support the SGSecure movement, helping IRCCs grassroots' work.
Over the years, Singapore's different races and religions have been living peacefully together. They have always been accommodating, which sets a key tone for social stability. For example, Singapore Buddhist Federation seeks to promote cultural education and groom the future generation. They also founded schools, childcare centres and Buddhist youth groups. Through its bursary awards, the Federation provides various social services to needy students from different races. The Federation spares no effort in promoting religious harmony and plays an important role in maintaining Singapore's racial and religious harmony. These activities help to strengthen bonding amongst Singaporeans and build a common identity.
The Al-Istighfar Mosque at Pasir Ris provides guided tours to non-Muslims and introduced an initiative called \"Water For All\" to benefit different races and religions, and to deepen the understanding between one another. YMCA organises many local and overseas community services. In 2018, they accumulated more than 90,000 hours. The volunteers have made an impact on all members of the community, regardless of race, language or religion. There are many more such examples.
Besides MHRA, we can still do more. I recommend that the Government include Culture Studies in our education curriculum. To respect and understand one another is the foundation of a united Singapore, especially because we are a multiracial, multi-religious society. Integrating Culture Studies into students' curriculum will allow students to study the similarities and the differences between different cultures, providing a platform for different races to interact with one another. Just like Social Studies lessons in school, I think Culture Studies will help Singaporeans to better understand a particular culture and better communicate with people from other races. These lessons can be thought provoking as well, inspiring us to learn from one another. They can make us more considerate and understanding. When we interact with people from other religions, we should accommodate one another. The friendship and understanding between our different races in Singapore is not formed overnight. Instead, mutual trust and good relations are built over years through common experiences and interactions. These valuable social assets must be passed down to the future generations.
In conclusion, MHRA must be kept up-to-date. Religious leaders, community leaders and Singaporeans must work together to build a united Singapore. The implementation of Culture Studies can aid this process. This goes in line with our Pledge:
We, the citizens of Singapore,
Pledge ourselves as one united people,
Regardless of race, language or religion,
To build a democratic society based on justice and equality,
So as to achieve happiness, prosperity and progress for our nation.
(In English): Deputy Speaker, Sir, Singapore is a multiracial society. As Singaporeans, we observe that followers of different religions exercise understanding and tolerance. The Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act (MRHA) is the law that was enacted in 1990 to help authorities prevent friction and misunderstanding between religious groups. However, with the proliferation of social media, one with ill intention may use it to divide Singaporeans. As such, we need to keep this law up-to-date and I am in support of this amendment Bill. However, beyond supporting, I believe there are more can be done.
Strengthening our social cohesion is a shared responsibility for all races and religions. Everyone plays a part to safeguard our way of life and keep each other safe. The Inter-Racial and Religious Confidence Circles (IRCC) are inter-faith platforms in every constituency, formed to promote racial and religious harmony. The work of the IRCCs is instrumental in strengthening our social cohesion and supports the SGSecure movement. At present, the IRCCs deepen people's understanding of the various faiths, beliefs and practices through inter-faith and inter-ethnic themed activities such as heritage trails, inter-faith talks and various ethnic and religious celebrations.
Throughout these years, all races and religion live harmoniously together, with understanding and respect for one another. Our religious groups play an important role. For example, the Singapore Buddhist Federation (SBF) seeks to promote culture, education and social welfare. They, too, help to groom the future generation and founded Schools, Child Care Centre, youth groups and so on. SBF awards annual Bursary Awards to needy students in Primary, Secondary school and Junior Colleges regardless of race or religion and this benefits students from all backgrounds.
Also, initiatives such as “Water For All” and guided mosque tours for non-Muslims are testament to Masjid Al-Istighfar’s commitment to serving the community at large, and strengthening inter-faith relations. The Young Men’s Christian Association (YMCA) organises many local and overseas community services. In 2018, they accumulated more than 90,000 hours; the local community services clocked 31,740 hours and overseas services clocked 64,840 hours. The volunteers served and impacted all members of the community, regardless of race, language or religion. And there are many more examples.
Other than the MHRA, I do recommend that the government implement “culture studies”. The study of culture and heritage, cultural elements of each race and religion allows Singaporeans to learn, understand and appreciate the different groups. Just like Social Studies lessons in schools, the culture studies lessons, integrated into students’ curriculum, could be a platform for discussions on the similarities and differences between each race and religion, thus fostering deeper connections and friendships among Singaporeans. These thought-provoking lessons aim to enhance understanding, as well as empathy. In Singapore, the friendship and tacit understanding of different ethnic groups in our country did not happen overnight. They are fundamentally based on accumulated experiences, interactions, understanding, and built on mutual trust and good relations. And this valuable social asset must continue and get passed down to the future generations.
In conclusion, updating the MHRA is a move which will strengthen and focus efforts to maintain religious harmony in Singapore, yet we should also keep motivating religious groups, to do bonding and cultural events and practices. The implementation of culture studies classes, through concerted efforts, will also aid in maintaining peace and harmony in Singapore.
Mr Douglas Foo (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, please allow me to declare my interest as Chairman of Sakae Holdings Ltd, President of the Singapore Manufacturing Federation, Vice-Chairman of the Singapore Business Federation and Vice-President of the Singapore National Employers Federation. I rise in support of the amendments to the Bill.
As both an employer and a representative of the Singapore business community, there is no doubt that the religious harmony that we now enjoy in Singapore should not be taken for granted. As Prime Minister Lee noted in his recent address in New York, our approach is \"strictly secular, but not anti-religious\". That many religions are able to co-exist harmoniously in our small island-nation brings valuable diversity to our economy. More importantly, employers having a peace of mind for a stable and reliable workforce reaps significant intangible benefits. By the same coin, employees can take heart in planning their careers knowing that they are not discriminated against by virtue of their religion.
Our Singapore today is a uniquely Singaporean society where all religions are accorded respect. Race and religion are both personally sensitive matters and are held close to the heart by our people. The 1964 racial riots where violent clashes between communities of different races demonstrated how intolerance and a lack of understanding can lead to detrimental results.
Since Independence, a number of social constructs were implemented to encourage inclusion and to foster deeper relations between racial and religious groups within the community. This approach has yielded fruit over the years and I believe all Singaporeans have memories visiting homes of friends of different races and religions during the different festivals and occasions in a year. These are activities that are commonplace for us and are easily taken for granted in today’s society.
Yet, it is important that we and the younger generation do not forget that this state of harmony definitely did not happen by accident, but rather by foresight by our leaders in the formative years of our nation. It is then our responsibility to continue to do our best to ensure we protect this harmony that is uniquely Singapore.
The amendments proposed in the Bill are therefore timely. As noted by the Ministry of Home Affairs, much has changed in the way society communicates since the Bill first came into force in 1992. While, as widely reported in the media, that the provisions in the current Act have never been invoked, we cannot afford to leave things to chance and reflect changing times and practice.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, please allow me now to share some of the comments and observations about the amendments to the Bill which I have had the privilege of discussing with people in the business community.
Many recognise that it is indeed imperative for the Minister for Home Affairs to be given the authority to issue a Restraining Order to take effect immediately, for the removal of offensive and subversive material. The speed at which such material can be transmitted through today’s digital medium means that time is indeed of the essence and where the seeds of such sensitive material is allowed to be sowed, it may be difficult, even impossible to completely weed out with the passage of time.
Yet, there are always relentless cynics who would outcry this provision as one designed to curb freedom of speech and freedom of religion. It would, therefore, be beneficial if the Ministry can publish clear guidelines on what is likely to constitute subversive and offensive material; and it is also of paramount importance that discussion and outreach to the general public be continued unrelentingly. Our people must continue to know and understand that any such freedoms must always be preceded by responsibility.
Moving on to my second point, I applaud the efforts of the amendments for the more moderate stance it takes towards offenders. Offenders are not immediately sent to Court but rather, are encouraged to undergo the Community Remedial Initiative (CRI) where they are given an opportunity to reconcile their religious differences. This reflects the sensitive approach that the Ministry has taken and sets a tone for collaboration and continued education for society.
However, it must also be equally important for such an individual to be re-integrated into our Singapore society. Continued support for the individual's rehabilitation and education must be available. I would therefore appeal to the Ministry to continue its good work and to extend all such necessary support as required.
My final point on the amendments, and one which I personally is especially crucial, is that the proposed amendments provides safeguards against foreign actors interfering in the religious harmony of Singapore. Religious organisations now, to some extent, are more complex than they were in the 1990s. I believe it is prudent for religious organisations to have more accountability as proposed by the amendments to the Bill.
Similar to heads of companies, leaders of religious organisations indeed need to be held to a higher standard of behaviour. To date, our leaders of religious organisations have been strongly committed to the religious harmony of Singapore, and we must take steps to protect this harmony, borne out of respect and humility.
Singapore has been identified as possibly the most religiously diverse country on the planet by the Pew Research Centre this year. This coincides with the 70th Anniversary of the Inter-Religious Organisation. This is testament to the sheer amount of work that goes into creating a united society of multiple religions. As noted by Prime Minister Lee, \"This year, our religious leaders made a formal collective declaration that it is entirely proper, and indeed praiseworthy, for people of different faiths to befriend each other, exchange felicitations on each other's religious festivals and eat together despite different dietary rules.\"
Negative foreign influence cannot be allowed to impugn on the intricately woven fabric of our Singapore society. This is a society which has been nurtured to be religiously tolerant, providing for a stable country and a safe home. New citizens must therefore resonate the same chorus and must be educated on the values of Singapore – standing as one united people, regardless of race, language or religion.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, while the amendments to the Act are laudable, in conclusion, I would like to take this opportunity to advocate for the tripartite partnership of the Government, the employers and the workers to be more heavily involved in the reinforcement of the importance of religious harmony. Having a workplace where people progress on merit rather than on religious inclination is basic ingredient for employee happiness. Happy employee – happy employer – translates to greater efficiency and focus on business needs, and therefore, a happy Government.
This simplification of the tripartite partnership conceals the hard work that the partnership puts in to encourage dialogue and keep open channels of communication. I therefore urge the Ministry to continue to utilise such platforms for the benefit of our people and for our nation.
It is my view that with the proposed amendments, the Act is now a forward-looking piece of legislation that will continue to provide a framework for Singapore to prosper as a nation. With that Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill.
Mr Vikram Nair (Sembawang): Mr Deputy Speaker, I speak in support of the Bill. Religion is an important part of many people's lives and, in Singapore, people of different religious groups have no trouble living harmoniously together.
In my family, my father's family is Hindu, my mother's family is Christian, my wife is Buddhist and my mother-in-law is Catholic. I myself is not religious but we have no trouble at all, coming together as an extended family in different ways celebrating different occasions together. I grew up with copies of the Bible, Koran, Bhagvad Gita and the teachings of Buddha, all on the same bookshelf. When I go to religious house of worship, I am always interested in finding out more about the practices, about the religion. And, to me, it is a way of developing learning.
My life is, in some way, a microcosm of Singapore. In Admiralty, I say we are very blessed. We have a mosque, the Yusof Ishak Mosque, a Buddhist monastery, the BW Monastery and a church, Covenant Evangelical Free Church. Through the IRCC, all three come together regularly and work together on initiatives including dialogue sessions, \"harmony walks\" and regularly support each other's community efforts. In true Singapore spirit, they not only practice tolerance, but also understanding and warmth for each other.
But if one looks at human history, disputes along religious lines are almost as old as time itself and what we have in Singapore is actually quite exceptional and not an accident. We just look at some of the festering disputes in the world. In Palestine, for example, the differences between Christians, Muslims and Jews have made resolution of the dispute very difficult. The holy city of Jerusalem is holy to all three and there is no simple answer. The tensions between Saudi Arabia and Iran, also divide along the old lines between the Shi'ites and the Sunnis. And, again, there is no easy resolution there. The civil war in Ireland between the North and South, also divided along Protestants and Catholics lines. In Sri Lanka, there was a historical dispute between the Tamils and the Sinhalese, involved not only differences along language and race but also along religion. The simplistic of this language of the cause of these disputes, but it was definitely a factor that made them more difficult to resolve.
Even developed countries which do not have a history of violence are not immune to foreign disputes spilling over. Throughout the last few years, ISIS has been spreading terror virally through the Internet as well as through organisations, and attacks have taken place in Paris and London and other capitals with people claiming allegiance to ISIS. In March this year, in New Zealand, a country which has almost no history of religious violence, a shooting took place in a mosque during Friday prayers, killing dozens of people. In April, a month later, there was a series of coordinated attacks in Sri Lanka on Easter, again a country with no history violence against the Christians. But in this particular case, inspired by foreign disputes, killing more than 250 people. This was one of the worst attacks on a Christian community in Asia in recent history. Later that month, in a Synagogue in San Francisco, there was another attack, this time by a shooter claiming he was taking revenge.
These attacks are happening in developed countries, all being attributed to religion. Religious violence is clearly growing in different places and Singapore should not be complacent. We had some of our people taken under Internal Security Act for being self-radicalised. We are certainly not immune, notwithstanding that we have very good practices.
I think the amendments made to the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act (MRHA) are timely to deal with these new threats and the new challenges we face.
One of the first measures that comes up very clearly is measures to control foreign influence. And this includes control over donations and people who may take leadership positions in the religious groups. Most of these changes are fair. By and large, they aim to promote transparency. So, it has to be clear where these foreign donations come from, foreign affiliations have to be clearly disclosed.
At the same time, there is a requirement for the leadership, more than half of it to be Singaporeans. This is all entirely fair and it is not rigid because if any group wishes special consideration, they may apply to the Minister. This strikes a right balance that deviations from the requirements of foreign leadership must be exceptional.
The tools available to the Ministry also include tools to pre-empt trouble and not just respond to it once it has happened. This includes the use of Restraining Orders to restrict what may be said or published or to restrict donations coming in. More broadly, section 16G allows the competent authority to request information from any religious group to investigate whether there has been compliance by that religious group. These are all calibrated tools that allow the Ministry to come in before trouble has take place.
Of course, for any legislation to have meaning, it must also clearly spell out offences and consequences. And the more serious ones are in sections 17E and 17F for serious offences, including the urging of violence on religious grounds or inciting hatred or ill will amongst religious groups. The penalties for this include imprisonment. Additionally, offences also include offences by corporations and unincorporated associations, but also provide for individuals within these organisations to be individually responsible. This places the balance fairly and holds organisations and individuals responsible for their actions in line with their culpability.
One measure that I found quite interesting is the Community Remedial Initiative (CRI) under section 16H which allows for the Minister to offer this option where certain offences have been committed. This is clearly a gentler penalty and it looks to me like it is aimed at rehabilitation because the end result of this is the offender will get a discharge not amounting to an acquittal.
I welcome the additional tool because it again allows for a more calibrated approach, but I think it should also be clear that this does not mean we are going soft on people who incite ill will or hatred. I will also be grateful for the Minister’s clarification on whether this more calibrated tool kit with gentler options available also means that these tools may be used more often. If so, then I think it is important for the Ministry to have the resources necessary to monitor and take action. I reiterate my support for this Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Minister for Home Affairs.
Mr K Shanmugam: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I thank the Members who have spoken on the Bill. In my speech, Members will see that I use the phrases \"wisdom\", \"care\", \"sensibility\", \"practicality\" a number of times. That would be in essence what I would say to many of the questions. But let me start by saying I am heartened by the support of the Bill by everyone who spoke. There are some questions but everyone believes that this should be done and that this is the correct thing to do.
So, let me now try and address the points raised by the Members. There have been a lot of points by a lot of Members so I hope I can cover them.
Mr Alex Yam asked whether there were any concerns such as those raised in the White Paper in 1990 which required these proposed amendments. Sir, I have dealt with this in some detail in my opening speech – the changes around the world, the reasons for the amendment. I would refer to those.
Mr Yam also asked whether the Act will forbid the entry of new religious movements if they do not have a local presence. No, the Act does not forbid that. Religious freedom is guaranteed under the Constitution. We do not interfere with that. But the requirements in the Bill, if it becomes legislation, will apply to all new as well as existing religious groups.
Next, on safeguards against foreign influence. Members agree that our religious organisations need safeguards against foreign influence.
Ms Irene Quay asked whether there should be an omnibus legislation on foreign influence, instead of including these safeguards in the MRHA. I think Members recognise that legislation is needed. It is a matter of where these laws need to be sited. We took the view that MRHA should be comprehensive in covering all the matters relating to religious harmony – whether dealing with offensive speech, or safeguarding against foreign influence that affects religious harmony – which is why we also moved some provisions from the Penal Code over. We are looking separately into legislation to better counter foreign interference that is harmful to our national security and sovereignty. But that is a separate matter.
Mr Christopher de Souza asked about whether leadership requirements will cover corporatised religious charitable groups. The outcomes we want – that organisations that propagate, teach and practise religion should be subject to the principles which are set out in the Bill. Those principles apply regardless of whether the organisations are societies or companies limited by guarantees. But it does not cover organisations that may have a religious background but do not have as their purpose the promotion of any religious worship or religion, or whose business does not concern religious affairs or practices or conducting, teaching or propagating any religious belief. The Act has been applied for a long time in a sensible way and we will continue to do this.
There are religious organisations that set up companies to do commercial trading. I do not think those companies will necessarily be affected, but we have to look at what they are doing.
Mr Christopher de Souza, Er Dr Lee Bee Wah and Ms Irene Quay expressed concern that the requirements may be too onerous. Mr Alex Yam requested that MHA engage with religious organisations to clarify these requirements. He also asked about the feedback that has been received.
We have had discussions with various religious organisations. We also engaged non-apex religious organisations – the larger temples and all the Catholic Orders. The Bill incorporates their feedback. We made some changes along the way, based on their feedback. The religious organisations know there will be some additional work but they understood and accepted the rationale and the need for these safeguards. We have been working with them for more than a year. They realised the need for the amendments in maintaining religious harmony. We have assured the religious groups that we will work with them, implement these requirements in a practical manner and, where needed, we will also grant exemptions.
Ms Irene Quay asked how we set the threshold at $10,000 and how this compares with money laundering and counter-terrorism legislation. Money laundering thresholds take reference from standards set by FATF. All amounts, however, small are covered. For terrorism financing, likewise, action is taken however small the amount. We have taken action against persons for $60. So, those actions are in a different league and extremely strict.
For MRHA we discussed with the apex religious organisations on what an appropriate level would be. Ten thousand dollars was chosen because by the standards of donations, it was a significant amount. We have to balance between the risk and also the effort that religious organisations have to take. If you set it at too low an amount, they will have to take a lot of effort and it may not be meaningful.
Ms Irene Quay asked about examples of past cases where foreign donations have been used to influence local religious organisations. Mr Louis Ng asked whether we track foreign and anonymous donations. We do not track foreign donations to local religious organisations now. So, I am unable to give those examples.
But, I will say this. If you go back and for those who know that we did these things. The first generation leaders put in some practices that I must say had amazing foresight, and I say this with hindsight. Because in the last 30 years, what you have seen is that all over the world money from the Middle East has been used to fund mosques and religious institutions. The result is that this influences and changes the practice of Islam, which itself has been changed very substantially.
Our first generation leaders put in initiatives such as the Mosque Building Fund, where local Muslims donate to build our local mosques. And, for the building of mosques, the land is not tendered for. It is allocated – bringing down the cost. So, that effectively, made it very unlikely that foreign funding will come in. It is amazing foresight. So, we have not been affected in the same way as a lot of other countries have been, where money from the Middle East has come in – because that money comes in with tight conditions that the preacher must have been trained in specific countries, and in all likelihood, the preachers would come from those countries. And after awhile, and now you see it, the entire way in which people practise the religion, changes.
Mr Louis Ng spoke about the loopholes in the donation requirements. He raised some examples. Those examples have elements of deceit – where a foreigner passes off his donation as anonymous or from another person. Dr Intan Mokhtar raised similar examples. We have offences to deal with donors and religious groups that use fraud, really, to escape disclosure requirements. Section 16G of the Bill gives the Competent Authority powers. We can ask more information to determine the accuracy of the disclosures and also to check whether there are grounds for a Restraining Order. But we do not want to put too many requirements on these organisations. There is mutual trust.
Mr Ng also asked about a foreigner donating $9,999. Yes, for any threshold we set, someone can donate a dollar less. But we have to choose a threshold. If we did not set a threshold, then religious organisations will have to track every single donation and that is not feasible either. If we believe that there are influence operations going on, based on intelligence or otherwise, then we can move to a Restraining Order.
Mr Ng asked why the exemptions for donations disclosure also apply to foreigners on long-term passes. Religious institutions and groups in Singapore serve foreigners as well as locals who stay in Singapore. We have foreigners who live here, work here, study here, go to local religious institutions, temples, churches and so on and they naturally donate to them and, again, we did not want to and we do not want to impose too many administrative burdens on our religious organisations.
Let me now move on to leadership. Mr Ng asked about what we can do about citizens or PRs who act as agents of foreign influence in local religious groups. The scope of the RO only applies to ensure that every member of the governing body is a citizen, or to remove persons who are not citizens from the governing body. Where a Singapore citizen is acting as a conduit for foreign influence, we cannot use the RO. We will have to look at other legislation.
Mr Alex Yam asked about religious organisations where leadership appointments involve an external decision, due to historical reasons. The Catholic Church is an obvious example. We are very mindful of that and we always knew that those are not areas where we can go and direct, or require, or impose requirements. These have been discussed. And for other organisations as well exemptions will be granted on a case-by-case basis. We have met many of these organisations and have explained this to them. The Catholic Church came out in support of the amendments, because they understood what we are trying to do.
Ms Irene Quay and Ms Joan Pereira sought more details on the criteria for exemptions on leadership requirements. Without being comprehensive or exclusive, I will say we will consider the following: whether the congregation is largely made up of foreigners. There are some small religious organisations which serve exclusively a foreign community and sometimes, it may not be practical to impose on them the requirements that we have. We will also look at the structure of the religious organisation, and whether it operates as one entity across different countries. We will also, of course, look at security concerns.
Er Dr Lee Bee Wah raised a good suggestion that foreign appointment holders who are granted exemptions, that they should be given basic education on our multi-religious context. We will consider that.
Let me now deal with affiliations. Mr Saktiandi asked about whether local religious organisations would need to delink themselves from \"unapproved\" overseas organisations. Let me clarify. The MRHA does not provide for powers to ask a local religious organisation to dissociate itself from a foreign affiliate. I think that would be too intrusive and excessive. My colleague Ms Sun Xueling made this point. We have no homegrown religion of our own and we are an open society. I think the approach is to ensure that our local religious organisations are sensitised to our multi-religious context.
Dr Intan Mokhtar asked about the Competent Authority (CA) – what qualities are expected and to what extent the Minister will seek its counsel. The CA will be a civil servant appointed to administer the parts of the Act relating to disclosure requirements. It will be made up of officers from MHA, and they will act in accordance with the general directions of the Minister.
Let me now move on to the ROs. Mr Yam asked whether it would be an offence if a religious leader made public statements against a law enacted by the Government which runs counter to the beliefs of the religion. I presume he means whether such conduct would be grounds for an RO to be issued.
It depends on what the religious leader says, how he says it and to whom he says it. We do not want to constrain public debate on social issues, even when done on religious grounds. But if a religious group says, you can only vote for people who are of the same religion as you, that is not acceptable and crosses the line.
Dr Intan Mokhtar asks for assurances that the RO will not be used to target any religious community and Mr Alex Yam\tasked about the safeguards if the Government becomes “aggressively atheistic” and applies\tthe MRHA beyond what it was drafted for.
The RO has safeguards, which I had mentioned in my opening speech and I will reiterate them. The ROs will be reviewed by the PCRH, which makes recommendations to the President. The President decides whether to confirm, vary or cancel the RO. The PCRH is made up of community leaders – both religious leaders and lay persons. All the major religions are represented on the Council. They are an independent body. They have powers to call any person to provide information while making their recommendations.
We have these pieces of legislation and I have made this philosophical point elsewhere: it is a balance of power between the Executive and the individuals and other institutions. What is the purpose you seek to achieve? How do you calibrate that balance? We have had this law for 27 years and I think the fact that it is successful is shown by the fact that we have not had to use it even once. It shaped values and norms in our society, and very different from every other place around us and further beyond.
Mr Alex Yam also asked about recourse for individuals. If a person or religious group is aggrieved by the RO that is issued, they can make representations to the PCRH. These processes have been put in place to ensure that the Minister’s decision can be reviewed and the RO issued, if appropriate.
Many Members have spoken in support of the amendment to remove the 14-day notice period in this age of the Internet. Mr Alex Yam asked how in practice these “new powers” can improve the effectiveness of curbing the spread of hate speech. I want to make one point. There are no new powers. The substantive powers remain the same. We are just removing the 14-day notice period. But the safeguards and the exercise of the powers remain the same.
Mr Murali Pillai asked if most of the situations will involve the Internet. The RO is meant to be pre-emptive, and to prevent further harm. With the internet and smart phones, I do not think you can talk about this is brick and mortar and this is the Internet. It moves from one to the other very quickly. A speech to a small group of followers in a room can be recorded and transmitted in a matter of seconds and from there, it can go viral very quickly. So, I think a 14-day notice period would be quite ineffective.
Ms Anthea Ong said the removal of the 14-day notice period may mean that the Government no longer consults religious groups or stakeholders before the issuance of the RO. As my colleague, Senior Parliamentary Secretary Sun Xueling has said, the Government’s preference has always been for the community to resolve the issues of religious disharmony. We work closely with religious groups, there are open channels, and this close, consultative relationship has been mentioned by Members such as Mr Louis Ng. That will continue, even as we determine the action to be taken in each case. And the person subject to the RO obviously can exercise his rights to have a review by the PCRH, and ultimately, the decision is to be confirmed or otherwise by the President.
Er Dr Lee Bee Wah and Mr Alex Yam asked about how the RO would interact with POFMA. They are quite separate pieces of legislation. POFMA can be used to direct online platforms, amongst other things, to amplify the corrections to a falsehood. In some instances, of course, it can both be false and also come under MRHA, and then, one has got to decide how to deal with it.
Mr Christopher de Souza asked why the PCRH can recommend varying a new RO, but can only confirm or cancel a proposed direction to extend an existing RO. I congratulate him for having read the Bill so closely. This is the same arrangement for the Minister. The Minister may only direct the extension of an existing RO. He cannot change the terms of an existing RO. So, he either extends it, or lets it lapse. All the terms of the RO remain the same. Hence, similarly, PCRH can only confirm or cancel the RO.
Let me now move on to criminal offences under the MRHA.
Er Dr Lee Bee Wah and Mr Douglas Foo had questions on the thresholds for offences in the MRHA. Mr Douglas Foo asked if the Ministry can provide guidelines on what constitutes offensive statements. Prof Yaacob Ibrahim asked how we define “wounding” of religious feelings and was concerned that it would cover genuine differences of opinions and views. He cautioned that laws must not end up silencing all discussion of religious topics through ambiguous definitions of illegal behaviour. He also asked if proselytisation would be covered.
First, the phrases “wounding of religious feelings” and “threat to public peace” are not new. They were adapted from existing offences in the Penal Code. People are free to express their views. This has to be done responsibly. Statements that denigrate another religion will of course cross the line. And the proof of the pudding is in the eating. We have had the Penal Code for eons and we have had the MRHA for 27 years. These terms are not new, and I do not think that anyone complains that there has not been a possibility of discussing viewpoints or that all discussion on religious topics have been silenced. I think people understand the norms and values, and there are fairly open discussions. If a debate on religious differences gets into a denigration of another religion, insults, incites violence, we will, of course, take action and we have done so in the past.
Members will remember Amos Yee, who made offensive remarks against Islam and Christianity. He did this repeatedly in 2015 and 2016, and so he was charged under section 298 of the Penal Code for uttering words with deliberate intent to wound religious or racial feelings. So we have had this law. We are just porting it over. The Courts will take reference from case law to assess the facts of the case. But nobody has felt that these laws prevented them from saying what they wanted because most people are sensible and we have created a framework within Singapore for a sensible, practical, wise way of discussing these.
Prof Yaacob Ibrahim asked if MRHA offences will apply to intra-faith matters, where persons seek to insult or wound persons of a different denomination of the same religion. The answer is yes. The Bill defines religious belief or activity to mean holding a religious belief or view or engaging in religious activity. The religious practice or view of a denomination can be distinct.
Assoc Prof Walter Theseira asked us to have regard to protecting social harmony, especially in cases where religious leaders stigmatise persons who do not have the same values and exhorts Government to change policy on religious grounds. The intent again, I reiterate, is not to stifle conversation about policy issues. The role of the law and the Government is to set some boundaries on how these discussions are carried out so that the conversation can be constructive. But apart from the legal framework, the Government seeks to build constructive relationships with stakeholders involved in the debate. But we do need the law to give that framework.
Mr Christopher de Souza asked about the scope of “religious leaders”. Section 8 of the MRHA sets out the definition and includes designated religious leaders: priests, monks, pastors, imams. But whether someone is in fact a religious leader has got to be a finding of fact based on the assessment of each case.
Mr Desmond Choo and Ms Rahayu Mahzam were concerned about the distinction we have drawn between private and public speech. For people who are not religious leaders, private speech is not covered under the offences in section 17F. If the alleged offender can prove that he made the communication in situations where the parties to the conversation intended it to be heard or seen by themselves, this will be a defence. We do not want to intrude too much. People have their views. They say it to their family members or they say it to their friends in a specific context. You do not want to necessarily criminalise all of that. But the burden is on the alleged offender to prove that.
Mr Desmond Choo asked about a person who secretly video-tapes the speech and communicates it. If a person does this so that action can be taken against the offensive speech in the video, then he is likely to have a defence provided in the Bill as well.
The defence is tighter for religious leaders and it requires two elements – first, that they show that it was private speech and second, that the communication was domestic. The second element narrows the first to cover circumstances such as conversations with immediate family, and you will see other examples in the explanatory statement. The religious leader will have to show that his conduct falls within this narrower scope.
The rationale for the defence is to recognise that there will be situations where the religious leader will want to speak unencumbered and can speak unencumbered. We balanced this with the potential for harm that a speech of a religious leader can cause. This is why the defence for religious leaders is scoped tighter than for persons who are not religious leaders.
Ms Rahayu Mahzam said there could be situations where members of religious group has repeated private discussions with different groups of people to preach hatred and disharmony. We can still take action against them. ROs can be issued to stop them from addressing a specified group of worshippers or members of religious group. The CRI can also be used.
Ms Anthea Ong suggested the inclusion of “Stephen’s Code” in the MRHA. Her suggestion may not deal with the outcome of the person's speech. That is an important aspect that we have to take into account in determining whether the law should step in for conduct of speech that is motivated by religious prejudice. Our approach is for persons who are not religious leaders, their conduct must have an additional element of being likely to disturb public peace. We have also provided a defence for a person who is pointing out in good faith conduct which could constitute an offence under section 17F, for the purposes of removal of such material.
Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked about the rehabilitation of offenders that commit criminal offences under the MRHA, like inciting hatred. This is a good suggestion and we will look into it.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked about whether we would have oversight of foreign guest speakers who come here without a permit, especially in situations where they approach individual places of worship and speak with smaller groups of people. Ms Joan Pereira had a related question on how we can facilitate whistle-blowing. There are existing requirements that local organisations which bring in foreign preachers to speak in Singapore must comply with. They have to apply for the appropriate permits. There are penalties under the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act. If there are breaches and if we know if these breaches, we will not hesitate to take action, particularly when we are alerted to an egregious act which incites religious violence or disharmony.
Mr Murali Pillai asked about the Minister’s powers to create offences in the MRHA. These powers will be used to create regulatory offences to facilitate disclosure requirements introduced through the MRHA.
Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked how we can conduct online checks on materials and use technology to stop comments or posts which may incite religious disharmony. We have to take a balanced and pragmatic approach. We cannot regulate all online media. Instead, we restrict access to content that is against public interest when it comes to our attention.
Mr Gan also asked about how the ROs can be enforced against online service providers and Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked about how action can be taken for posts on influential pages. The RO in the MRHA will not apply to online service providers that merely convey the offending material. We mitigate the deleterious effects of harmful online content in other ways. Under the Broadcasting Act, IMDA can direct Internet Content Providers and Internet Service Providers to remove or block access to material that is prohibited under the Internet Code of Practice. And if there is wilful transmission of online falsehoods, then POFMA can be used. For social media platforms like Facebook or Twitter, IMDA can issue a takedown notice to remove offensive posts.
I move now on to the Community Remedial Initiative (CRI).
Many Members have expressed support for this. Assoc Prof Dr Yaacob Ibrahim has said that while there is a need for strong and decisive measures for serious cases, there are other times where engagement and dialogue will be more appropriate. We fully agree. Using the weight of the law at first instance is not always the best way to resolve religious disharmony.
Mr Murali asked if it would be better to vest the Attorney-General with the power to issue the CRI, bringing this closer to a conditional warning. Mr Louis Ng has also asked whether the CRI can be a sentencing option for the Courts. If the person chooses not to participate in the CRI, the person's conduct will be taken into account to determine if it is appropriate to bring criminal prosecution against him. We wanted to look for a community-based way of dealing with such issues. And the CRI is voluntary. So, it is not appropriate to leave it with the AGC.
I think this is especially important in the context of religion. We should not force people to do what their faith militates against them to do. So, we must leave it voluntary and we leave it as something that you can consider doing and, then, later on, in terms of whether further action is taken, this is something that can be taken into account. Any improvement of understanding on the part of the offender should be done on a voluntary basis. This option would be better than forcing someone through the law to \"reform\". The CRI is a novel option. We will work with the religious leaders and communities to ensure that the actions under the CRI are appropriate and beneficial.
Mr Alex Yam asked if we had taken reference from other jurisdictions. No, the CRI is not something that other countries have implemented, as far as we know. But we wanted to see how we can deal with these issues in a different, non-legal way, as far as possible. I spoke in my opening speech about how the Young Sikh Association reached out to social media influencer, Ms Sheena Phua, and dealt with it. Mr Saktiandi and Mr Alex Yam brought up this incident as well.
Ms Joan Pereira said some offenders may go through the motions of the CRI without any sincere intention, to avoid criminal prosecution. Mr Desmond Choo had concerns that the CRI would be taken advantage of. Before the issuance of the CRI, we will assess the circumstances of each case carefully. But, like the young men of the Young Sikh Association, we should take a chance that the CRI will help some people and some communities to mend communal relations without having to involve the law unnecessarily.
Mr Vikram Nair asked if there are plans to use the CRI more widely. It is a new initiative. We will observe how the CRI improves our response to conduct that undermines religious harmony and then learn along the way.
Mr Pritam Singh made some points. I thank him for the general position that he took on the Bill. One point he made was that, in Singapore, politicians are often seen with religious leaders and it gives a picture of mixing religion with politics. So, how do we deal with this? I would say with wisdom and common sense. And that this is normal in Singapore. We do not live apart from religion; we do not live apart from religious leaders. If you take my Ministry, MHA, it is quite an important part of what we do, interacting closely with religious leaders, constantly being photographed as well. And, so, for Government leaders to cut off, not have contact with religious leaders, this will not be wise. Good deep friendships between Government leaders and religious leaders are extremely important. It helps to build trust, bonds and that is important for society as a whole and allows issues to be dealt with in an atmosphere of trust. But the key is to do it with wisdom, clarity of position and mutual understanding. And, in Singapore, we do it publicly, openly and we celebrate that relationship.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, with your permission, may I flash some slides of photographs?
Mr Deputy Speaker: Yes, please go ahead. [Slides are shown to hon Members.]
Mr K Shanmugam: This is the Prime Minister on 15 April 2015 at the Taoist Federation's Silver Jubilee. It sends a signal. It is important that he is there, standing together with the Archbishop and various other leaders. In the next picture, you see him at the consecration ceremony of a Hindu temple last year. It sends a signal, sends a message to all Singaporeans. Next picture. There were 40,000 people who turned up there. Does the Prime Minister say, \"No, I don't go for this\"? Or does he say, \"I go\"? He is the Prime Minister, he represents all of Singapore. Let us move on to the next slide. I have entered St Andrew's Cathedral; spoke with 400-plus pastors and we were photographed. Deputy Prime Minister went to a meeting with volunteers from RPG, I think, on 7 September. The pictures speak for themselves. It is a constant thing that we all do and that builds the trust and the bonds between the religious leaders and Government leaders.
But it is not only Government leaders who do it, as you can see. You can see that it is cross-party, right? There are quite a few pictures of WP Members with religious leaders and they are across all religions. I think there is more. But I thought that was enough to make the point. [Laughter.]
So, in Government, we do that. I said it has to be done with mutual understanding and that we are neutral. The religious leaders must know that we are neutral and confidence has to be given to all religions that the Government will be fair and neutral and be the conscientious referee. So, I will repeat very strongly: these interactions, the building of bonds are extremely important. You will see that religious harmony in Singapore is not only because of the laws but also because of how Government leaders have behaved. And if a political leader is invited – taking the example that Mr Pritam Singh gave – during a period of celebration, say, celebration of the nation, a significant date for the country, say, the 50th Anniversary Celebrations. Our tradition in Singapore, as you can see from all of this, we go. They are celebrating a national event and it is important for a Minister to be there to show that all faiths, all sections of the society are celebrating the success of the nation. And does he not go simply because it coincides with the run-up to a general election which one can expect anytime? I think we have to be sensible enough to say what is the occasion, is it a national event, is the Prime Minister or any other Minister being invited in his capacity as a Minister, or a senior leader in the Government, and what is the message that is being sent? Is it a celebration by the religious community of the success of Singapore? That is what we are celebrating.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Minister Shanmugam, would you need another five minutes or so?
Mr K Shanmugam: I think a bit more than five minutes.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Yes. Leader of the House.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Time Limit for Minister's Speech","subTitle":"Suspension of Standing Orders","sectionType":"OS","content":"The Leader of the House (Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien): Mr Deputy Speaker, may I seek your consent and the general assent of Members present to move, \"That the proceedings on the item under discussion be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No 48(8) to remove the time limit in respect of Minister K Shanmugam's speech.\"
Mr Deputy Speaker: I give my consent. Does the Leader of the House have the general assent of hon Members present to so move?
[(proc text) Hon Members indicated assent. (proc text)]
[(proc text) With the consent of Mr Deputy Speaker, and the general assent of Members present, (proc text)]
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Resolved, \"That the proceedings on the item under discussion be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No 48(8) in respect of Minister K Shanmugam's speech.\" – [Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien] (proc text)]
Mr Deputy Speaker: Minister.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Maintenance of Religious Harmony (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]
Mr K Shanmugam: Another point that Mr Pritam Singh made, of religious leaders being seen with political leaders during elections, if the religious leaders are lay religious leaders, they have civil and political rights. The law does not preclude them from exercising their civil and political rights. They can be members of political parties. We have had Ministers, Members of Parliament who were lay preachers. So, they hold senior positions in a religious organisation and who are lay persons who hold other jobs and businesses. As I have said, they can be Members of Parliament, they can be Ministers and you cannot be saying they cannot exercise their rights. I think it is difficult to draw bright lines. But I will agree with this point, because we have got to look at these things with care and without a party lens, to decide on what is good for Singapore. We must handle these issues with sensibility, care and wisdom.
Ms Sylvia Lim spoke about religious leaders supporting this Bill and she asked what views would the Government take if they had not been supportive of the Bill. This is not the first time religious leaders and organisations have expressed a view on a piece of legislation or Government policy. They have expressed views on other issues.
Sir, with your leave, can I show extracts of some letters?
Mr Deputy Speaker: Yes. [Slides are shown to hon Members.]
Mr K Shanmugam: If you will see, December 2010, October 2016 on the casinos and gambling. They were quite clear. This is the National Council of Churches of Singapore: \"We speak against the building of a casino in Singapore. Casinos undermine values. The Council urges the Government to review this decision. The family and social fabric of our nation is currently not strong enough.\"
And if you see, Pergas, October 2016, this is regarding online gambling: \"Pergas would like to voice its concern regarding the Government's approval of online gambling. Gambling is strictly prohibited in Islam. Erosion of moral values within the community.\" I can refer to other examples but you can see that they were quite uncomfortable. They expressed their discomfort. It was published in the media. The Government did not tell them \"You should not be expressing your views\". I think that answers Ms Sylvia Lim's questions.
Should we have told them that they are not to comment? This, again, would suggest not practical to draw very clear bright lines. Needs to be dealt with with sensitivity, understanding and some care.
For the MRHA, there were substantive consultations with the religious groups. It relates to them. They expressed their views. Religious leaders in Singapore know they should not be engaging in general political discourse. So, again, approaching this without a party lens, the questions are: what is good for Singapore and what is doable? MRHA, obviously, they will comment and it is understandable that they comment. And if they did not support it and made their lack of support public in the way they talked about the casinos and the way they talked about online gambling, it would be no different from how they had reacted earlier on other occasions, if they had said \"We do not support this\". I do not think we can completely deny them the right to express some views on some pieces of legislation. At the same time, both parties must understand that the language must be one of mutual respect, and does not cross over into being partisan and political.
Ms Sylvia Lim spoke about religious leaders making statements during elections – \"vote wisely\", \"vote for stability\" and so on – again, I think the principles ought to be: be careful, be temperate, be wise. I agree that for the good of Singapore, we do not want religious leaders to get into the arena and become partisan. But I cannot see that any lines have been crossed so far. A lot of care has to be exercised by the religious leaders if they choose to make statements. And that is in the interest of everyone.
She had a couple of technical questions. One, how the RO is consistent with Article 15 of the Constitution because the RO seeks to constrain some rights. Article 15(4) of the Constitution, which she may not have seen, states that the freedom of religion does not authorise any act contrary to any general law relating to public order, public health or morality. So, the Constitution itself recognises that there can be some constraints on the freedom of religion.
The grounds on which the RO can be issued to religious groups is in the circumstances that are set out. For example, foreign influence that undermines religious tolerance between different religious groups and that can present a threat to public peace and order in Singapore, and that is consistent with Article 15.
Moving on to a query on section 16F. That states that Restraining Order has effect despite other written laws. So, what does that mean? It is in very, very limited circumstances but let me give an example. I talked about foreign influence through corporations, companies. Section 145(5) of the Companies Act says there should be at least one director – it is a provision known to all lawyers – who is ordinarily resident in Singapore. But supposing we issue an RO because we believe that that company, that person, is subject to foreign inference. So, despite section 145(5) of the Companies Act saying that you need at least one person who is resident in Singapore, the RO will take precedence over section 145(5). That is the context. So, section 16F is to ensure that the religious group cannot refuse to comply with an RO for such reasons.
Let me turn to Mr Faisal Manap. He made three points. First, he gave a specific illustration and asked whether that would be a breach. First of all, I would like to ask him if that statement is hypothetical or whether it is actual and whether it has actually been made. But I will, secondly, tell him that on the specific illustration, the substantive law is broadly similar. If you look at section 17F and compare it with sections 298 and 298A of the Penal Code, which I am sure he is very familiar with, you will see that it is broadly, not that different. It will depend on what is the intent of the person saying it and the way and purpose for which the statement was made.
He made a second point on issues relating to the practice of religion. But those comments do not arise from these amendments. The Government's position has been set out. Different countries follow different approaches. Some even in Europe create a lot of obstruction, for example, on the building of mosques and the practice of Islam. They threaten Muslims, there is Islamophobia. We in Singapore take the opposite approach. Here, as I said earlier, the Government allocates land for the building of mosques, only for Muslims – that approach is not taken for any other religion. For other religions, you got to bid for the land; so this is done without tender; and makes the access to the practice of Islam easily accessible. We have set our face very strongly against Islamophobia. We have made it very clear. If we see any such practice, we will move. Earlier, a gentleman was sent to prison and caned for writing on an MRT wall certain derogatory remarks about Muslims. We protect religious communities including religious minorities.
The third point he makes, that he does not agree with the principle of separation of religion and politics. That is what I heard. I was surprised. I asked for confirmation that that is indeed what he said and my people say that it is indeed what he said. It is a very surprising statement, it is a very serious statement and a statement with serious implications. And it contradicts everything that we hold as central and important in Singapore and it is a fundamental value. If we went out and asked Singaporeans, I think they will be quite shocked.
Let me tell Mr Manap, assuming that I heard him right, if we do not separate religion from politics, then whose religion comes into politics? Inevitably, if you allow religion to play a significant role in politics, then those who are part of the majority religion must have the biggest say, or plurality, at least, will have the biggest say. Do you think the position of religious minorities will be better or worse?
He quoted what an Islamic scholar might say. What if a text in another religion is critical of all other religions and it tells its followers that non-believers should be shunned? How would Mr Manap feel if these were the views of the religion of the majority or the plurality, and that comes into politics?
So, for an elected Member of Parliament in this House to say, \"I do not accept the principle of separation of religion from politics\", I think it is very, very surprising. If you say it is not possible to draw bright lights, that the line will be fuzzy, that is different. It is what I have said. But, anyway, I see your position and I will leave the Chambers with those statements ringing in my head, that you reject the principle of separation of religion from politics.
Many Members have provided suggestions on how we can resolve disputes arising from different religious beliefs. Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked if MHA could consider having a mediation team to resolve disputes. Ms Irene Quay suggested forming a group of official and religious mediators. These groups already exist. One of them is the National Steering Committee on Racial and Religious Harmony chaired by Minister Grace Fu. The religious leaders on the NSC broached the idea of a Commitment to Safeguard Religious Harmony to counter segregationist behaviours.
In addition to the NSC, we have the Inter-Racial and Religious Confidence Circles (IRCCs). They are local-level inter-faith platforms. They are in every constituency and they seek to promote racial and religious harmony. The IRCC leaders are trained. They can be called upon to mediate in incidents which can impact on social cohesion. For private family disputes such as those highlighted by Ms Irene Quay, the religious leaders work closely with Government agencies to try and find an amicable solution.
Other than mediation, a number of Members – Prof Yaacob, Ms Pereira, Mr Gan, Ms Irene Quay, Mr Terence Ho – have talked about the importance of education, for members of the public and for our young people. These are important suggestions. Their suggestions also provide a reply to Mr Desmond Choo’s query on how the Government can better bring about awareness among the youth that some discourse is inappropriate in our context.
MOE’s curriculum currently inculcates in students values of living harmoniously in our multi-religious context through subjects such as Character and Citizenship Education and Social Studies.
MCCY also has the following programmes to foster better understanding and appreciation of different religions and cultures in Singapore. One is BRIDGE (Broadening Religious/Racial Interaction through Dialogue and General Education) that seeks to provide safe spaces and opportunities for the public to engage in open and facilitated conversations on sensitive topics. And another is Ask Me Anything, Common Senses for Common Spaces and IRCC inter-faith dialogues.
Different community platforms can help to build and encourage religious harmony in different parts of society. Mr Douglas Foo talked about the tripartite partnership – Government, employers and workers. Ms Irene Quay talked about expanding the membership of the IROs to include more members of different faiths. Ms Anthea Ong talked about the inclusion of atheists in inter-faith dialogues.
These are important and valid suggestions. The law sets out the broad parameters of behaviour, but it cannot be the sole driving force to change behaviour. We do need the community to come in to ensure that deep and strong bonds are built between and within faiths.
Mr Saktiandi asked how employers can look out for radicalisation of domestic workers. I believe the Parliamentary Question reply has dealt with this.
Finally, let me deal with the points raised by Mr Murali on section 18 of the MRHA. He says the Courts should act as a safeguard against abuse of powers. The Member will note that section 18 of the MRHA is not a total ouster of the Courts’ ability to review decisions or recommendations. The Court can review decisions and orders under the MRHA for some narrow grounds – legality or errors of law. He referenced my speech made in the Second Reading of the MRHA in 1990. I had a running bet with my people on two things, whether anyone will raise it and no one wanted to take that bet because they expected somebody to raise it. And, second, who will raise it first.
Let me recap the process of the MRHA in 1990. In 1989, the Government tabled a White Paper setting out the threats to religious harmony and introduced the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Bill. The Bill was debated extensively in Parliament and referred to a Select Committee, which made recommendations to improve the Bill.
One of the key recommendations made by the Select Committee was the amendment of the issuance process of the ROs. Before the Bill was considered by the Select Committee, it was called the Prohibition Order. The Minister was required only to have regard to the recommendations by the PCRH. He had the sole discretion to decide on the Prohibition Order. The President was not involved in the issuance or review of the Order.
The current process for the Restraining Order has incorporated the recommendations of the Select Committee. It renamed the Prohibition Order to a Restraining Order. The Minister must send the proposed RO to the PCRH. The PCRH then makes recommendations to the President, who can then decide whether to confirm, vary or cancel the RO. So, under the current process, the Minister is not the sole approving authority on the RO. There are checks.
But in addition to the above, there is a deeper philosophical point. It is about what I said just now about the balance of powers between the Executive, other institutions including the Courts, institutions like the President, the PCRH and, of course, individual members of the public.
Mr Singh paid what I think is a compliment by a reference to my speech in 1990; no doubt, so as to make me explain myself. So, let me say this frankly and completely openly. In 1990, when I spoke on this, when the MRHA was first put to Parliament, I was a young, common law-trained lawyer with four years of experience and a few months in politics. My view was that the legal process was able to resolve all disputes and that was the most suitable approach.
About 30 years later, with experience and perspective, I have come to realise that this does not always hold true. Is the use of the legal process the best way to deal with all religious issues in society? How about a firebrand preacher who is unrepentant and not remorseful? By going to the Courts, you may be able to deal with the preacher. But what of communal relations and the underlying sentiments of the community? The trial process can often deepen the fault lines and encourage others to do the same. It can even be counter-productive – the alleged offenders become martyrs for their communities, inflaming tensions even more.
I will give you a couple of examples. You look at the Bali bomb attacks in October 2002. The mastermind was put on trial, said the Court verdict was not in line with Islamic teachings. He used his trial repeatedly to condemn the United States, its President, Israel, calling them the world’s terrorists. He promised to write a book on jihad. It inflamed passions. Did it make things better or worse?
Another example – Mumtaz Qadri. He was the bodyguard of Mr Salman Taseer, a politician with relatively liberal viewpoints in Pakistan and an outspoken critic of the blasphemy laws. Mumtaz Qadri murdered Salman Taseer, the person he was to protect, claiming it was his religious duty to do so. Qadri was hailed as a hero by some Islamist groups. Thousands of activists turned up during the trial to show their support during the trial. Supporters in 2011 threw rose petals on the armoured vehicle carrying Qadri away from the court – all beamed throughout the world and all over Pakistan. When he was executed, crowds took to the streets to protest. These are the real world consequences.
In 1989, I was quite innocent of these ways of the world – how people actually behave, how they can abuse the legal process. If I believe today what I believed in 1989, then I would not be standing here tabling this Bill. I took an active role in conceptualising and working through this Bill. I believe it to be right for our country and that belief has much to do with what has happened in the last 27 years.
The formulators of the original MRHA had greater experience, knowledge and foresight than I had. When I spoke, I recall that the current Prime Minister responded to me though he did not refer to me. But after that, in my all youthful innocence, I was not convinced. I will say that openly. But in the nearly 30 years since MRHA was enacted, we look around us – Al-Qaeda, ISIS, communal violence in Myanmar, Sri Lanka and more. There are disputes between all major religions across the world, and abuse of major religions by politicians and religious leaders.
Through this, we stand proud, a beacon of religious tolerance and social harmony. We need to ask ourselves why. Why have we been spared? My opening speech sets out the principles we have applied, the policies we have put in place and how they have all worked together to help keep religious harmony.
The MRHA tries to balance different methods of resolving disputes. The RO is pre-emptive, to stop the spread of speech or material that can cause widespread harm. It is also used to curb malicious foreign influence. The CRI is a community-based tool. We use this in situations where the person and the offended community are willing to meet to mend relations. Prosecution is used in serious cases, where the person incites violence; or his conduct poses a threat to the public peace and order of Singapore. In such cases, criminal sanctions are appropriate to deter others from similar conduct. It also provides for severe punishments to reflect the person's culpability and conduct.
Has our approach worked? Members answered the question.
We have had some incidents of religious disharmony. How did we deal with them? Nine years ago, we had a Christian pastor Rony Tan. He made offensive remarks against Buddhism and Taoism. These video clips were available on his church's website. We spoke with him, he apologised publicly to the religious leaders of the affected communities.
In 2017, in a slightly different context. Imam Nalla made a supplication during a Friday prayer in a mosque that we thought was unacceptable. The international context was also different. He was charged under the Penal Code, fined $4,000. He too, apologised to the community.
But we have had relatively few incidents. Why? Because norms have been shaped and values have been shaped. Does that mean we do not practise our religions? There are many religious people in this House and outside. In fact, the IPS survey shows that Singaporeans are very deeply religious. But that does not prevent us from having harmony.
Assoc Prof Walter Theseira said that the indiscriminate use of the law would create contention rather than consensus. We agree. And if you look, the law has been there for 27 years; and it has not been used once.
We try, as best as we can, to deal with the issues with wisdom and common sense. Some people say, \"This government has done so; how do we trust future governments?\" I think that is the constant paradox about Singapore. It requires good governance for the country to succeed.
The way each of the situations was dealt with – wisdom, common sense. We draw lines in the sand, reinforced positive norms and they made our society stronger. It is not just the MRHA that has helped to keep religious harmony in Singapore. It is a whole series of policies, approach, and most crucially, that a significant majority of our people accept, subscribe, support these policies and they want religious harmony. It is a core value of our country. And fundamentally, our people trust the Government to keep to this and to apply the rules fairly.
The MRHA comes in, gives powers to the Government to step in where necessary. Our people know that; they appreciate that. We are religiously diverse, yet live in harmony. That is not a natural state of things.
We have had nearly 30 years of the MRHA.
The most powerful point, as I have said earlier about the MRHA, we have never had to use it. Once in a while, we have to go and talk to some religious leaders. But our public approach, setting the norms, our speeches, policies, holding the ring neutrally, fair approach, constant positive engagement with religious groups and swift action taken, together with the MRHA and other laws, have created the current situation in Singapore. All of these and more has meant that we have managed to create a framework of positive norms and values for our society. Sir, I think I have answered all the questions. Thank you. [Applause.]
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Manap.
Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap: Sir, I would like to clarify the point made by the Minister about my speech earlier. Basically, I just want to touch on two points. The first one would be, the Minister mentioned that, in my speech, I mentioned that I disagree. Maybe, I would like to reiterate my speech in Malay and I would actually translate to English.
For that particular paragraph, I will read as full: \"Tuan, satu lagi prinsip Akta ini adalah memisahkan agama dan politik. Saya kurang setuju dengan prinsip ini\". That means, I do not fully agree with the principle. \"Sebagai seorang muslim\", as a Muslim, \"Islam difahami sebagai satu cara kehidupan atau A Way of Life\" being taught, we learn that Islam is a way of life, of which Islam encompasses every aspect of life, including politics and way to do politics.
And I actually continued by saying that I understand that Christianity also believes the same, of which religion cannot be separated from politics.
So, I am not so sure he mentioned that he counter-checked with that particular someone on that particular sentence of mine, whether he checked with the same person, the content, in the context of what I have spoken about for this point; rather than just one particular sentence and the Minister tends to choose to amplify by saying that I totally disagree with this principle.
Secondly, I think he misunderstood my point. I did not say that I quote from a preacher who says those who believe Jesus as the Son of God will end up in hell fire. I mentioned that it is a quote from the Quran. It has been cited by the preacher. So, two clarifications.
Mr Deputy Speaker: So, you are seeking a clarification from the Minister. Minister Shanmugam.
Mr K Shanmugam: Yes, Sir. I understood the second one has been a quote that the Member is making and I gave my points, just to clarify on that. There are other religious texts which also, if read out of context – I am not saying you are reading the Quran out of context. I do not want to discuss or debate Quran. I am not an expert. But other religious texts that if you read them out of context, a literal reading could suggest that non-believers should be dealt with harshly.
But we need to be careful in Singapore how these things are preached and brought about. I believe that, for example, in Singapore, when people refer to the Old Testament, they would do it with context and sensitivity. That is what the Christian preachers tell me, that they will do it with sensitivity and they will take a lot of care. That is one.
Second, I think it might be easier to just cut to the chase and maybe tell me, do you accept the principle of separation between religion and politics or do you not accept it? Because, by referencing to other religions, if everybody starts saying we do not accept the separation of religion and politics in Singapore, do you accept that there will be severe consequences? And that is why, in this country, we have always brought the religions together. But we have also said there has got to be a separation. So, perhaps, just to be clear, do you accept the principle or do you not accept the principle?
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Faisal Manap.
Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap: Sir, I believe I have mentioned it clearly when I provided my clarification. I think the Minister needs to look in what context I am saying this principle which I may not fully agree. As I mentioned, I would like to highlight that —
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Manap, the Minister is asking you a question. I do not think you need to read from —
Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap: Sir, but I need to put in context. If he just picked on that particular sentence, it will be out of context. I do not think it is accurate and, in a way, fair for me.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Okay. Can you not read the whole thing again, because we have heard it already?
Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap: I need to do so. Sorry, sorry, Sir. I said that as a Muslim, we learn Islam and we accept Islam as a way of life. I am putting into that context. So, I am not so sure what is the issue with me saying that, in the context of me as a Muslim which, in a way, cannot fully agree, in terms of the principle of the separation of religion and politics.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Minister Shanmugam.
Mr K Shanmugam: Maybe, please explain, Mr Manap, what do you mean by religion and politics here? Can you explain? You said religion cannot be kept out of politics. What do you mean exactly?
Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap: Sir, I said that, as a Muslim, Islam is a way of life. It encompasses every aspect of life. That is what I meant that, me, as a Muslim, I cannot separate the two entities of politics and religion. I hope I made it clear.
Mr K Shanmugam: So, every aspect of life would include politics, right? Is that not the natural conclusion? You just said every aspect of life must be covered by religion. So, that would include politics.
Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap: Yes, I did say that.
Mr K Shanmugam: Thank you. So, if a religious leader or Muslim religious leader comes out and says, \"Islam covers all aspects of life and therefore, Muslims must vote for Muslims\". I suppose that follows, does not it, based on your position?
Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap: Sir, I disagree with that. I did mention in my speech that we should not use religion for the benefit of politics. It is clearly stated in my speech.
Mr K Shanmugam: And if someone were to say religion cannot be separated from politics and it covers all aspects of life, and therefore it should impact on Government's policy formulation as well. It must follow from what you say; that this comes through, surely.
Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap: Sir, I believe in terms of the policies that are actually related to religion, as what we are discussing currently, even the Minister has to consult religious groups, right? So, there is an element of – especially in these policies – the element of being intertwined between politics and religion, which cannot be separated.
Mr K Shanmugam: Mr Manap, in this clarification and discussion, I do not think that we are going anywhere because we are going around in circles. Either your words mean something – (a) or (b). Do you believe, I ask you for the final time, religion and politics should be kept separate? A simple answer would do.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Yes, Mr Abdul Manap.
Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap: Sir, when the Minister seeks clarification based on my speech, not focusing on one particular issue that he is asking right now; so, my speech already clearly stated that —
Mr K Shanmugam: Yes, forget about that particular part. I am just asking you: do you believe that religion should be kept separate from politics?
Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap: Sir, to cut it short, can you please refer to the Hansard for the speech that I delivered?
Mr K Shanmugam: I think I am asking you, would you be prepared to answer honestly? Do you believe religion should be kept separate from politics?
Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap: I do not wish to be engaged in such a debate because as I mentioned just now, it is clearly stated in my speech. I believe that your clarification, Minister, is directed to my speech. And I have clearly mentioned in my speech my stand as a Muslim which I see: Islam is a way of life; in the process, in every aspect of life including politics.
Mr K Shanmugam: Mr Manap, I am entitled to ask you based on that a further clarification: do you believe that religion should be kept separate from politics in Singapore?
Mr Deputy Speaker: Minister, I think Mr Pritam Singh wants to raise something.
Mr K Shanmugam: Perhaps Mr Manap can be given a final opportunity to answer the question I just asked.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Manap, do you want to?
Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap: Sir, can the Minister repeat? Just for clarity.
Mr K Shanmugam: Would you agree that religion should be kept separate from politics in Singapore?
Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap: I do agree that religion needs to be kept aside, or apart from politics, so that religion will not be used to gain personal benefit or to benefit any political party.
Mr Deputy Speaker: I think Mr Manap has answered the question. Mr Pritam Singh.
Mr Pritam Singh: Yes, Mr Deputy Speaker, I was attempting to intervene to just make clear what the position has to be in Singapore, as a minority Member of the Parliament for any party. You represent not just members of your own community. You represent members of other faiths. I think the only way to move forward is to accept that there has to be a certain degree of understanding towards other faiths and move forward in a way which accepts that we must be mindful of introducing religion into politics.
I think where Mr Manap is coming from is faith. And in his faith, it is a value system; I believe the Christian faith is similar. But I think ultimately for a Member of Parliament of any political party in Singapore, I think it is important that you remember that you have to represent the interest of every community, not just yours.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh, I assume you are speaking for yourself because you should not be speaking for Mr Manap.
Mr Pritam Singh: I am speaking for myself, Deputy Speaker.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Okay, thank you. Ms Sylvia Lim.
Ms Sylvia Lim: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. If I may make two points. First, I would like to thank the Minister for answering the questions which I posed which I find quite helpful. And I think I should also clarify why I asked the question about Article 15.
Now, of course, I did not overlook Article 15(4) and what it provides and in a sense the Minister’s answer was predictable. But I felt it was important to put it on record, as a point of reference later on, to make it clear that the Parliament did consider this point and it was debated.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Minister, do you want to reply? She is just making a clarification.
Mr K Shanmugam: I am not sure that Ms Lim is asking me any specific question.
Mr Deputy Speaker: I suppose she was giving an explanation. Mr Mohamed Irshad.
Mr Mohamed Irshad: I thank the Minister for his comprehensive reply. I raised five questions and I would just like to reiterate them because I do not think any of them was captured in his reply.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Please do not repeat your questions.
Mr Mohamed Irshad: Sir, if the Minister has the questions that I asked —
Mr K Shanmugam: Actually, yes. Okay, my apologies, left out here. I have four questions. I think the Member asked how the CRI would be administered practically and more specifically the sort of activities the Ministry has in mind. I think we will have to consult the religious groups on the appropriate activities and some of them could include private or public apologies, speaking with the religious leaders of the affected community to better understand their views.
I think the Member also asked about the repercussions of genuine oversights for disclosure of donations. Some of them may also not have, as the Member said, adequate resources to dedicate for such disclosures. The Bill provides for a defence of due diligence where people can ensure that they took reasonable steps, exercised due diligence to ensure that they met the requirements. And we will work with the religious groups on the implementation of these requirements, and will give them short-term exemptions where required.
The Member also asked whether there is going to be a help desk or resource centre to educate and assist religious groups. The CA which will be set up, we will work with the religious groups to see how we can assist, but we are also limited in our manpower. This is something that has to be dealt with, with some element of common sense.
The Member asked about foreign donations received by non-registered local religious groups which are affiliated with international religious organisations. The MRHA requirements would apply to all these religious groups, regardless of whether they are incorporated, registered, or not.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Yes, Mr Irshad
Mr Mohamed Irshad: If I may ask, the fifth one was: we are witnessing a rise of many charismatic and fanatic preachers who have built massive followers in tens of millions online, they are passing divisive values and teachings. How can we safeguard Singaporeans from having access to such contents on social platforms, given the introduction of the extraterritorial clause in this Amendment Bill?
Mr K Shanmugam: We are putting the extraterritorial clause, but I think the Members would recognise it is not easy to go and find these people. These are the facts. These things are all around us. The influences are there. Some people will be influenced. And I do not think I want to mislead anyone. We will do our best, but that does not mean that we can keep everything out.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Order.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Extension of a Sitting","subTitle":"Business motion","sectionType":"OS","content":"Mr Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order No 2(5)(d), I propose to extend the time for this day's sitting beyond the moment of interruption for a period of up to 30 minutes. Mr Pritam Singh.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Maintenance of Religious Harmony (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"Mr Pritam Singh: Thank you, Deputy Speaker. Minister, just one clarification on the point you raised at the end about the position you took in 1990. Actually, I think it was an eminently sensible position.
Of course, I do not have the benefit of 30 years of being in this House, and having been in MHA for many, many years now to take a different position. But I do distinctly remember in his speech, the Minister spoke about the concern of that individual in Pakistan, Qadri, who took advantage, basically, of that whole judicial process by bringing more attention to his cause.
Minister did mention in his speech in 1990 that there is always the prospect of modifying judicial procedures and processes to deal with that sort of a problem. It was just one sentence if I remember correctly.
But I think the important point is the separation of powers doctrine, the idea that every man or woman in the country has the opportunity to go before a Court of law to examine what they have been accused of. I think that is important. And I hope as we move forward and the effectiveness of this Bill is assessed, that the Government consider that repeatedly at every stage because that is important.
Mr K Shanmugam: I can assure Mr Pritam Singh that that remains my underlying belief – that relationship should be structured on the law and the rule of law, and exceptions should be carefully considered. This is not a new exception we are making. We are keeping to the exception that was made, but even since my speech in 1990, a further structure was set up. The structure was not a judicial process per se, but a separate independent review process, going up all the way to the President. I think that strikes the right balance.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Assoc Prof Walter Theseira.
Mr K Shanmugam: Sorry, by the way, Qadri is much more recent. I do not think it had taken place in 1990.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Assoc Prof Walter Theseira.
Assoc Prof Walter Theseira: Mr Deputy Speaker, would the Minister agree that religious leaders should have some care when characterising the behavior of Singaporeans who do not quite meet the moral standards of the religion, especially with respect to family life. And if so, what would be an ideal standard of care, especially in cases where the characterisation might be offensive or hurtful?
Mr K Shanmugam: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I think we as a people here should be very careful making public statements about what behaviour we expect from religious leaders.
I am the Minister for Home Affairs, Minister for Law, and I can tell you what the law is and what should not be done. Beyond that, I think those are matters where we certainly can talk to the religious leaders in a private setting, but I do not think I should be commenting publicly on how I want religious leaders to behave and what standards they ought to meet.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Anthea Ong.
Ms Anthea Ong: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Minister, I actually also have a question that you might have unwittingly left out. At the beginning of my speech, I asked about the new provisions – I think the provision is section 17E(1) and (2) – and I cited the example of 2016 when a Singaporean man threatened to open fire on a Facebook comment, and the Facebook community is a religiously based one. So, now that we have these new provisions, would something like this come under that as an offence under the new provisions?
Mr K Shanmugam: I am sorry that I left out answering that question. Lots of questions from lots of people. But if I may say this, the man was charged. The Member is asking whether he can now be charged here under section 17E. There are a number of requirements – mens rea of knowledge and intention and so, one has to go and look at the facts. I do not know enough of those facts to be able to tell you whether he could have been charged here. Potentially, but it depends on the facts.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Irshad, do you have a new clarification? We should not be in debate; this is clarification time.
Mr Mohamed Irshad: I do not have a new clarification, but I am very troubled by what was shared in the conversation between Minister Shanmugam and Member of Parliament Faisal Manap. Sir, I just want to put across a point that I felt that was needed to be said.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Meaning you want to say something?
Mr Mohamed Irshad: That is right.
Mr Deputy Speaker: You can seek a clarification of the Minister’s speech, but you are not in a position to make a personal statement unless it relates to yourself.
Mr Mohamed Irshad: Perhaps I would like to put it across as a clarification for the Minister and then I will ask a question and propose the point.
Mr Deputy Speaker: What is your point of clarification?
Mr Mohamed Irshad: From what I understand from Member of Parliament Faisal Manap's —
Mr Deputy Speaker: No, no, no. Ask the Minister for clarification on his speech.
Mr Mohamed Irshad: Minister, you mentioned very clearly you wanted a clarification from the Member of Parliament that religion has to be separate from politics. And I fundamentally agree with that point. However, what I felt is that I think it has to be explicitly mentioned and to be made clear that, as a Muslim, you can have any personal view and opinion whether you believe that religion is also encompassing as part of your faith and your lifestyle. That is fine. Fundamentally, that is fine.
But as a nation, I think we have to understand that we have to have a secular country. As a secular nation, we cannot impose our religious values on the common spaces of everybody. And in regards to that, would it be worthwhile, perhaps, engaging the religious body to drive across this point and to educate them that our secular space as a country has to be safely guarded and has to be guarded fundamentally, and that any religious values that we espouse in terms of religion as a way of lifestyle and so on, that can be held as a personal view.
Mr K Shanmugam: I thank the Member for his comments and I will say this. We have extensive discussions with the religious leaders, both my Ministry but also the Government leaders, including the Prime Minister with the Christian leaders, the Catholic leaders, the Muslim leaders, the Mufti, Hindu Endowments Board. It has never been said to me in the terms that Mr Manap put it today.
Everyone would say their personal views will be, can be, influenced by religion. Many in Cabinet, many Members of Parliament are deeply religious. We do not hide that. But when you make your decisions, you cannot put aside your religious self but you must take into account everybody else and you act neutrally; and you take the position for the benefit of all Singaporeans, even if you believe that that may not be consistent with your religious beliefs.
That is a consistent position. When we meet with the Muslim leaders, when we meet with the Muslim clerics, when we meet with the Mufti, then we meet with the Christian leaders, they understand that, they accept it and they say that is the only way in which we can proceed with governing Singapore and living in Singapore, not just for us as a Government but for them as religious leaders.
So, Mr Manap has introduced a new element in that process today. I think that is something for him, and others around him, to think about.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr K Shanmugam]. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":" Adjournment","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"Resolved, \"That, at its rising today, Parliament do stand adjourned to a date to be fixed.\" – [Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien].
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"A Liberal Education and Corruption of the Youth of Singapore","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"
The Leader of the House (Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, \"That Parliament do now adjourn.\"
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Assoc Prof Walter Theseira (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in the past few months, the youth have shook the world. The \"School Strike for Climate\" movement led by 16-year-old, Greta Thunberg, has inspired millions of students worldwide to push their governments to take action. In Singapore, on September 21, the Singapore Climate Rally gathered more than 1,700 participants, most of them youth, to Hong Lim Park. They peacefully called for Singapore to restructure our society and economy to prevent climate change. But at the same time, Hong Kong is burning. Youth-led mass protests, while at first peaceful, have since degenerated into lawlessness and violence.
The potential and energy of the youth is clear. The only question is to what end that potential will be turned.
In September, Yale-NUS College cancelled a Learning Across Boundaries programme titled \"Dialogue and Dissent in Singapore\". The programme was organised by Singapore playwright Mr Alfian Sa'at. The reasons for cancellation have been addressed during Question Time today. What I am concerned with are the conclusions that some have drawn from the episode.
Mr Goh Choon Kang, a former Member of Parliament, wrote in Lianhe Zaobao on 18 September to critique the Yale-NUS programme. His article was titled “Singapore does not need a 'color revolution.'\" His concern is that the programme would expose students to Singaporean political dissidents, whom he argues are a subversive or improper political influence. He is concerned that impressionable students may be incited to destabilise Singapore. I do not want to single Mr Goh out. His concerns are shared by many Singaporeans who are concerned about the principles and objectives of a liberal education, and the risk of such an education being subverted for non-academic ends.
At the risk of simplifying, what is really being questioned is whether our students are being enlightened by their education or corrupted by it.
Sir, these concerns are not new. From time to time nations must hang a philosopher to encourage the others. Socrates, the founder of Western philosophy, was put to death for corrupting the youth of Athens. What is profoundly uncomfortable to many of us is the possibility that students will be taught something that is untrue; if not untrue, then, even worse, an inconvenient truth; and, that once equipped with these ideas they will be incited to put their ideals in action.
But in fact, a liberal education aims to do nothing of the kind. Like other philosophies of education, a liberal education simply aims to cultivate a good human being and citizen. What is distinctive is that a liberal education holds the student responsible for their own intellectual development. A good liberal education teaches the student that the truth is something to be discovered rather than something imparted by a wise sage; that no writing, statement or deed, should pass without critical questioning; that, as Socrates said, \"the unexamined life is not worth living\".
If as a result of education the student discovers that some social injustice exist and develops a conviction that they have a responsibility to set it right, then that is a consequence, but not the aim, of a liberal education. What are examples of such student activism? Our hon Member, Mr Mohamed Irshad, founded Roses of Peace as a student, as an inter-faith youth movement to counter religious hatred with love and kindness. Mr Lim Jingzhou, a Yale-NUS student, co-founded the Cassia Resettlement Team, a youth-led collective which supports resettled elderly and vulnerable residents through house visits and building community networks.
Many other student activists toil unseen. We should critically question the false dichotomy separating the activist from the volunteer, where we often treat the former with suspicion while showering the latter with praise. Both are the result of putting values into action.
The concern remains that who teaches and what is taught in the classroom can shape our youth for good or for ill. This morning the Minister for Education explained that we must account for personal character, behaviour and ideology, when assessing potential educators. Reasonable people will agree there are some ideologies so hostile or behaviours so reprehensible that we must protect the youth by preventing exposure. But in making such judgements we must guard against unnecessarily narrowing minds in the guise of protecting them. The story of Socrates reminds us that what is politically convenient – to university administrators, to the public, or to the Government – is not always what is truthful or right.
In the case of Mr Alfian, although we may agree he is not the ideal academic instructor of political dissent, I would hope that we judge his award winning poems and plays still worthy of study as Singapore literature; that his skills as a playwright and artistic mentor can still benefit our youth.
As for academics, I welcome the Minister’s statement that activism is compatible with the role of the academic, provided those roles are appropriately separated. As Max Weber noted, the academic has a duty to discover the truth and to force society to confront those truths. But the pursuit of truth is different from acting on it, especially in the classroom. This is not because activism is wrong, but because the student should be tested on their ability to discern the truth and not on whether their values align with those of the instructor. My academic colleagues who have been called activists, such as Assoc Prof Teo You Yenn, understand this principle well. They have distinguished themselves both with their scholarship and with their activism.
Sir, there are many legitimate but controversial topics of study – political dissent, religion, inequality, social injustice. If we are put to the test by public opinion, we must have the courage to choose to open minds rather than to close them. Rather than back down, we must pursue their inquiry with the highest standards of scholarship and teaching.
What concerns me is that it will become difficult for Singaporean academics to examine and teach contentious topics because the standards must always be exacting, perfect, lest one is accused of subversion, flawed scholarship or activist motivations. If we ask for unrealistic perfection in our critical academics, our scholars will be biased towards the safe and the status quo. This is a hidden danger that threatens us all. It encourages a sloppiness of thinking, a belief that it is safer to regurgitate received wisdom than to seek new answers. This will be bad for our youth and bad for Singapore.
Sir, if we agree that elements of a liberal education are worthwhile then the question becomes why more Singaporean youth are not exposed to these principles. There are of course trade-offs. Courses in the liberal education tradition are faculty intensive and highly demanding.
But a narrow focus on costs blinds us to the possibilities of a liberal education. Our democracy is at risk if the electorate is unable to critically assess facts, policies and ideas, leading to the politics of fear and misinformation. This is a citizenship skills gap that a liberal education addresses. A well designed liberal education will allow weaker students to develop their critical reading, writing and speaking skills in a safe space.
Today, almost all our Autonomous Universities programmes have included Core Curriculum components that do expose students to critical reading, writing and thinking. But the most comprehensive components of a liberal education are still reserved for the elite. For example, the NUS University Scholars Programme and Yale-NUS College, aim to push the intellectual boundaries of their students, and so they are highly selective to ensure rigour and quality.
Sir, I understand the practical difficulties with expanding liberal education further. But if we believe that a liberal education has benefits for active citizenship then we should make offerings available to more students. This cannot be forced. Each academic programme must decide. What the Ministry could do is to play a role as convenor, to provide a safe space for staff from our Autonomous Universities to share their practices in liberal education and to send a message that liberal education is not a luxury for the elite, but is in fact a foundation for lifelong learning and citizenship that as many should receive as possible.
Beyond education, I believe that Singaporeans in general will gain much if they will adopt the liberal values of open mindedness tempered by critical inquiry, to deal with the complexities of a changing world. I do not mean that people should adopt so-called \"Western\" liberal social or political attitudes, although I draw no adverse inferences there.
Rather, we must accept as a society and as individuals that there is a right to question ideas, beliefs and policies, and to have one's own ideas and actions be questioned, critically but respectfully. If we can recognise the importance of these values for Singapore in an uncertain future, we will see that a liberal education, far from corrupting the youth, provides a source of strength for the future.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Anthea Ong, do you wish to say something? You need to raise your hand. Yes, Ms Anthea Ong, are you speaking on the Adjournment Motion?
Ms Anthea Ong (Nominated Member): Yes, I am.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Under the Standing Orders, Assoc Prof Walter Theseira had 20 minutes for the speech. You have 10 minutes of the speaking time left.
Ms Anthea Ong: Do I speak from here or can I go to the rostrum?
Mr Deputy Speaker: Where you are.
Ms Anthea Ong: Okay. Mr Deputy Speaker, I stand here as a voice for the many young activists and advocates whom I have had the privilege to learn from and work with in different capacities, a voice for their collective concerns and aspirations. They are passionate and committed to a more democratic, more politically engaged and more inclusive way of moving Singapore forward. Deputy Prime Minister Heng Swee Keat’s words at Singapore Summit 2019 acknowledged the need to include our youths. He said, \"For young people especially, being able to actively shape the future of our nation and playing a part to build this future is key to growing their sense of ownership and commitment to Singapore.\"
However, does our political landscape give them the space to realise this vision?
At the recent SG Climate Rally organised by University students, Singaporeans spoke up to urge the Government to adopt more structural solutions to the climate crisis. One of the rally organisers, however, admitted the difficulty in speaking up. She said that when asked to speak at Speakers' Corner, she feared being put on a \"blacklist\". Another young advocate doing work in the social sector also shared about fears that the Government would choose to penalise their organisation if they spoke about issues they see on the ground. Many young Singaporeans I spoke to collectively shared concerns on the limited public space for citizens to participate in discussion, debate and dissent without the constant presence of fear, surveillance and coercion – real and imagined.
These feelings of paranoia and suspicion must not be simply dismissed. When citizens become too afraid of the repercussions to speak up and when critics become too cynical to engage, Singapore would suffer a great loss. When that day comes, only a narrow range of ideas will dominate, group-think will prevail and we will lose the dream of a diverse, inclusive and democratic Singapore. We must not confuse those who insult with those who critique.
Let us not underestimate the value of our youths speaking up and taking action to make change. For example, during the NUS controversy on sexual harassment, it was the courage and advocacy of youths that resulted in real policy reforms. If not for Monica Baey's courage to call out injustice, if not for the many students who pushed for a town hall, if not for the 400 students who turned up to confront their University administrators, it is unlikely that we would have seen change.
Then, there is CAPE, a student group based at Yale-NUS that builds capacity and political literacy for effective and constructive active citizenry with a range of important civic projects and initiatives, including producing infographics on POFMA and the \"brownface\" issue, as well as organising political education workshops with schools and Members of Parliament. Cassia Resettlement Team – my fellow Nominated Member of Parliament Assoc Prof Walter Theseira had mentioned – is a ground-up non-profit powered mostly by youths, blending community and advocacy work to support residents through a range of interconnected issues, such as poverty, public housing relocation, ageing, mental health and end-of-life issues. The Inter-University LGBT Network, a collection of student groups in Singapore Universities to collaborate in fostering safer and more inclusive school communities for everyone regardless of sexual orientation, gender identity and expression. There is Advocates for Refugees, a ground-up movement consisting of mainly youths advocating and raising consciousness for the cause of refugees. Singapore Youth Voices for Biodiversity facilitates youth discussions on topics, such as habitat preservation and development, and then channels these inputs to the Convention on Biological Diversity's international conferences and stakeholder processes.
All these groups, almost completely youth-led, are invested in the principle of deliberative and shared democracy in order to co-create a shared and inclusive Singapore they want to be a part of.
What, then, is the Government’s role?
First, a mindset change. The Government should re-evaluate their attitudes towards advocacy, activism and dissent. They should learn to embrace these actions as long as they come from a place of good faith. The narrative must move beyond \"activists as troublemakers\" – one must not arbitrarily draw the line between \"good\" and \"bad\" activists based solely on the topics they speak up on. To that end, all Singaporeans, from advocates, critics, dissenters, artists, intellectuals, writers, community organisers to \"ordinary\" citizens have their own experiences to contribute and form an important and untapped resource in Singapore’s style of governance.
Mr Deputy Speaker, my young friends also urge the Government to review their method of engagement with youth activists or those who dissent. Take, for instance, the Government's response to the Singapore Climate Rally. While the organisers had painstakingly put together a \"Call to Action\" in the hope for concrete policy follow-up, the Government's only response was to commend the organisers. Our young citizens are concerned about the asymmetry between youths who work tediously to engage the Government and the Government's perfunctory and lukewarm response. To address this asymmetry, our youths must know they are genuinely heard. This includes re-inventing the Youth Action Plan to go beyond providing grants and re-modelling Somerset, to involving youth in the mechanism of policy-making – from feedback to testing and fine-tuning policies. Youths should also be able to choose their representation on the Youth Action Panel.
We should also work to educate the public on national issues, help break down complex information and ensure they are well explained to citizens so that as many people as possible may contribute. Political literacy should be a goal the 4G leadership strives towards.
\"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently,\" said German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche.
Last week, our very own Ambassador-at-Large Professor Tommy Koh made a similar call for change to our fourth Prime Minister. He said, “We should welcome criticism as long as the critic loves Singapore and is not out to destroy Singapore. Singapore will languish if its lovers are uncritical and its critics are unloving. What Singapore needs is not sycophants but loving critics and critical lovers.”
Loving critics and critical lovers must be given space to grow and thrive and be recognised for their value and importance to our society.
Mr Deputy Speaker, before I conclude, let me reveal that this speech I just read was drafted completely and collectively by a group of young activists and advocates with me. I am impressed by their brilliance and moved by their commitment and love for Singapore. To turn many of these critical young lovers away and deny them their say would be a great loss for our country. Let us give our young ones space to challenge, roots to lead and reasons to stay.
Mr Deputy Speaker: I apologise, Ms Anthea Ong. I did not realise you were making such a long clarification. I should have let you speak from the rostrum. Senior Parliamentary Secretary Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim.
The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education (Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank Assoc Prof Walter Theseira for taking a balanced view on this matter. Minister Ong Ye Kung has addressed many of the points the Member has raised. I will respond further to two points. First, the importance of separating academia and activism in the classroom; and, second, the value of liberal arts education and critical inquiry. I will also talk about the importance of academic freedom existing within the context of our social norms. Senior Minister of State Sim Ann will subsequently respond to Ms Anthea Ong and also to some of the issues raised by Assoc Prof Walter Theseira.
First, as an academic myself, I agree with the Member that, in the classroom, activism is incompatible with the role of an academic, if one is to be able to critically assess issues from different perspectives. This is not to say that academics should only be constrained to writing papers for publications. Academics are strongly encouraged to translate their work into real world impact, be it through technological innovations or public policy recommendations. This is also not to say that all classes need to be about open-ended inquiry. There is significant space for applied learning and teaching of practical skills. But these should be guided by the objectives of education and learning and the acquisition of competencies that prepare students for work. Academics can hold their own views on various issues but they should not mobilise support for partisan causes in the course of teaching and mentoring students.
Second, our universities should provide a space where different ideas and perspectives are explored and objectively and rigorously debated. Indeed, a key attribute of liberalism is a spirit of tolerance, openness and acceptance that different people may have different views. Our educational institutions play a vital role in nurturing students into adults who are open-minded and can critically assess ideas, beliefs and policies put before them. And, likewise, be prepared for their own ideas and actions to be assessed, all in an objective and respectful manner. This is especially important in today’s age, where online falsehoods and manipulation can spread very quickly through social media information that they encounter.
The essential skill that we want our students to learn is critical thinking, which is the foundation of any education programme of high academic standards and it is not limited to a liberal arts education. All of our educational institutions nurture students to conduct critical thinking with maturity of thought and a sense of responsibility towards society – that is, to think critically, rather than, as Minister Ong Ye Kung put it, be unthinkingly critical.
As the Member acknowledged, our Universities today already have core curriculum components that develop critical thinking in students. We will work with the AUs to see how this can be further enhanced. But the AUs have their constraints, such as limited curriculum time to work with. At the Secondary school and Pre-University levels, critical thinking skills are also taught in Humanities subjects like Social Studies, which all students take. Students examine issues by considering multiple perspectives and draw reasoned conclusions substantiated by evidence and sound values, such as intellectual integrity, respect for a diversity of views and an appreciation of the implications of their conclusions on society.
Third, as Minister Ong Ye Kung said earlier, our Universities, being based in Singapore, must operate within Singapore's laws and recognise our particular social and cultural context, like everyone else. Singapore is not alone in this view. Even in countries with a strong culture of freedom of expression, speakers have been uninvited or pressured to withdraw from speaking engagements at Universities due to the need to cater to the views of the community. For instance, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, then-Chief Minister of the state of Gujarat, was dis-invited to an economic forum hosted by an American university in 2013 because of an online protest against him. Former Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund, Christine Lagarde, was pressured to withdraw from speaking at an American college after students took issue with her alleged role in the failed developmental policies implemented in poorer countries.
I am not passing any judgement on whether these decisions were wrong or right. But they show that even in the most liberal societies, academic freedom needs to exist within the norms and culture of the community. It is, therefore, important that our educational institutions abide by the principles that Minister Ong Ye Kung laid earlier in his speech. We will leave it to the Universities on how they implement these principles.
Sir, I thank Assoc Prof Walter Theseira for highlighting the concerns of the academic community on this matter. As academics, we all want to contribute in nurturing our students into adults who are open-minded, can critically assess ideas, beliefs and policies put before them, in addition to being competent in the areas that they may specialise in.
I would like to assure the academic community not to be overly concerned about their academic freedom arising from this matter. I urge them to understand the principles, as shared by Minister Ong Ye Kung, and exercise sensible judgement.
In conclusion, Sir, I would like to assure the House that MOE will continue to do our part to work with all of our educational institutions to nurture the next generations of Singaporeans into active, responsible and open-minded citizens to take Singapore forward, while remaining respectful of each other and maintaining the unity of the larger community.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Senior Minister of State Sim Ann, you have only six minutes.
7.30 pm
The Senior Minister of State for Culture, Community and Youth (Ms Sim Ann): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I would like to address Assoc Prof Walter Theseira and Ms Anthea Ong's points on youth activism. I also cannot help noticing that the concluding paragraphs of Ms Anthea Ong's speech very nicely answer the concerns that she raised at the start. I believe that Members of the House who have heard the concluding paragraphs of her speech can only conclude that our youths, through her words, are passionate, energetic and quite uninhibited in speaking up.
I agree that such youths who wish to help shape the future of Singapore should have avenues for doing so. This is indeed something that the Government has publicly committed to supporting.
MCCY has been actively engaging youths to better understand their views, aspirations and needs. Last year, we started the Youth Conversations, hearing over 8,000 youths on topics that matter most to them, such as social inequality, mental health, environmental sustainability and narratives of success. These topics were identified by youths themselves. We are heartened to see that our youths show a strong sense of purpose and care deeply about the long-term future of our country.
At the same time, we want to help youths go beyond talking about the topics and causes that captivate their attention. Good ideas need to be translated into action before they can result in concrete and positive change. Such action can be taken by the youths themselves, in partnership with others or in partnership with the Government. In the process of conceptualising and designing effective action, youths can gain a hands-on understanding of the responsibility that comes with advocating for change. They would need to work out ways to inform, persuade and mobilise others in support of their cause. Their chances of success would grow if they are open-minded and prepared to have their ideas and beliefs challenged, and if they are able to recognise and address the needs and perspectives of other segments of society.
MCCY encourages this through the design of the Youth Conversations. Among those who participated, 80% of youths indicated a better understanding of issues that Singapore faces and close to 90% agreed that they became more aware of different views.
The next stage would be to prepare our youths to take concrete action for positive change. This is why we started the SG Youth Action Plan. It is a platform for our youths to articulate their ideas and vision for Singapore's future, and to create positive change. The SG Youth Action Plan is led by a diverse group of youth leaders, who have taken an inclusive approach to reach out to youths from different walks of life and from different educational and professional backgrounds.
The SG Youth Action Plan seeks to support youths in coming up with robust and impactful policy ideas and projects by equipping them with the information and resources they need. In addition, we are bringing youth leaders to engage directly with Ministries on policy issues such as sustainability.
In the next phase of nation-building, the Government will shift from working for citizens, to working with all segments of citizens. SG Youth Action Plan is very much a part of this approach, which we have termed SG Together. It is our hope that SG Youth Action Plan will not only foster many projects undertaken by youths for the betterment of society, but also develop skills among youths for engaging with the wider society and instil confidence in them that their ideas can be translated into action and ultimately, make a positive difference.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Resolved, \"That Parliament do now adjourn\". (proc text)]
Adjourned accordingly at 7.35 pm.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":"Matter Raised On Adjournment Motion","questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Social Service Agencies' Tracking of Chin Swee Road Toddler who Died Five Years Before","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"15 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Social and Family Development with regard to the death of a toddler in a Chin Swee Road flat (a) whether Government agencies and social service agencies could have picked up the death earlier; and (b) whether the rest of the siblings are in stable care arrangements.
16 Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong asked the Minister for Social and Family Development why have Government agencies and the social services not been aware that the dead toddler recently found in a Chin Swee Road flat was missing for five years.
17 Mr Chong Kee Hiong asked the Minister for Social and Family Development regarding the discovery of a child's body at Chin Swee Road, (a) whether the family was under the watch of any Ministry-appointed counsellor in view of the family situation, (b) if so, did the disappearance of the child raised any alert; and (c) if the Ministry has measures to verify the condition of children in such troubled families where parents are uncooperative, so as to detect potential abuse as early as possible.
18 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Social and Family Development with regard to the recent Chin Swee Road toddler death, whether the toddler's birth was registered and, if so, why Government agencies did not detect the child's absence from educational and other records in spite of the absence of a certificate of death.
Mr Desmond Lee: I will give some background on our processes to protect victims of family violence. The National Family Violence Networking System (NFVNS) was set up by MSF to tighten partnerships amongst stakeholders such as the Singapore Police Force, hospitals and Family Service Centres to support individuals affected by family violence.
We have strengthened the capabilities of professionals such as teachers, healthcare professionals and social workers to detect child abuse early and intervene appropriately. Sector-wide screening tools, such as the Sector-Specific Screening Guide (SSSG) and Child Abuse Reporting Guide (CARG), were developed to help professionals make timely decisions to escalate child abuse concerns to MSF Child Protective Service. Professionals are trained regularly on the use of these screening tools.
The Penal Code was also amended in May this year to enhance protection for vulnerable victims. Maximum penalties for all offences in the Penal Code committed against vulnerable victims, including children below 14 years old, may be enhanced by up to twice the maximum penalties previously prescribed for the offence. Such offences committed against children below 14 years old were also made arrestable, regardless of whether the underlying offence was arrestable, to allow Police to intervene quickly.
Let me now turn to the specific questions that Members have raised about the death of the two-year-old child.
Mr Christopher de Souza asked about the other siblings in the affected family. The other children are all under alternative care arrangements. MSF will continue to provide the necessary support to ensure the children’s safety and welfare.
Assoc Prof Daniel Goh, Mr Chong Kee Hiong and Mr Christopher de Souza asked if the death of the child could have been picked up earlier. Mr Dennis Tan also asked whether the child’s birth was registered and whether agencies could have detected the child's absence from educational and other records.
ICA has confirmed that the child's birth was registered. Over the years, the family was known to, helped by or had contact with several various Government and community agencies, such as MSF Social Service Office, Child Protective Service, Home Team agencies, MOE, the Early Childhood Development Agency (ECDA) and Family Service Centres. These were for various matters, such as for financial assistance, family well-being and childcare issues, education and pre-school matters, and so on.
The family had previously approached the Social Service Office (SSO) to apply for financial assistance. The SSO had also linked the family up with a Family Service Centre for general support to improve the family and children’s well-being. The family also had previous interactions with Child Protective Service. During the social investigation, CPS will ascertain whether the children residing in the household are adequately provided for and work with the family to put in place a plan to address the concerns.
ECDA engaged the family as part of the pre-school outreach programme. Under the programme, outreach agencies appointed by ECDA reach out to lower income families with children not enrolled in pre-school. The agency engages the care-giver or parents on the importance of pre-school education, helps facilitate enrolment of the child in a pre-school if requested and refers them to other help agencies if necessary. If the family is uncontactable or unresponsive despite numerous visit attempts, ECDA and the outreach agencies reach out to local community partners and work with them to try to engage the family when they are more receptive.
As for education, MOE adopts several measures to reach out to parents whose children do not participate in the Primary 1 registration exercise. These include sending reminder letters and offering assistance to place the children in national Primary schools. Where there is no response to the reminder letters, MOE sends liaison officers to make home visits. If a child is not staying with the parents, MOE continues to work with various agencies to try to contact the care-givers of the child.
What members of the family said and did in their interactions with each of the different agencies and organisations over the years is relevant to on-going investigations and criminal proceedings. I should therefore not go into any specific detail. But what I will say is this: based on what the family members had said at that time and the interactions that the family had with the different agencies, the officers and social workers did not suspect that the child had gone missing or had come to any harm. The family had said that the child was being looked after by relatives. A two-year-old child will generally have no interaction, on a regular basis, with agencies. More details will be given in Court.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"4","footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Review of Screening Procedures for Foreign Domestic Workers Arriving in Singapore","subTitle":"New measures following recent detentions of three Foreign Domestic Workers","sectionType":"WANA","content":"19 Ms Rahayu Mahzam asked the Minister for Home Affairs in light of the recent detentions of three foreign domestic workers under the Internal Security Act (a) whether there is a need to review existing regulations and procedures in screening foreign workers who are permitted to work in Singapore; and (b) whether the Ministry will be coordinating with MOM to enhance awareness of employers to identify radicalised behaviour in their workers.
Mr K Shanmugam: We do have measures in place to screen foreign workers. However, the security screening can only pick up those with prior records. Individuals may also become radicalised after they have been in Singapore.
We cannot just depend on screening. We have to stay vigilant, to identify and take actions against individuals who pose a threat to Singapore's security. Our security agencies also work closely with their foreign counterparts, exchange intelligence to help uncover threats.
The community also has a role to play. Family members, friends, colleagues and employers are best placed to notice possible signs of radicalisation and they should come forward if they suspect that someone they know might be involved in terrorism-related activities. Tell-tale signs include a change of behaviour and when the person starts to espouse extremist ideologies.
MHA works closely with MOM in this area. MOM issues advisories to employers of foreign domestic workers to educate them on indicators to look out for in someone who may be radicalised or be involved in terrorism-related activities. MHA also worked with MOM to incorporate a counter-terrorism module in the Settling-In Programme for new foreign domestic workers. The module teaches new foreign domestic workers what they should and should not do, how they can look out for tell-tale signs of radicalised individuals, and the Police hotline to call.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Haze Management Strategies for Singapore Healthcare Institutes","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"20 Dr Chia Shi-Lu asked the Minister for Health how prepared are our health institutions to meet health issues that may arise from haze exposure.
21 Miss Cheng Li Hui asked the Minister for Health (a) what measures are in place in hospital wards and nursing homes especially non air-conditioned ones to help vulnerable Singaporeans cope with the haze situation; and (b) whether the Ministry has haze management guidelines for healthcare institutions in Singapore.
22 Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong asked the Minister for Health whether the Ministry has specific guidelines for public hospitals on protecting patients from the haze and whether all public hospital wards should be air-conditioned and fitted with air purification filters.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: MOH has issued guidelines to public healthcare institutions to protect the welfare of its patients and staff during periods of haze. These guidelines apply to all public hospitals, polyclinics and nursing homes.
In addition, MOH had provided funding to public hospitals, polyclinics and non-private nursing homes to purchase air purifiers and portable air coolers for use in naturally ventilated wards during haze situations. While MOH's current policy is for subsidised wards in public hospitals and for Government-built nursing homes to be naturally ventilated, these institutions can close the windows during sustained severe haze and deploy fans, portable air coolers and air purifiers to mitigate the effects of haze. Some of the newer hospitals such as Ng Teng Fong General Hospital, Jurong Community Hospital and Sengkang General and Community Hospitals are fitted with air filtration systems to supply filtered air to naturally ventilated wards during haze. MOH has also reminded residential and centre-based community care providers to replace outdoor activities with indoor ones when the haze situation worsens.
Healthcare institutions will monitor patients closely for possible health effects from the haze, especially patients with higher care needs, including the elderly, pregnant women, children and those with existing chronic respiratory and heart disease. These patients will be given appropriate medical care when needed.
To prepare for severe haze situations, MOH has also worked with the public hospitals and polyclinics to ensure adequate supply of masks and other medical supplies including medications. To cope with any surge in demand, the public hospitals have plans to ensure adequate staffing for critical services, such as Emergency Departments, and ramp up bed capacity as needed. At the polyclinics, fast track consultation and home medication delivery services are some of the measures deployed for vulnerable patients including those who need support at home.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"3","footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Practice to Peg Price of HDB BTO Flats to Average Income","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"23 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for National Development whether the Ministry will continue to keep the existing pricing of HDB BTO flats pegged against average income instead of market price in view of the recent raising of the income ceiling.
Mr Lawrence Wong: The Government is committed to providing affordable public housing to help citizen households own their first home. To do this, HDB prices its new flats at significant discounts to the market. In particular, we ensure that the vast majority of first-timer families are able to buy new BTO flats in non-mature estates and service their monthly mortgage instalments using their CPF, with zero or minimal cash outlay. So, even if the market price were to move up, we will continue to keep BTO prices affordable in line with this commitment.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Plan to Curb Increasing Trend of Scam Cases","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"24 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) what is the Ministry's plan to curb the increasing trend of scam cases; (b) how effective are the current public education efforts; and (c) how can the various stakeholders such as e-commerce companies, banks and the community play a part in preventing scam cases.
Mr K Shanmugam: In the first half of 2019, for the top ten types of scam, there were 3,591 Police reports lodged, with losses totalling $83.1 million. Compared to the same period last year, this was a 40% increase in both the number of reports, and amount cheated.
The Police take a multi-pronged approach to tackling scams.
First, strengthen our capabilities to investigate and bring the perpetrators to justice.
As many scams are perpetrated by foreign syndicates, the Police set up the Transnational Commercial Crime Task Force (TCTF) in October 2017. The TCTF works closely with foreign law enforcement agencies to crack down on foreign syndicates targeting Singaporeans.
Since its set-up, the TCTF has worked with the Royal Malaysia Police and the Hong Kong Police in six joint operations on Internet love scams reported in the three jurisdictions, solving about 270 cases involving S$27.6 million. In April 2019, two Nigerian scammers, who operated Internet love scams targeting Singaporeans, were arrested in Malaysia and brought to Singapore to face charges. This was the first time that overseas-based suspects involved in Internet love scams have been arrested and sent to Singapore for prosecution.
As for e-commerce scams, the Police set up an E-Commerce Fraud Enforcement and Coordination Team (E-FECT) in November 2018. Since its formation, the E-FECT has arrested 54 e-commerce scammers and solved more than 920 e-commerce scams.
Second, we want to act quickly to disrupt scammers’ operations and mitigate victims’ losses. To strengthen our ability to do so, the Police’s Commercial Affairs Department (CAD) set up the Anti-Scam Centre (ASC) on 18 June 2019. The ASC is focused on the following three actions.
First, the swift freezing of bank accounts. The ASC works closely with the three major local banks – DBS Bank, OCBC Bank and UOB, to freeze suspicious bank accounts that are detected to be involved in scams, and impede fund transfers involving such accounts. These bank accounts can be frozen within a few days of notification – typically within a day, actually – which is an improvement over the previous process where banks could take up to a month to comply.
Second, working with digital platforms to introduce scam prevention measures and disrupt scammers’ activities. One example is the introduction of scam prevention measures by Carousell on its platform, which include scam advisories and \"Caroupay\", a form of escrow payment which holds money paid by buyers until the sale is acknowledged by both buyers and sellers.
Third, working with telecommunications companies to swiftly terminate mobile lines used by scammers.
In the first three months of the ASC's operations, 1,632 e-commerce and loan scam reports involving S$3.8 million were referred to the ASC. The ASC managed to freeze 1,286 bank accounts and recover around S$1.25 million, about 33% of the amount lost.
The third approach is to work closely with various stakeholders in the fight against scams. For example, the Police actively work with print, online, radio and TV broadcast media, as well as through the Police’s own social media channels, to raise awareness of typical scams and especially new scams.
Business operators can also help by preventing, deterring and detecting crimes at their business premises. The Police have been working with stakeholders such as convenience stores, remittance agencies and banks, to raise their awareness and help develop scam prevention measures. These include training frontline counter staff to spot scam victims, and displaying crime advisories prominently at the counters and automated teller machines. These efforts have helped prevent at least 77 scam cases involving more than $160,000 in 2019 so far.
But public education remains the key. A discerning public is our best defence. No amount of Police resources will be enough to stop scams, because the Police are alerted only after the crime, and the scammers constantly evolve their methods. In fact, the primary responsibility for stopping this increasing trend of scams should lie with all of us. If we are more sceptical of incredulous inducements promised by scammers, transact only on reliable platforms, and develop a habit of checking with the actual authorities when approached by dubious entities purporting to be Government officials, fewer of us would fall prey.
To this end, the Police partner the National Crime Prevention Council (NCPC) to raise public awareness. For example, there is a regular \"Scamalert\" segment on \"CrimeWatch\" dedicated to educating the public on scams. A Scamalert.sg website was launched in 2014 to inform members of the public on the latest scam types. The website has had over 1.2 million visits to date. In 2016, the Police and NCPC launched an Anti-Scam Helpline (1800-722-6688) for the public to seek scam-related advice. Direct mailers containing scam-related information are also regularly sent to households in Singapore.
Everyone should play a part in the fight against scams. Members of the public are urged to stay vigilant and report possible scams promptly to the Police.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Non-legally Trained Persons Providing Advice for Drafting of Wills","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"25 Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling asked the Minister for Law (a) whether the Ministry has statistics regarding organisations or non-legally trained individuals who are advising clients on the drafting of wills; and (b) whether the Ministry intends to restrict, supervise or regulate non-lawyers and organisations that are not legally trained from dealing with the business of will drafting.
Mr K Shanmugam: Will-writing services are not restricted solely to lawyers and are not a regulated activity under the Legal Profession Act1. This accords with the approach in other jurisdictions such as Britain.
People who wish to make a will have a range of choices. They may write the will themselves, or seek the help of a will-writing service provider. Those who envisage their assets being distributed or managed in a complex manner can engage a lawyer to assist with drafting the will. The Legal Aid Bureau also offers legal assistance in the drafting of wills to Singapore Citizens and Permanent Residents of limited means. We do not maintain statistics on the provision of will-writing services.
We encourage the public to deposit information on their wills with the Wills Registry, which is a confidential registry maintained by the Public Trustee. Doing so will make it easier to locate the will in future.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":["1 : Section 33(10)(a) of the Legal Profession Act carves out wills or other testamentary documents from the types of documents and instruments which only a practising advocate and solicitor may draw or prepare."],"footNoteQuestions":["25"],"questionNo":"25"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Selection Criteria Applied to SMEs for Scale-up SG Initiative","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"26 Mr Kwek Hian Chuan Henry asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) what are the key criteria for SMEs to be selected for the Scale-up SG initiative; and (b) what is the likely number of companies that will benefit from this programme over the next 24 months.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: Scale-up SG supports local companies with high growth potential to develop into global or regional leaders in their respective sectors. Participating companies go through a 2.5-year programme together with Enterprise Singapore and other programme partners. We support the companies in management development, business innovation, market penetration and other areas that will help to accelerate their growth.
As the process is resource-intensive, we choose the participating companies carefully. Besides a high level of commitment from the founders and CEOs to embark on an ambitious growth plan, ESG also looks at the company's track record; the commitment to grow its presence in Singapore, especially headquarters and management control functions; and the potential to create economic spin-offs for Singapore and create good jobs for Singaporeans.
Scale-up SG was launched in July 2019 with 25 companies from various industries in the first two cohorts. Examples of companies include JUMBO Group from the food and beverage sector, AEM Holdings from the advanced manufacturing sector, Chye Thiam Maintenance from the cleaning and waste management sector, and Health Management International from the healthcare sector. Enterprise Singapore plans for another four to six cohorts to embark on the Scale-up SG programme over the next two years, with each cohort comprising 10 to 15 companies.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Increase Ridership of Public Transport","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"27 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for Transport (a) what is the latest mode share of public transport; (b) how have the shifts been in the last five years; and (c) how can the overall ridership of public transport be increased.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: Based on LTA's Travel Survey, the peak-period Walk-Cycle-Ride (WCR) mode share is about 72% today. This is an increase from the mode share of 69% recorded in 2012. WCR includes walking, cycling, rides on public transport and point-to-point transport using taxis, private hire cars.
Following our Land Transport Master Plan (LTMP) 2013 commitment to make public transport more accessible to all, we have expanded our rail network from 182 km to 229 km and built about 200 km of covered walkways. LTMP 2040 builds on this improvement and aims to achieve 90% peak-period WCR mode share by 2040. To meet this target, we will first, enhance our public transport network and improve bus speeds through more Transit Priority Corridors. Second, we will further expand rail connectivity. Third, we will expand the active mobility network and triple the cycling network, especially at the first-and-last mile level. Fourth, we will enhance safety for users through public education and effective enforcement against irresponsible users and retailers.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"HDB Rental Flat Applicants Who Have Exceeded Income Eligibility Ceiling","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"28 Mr Pritam Singh asked the Minister for National Development over the past five years, how many successful HDB rental flat applicants have exceeded the income eligibility threshold of $1,500.
29 Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong asked the Minister for National Development how many applications to rent HDB flats under the Public Rental Scheme have been rejected because the applicants have exceeded the household income ceiling in the three years before the change in policy to make the criteria more flexible.
Mr Lawrence Wong: For some time now, HDB has been taking a needs-based approach in assessing requests for public rental flats. HDB will evaluate each application holistically, taking into account factors such as household income, and whether the applicants have other housing options and family support.
This approach is not new. MND has stated this in Parliament previously and highlighted that HDB will assist those in need with a public rental flat even if their income exceeds $1,500.
Over the last five years, HDB has allocated rental flats to about 720 applicants who exceeded the income guideline of $1,500. There is no available data on the number of applicants who were rejected on the basis that they had incomes above $1,500, as applicants are not rejected solely based on their household income.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"2","footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Plans to Reduce Students' Reliance on Private Tuition","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"31 Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked the Minister for Education in view of the massive amount spent on private tuition, whether there have been any studies on why students rely on tuition and whether the Ministry has any plans to reduce students' reliance on tuition.
32 Mr Seah Kian Peng asked the Minister for Education in view of the $1.4 billion spent on private tuition by Singapore households in 2018 (a) whether the Ministry has concerns about this phenomenon; and (b) whether the Ministry allows current MOE teachers to give private tuition and, if so, what proportion of these teachers give private tuition now.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The reasons for taking up tuition are multi-faceted. It is important to be able to distinguish when it is desirable and when it is not. For example, we recognise that tuition can benefit students who are genuinely in need of more dedicated help in coping with their studies. This is why some of our schools have partnerships with volunteers and Self-Help Groups that provide affordable academic support. We also know that, at heart, many parents send their children for tuition out of care and concern for their child. They worry whether their children can cope with their studies and about examinations.
However, if a child is generally coping well academically and understands the fundamentals, tuition may not be necessary and can even be detrimental. Excessive reliance on tuition can diminish the ability for independent learning, deprive students of opportunities to develop self-management skills and promote unhealthy competition. Further, widespread and continuous tuition can lead to a pervasive tuition culture anchored on excessive focus on academic grades, and a mind-set that academic grades is only one way to succeed in life. This runs counter to our philosophy of holistic education and our goal of nurturing lifelong learners.
In response to Mr Lim Biow Chuan's question on reducing reliance on tuition, we first have to address the excessive focus on academic grades, with the emphasis here being on \"excessive\". In order to strike the right balance MOE has, in recent years, introduced several policy changes under our Learn for Life movement. For example, we have expanded the number of Direct School Admission (DSA) places in schools, reduced school-based assessments, and will be implementing changes to the PSLE scoring system in 2021. By 2024, we will roll out Full Subject-Based Banding in all Secondary schools. Our curriculum has also evolved to become more inquiry-based, more experiential.
We continue to support students who need additional help in schools, through initiatives such as learning support programmes for English and Mathematics. Our schools will continue to provide more resources for students who have learning needs, including having smaller class sizes for these students. Schools will also maintain their partnerships with Self-Help Groups to provide support for our students.
Mr Seah Kian Peng has asked what proportion of our teachers are currently giving tuition. Our surveys indicate that it is not a prevalent practice – around one in 10 teachers is giving paid tuition. Nevertheless, this is a matter that MOE continues to monitor closely, as we would be concerned if our teachers are distracted from their core responsibility to support their students in our schools, especially those who are in need of more support from our teachers.
The public sector has existing guidelines on public servants participating in outside activities that may place them in possible conflict of interest situations, or where we would deem it necessary for approvals to be given to ensure proper conduct and avoid distraction of individual officers from their core duties. MOE will periodically review our guidelines and regulations for our teachers giving paid private tuition to ensure that they remain focused on their core duties.
Reducing an over-reliance on tuition is not something that MOE can do alone. It requires the support of parents and the wider community. It also requires a mindset change that shifts away from an excessive focus on academic grades to one of holistic education, and an understanding that there are many different pathways for our children to achieve their full potential and do well in life. To that end, we recently introduced guidelines for School-Home partnerships, to share ways in which parents and schools can work together to help enable children develop self-management skills and take ownership of their learning. Together with parents, we can shift the culture to one where our children have the self-confidence and support from their families, schools and peers to manage their learning, instead of turning to tuition as the default option whenever they feel they need help.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"2","footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of Increase in Public Transport Fares on Amount of Vouchers Given Out and on Financial Sustainability of Public Transport Operators","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"34 Miss Cheng Li Hui asked the Minister for Transport in light of the Public Transport Council's announcement of a fare increase of up to 7% in the 2019 fare review exercise (a) whether the Ministry intends to increase the quantum to be disbursed in the 2019 public transport voucher exercise; and (b) how does LTA ensure the financial sustainability of our public transport without degrading service standards when fare adjustments are not in tandem with the cost of operation.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: The Public Transport Council (PTC)'s fare formula was designed to keep fares in line with macroeconomic cost factors, such as inflation, wages, fuel, and network capacity increases, together with a productivity extraction. However, as I had explained in July this year, the fare adjustments were not fully implemented for many years, contributing to substantial losses by the public transport operators, and resulting in increased Government subsidies.
We cannot keep adding to taxpayers' burden, since every dollar spent on public transport subsidies is a dollar less for other national priorities like education and healthcare. The operators cannot sustain losses without performance degradation. As responsible employers, they also need to ensure that their workers' livelihoods are not affected. For all these reasons, we must keep our costs in check and set fares at the right level.
The PTC will ensure fares remain affordable for all. Our public transport fares are among the most affordable in the world, especially for concession groups such as students and seniors. One in two Singaporeans enjoys concessionary fares with a discount as high as 70% of adult fares.
In addition, the Government will step in to cushion the impact of the fare adjustment on lower income households. For example, for the 2018 Fare Review Exercise, the Government made available 300,000 Public Transport Vouchers (PTVs) worth $30 each. This is the largest PTV Exercise to date.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Waiting Period for Eligible Applicant to be Assigned Public Rental Flat","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"35 Mr Png Eng Huat asked the Minister for National Development (a) as of August 2019, what is the number of public rental flats that are not occupied; (b) what is the current number of accepted rental flat applicants on the wait list; and (c) what is the expected waiting period for an eligible applicant to be assigned a public rental flat.
Mr Lawrence Wong: HDB currently has available about 8,000 rental units. Not all of these are meant for new rental applications. We have earlier announced that HDB will be embarking on redevelopment plans for many of the older rental blocks. So, the buffer of rental units is also meant to cater to existing tenants whose flats will be due for redevelopment in the coming years.
Currently, there are about 200 households waiting to collect their keys to a public rental flat. Some of these households have already been invited for key collection, but chose to defer it, for instance due to locational preferences.
Because we now have sufficient rental units to meet demand, the time taken for an applicant to be assigned a public rental flat is about two months, especially if the applicant is not particular about location. Some waiting time is inevitable for HDB to assess the application and to identify available rental units that will fit the applicant's preferred location.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"One-room Flexi Flats for Singles with Lower Financial Capability","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"36 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for National Development whether HDB will consider building 1-room Flexi flats that are integrated with other flat types for singles who have a lower financial capability to purchase HDB flats.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Eligible singles can purchase 2-room Flexi BTO flats in the non-mature estates. Such flats come in two sizes, 36 sqm and 45 sqm, and are integrated with other flat types in the same blocks. The smaller 36-sqm flat is cheaper and caters to singles who have more limited budgets or less space needs. In fact, after the generous Government discounts and subsidies, first-timer singles buying new flats, on average, use only about 20% of their monthly income for mortgage instalments. This means that they are generally able to service their mortgages from their CPF contributions, with little or no cash outlay. So, the existing 2-room Flexi units provide affordable housing options for singles and there may not be a need to make the flat sizes smaller.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Ensuring Media Literacy Council's Materials are Appropriate for Schools","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"38 Ms Anthea Ong asked the Minister for Communications and Information (a) what are the Media Literary Council's guidelines regarding fake news, satire, parody and opinion; (b) how does the Council ensure that the media literacy curriculum and materials are age-appropriate for schools; and (c) what is the Ministry's overall media literacy plan for Singapore including that on matters under the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act.
39 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Communications and Information (a) how many copies of the \"Get Smart with Sherlock\" booklet on fake news have been printed; (b) how many copies have been distributed to students; and (c) whether the Ministry will review the current vetting processes for such material.
Mr S Iswaran: The Media Literacy Council aims to promote cyber safety and security, sound judgement and civility when online. Its overall public education effort falls under the themes \"Be Safe, Be Smart and Be Kind\". These efforts help to develop an informed and discerning public, which is the best defence against the threats posed by a fast-changing media landscape. The Council does not issue any guidelines.
The Council members bring valuable expertise and perspectives from diverse fields and community groups. The Council also works with schools, businesses, community groups and Government agencies in developing educational programmes and materials on media literacy and cyber-wellness. The collective expertise of the Council's members and its consultative processes are key to ensuring that the Council's programmes and materials are of quality and relevance to its audience.
For example, the \"Get Smart with Sherlock\" guide was developed as part of the Media Literacy Council's public education campaign. The Guide is a resource for the general adult public to understand the context and various forms of online content. The material was tested with demographically representative focus groups and refined to ensure its suitability. The guide was offered to schools as a resource for parents to use with their children. Twenty-nine schools requested copies of the guide and 32,000 copies were provided.
The Council stopped the distribution of the guide in August. Advisories have been sent to the 29 schools to reiterate the intent for the guide to be used by parents. The Council regularly reviews its materials and processes in consultation with the Ministry and other stakeholders.
The public education work undertaken by the Media Literacy Council is an important part of MCI's national effort to promote safe, secure and responsible online behaviour and consumption of media content. We will continue to support these efforts so that, together, we can help ensure responsible and discerning use of the internet and social media for the benefit of all citizens.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"2","footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Plans for Action Community for Entrepreneurship","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"42 Mr Kwek Hian Chuan Henry asked the Minister for Trade and Industry whether the Ministry can provide an update on the achievement of the Action Community for Entrepreneurship (ACE) programme and whether there is a need to evolve the current status of ACE.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: The Action Community for Entrepreneurship (ACE) was founded in 2003 to help start-ups in areas such as mentorship, network building, talent, and financing. It transitioned into a private sector-led organisation in 2014.
In the last five years, ACE has supported more than 2,000 start-ups through various programmes and initiatives, including facilitating more than 200 mentorships through the ACE Mentorship Programme. As an Accredited Mentor Partner under Enterprise Singapore’s Startup SG Founder programme, ACE also mentors first-time entrepreneurs. Through its overseas networks, ACE has helped Singapore-based start-ups access international markets.
ACE is constantly looking for new ways to invigorate our startup ecosystem. In August this year, it launched the Innovation Enablers Network (IEN) which aggregates opportunities for corporates and start-ups to collaborate on innovation. Through such connections, start-ups are able to gain access to new resources and build up their track record, while corporates benefit from knowing what are the cutting-edge innovative solutions.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Security Bollards to Prevent Vehicles from Ploughing into Bus Stops","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"43 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Transport whether the Ministry will consider constructing bollards in front of all bus stops to prevent vehicles ploughing into the bus stops and injuring people but yet allowing wheelchair users to pass through these bollards to board their buses.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: LTA builds safety bollards at all bus stops, unless the site conditions do not allow for their construction. So far, bollards have been built at 98% of all bus stops. They are designed to allow wheelchair passengers to board and alight at the bus stops.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Plans for Bilateral Military Co-operation with China","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"44 Mr Ong Teng Koon asked the Minister for Defence whether he can provide an update on plans for bilateral military co-operation with China.
Dr Ng Eng Hen: Singapore's defence ties with China are healthy and growing. The SAF conducts regular exercises with the PLA. The flagship bilateral Army Exercise Cooperation was successfully completed in Singapore this year, progressing to company-plus level exercises. The Army looks forward to Exercise Cooperation 2020 in China. When the Exercise Cooperation was held in Nanjing in 2014, I witnessed the good rapport and professionalism on both sides there. Our Navy also successfully co-organised the inaugural ASEAN-China Maritime Exercise with the PLA Navy in October last year. I visited the exercise troops in Zhanjiang, and was happy to learn that they were using RSN's platform – the Information Fusion Centre's Real-Time Information Sharing System (IRIS) – to provide a common situation picture for the conduct of the exercise.
Engagements between the military commanders and defence officials are frequent and productive. The Chief of Defence Force conducted his introductory visit to China in September 2018 and met his counterpart the PLA Chief of Joint Staff GEN Li Zuocheng. In November 2018, SAF's Chief of Air Force visited the Zhuhai Airshow and met Commander of the PLA Air Force GEN Ding Laihang. More recently in April 2019, the SAF's Chief of Navy attended the International Fleet Review in Qingdao in commemoration of the PLA Navy's 70th anniversary, hosted by Commander of the PLA Navy ADM Shen Jinlong.
China Minister of National Defense and State Councilor GEN Wei Fenghe conducted his introductory visit and attended the 18th Shangri-La Dialogue earlier this year, the first time since 2011 that China was represented by their Defence Minister. I attend the Beijing Xiangshan Forum regularly and later this month, on their invitation, I will attend the 7th Military World Games Opening Ceremony and speak at the 9th Beijing Xiangshan Forum.
Both China and Singapore have agreed in principle to step up defence cooperation and deepen defence ties further. To institutionalise and implement these efforts, both Ministries are actively working to conclude an enhanced Agreement on Defence Exchanges and Security Cooperation (ADESC), which was first signed in 2008. Among the items considered are formalising high-level dialogues and greater cooperation between the various Services, and academic and think-tank exchanges. We also want to increase the scale of existing bilateral exercises.
Looking ahead, 2020 marks the 30th anniversary of Singapore-China diplomatic relations. Both defence establishments are exploring ways to commemorate the anniversary including through our flagship bilateral exercises – Exercise Maritime Cooperation and Exercise Cooperation – next year.
These positive developments reflect the confidence and understanding of both countries towards each other, anchored on the shared goal of maintaining stability in our region through military cooperation. MINDEF and the SAF look forward to continue working with the Chinese defence establishment to build trust and cooperate in areas of mutual interest.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Complaints Made to Do Not Call Registry","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"45 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Communications and Information (a) in the past three years, what is the number of complaint cases reported to the Do Not Call (DNC) registry; (b) how many of these complaint cases are repeated cases involving the same complainant's phone number; and (c) what actions have been taken against the perpetrators.
Mr S Iswaran: Since 2017, the Personal Data Protection Commission (PDPC) has received 46,600 complaints on unsolicited calls and text messages. Around 90% of these complaints relate to serious crimes such as unlicensed moneylending and illegal gambling, and are referred to the Singapore Police Force. Of the remainder, about 400 complaints are repeat cases involving the same complainants.
The PDPC has taken action against more than 1,000 organisations since 2017. These actions range from issuing advisory notices and warnings, to prosecution. In determining the appropriate enforcement action, the PDPC takes into account factors such as the harm caused, the number of complaints against the organisation and recidivism. The PDPC keeps a close watch on organisations' compliance with the Do Not Call obligations and will not hesitate to take appropriate enforcement action against errant organisations.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Efforts to Further Improve Employment of Senior Singaporeans","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"46 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what are the current employment trends and employment rates of Singaporeans between the ages of (i) 50 and 59 and (ii) 60 and 65 respectively; and (b) what are the policy measures and concerted efforts required to further improve the employment rate of senior Singaporeans.
Mrs Josephine Teo: Over the past decade, concerted tripartite efforts have led to an improvement in older worker employment outcomes. The employment rate for residents aged 50 to 59 rose from 70% in 2008 to 76% in 2018. The employment rate for residents aged 60 to 64 saw a significant increase as well, from 47% in 2008 to 60% in 2018.
A Tripartite Workgroup on Older Workers was formed to develop recommendations to help strengthen support for older worker employment. The Workgroup has released its recommendations in August this year. These recommendations were fully accepted by the Government.
In particular, Prime Minister announced the Government's acceptance of the Workgroup's recommendation to raise the Retirement Age (RA) and Re-employment Age (REA) to 65 and 70 by 2030. The first move, to increase RA to 63 and REA to 68 will take effect from 1 July 2022. The increases in RA and REA will provide older workers the assurance of employment up to a higher age, while continuing to meet employers' need for flexibility to make reasonable adjustments to the employment terms of re-employed workers.
As legislation alone is insufficient to achieve truly age-friendly labour markets, the Workgroup also made recommendations to promote inclusive and progressive workplaces for older workers. These include (a) voluntary adoption of the higher RA and REA ahead of scheduled legislative changes; (b) implementing transformative job redesign to effect systems-level and organisation-wide change; (c) engaging mature and older workers in structured career planning sessions to guide workers on the training they need for career development and re-employment; and (d) providing part time employment opportunities to allow more older workers to continue working at lower intensities.
Both employers and older workers must play their parts in achieving productive longevity for Singaporeans. Employers must redesign workplaces and processes in ways that support older workers to continue contributing meaningfully and ensure they are equipped with the right skills to perform. Workers must also be adaptable, willing to upgrade and update their skills, and keep an open mind about trying new roles. The Government has committed to support both employers and workers to make these necessary changes. More details on this support will be shared at Budget 2020.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Percentage in Each Cohort of Teachers who Have Been Offered Re-employment","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"47 Mr Zainal Sapari asked the Minister for Education (a) since 2016, what is the number as well as percentage of each cohort of teachers who have been offered re-employment upon reaching 62 years old; (b) whether there has been an increase in the number of teachers not being offered re-employment since the recent merger of schools; (c) what are the reasons for teachers who have reached the retirement age not being offered re-employment; and (d) whether there are excess teachers in the school system now.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: MOE's re-employment practices are aligned to those of the Singapore Public Service. From 2014 to 2018, about 90% of retiring teachers are offered re-employment every year. Whether a teacher is offered re-employment at age 62 is primarily determined by the teacher’s performance and conduct. It has nothing to do with school mergers.
Our overall teacher workforce numbers have remained stable in the last five years. Against a backdrop of falling birth rates and smaller student cohort sizes, the pupil to teacher ratio has improved over the years and teachers have been deployed to do meaningful work.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Subsidies for Dyslexic Students who Take Basic Chinese Programme at Dyslexia Association of Singapore","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"48 Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling asked the Minister for Education (a) whether subsidies can be provided for dyslexic students who wish to take the basic Chinese programme offered by the Dyslexia Association of Singapore; and (b) if not possible, what are the reasons for the non-provision.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: MOE is the major supporter of the work of the Dyslexia Association of Singapore (DAS). Our focus is the evidence-based Main Literacy Programme for dyslexia, but we do not provide funding for the other programmes offered by DAS, such as Chinese, Mathematics, Speech and Drama.
Research into dyslexia for different languages, especially Mother Tongue Languages (MTL), and the specific learning support is a developing field. MOE monitors various research findings in MTL learning difficulties and is open to adopting evidence-based and effective targeted interventions for students with dyslexia.
In the meantime, MOE provides additional support for students with difficulties in learning MTL in schools, on a needs basis. Our Primary school curriculum ensures that MTL learning in Primary 1 and 2 focuses on listening and speaking. We will be implementing the Mother Tongue Support Programme for Primary 3 and 4 students in 2021 and 2022 respectively. After Primary 4, students who have persistent difficulties in coping with the standard MTL curriculum can consider offering Foundation MTL in Primary 5 and 6, and subsequently MTL \"B\" in Secondary school and Junior College.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reviewing Temperature Tolerable Limits when Conducting Stability Testing for Pharmaceutical Products In View of Global Warming","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"49 Ms Irene Quay Siew Ching asked the Minister for Health (a) whether HSA is reviewing the temperature tolerable limits when conducting stability testing for pharmaceutical products, in view of global warming and temperatures in Singapore expected to hit \t40°C by 2045; and (b) whether the current stability testing limits at \t30°C is still valid, considering daily maximum temperatures frequently hitting above 34°C.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The Health Sciences Authority (HSA) sets stringent standards on the quality of medicines sold in Singapore.
Manufacturers are required to conduct tests to demonstrate to HSA that the medicines remain of good quality throughout their shelf life. These include conducting long term stability studies under the condition of 30°C to establish the shelf life of the medicines, and at 40°C for a minimum period of six months to evaluate the impact of excursions to harsher conditions. The requirement adopted by HSA is in line with the most stringent international guidelines.
These test conditions are sufficiently robust to ensure the continued quality of our medicines, even with current temperature elevations. All our medicines are stored in HSA licensed premises where the temperatures are appropriately controlled to ensure that quality is maintained. Patients are also advised to keep their medications away from direct sunlight when storing them at home.
HSA recognises the potential impact of climate change on the quality of medicines. We have assessed that the current testing requirements are sufficiently robust considering the average annual temperature in Singapore have remained fairly consistent in the range of 27.5°C to 28.5°C since 2005 when the testing requirements were established. Nonetheless, we will continue to monitor local environmental changes and review the testing requirements where necessary. We will do this in collaboration with international regulators and our relevant stakeholders.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Difference in Cost of Testing for Dengue Fever at CHAS Clinics, Polyclinics and Private Clinics","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"50 Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling asked the Minister for Health (a) what is the cost of testing for dengue fever; and (b) whether there is any difference in the cost, before subsidy, of dengue fever tests at CHAS clinics, polyclinics or private clinics.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Typically, a blood test is used to determine whether a patient is infected with dengue fever.
Before Government subsidy, a dengue blood test could cost about $70 to $80 at a General Practitioner (GP) clinic, and about $50 to $60 at a polyclinic. The cost may vary for a range of reasons, including the type of test used, operating costs of the clinic and the fees of the laboratory used.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Citizenship Application Process for Foreign Baby or Child Adopted by Singaporeans","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"51 Mr Darryl David asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) what is the citizenship application process for a foreign baby or child adopted by a Singaporean; and (b) how long is the process expected to take.
Mr K Shanmugam: A Singaporean can sponsor his or her legally adopted foreign child for Singapore Citizenship. He or she will have to submit an online application via Immigration and Checkpoints Authority's (ICA) website, and provide supporting documents, such as the child's birth certificate and adoption papers.
Citizenship applications usually take around six to 12 months to process.
A point to note is that a successful adoption does not guarantee that the child will be granted Singapore Citizenship. All citizenship applications are assessed on a range of criteria, including the circumstances of the applicant and the family, as well as the Government's policies, including on marriage and parenthood.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Clarification for Write-up on Taking Childcare Leave on Ministry of Manpower Website","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"53 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Manpower with regard to the write-up on taking childcare leave on the Ministry's website, whether the Ministry will provide clearer definitions of (i) \"matters that cannot be postponed\" and to clarify whether child sickness falls under this category and (ii) \"early notice\" and to clarify the number of days or hours of notice that employees need to provide to their employers before taking childcare leave for matters that cannot be postponed.
Mrs Josephine Teo: Eligible working parents are entitled to paid childcare leave, provided for under the Child Development Co-Savings Act (CDCA) and the Employment Act (EA). Childcare leave supports parents in caring for and spending time with their young children.
While parents are entitled to childcare leave, every leave application is subject to the employers' approval, which cannot be unreasonably withheld.
Early notice of the intention to take childcare leave provides lead-time for employers to make alternative arrangements to cover the work duties of the employee where necessary. On the other hand, it would not be practical to expect employees to be able to give advance notice of matters which cannot be foreseen and cannot be postponed for example, their child falling ill suddenly.
Some businesses operating on shifts may need a longer lead-time for employers to make alternative covering arrangements, while others may not need any lead-time at all. It would therefore not be helpful to prescribe, in terms of number of hours or days, what constitutes sufficient early notice.
The vast majority of employers and employees have been able to work out mutually workable arrangements. As a last-resort safeguard, employees who think they have been unreasonably denied childcare leave, can report their cases to MOM.
I thank the Member for highlighting the current information on childcare leave found in the MOM website. Presently, the write-up does not make a clear distinction between legislated childcare leave versus practical advice aimed to promote mutual trust and harmony between employees and employers. MOM will review the information to make the details of childcare leave clearer.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Ownership of Fruit from Trees Located on State Land","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"54 Mr Darryl David asked the Minister for National Development (a) to whom do the fruit of trees located on state/public land belong; and (b) what is the penalty for any person who (i) casually collects a fruit that has dropped from a tree grown on state/public land and (ii) actively plucks a fruit from a tree grown on state/public land respectively.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Trees, including their fruit, which are located on state land belong to the state.
NParks manages most of the trees on state land. Members of the public who wish to pluck fruit from trees or collect fruit that has dropped from trees on state land should approach NParks for permission. Those who pluck or collect fruit in a public park without permission can be fined up to $5,000 under the Parks and Trees Act. Those who do so in a nature reserve or a national park can be fined up to $50,000, and/or imprisoned for up to six months.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Skybridges to Connect Flats without Lifts on Their Floor","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"55 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for National Development whether HDB will consider alternatives such as skybridges to connect flats without lifts on their floor to the next available lift if lifts on every floor remain non-feasible for the time being.
Mr Lawrence Wong: The Lift Upgrading Programme (LUP) was launched in 2001 to provide direct lift access to flats and enhance convenience for residents, especially the elderly and the less mobile. At the start of the programme, there were more than 5,300 HDB blocks without 100% lift access.
Over the years, HDB has adopted innovative technical solutions, such as lifts that do not have a machine room at the top of the shafts, and small capacity lifts, to help such blocks to have direct lift access. Through these efforts, the vast majority of the 5,300 blocks are now able to benefit from LUP. There now remain about 150 blocks where it is still not possible to implement LUP due to high cost, or existing technical or site constraints.
With regard to the suggestion to create sky bridges to connect flats without direct lift access to the nearest lift, we will need to study this carefully. Such sky bridges will require extensive structural works, which is likely to be very expensive.
Meanwhile, we continue to look for cost effective technical solutions for flats without direct lift access. Residents who are in urgent need of direct lift access due to medical conditions or disability may approach HDB for assistance. HDB will look into the specific circumstances of each case, and see how best to render help.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"State Which Party can List a Child as Essential Occupier for Purchase of HDB Flats in Divorce Rulings with Shared Custody of Child","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"56 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Social and Family Development whether the Ministry will consider requiring divorce rulings that award shared care and control to also state which party is allowed to list the child as an essential occupier in their application to buy a subsidised HDB flat.
Mr Desmond Lee: Section 126 of the Women's Charter allows the Court to make a care and control order subject to any conditions as it thinks fit to impose, including the place where the child is to reside. Any condition included by a judge or by the parents, if they have reached an agreement, must be in the best interests of the child as well as necessary for their circumstances.
We have considered the suggestion for all care and control court orders to state which parent is allowed to list the child as an \"essential occupier\" for the purposes of applying for a HDB flat. However, we do not intend to make this a mandatory requirement.
Both parents have a shared and equal right to list their children in their flat. We want to encourage parents to work out suitable arrangements between themselves, bearing in mind what would be in their children's best interests. It is not ideal for them, in a situation where they have shared care and control, to seek or rely on Court orders to list down all matters pertaining to their children, including housing.
That said, some parents may face genuine difficulties in reaching an agreement. In such cases, HDB will review the matter and will be prepared to exercise flexibility to protect the interests of the children.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Grace Period for Vehicles Stopping to Drop Off and Pick Up Passengers at Areas under Camera Surveillance","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"57 Mr Darryl David asked the Minister for Transport what is the grace period allowed for vehicles stopping to drop-off and pick-up passengers at areas under camera surveillance before the drivers of those vehicles are deemed to have broken the law by waiting or parking illegally.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: Since 2014, LTA has used closed-circuit television (CCTV) cameras to deter motorists from waiting or parking illegally. This has reduced illegal parking offences by up to 90% at some locations. LTA enforcement officers will review each CCTV footage carefully and fairly, to allow the motorist a reasonable amount of time to pick up and drop off passengers, or to load and unload goods, depending on the circumstances.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Progress of Upgrading Works for Bukit Panjang LRT System","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"58 Dr Teo Ho Pin asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether he can provide an update on the progress of the upgrading works of the Bukit Panjang LRT system; and (b) what measures are taken to reduce the inconvenience caused to commuters during the upgrading period.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: The renewal of the Bukit Panjang Light Rail Transit (BPLRT) system is on track.
In March 2018, LTA awarded the renewal contract to Bombardier. The contract includes several elements. First, the existing signalling system will be replaced with a new Communications-Based Train Control (CBTC) system. Second, the 19 Light Rapid Vehicles (LRVs) that have been in service since 1999 will be replaced with new and improved ones. Third, the other 13 LRVs, introduced in 2015, will be upgraded. Fourth, the power rail running along the entire 7.8 km length of the BPLRT will be replaced with an enhanced version. In addition, all the new systems will be equipped with the latest condition monitoring capabilities. This will support a more efficient maintenance regime over the life cycle of the assets.
The engineers have completed most of the design work. Software testing for the new CBTC signalling system has started at Bombardier’s overseas labs. The installation of hardware at stations and along tracks has been ongoing since April 2019. This includes the laying of cables and installation of signalling beacons. New antennas will be mounted along the tracks in the coming months.
To provide additional engineering hours for both maintenance and renewal efforts, the BPLRT has been closing earlier at 11.30 pm since 13 January 2019. LTA has correspondingly extended the operating hours of key Bukit Panjang buses to maintain last-mile connectivity and minimise inconvenience to residents.
Going forward, we may need more of such engineering hours as the pace of renewal ramps up, and testing of the new signalling system and LRVs commences on the tracks. Learning from the re-signalling of the North-South and East-West Lines, it is important that we test rigorously, to ensure smooth delivery of the new systems.
Meanwhile, SMRT has also intensified maintenance to support the legacy BPLRT systems. Reliability has improved. However, maintenance of ageing assets has its limits. This is why SMRT and LTA are studying the option of reducing BPLRT services during off-peak periods, relying on buses instead. Doing so will help us tide over the transitional period until the renewal is completed. By 2022, residents can look forward to smoother and more reliable rides when the new CBTC signalling system and LRVs commence services.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Sexual Harassment or Assault Cases in Mainstream Schools","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"59 Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar asked the Minister for Education (a) in each of the past five years, how many cases of sexual harassment/assault have happened in our mainstream schools, aggregated by the ages of the victims; and (b) what are the victim-care or counselling programmes available for the victims.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The data is only meaningful with proper classification, such as by severity or circumstances. But as each case is sensitive, it has been very hard to classify them appropriately. Notwithstanding, the number of cases over the years has been consistently very low.
For each case, the school principal will ensure that the victim receives timely support, with empathy and sensitivity. The school counsellor will provide counselling support to the victim. School counsellors are equipped with skills to assess the psycho-emotional state of the victims and provide the appropriate interventions or referrals required.
Our schools also work with parents or caregivers and other relevant agencies such as Child Protective Service (CPS), Child Protection Specialist Centres and REACH (Response, Early Intervention and Assessment in Community Mental Health) to monitor and support the victims.
Upstream, schools teach students about personal safety, sexual abuse and harassment. They are taught how to protect themselves both in real life and online and understand the laws that protect them in Singapore. They also learn to look out for one another and seek help from trusted adults, such as their parents, teachers and school counsellors.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reports of Bullying or Aggression against Students with Disabilities or Special Needs","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"60 Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar asked the Minister for Education in each of the past five years (a) how many cases of bullying or aggression have been reported against students with disabilities or special needs in Primary and Secondary schools respectively; (b) what corrective actions have been taken against the perpetrators; and (c) what follow-up care and counselling approaches have been taken to help these victims.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: MOE takes a serious view of all incidences of bullying regardless of whether the students involved have disabilities or special needs. Schools must be safe and secure environments for all students to learn in.
The reported number of bullying incidents remains low and stable over the past five years. When such cases are reported, they are promptly investigated and appropriate disciplinary action is taken to guide perpetrators and restore relationships with those whom they have hurt. Counselling support is also provided to victims and perpetrators.
Schools will also involve parents to reinforce the same values and expectations of their children’s behaviour. We believe that instilling good values, conduct and discipline in our students is a shared responsibility, and parents, schools and the community should work in partnership.
Through Character and Citizenship Education and subjects such as Social Studies, students are taught how to relate to others with care and respect, and to deal with conflicts. Schools have established peer support systems and promoted a positive culture, where students are sensitive to the needs of their peers with SEN. Students are also encouraged to speak up against bullying and report incidences to the school authorities.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Increase MediSave Withdrawal Limit for Patients Undergoing Follow-up Treatments for Cancer","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"61 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Health whether the Ministry will consider increasing the MediSave withdrawal limit for patients who are undergoing follow-up treatments for cancer.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Singaporeans receiving treatments and follow-ups for cancer can tap on MediShield Life and MediSave to defray their costs for chemotherapy and radiotherapy. In addition, MediSave can also be used to pay for outpatient MRI, CT scans and diagnostics for tumours, up to a limit of $600 per patient per year.
Based on latest available data in 2017, the MediShield Life and MediSave limits of $3,000 and $1,200 per month respectively are sufficient to fully cover the costs for nine in 10 subsidised patients on chemotherapy.
MOH will continue to regularly review our healthcare financing schemes to ensure that they continue to be relevant and adequate. Singaporeans who face difficulties with their medical bills after Government subsidies, MediShield Life and MediSave may approach medical social workers at public healthcare institutions for additional financial assistance. No Singaporean will be denied access to necessary and appropriate healthcare because of an inability to pay.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Causes for Contamination of Ranitidine Medicines","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"62 Dr Chia Shi-Lu asked the Minister for Health (a) whether the cause of the contamination of ranitidine medicines has been identified; (b) what measures have been put in place to advise patients who have the drug to stop using them; and (c) whether there will be any compensation for replacement of these medicines.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: On 16 September 2019, the Health Sciences Authority (HSA) stopped the sale and supply of eight brands of ranitidine medicines at clinics, hospitals and pharmacies. HSA tested all rantidine medicines supplied in Singapore when it was alerted that a nitrosamine impurity, N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA), might be present in these products. The recall was initiated as a precautionary measure following the detection of trace amounts of NDMA above 96 ng per day. This is the internationally acceptable level of what was reasonably safe if a patient takes the affected medicine every day continuously for a lifetime of 70 years.
Ranitidine is used to reduce the production of acid in the stomach in conditions such as heartburn and gastric ulcers. As it is generally prescribed for short-term use of a few days to a few weeks, the potential additional cancer risk of nitrosamines is assessed to be very low (0.00003%). Nonetheless, HSA instituted a recall of the affected products to limit patients' further exposure to these products. Patients who are concerned about the use of the affected ranitidine medicines should contact their doctor.
Subsequently, Canada, Switzerland and the US undertook recalls between 17 and 24 September. All the recalls were also at the retail level. So, too, was the global recall by Sandoz on 17 September.
The root cause of nitrosamines in ranitidine medicines has yet to be established. HSA and international regulatory agencies are working with the companies supplying ranitidine medicines to identify the root causes of the contamination and to formulate the necessary measures to address the issue.
To ensure the quality of our medicines, companies that import new batches of ranitidine are required to test their products to ensure that they do not contain nitrosamine impurities above the internationally acceptable level before supplying them in Singapore.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Employer-related Benefits for Singaporean and Foreign Employees According to Employee Skill Level","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"63 Dr Chia Shi-Lu asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether the Ministry has data regarding the prevalence and level of employer-related benefits for Singaporean and foreign employees, according to the skill level of the employee; and (b) whether any progress has been made, in conjunction with other stakeholders, to make health benefits for employees more portable.
Mrs Josephine Teo: Government subsidies and the 3M (MediSave, MediShield Life, MediFund) framework provide for the basic healthcare needs of all Singaporeans. Additionally, more than 90% of employers provide company medical benefits to local employees, covering either inpatient costs, outpatient costs, or both.
Today, fewer than 4% of employers provide portable medical benefits to their employees, such as by making additional MediSave contributions. More than half of all employers provide medical benefits via Group Hospitalisation and Surgical (GHS) medical schemes, where insurers cover their employees' inpatient medical fees.
While GHS schemes were previously an affordable way to attract and retain workers, they will become increasingly costly with an ageing workforce. Furthermore, with the introduction of MediShield Life for all Singaporeans in 2015, employees have duplicate insurance coverage if their employers also provided GHS or other forms of inpatient medical benefits. This is why the Tripartite Workgroup on Older Workers has recommended that employers restructure medical benefits to provide additional MediSave contributions or other such flexible benefits. Employees could then use such benefits to purchase portable medical benefits, such as Integrated Shield Plans that ride on MediShield Life.
The Government has taken steps to encourage employers to adopt portable medical benefits. For example, while the normal tax deduction limit is 1%, employers can enjoy up to 2% tax deduction for medical expenses of total employees' remuneration if they provide additional MediSave contributions. The limit for additional MediSave contributions was also raised to $2,730 per employee per year in 2018.
For foreign employees, MOM requires employers of Work Permit and S Pass holders to bear the cost of their medical treatment, and purchase and maintain medical insurance of $15,000 per year for each worker for inpatient care. Employers are not required to bear the cost of medical treatment for Employment Pass holders, although most of them would typically provide healthcare benefits as part of the employment package.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Studies on Workplace Bullying in Singapore","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"64 Mr Pritam Singh asked the Minister for Manpower whether local or independent studies or surveys have been carried out on workplace bullying in Singapore in light of the findings of the inaugural Kantar Inclusion Index.
Mrs Josephine Teo: Based on a MOM survey conducted in 2018, 2.4% of Singapore's resident labour force reported having personally experienced bullying or harassment in their workplace1. The MOM survey’s definition of bullying and harassment was specific. It asked respondents to recall actual incidents where they were subjected to verbal abuse, threats or assault during the course of their work.
MOM's survey adopts a similar methodology used in the European Working Conditions Survey, where the corresponding figure for Italy is 3.0% and Spain is 3.2%, for instance. The average among European countries is 5.7%2. In Canada, the average incidence of employees experiencing threats, violence and harassment is similarly low3.
Kantar's study was based only on results from 14 countries, but claimed that 19% of employees from around the world have been \"bullied, undermined, or harassed\", compared to 20% in Canada, and 24% in Singapore. It also claimed that Italy, the Netherlands, and Spain fared better but did not offer statistics for comparison.
Notably, the Kantar press release conflated bullying, harassment, and being \"undermined\". This possibly explains the large gap between their reported figures and the official statistics that were just cited. Various media outlets that reported off the Kantar press release thus presented the same skewed picture. We would caution readers to exercise judgement when reading such reports or indices.
We take a serious stance towards workplace bullying or harassment, against which we have stringent criminal laws. For example, the sending of unwarranted lewd messages to co-workers with intent to cause harassment, alarm or distress, would be a criminal offence under the Protection from Harassment Act. The Police can investigate such cases. If the workplace bullying amounts to criminal intimidation or involves physical violence, the Police can also take action under the Penal Code.
At MOM's Committee of Supply debate this year, we announced that the Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices (TAFEP) would be a help and resource centre for workplace harassment for both employees and employers. Since our announcement earlier this year, TAFEP has received 27 cases4 relating to workplace harassment. For these cases, employers have taken the necessary corrective measures upon advice from TAFEP. TAFEP has also provided support to complainants and advised on their options, such as making a police report or seeking civil remedies.
We urge individuals who face harassment at the workplace to call TAFEP at 6838 0969 or write to TAFEP for advice and assistance.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":["1 : Source: Labour Force Supplementary Survey, Manpower Research & Statistics Department, MOM.","2 : Source: 6th European Working Conditions Survey, Eurofound.","3 : Source: General Social Survey: Canadians at Work and Home, Statistics Canada. The incidence of persons subjected to \"threats\" is 2.8%, \"physical violence\" is 2.2% and \"unwanted sexual attention or sexual harassment\" is 2.2%.","4 : Cases were for March 2019 to August 2019."],"footNoteQuestions":["64"],"questionNo":"64"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of Proposed Reduction of Frequency of MRT Trains During Off-peak Periods on Use of Mass Public Transport","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"65 Prof Lim Sun Sun asked the Minister for Transport whether the Ministry has considered the impact that the proposed reduction in the regularity of MRT trains during off-peak periods may have on steering people towards greater use of ride hailing and thus complicate efforts to encourage greater use of mass public transport.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: The rail operators are experimenting with adjusting MRT headways during off-peak periods to better match supply with commuter demand. This is unlikely to steer people towards ride hailing services in large numbers, as ridership is low during these periods.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Driver Assistance Technologies to Make Our Roads Safer","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"66 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Transport whether his Ministry will review driver assistance technologies such as intelligent speed assistance, drowsiness and attention detection, lane-keeping assistance and event data recorders that have the potential to make our roads safer and to assess their implementation in Singapore.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: LTA believes in leveraging technology to improve road safety. For instance, our public buses have since 2014 been progressively fitted with safety features such as Driver Anti-fatigue systems to monitor their fatigue level, and Collision Warning Systems to alert them of impending collisions. LTA will continue to work with industry partners and other Government agencies to look out for, assess and adopt new technologies, if they prove effective, and when they become commercially available.
Improving road safety is a collective effort. While technology helps, user behaviour is also important. The situation here is improving. Over the past five years, the number of fatal road traffic accidents has dropped by more than 20%. There are also fewer road traffic accidents resulting in injuries. But we should strive to eliminate road traffic accidents.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Increase Places for Tertiary Studies and Postgraduate Programmes In View of Economic Slowdown","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"67 Mr Kwek Hian Chuan Henry asked the Minister for Education whether the Ministry will temporarily increase the number of places for tertiary institutions for Polytechnic, undergraduate, masters, PhD, and postgraduate programmes for Singaporeans in view of the economic slowdown.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: MOE works with various economic agencies to plan the supply of diploma and degree places in the tertiary institutions, in line with national manpower demand across the different sectors to ensure relevance of the skills and knowledge of graduates. This approach is medium to long term in nature, and should not fluctuate based on short term economic performances.
However, SkillsFuture Singapore supports many modular Continuing Education and Training (CET) programmes, across all sectors. Should economic and labour market conditions worsen, we will step up our support for workers through these CET programmes, to help them acquire the relevant skills to stay employed, or transition to growth sectors and companies.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Services and Diagnoses that Can Be Made through Telemedicine","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"68 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Health whether the Ministry will form a multi-disciplinary panel of experienced doctors to look into the types of services and diagnoses that can be made through telemedicine in Singapore, given the concerns over the risk of wrongful diagnosis.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Telemedicine can potentially make access to healthcare services more convenient for Singaporeans. It is an evolving field.
In 2015, MOH's National Telemedicine Advisory Committee developed a set of telemedicine guidelines. These guidelines serve to guide healthcare providers in Singapore on the provision of safe and appropriate delivery of care via telemedicine. Overall, doctors providing telemedicine are expected to maintain the same standards of care as with in-person clinical consults. They should see their patients in-person when a physical assessment is warranted or refer them appropriately.
Last year, MOH also set up a regulatory sandbox framework to facilitate the development of new and innovative telemedicine care models while ensuring patient safety and welfare. This arrangement enables telemedicine providers to work with the Ministry to better understand the challenges associated with the delivery of telemedicine.
With the experience garnered through the sandbox, the telemedicine guidelines are being refreshed. MOH, in consultation with various professional bodies, has appointed a review committee comprising of experienced family physicians and medical specialists from both public and private healthcare sectors, experts in medical informatics and medical ethics, as well as representatives from various governmental organisations.
The revised guidelines will be released in 2020. Together, the refreshed guidelines and regulatory sandbox will help inform MOH on how best to regulate telemedicine.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Regulating Care-giver Training Programmes","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"69 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for Health (a) whether training programmes for caregivers are regulated to ensure participants are adequately trained to receive the necessary skills; (b) whether there are adequate professional training programmes to meet the needs of the elderly or those with special needs; and (c) whether subsidies and more support can be given for caregiving-related courses.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The Government or Government-appointed entities manage a wide range of training courses to equip both community care staff and informal care-givers with the necessary skills to care for the elderly and persons with special needs. To ensure relevance and quality, such courses are selected or developed to meet care-givers' specific training needs and are conducted by qualified training personnel who have relevant experience.
There is a range of subsidised training programmes that cater to healthcare professionals like nurses, allied health professionals and healthcare assistants. For example, community care staff can attend short courses under the Agency for Integrated Care (AIC)-appointed Learning Institutes or skills training courses under the Singapore Workforce Skills Qualifications for Healthcare Support. For formal qualifications leading to an advanced or specialised diploma, for example, in gerontology, they can apply for the Community Care Manpower Development Award administered by AIC, which covers up to 90% of the programme fees.
Social service professionals in the disability sector can also enrol in a range of disability-related training programmes offered by the Social Service Institute. These programmes are generally short courses that help individuals develop specific competencies in supporting persons with special needs. Eligible employees working in National Council of Social Service member agencies can apply for the Voluntary Welfare Organisation-Charities Capability Fund to subsidise the training fees.
Family care-givers and Foreign Domestic Workers can apply for the Caregivers Training Grant (CTG), which is a $200 annual subsidy for care-givers to attend training courses reviewed by AIC. These courses range from eldercare, caring for persons with disability, including autism and intellectual disabilities, to psychosocial support. Since 2013, over 40,000 care-givers have utilised the CTG.
We will continue to review the range and support for these training programmes that support community care staff and care-givers to care for the elderly and persons with special needs better.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of Decision to Decline FDA Inspections of Factories Outside the US on Generic Medications in Singapore","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"70 Mr Chong Kee Hiong asked the Minister for Health with regard to declining FDA inspections of factories outside of the US where much of the active ingredients for generic pharmaceuticals are manufactured (a) what is the impact on generic medications in Singapore; (b) how reliant is Singapore on FDA assessments and whether Singapore can have independent local inspections of medications; (c) what additional measures are in place to protect the quality of medications; and (d) how will the Ministry work with international health agencies to overcome this structural inspection problem.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The Health Sciences Authority (HSA) evaluates medicines, including generics, for safety, quality and efficacy before as well as after they are registered and allowed for supply in our local market.
Before giving approval for registration, HSA inspects local medicines manufacturers to ensure that they comply with international Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) standards. As for assessing manufacturers based overseas, HSA taps on its membership in the Pharmaceutical Inspection Co-operation Scheme. Membership to the scheme is granted only if a regulator has a strict inspection regime comparable with the high standards and quality of the other members. Some members in the scheme include regulators from Australia, Canada, Germany, Japan, Switzerland and the US.
If a member regulatory authority has inspected the overseas medicines manufacturers, HSA would leverage on their findings on the GMP assessment. Otherwise, HSA will conduct an overseas on-site inspection.
After a medicine is registered and sold in the Singapore market, inspections of manufacturers continue to be conducted on a regular basis. HSA also carries out post-market product quality sampling to test and ensure that the medicines comply with quality requirements and are safe for use by patients. In addition, HSA exchanges information and intelligence with other leading international regulatory authorities on the quality of the medicines, including generics.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Rationale for Not Providing Childcare Leave on Per Child Basis","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"1 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Prime Minister what is the rationale for not providing childcare leave to parents on a per child basis.
Mrs Josephine Teo (for the Prime Minister): The Government is strongly committed to support Singaporeans in their parenthood journeys. To better support working parents, childcare leave provisions have been enhanced progressively over the years. Today, parents of Singaporean children are eligible for six days of childcare leave per year when their children are aged below seven years old. This was raised from two days in 2008. Since 2013, parents with children aged seven to 12 are eligible for two days of extended childcare leave per year.
Childcare leave is given on a per parent basis today to balance between supporting parents in their care-giving responsibilities, and meeting employers' manpower needs. We need to take a practical approach on this matter. Employers are concerned that increasing these leave provisions could adversely impact their manpower costs and operations. Giving more childcare leave on a per child basis can also inadvertently affect the employment prospects of parents with more children.
Beyond leave provisions, the Government encourages and provides support to companies to implement Flexible Work Arrangements (FWAs), to develop a more family-friendly work culture. Employers may access the enhanced Work-Life Grant which has been raised to $100 million recently, and make use of the new job-sharing implementation guide to offer FWAs to employees. We have also launched two Tripartite Standards in 2018 to encourage companies to provide additional support for employees' personal or care-giving responsibilities, namely the Tripartite Standard on FWAs, and on Unpaid Leave for Unexpected Care Needs.
We regularly review leave policies and other workplace arrangements to better support parents to manage their work and family commitments. The Citizens' Panel on Work-Life Harmony was just formed for Singaporeans to partner the Government to develop new ways for society and workplaces to better support families in Singapore.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"MAS Guidelines and Regulations Governing Digital Advisors","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"2 Miss Cheng Li Hui asked the Prime Minister (a) whether there is a need to strengthen regulations governing digital advisors in order to better protect the interests of Singaporean investors; (b) whether the current MAS guidelines have resulted in the establishment of adequate and robust frameworks by digital advisors to manage technology and cyber risks; and (c) what mechanism is in place for the Government to ensure compliance with the regulations and effective adoption of the guidelines.
Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam (for the Prime Minister): Financial advisory services are regulated under the Financial Advisers Act (FAA). Under the Act, digital advisers conducting similar regulated activities as brick-and-mortar entities are subject to the same rules.
In addition, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) has issued guidelines to clarify how relevant FAA regulations should be applied to digital advisers. For example, under the FAA, financial advisers must have a reasonable basis for product recommendations to customers. In the digital world where advice is generated by algorithms, digital advisers must put in place methodologies to test and monitor the performance of algorithms. Digital advisers must also be staffed by persons who have the competency and expertise to develop, review and test the methodology of the algorithms. Where appropriate, MAS will also require digital advisers to undergo a post-authorisation audit covering the governance and control of their algorithms.
Another example is the guidelines on outsourcing. Digital advisers may outsource the development and maintenance of their algorithm-based tools or back-end activities, but they remain responsible for the risks of these outsourced activities and have to observe MAS' guidelines on Outsourcing and Technology Risk Management (TRM). The TRM guidelines set out IT risk management principles and best practices to strengthen their cyber resilience and guard against cyberattacks.
MAS also supervises financial institutions, including digital advisers by conducting offsite reviews and onsite inspections. We assess the robustness and effectiveness of systems to mitigate market conduct, technology and cybersecurity risks, and require financial institutions to rectify any weaknesses discovered.
There is hence an effective regulatory and supervisory framework to supervise digital advisers, but MAS continues to review and improve the system.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Date Latest Electoral Boundaries Review Committee Formed","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"3 Mr Pritam Singh asked the Prime Minister on what date in August 2019 was the latest Electoral Boundaries Review Committee formed.
Mr Chan Chun Sing (for the Prime Minister): The Electoral Boundaries Review Committee was formed on 1 August 2019.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Age Profile of Scam Victims and Plans to Conduct Outreach Efforts with Schools and Institutes of Higher Learning","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"4 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Home Affairs in light of more victims falling prey to scams (a) whether the Ministry can provide the age profiles of these victims; and (b) whether the Anti-Scam Centre can work with schools and institutes of higher learning in its outreach efforts.
Mr K Shanmugam: Different segments of the population fall prey to different scam types.
E-commerce scam victims were mainly from the younger age groups – those below 35 years old – mirroring the demographic that is more likely to shop on e-commerce platforms, such as Carousell, which accounted for a significant number of scam cases.
For loan and investment scams, there was no age group that was particularly vulnerable.
The majority of credit-for-sex scam victims were young adults between the ages of 20 and 30.
In Internet love scams, the victims were more likely to be middle-aged, with most victims being between the ages of 30 and 50 years old.
As for China officials impersonation scams, the distribution of the ages of the victims used to be quite evenly spread out. However, in recent years, we see these scammers targeting younger victims, with most of the victims in the first half of 2019 being young adults below the age of 30.
The Police have been working closely with the National Crime Prevention Council (NCPC) to raise public awareness on scams. These include outreach efforts to schools and institutes of higher learning. For example, the Police launched the \"Young Police Buddy\" initiative in December 2018, aimed at raising crime awareness, including scams, amongst Primary school students. An anti-scam make-a-thon was organised on 23 September 2019 and 3 October 2019, tapping on the creativity of participating tertiary students to design solutions to tackle e-commerce scams.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Gender Breakdown of Applicants Granted Protection Orders and Expedited Protection Orders under Protection from Harassment Act","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"5 Assoc Prof Walter Theseira asked the Minister for Law of the 213 Protection Orders and 193 Expedited Protection Orders granted as of 31 December 2018 under the Protection from Harassment Act (a) what is the gender breakdown of applicants; and (b) how many are for cases of workplace harassment.
Mr K Shanmugam: As at 31 December 2018, there were 535 cases where applications for Protection Orders (POs) were filed. POs were granted in 213 cases. Expedited Protection Orders (EPOs) were granted in 193 cases. There were about equal numbers of male and female applicants who obtained POs and EPOs in these cases. Out of the 322 cases where POs were not granted, 213 cases had applications for POs withdrawn. The applications in the remaining cases would have either been dismissed, struck off or were still pending as at 31 December 2018.
It would have required a very intensive process to identify the different types of harassment. The Courts do not have the manpower resources to do that. The Courts are introducing technology. That will take some time. Once that is done, it may become easier to find some categorisation for types of harassment.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Community Pharmacists Performing Health Screening in Pharmacies or Health Events","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"6 Ms Irene Quay Siew Ching asked the Minister for Health whether community pharmacists are allowed to perform health screenings such as taking blood pressure readings or hypocount checks for the public in their pharmacies or at health events if they have an established flow to refer patients to nearby GPs for follow-up of abnormal readings.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Under the Pharmaceutical Care Excellence initiative, pharmacists who are trained can perform health screening such as taking blood pressure readings or blood glucose checks onsite at pharmacies or at community health events.
Pharmacists perform these evaluations in partnership and under the oversight of licensed healthcare providers. This is important as the licensed providers are accountable for the conduct of the health screening, including the proper selection of participants for the health screening and appropriate follow up for those with abnormal results.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Plans to Reduce Use of Hand Dryers in Hospitals, Nursing Home and Clinics","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"7 Dr Chia Shi-Lu asked the Minister for Health in view of the research findings that there are higher amounts of bacteria, including antibiotic resistant ones, in the air and bathroom surfaces where jet-air hand dryers are used compared to paper hand towels, whether there are plans to reduce the number of hand dryers in our hospitals, nursing homes and clinics and increase the provision of paper towels instead.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Our public healthcare institutions have in place infection prevention and control (IPC) programmes in accordance with the Ministry of Health (MOH) Guidelines. The programmes are aligned with international best practices to minimise the transmission of bacteria and reduce healthcare-associated infections.
In patient care areas, such as inpatient wards and outpatient consultation rooms, paper hand towels are provided for the drying of hands after handwashing.
In some public areas, jet-air hand dryers may be available. Routine cleaning are undertaken using hospital-grade cleaning agents and disinfectants to minimise the transmission of bacteria.
All healthcare institutions also adopt hand hygiene practices, which include staff using alcohol-based hand rub before contact with patients.
Visitors are also encouraged to observe hand hygiene when they are in patient care areas. All of us can also play our part by washing our hands before and after visiting our friends and relatives in hospitals.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures to Attract Students and Healthcare Professionals to Specialise in Geriatric Medicine","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"8 Dr Chia Shi-Lu asked the Minister for Health (a) what are the measures to attract more students and healthcare professionals to specialise in geriatric medicine and other relevant specialties; and (b) how effective have these measures been so far.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: To meet the needs of our ageing population, we need more healthcare professionals who are trained to serve older patients in general. We also need more specialists in geriatric medicine and related fields such as rehabilitation care and palliative care.
Today, all medical students are exposed to geriatric medicine and related disciplines early in their training. In addition, MOH has increased the number of training positions for specialists in these disciplines. From 2013 to 2019, the specialist training intake for geriatric medicine, rehabilitation medicine and palliative medicine more than doubled from 11 to 23 positions. Specialists trained in Geriatric Medicine receive an additional allowance.
To raise the ability of our pharmacists to care for the elderly, a local training programme in Geriatric Pharmacy was started in 2016. The programme has trained three pharmacists to date, and aims to train another nine pharmacists in the next three years.
For nursing, hospitals are conducting in-house structured courses on Gerontology Nursing to equip nurses with the skills and knowledge in caring for older adults. Specialty training, such as the Advanced Diploma in Nursing (Gerontology), are also available for nurses who are interested in this field. In the last seven years, 497 nurses have undergone this diploma.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Statistics on Return to Nursing Programme and Outreach Efforts","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"9 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Health (a) in the past five years, what is the annual average number of years of service among nurses who have left the service; (b) what are the efforts to encourage former nurses who have left service to return to nursing; and (c) how many former nurses have re-joined nursing under the Return to Nursing Programme since the programme was launched in 2010.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Nurses who left the public healthcare sector in the past five years spent an average of seven years in service. This includes nurses who left to join the private healthcare and community care sectors as well as those who left nursing practice.
MOH welcomes all local non-practising nurses to return to the healthcare workforce. To facilitate their return, we have in place a Return to Nursing (RTN) scheme, which includes a refresher course.
Over the years, we have enhanced the scheme. For instance, we have adopted a Place-and-Train format for the scheme where returning nurses first secure employment with their employers before commencing the refresher course. As a result, nurses are paid a salary while attending the course and the cost of the course is jointly borne by employers and the Government, and not the nurses.
In the last 10 years, about 120 nurses have benefited from the RTN scheme. Overall, about 400 local nurses have returned to practice annually1.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":["1 : Based on declarations by nurses to the Singapore Nursing Board during renewal of practicing certificates."],"footNoteQuestions":["9"],"questionNo":"9"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Manpower Gap in Healthcare Sector and Current Shortfall of Nurses","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"10 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Health (a) whether the healthcare sector has managed to fill the manpower gap of 30,000 more healthcare workers from 2015 to 2020; (b) what is the current shortfall of nurses; and (c) what is the adoption rate of flexi-working hours and part-time working arrangements among nurses.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Singapore's overall healthcare workforce grew significantly by about 18,000 staff over the last four years. For nurses, there were about 42,000 nurses registered with the Singapore Nursing Board (SNB) at the end of 2018, up from about 38,000 as at end 2014.
To optimise the use of manpower resources, we have embarked on efforts to raise productivity.These include initiatives on automation, streamlining of work processes, and shifting of care from hospitals into the community where appropriate.
On average between 2015 and 2018, around 3% of our practising nurses across the entire healthcare sector, work on a part-time basis1.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":["1 : Based on declarations by practicing nurses to SNB during renewal of practicing certification."],"footNoteQuestions":["10"],"questionNo":"10"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Increase in Dental Treatment Charges in Last 10 Years and Efforts to Stem Rising Costs","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"11 Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong asked the Minister for Health how much have dental treatment charges risen in the last 10 years and what the Ministry is doing to stem the rising costs.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: To keep basic dental treatment costs affordable for Singaporeans, subsidised dental care services are available at 10 polyclinics and about 700 dental clinics on the Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS). Polyclinic patients, as well as CHAS Blue and Orange, Pioneer Generation, and soon Merdeka Generation cardholders, may also be referred for subsidised dental treatments at the National Dental Centre Singapore and National University Centre for Oral Health Singapore. Patients can also tap on their MediSave savings for more complex dental procedures such as dental implants and wisdom tooth surgeries.
Based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI) compiled by the Singapore Department of Statistics (DOS), the inflation rate for dental services, after Government subsidies, was 2.1% per annum between 2009 and 2018. The average bill size for polyclinics and average charges for CHAS dental clinics for subsidised dental treatments grew by about 1% per annum from 2012 to 2018.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Take-up Rate for Eldercarer Foreign Domestic Worker and Plans to Expand Scheme to Include People with Special Needs","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"12 Ms Rahayu Mahzam asked the Minister for Health (a) what has been the take-up rate of the Eldercarer Foreign Domestic Worker (FDW) Scheme which provides FDWs with comprehensive training in eldercare; and (b) whether there are plans to expand or develop the scheme to include training FDWs to care for people with special needs.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The Eldercarer Foreign Domestic Worker (FDW) Scheme was started in November 2016 to provide eldercare training to FDWs prior to their placements with households. The FDWs undergo a Basic Eldercare Course, comprising two days of classroom training and half a day of on-the-job training on managing the day-to-day care of an elderly person. Households can apply for the Caregivers Training Grant (CTG), which is an annual $200 subsidy, per care recipient, that can be used to offset the Eldercarer FDW Scheme training cost. As of 30 September 2019, 413 FDWs have been trained under the scheme.
Similarly, households who wish to equip their FDWs to care for persons with special needs can apply for the CTG as well. In addition to eldercare courses, the CTG also covers courses that specifically train caregivers to care for persons with special needs, such as autism and intellectual disabilities.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Economic and Other Benefits of Hosting F1 Singapore Grand Prix Beyond 2021","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"13 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for Trade and Industry what are the economic and other benefits of hosting the F1 Singapore Grand Prix and whether there are continuing benefits for Singapore to host the race beyond 2021.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: Between 2008 and 2018, more than 490,000 international visitors have attended the Formula One Singapore Grand Prix, contributing more than S$1.4 billion in tourism receipts and benefiting local businesses. The event has also been broadcast to a global audience of more than 840 million viewers.
We will assess the costs versus the benefits of our options, to decide whether to continue having F1 in Singapore beyond 2021.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Complaints on Vendors Engaging in Free Gifts Marketing Techniques and Actions Taken","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"14 Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for Trade and Industry since July last year (a) whether the Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore has received any complaints about vendors who engaged in free gifts marketing techniques and, if so, whether actions have been taken under the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act; and (b) of these vendors who have not been censured, why not.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: Er Dr Lee Bee Wah had highlighted reports of sales persons marketing \"freebie\" bags to senior citizens in her Parliamentary Question in July 2018. The Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore did not receive any consumer complaints regarding such practices.
If consumers have reason to believe that suppliers have engaged in unfair practices, such as pressure-selling or false claims, they can approach the Consumers Association of Singapore (CASE) with details of these practices for CASE to assist them in seeking redress from the suppliers. Consumers are also encouraged to take pre-emptive measures to protect themselves against unfair practices. For example, they can check the reputation of the supplier, ask questions about the products and examine the products before making the purchase.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Response to Walk-in Selection of Balance Flats","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"15 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for National Development (a) what has been the response to the walk-in selection of balance flats since its launch recently; and (b) whether HDB will consider allowing all balance flats to be available for application and selection on a daily basis instead of quarterly.
Mr Lawrence Wong: HDB launched the open booking of flats on 11 June 2019. This allows home seekers to view details of flats on offer at the HDB InfoWEB every day, apply online on a first-come-first-served basis, and book a flat as early as the next working day.
Response to the open booking of flats has been good. About half of the available flats were taken up before the open booking was temporarily suspended on 7 August 2019 to prepare for more flats to be offered. Online applications for the open booking of flats have resumed as of 25 September 2019, and HDB will continue to track the public response.
Other than open booking, HDB also offers balance flats via the Sale of Balance Flats and Re-Offer of Balance Flats exercises. These exercises offer other advantages, such as priority allocation for specific target groups like first-timer families.
HDB will continue to monitor public response to the various sales modes and refine the processes where necessary to better meet the needs of home seekers.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Average Amount of Funds Seniors Received through Lease Buyback Scheme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"16 Ms Foo Mee Har asked the Minister for National Development (a) what are the average amounts of funds that seniors receive in CPF and cash by monetising their HDB flats through the Lease Buy Back Scheme; and (b) how has this scheme boosted their retirement adequacy whilst continuing to live out their retirement in their flats.
Mr Lawrence Wong: The Lease Buyback Scheme (LBS) was enhanced in April 2015 to extend to 4-room flats and provide seniors with more choices in the length of lease to retain. Since then, seniors who took up the LBS received average proceeds of $177,000 per household, including the LBS cash bonus. The proportion of proceeds that they receive in their CPF Retirement Account (RA) and in cash depends on their CPF RA balances before they took up the LBS. In general, seniors who had higher CPF RA balances to begin with would get a higher proportion of their proceeds in cash.
After taking up the LBS, most seniors have enough CPF RA savings to benefit from a lifelong income stream of about $1,000 per month on a household basis under CPF LIFE. Beyond that, most seniors also receive some of their LBS proceeds in cash, in addition to the cash bonus.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Mean and Median Mortgage Service Ratio for Single HDB Flat in Last Five Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"17 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for National Development in each of the last five years (a) what has been the mean and median mortgage service ratio (MSR) for those servicing mortgage loans for only a single HDB flat; and (b) how many HDB lessees have been allowed to exceed the MSR ceiling, if any.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Between 2014 and 2018, the mean and median mortgage service ratios (MSRs) of HDB housing loans disbursed at key collection were similar – these ratios have been stable at around 20% for new flat purchases and 25% for resale flat purchases. As flat buyers are required to dispose of any existing property after they collect the keys to their flat, they will be servicing an HDB housing loan for a single flat.
The Mortgage Servicing Ratio (MSR) cap of 30% of flat buyers' income is one of the criteria used to determine the maximum loan amount that flat buyers are eligible for when they apply for a housing loan to purchase an HDB flat or executive condominium. However, some flat buyers choose to shorten their loan tenure to minimise interest costs. For a small number of such flat buyers, around 3% of those who collected keys to their HDB flats in 2018, while their approved loan amount adheres to the MSR cap over the maximum applicable loan tenure, their mortgage instalment over the shortened loan tenure may exceed 30% of their monthly income.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Plans to Enhance Awareness and Strengthen Policing of Illegal Subletting in Private Properties","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"18 Ms Rahayu Mahzam asked the Minister for National Development (a) in the past five years, what is the number of cases of illegal subletting in private properties; (b) whether there is a need to enhance the awareness of private property owners about illegal subletting; and (c) whether the Ministry has any plans to further strengthen the policing of illegal subletting and take stronger legal action against agents, tenants or landlords who illegally sublet their properties.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Subletting of private residential properties is only allowed for stays of at least three consecutive months. There is also an occupancy cap of six unrelated persons in each unit.
In the past five years, URA investigated an average of about 600 cases involving suspected breaches of the minimum stay duration and an average of over a thousand cases of suspected breaches of the occupancy cap each year. In condominium developments, URA works closely with Management Corporations to raise awareness of the minimum stay duration and occupancy cap among homeowners and to identify units suspected to be in breach of the regulations. Where an offence is established, URA will take appropriate action against those responsible. These include not just direct perpetrators, but also landlords who fail to exercise the necessary due diligence to prevent infringements in their properties, even if the offence was carried out by the tenant.
For marginal breaches of the regulations, URA may issue a composition fine of up to $5,000. Since May 2019, URA has issued 23 composition fines for illegal subletting offences. Recalcitrant and serious offenders, for example, those operating on a commercial scale, will be prosecuted in Court and face significantly heavier penalties upon conviction, such as fines of up to $200,000 or imprisonment of up to 12 months.
Since the implementation of these measures, 18 individuals and companies have been prosecuted in court for illegal subletting offences. Of these offenders, 11 have been convicted and sentenced to fines as high as $70,000. Another seven cases are currently before the Courts. Several of these cases were reported in the media. We will continue to raise awareness of the regulations, as well as the penalties faced by those who breach them.
Apart from property owners and tenants, action will be taken against other parties responsible for illegal subletting offences. For example, where estate agents are found to be complicit in such offences, CEA will take action, which could include revoking the registration of the agent or debarring them for a period of time. MOM will also take enforcement action against errant employers who house foreign workers in poor living conditions.
URA will continue to step up its investigation and enforcement efforts.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures to Cope with Haze and Air Pollution","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"19 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) what measures will be implemented to help Singaporeans and residents cope with the worsening haze and air pollution; and (b) whether these measures will include the installation of air filter equipment in places frequented by the public, distribution of masks and public education on ways to minimise the impact on health.
20 Mr Alex Yam asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) how successful has the 2014 Transboundary Haze Pollution Act been in mitigating the annual threat of haze; (b) to date, how many successful cases have been investigated under the Act; (c) how many cases are currently under investigation; and (d) whether our neighbouring countries have been cooperative in providing assistance for investigation requests.
21 Mr Alex Yam asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources in view of public feedback on the perceived \"inaccuracies\" of the 24-hour Pollutant Standards Index forecast currently used by NEA, whether the Ministry will consider adopting the hourly Air Quality Index now cast alongside the 1-hour PM2.5 concentration readings to assuage public concerns.
22 Mr Charles Chong asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources what is the number of companies and individuals who have been investigated and prosecuted under the Transboundary Haze Pollution Act since commencement of the Act in 2014.
23 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) what steps has Singapore taken to promote the sustainable production of palm oil, pulp, paper and other commodities from plantations so as to disincentivise plantation owners and farmers from using the slash and burn method of clearing land that causes transboundary haze; and (b) what is the Ministry's assessment of the effectiveness of these steps.
24 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources what steps have been identified to overcome the difficulty of gathering evidence against entities believed to have caused transboundary haze in contravention of the Transboundary Haze Pollution Act 2014.
25 Miss Cheng Li Hui asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources whether there are plans for the Government, businesses and the community to work hand-in-hand to distribute N95 masks to low-income and vulnerable seniors when the Pollutant Standards Index readings hits very unhealthy or hazardous levels.
26 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources what can Singapore do to make it commercially unviable for companies in the region to operate slash and burn tactics for clearing of land.
27 Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources in light of the haze recurrence (a) whether measures and action plans implemented previously to help our neighbours are no longer effective; and (b) what is the action plan moving forward to help our neighbours prevent or reduce the hotspots for the long term.
28 Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources whether NEA is able to identify any land owners in Indonesia who are responsible for the burning of forest land that causes haze and whether any prosecution action will be taken against these land owners.
29 Ms Foo Mee Har asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) how the cost of haze pollution to Singapore can be estimated; and (b) what are the Government's estimates of previous years' cost impact arising from haze pollution on health, education and business.
30 Ms Foo Mee Har asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) how effective has the Transboundary Haze Pollution Act 2014 been in holding companies and individuals accountable for causing haze pollution; and (b) what is the number of perpetrators who have been prosecuted under the Act.
31 Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) what are the haze assistance efforts extended to Indonesia this year; (b) how much of the assistance efforts have been accepted; and (c) what are the long-term collaboration plans with leaders in the region to mitigate transboundary haze.
32 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources how can the Government minimise and manage the impact of haze on the public and the Government's policy in the distribution of the national stockpile of N95 masks.
33 Assoc Prof Walter Theseira asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) whether and to what extent the Transboundary Haze Pollution Act has been effective at addressing transboundary haze; (b) what is the progress on existing investigations under the Act of the four firms linked to the 2015 haze; and (c) whether the Ministry will consider strengthening the Transboundary Haze Pollution Act with financial incentives for whistle-blowers who contribute substantially to the identification and prosecution of entities contributing to haze pollution.
34 Prof Lim Sun Sun asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources why there have been no prosecutions to date under the Transboundary Haze Pollution Act 2014 despite the ample legal and evidentiary mechanisms available under the Act.
35 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources whether he can provide an update on (i) the outlook for haze affecting Singapore in the months ahead (ii) diplomatic efforts to mitigate haze generation in Indonesia and (iii) domestic efforts to mitigate the public health impact.
36 Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) what are the considerations behind NEA's decision to report air quality based on 24-hour PSI and 1-hour PM 2.5 readings; and (b) what is the Government's assessment of the utility of the above readings to the population vis-á-vis other indices or measures.
37 Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources how has the enactment of the Transboundary Haze Pollution Act 2014 enhanced Singapore's response to transboundary haze pollution.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Haze has affected ASEAN for years. It has been a perennial scourge in our region, affecting millions of people. Haze pollutes the air we breathe and sets back global efforts in tackling climate change. The 2015 fires in Indonesia generated nearly 1 gigatonne of carbon dioxide; more than half of the 1.5 gigatonne that was saved from the increased use of renewable energy by the whole world for that year. A study by Prof Euston Quah and Assoc Prof Chia Wai Mun from Nanyang Technological University estimated that the cost to Singapore of the two-month long 2015 haze episode was $1.83 billion or 0.45% of our GDP, taking into account factors such as health cost, loss in productivity, and impact on tourism and business. This year, fires in Indonesia have released 360 million tonnes of carbon dioxide since August, more than Spain's emissions for the whole of 2018. Lives have been lost, and the health and livelihoods of millions impacted.
The Government adopts a multi-pronged approach to tackle transboundary haze and mitigate its impact on Singaporeans.
First, we have been undertaking diplomatic and regional efforts to tackle the haze problem. As early as April, I have written to my Indonesian counterpart to convey Singapore's readiness to assist Indonesia in tackling land and forest fires. When the haze situation in Singapore worsened in September, CEO of National Environment Agency (NEA) wrote to his counterpart on 16 September to convey concerns about the haze situation and details of the fire-fighting assets that Singapore could activate to help Indonesia deal with the escalating number of hotspots. We also sent Indonesia a diplomatic note on the same day. On 19 September, CEO (NEA) wrote again to his counterpart after Indonesia announced that it had sealed off plantations operated by several companies, including Singapore-registered ones, after detecting fires in their concessions. CEO (NEA) requested for the offences committed and further information from the Indonesian government to support NEA's investigations. We sent Indonesia a diplomatic note on 20 September expressing our concerns over the escalation of hotspots and sought their assistance to enhance measures on the ground to prevent and mitigate the occurrence of forest and land fires. Additionally, CEO (NEA) wrote on 4 October to his counterpart to further request information on all companies suspected of intentionally burning land. We have yet to receive any response from the Indonesian Government thus far.
Singapore is supportive of the Indonesian Government's continuing efforts to suppress the forest and land fires. We recognise President Joko Widodo's personal attention and efforts in tackling this problem. The key is to prevent the fires from starting in the first place. Errant individuals and companies whose actions jeopardise the health and lives of people in ASEAN and which set back our efforts to fight climate change must be held accountable. Strong enforcement action must be taken against perpetrators and to deter others.
Singapore also works closely with other ASEAN member states to monitor hotspot activities to support measures to reduce fires. For more than two decades, the ASEAN Specialised Meteorological Centre (ASMC), which Singapore hosts, has been sharing regional weather and haze outlook, and satellite information with ASEAN Member States. The ASMC plays a critical regional role. Its technical assessments and updates on the haze situation, along with the ASMC's meteorological forecasts and data on hotspot activities, support efforts to prevent, detect and fight fires. In addition, Singapore is helping fellow ASEAN member states build their capability in haze monitoring as well as weather and climate prediction. Singapore has contributed $5 million to the ASMC for a five-year regional capability building programme.
But we also need greater urgency and political resolve, as well as closer cooperation amongst ASEAN countries and stakeholders if we are to make progress towards a haze-free ASEAN. This is why Singapore has been participating actively and contributing at all regional haze-related meetings, such as the 21st meeting of the Sub-Regional Ministerial Steering Committee (MSC) on Transboundary Haze Pollution held in Brunei on 6 August. The MSC is an annual Ministerial-level meeting which is convened in the run-up to the dry season in the Southern ASEAN region. This year's meeting noted the ASMC's report about the potential escalation of hotspot activities and increased risk of transboundary haze due to drier and warmer weather. I reminded ASEAN member states that transboundary haze remained a major concern for the region and the need for preparedness. MSC member countries – Brunei, Malaysia, Indonesia, Singapore and Thailand – had reaffirmed their readiness to enhance cooperation and coordination to address land and forest fires.
At the same meeting, MSC member countries also reaffirmed their commitment to the objectives and principles of the ASEAN Agreement on Transboundary Haze Pollution (AATHP) and the Roadmap on ASEAN Cooperation towards Transboundary Haze Pollution Control with Means of Implementation. The 10 ASEAN countries, which are signatories to the AATHP, will meet in Cambodia on 8 to 9 October 2019 to take stock of the implementation of the Agreement and discuss how to further enhance its implementation. Senior Minister of State Dr Amy Khor will lead the Singapore delegation at the coming meeting. She will reiterate our concerns about the detrimental effects of haze, its impact on climate change and global emissions of greenhouse gas, and urge all ASEAN member states to take strong action to prevent the recurrence of haze.
Second, recognising that strong enforcement on the ground is needed to prevent the recurrent fires, Singapore enacted the Transboundary Haze Pollution Act (THPA) in 2014 to send a strong signal that we will not tolerate the irresponsible actions of errant companies, whether Singapore-based or otherwise, that harm our environment. In 2015, NEA issued legal notices under the THPA to six companies to take immediate measures to stop the fires that caused haze that affected Singapore. Two of the companies have responded and explained that they were no longer associated with the affected lands. Upon further investigation, NEA accepted their explanation and closed these two cases. As for the other four companies, their cases are still open. A director of one of these companies was served a THPA Notice to be interviewed by NEA when he was in Singapore. When he failed to turn up for the interview, a court warrant was obtained to secure his attendance when he next enters Singapore. NEA is on the lookout for other directors of these companies, and will similarly require them to assist in the investigations when they are in Singapore.
Singapore therefore welcomes the Indonesian Ministry of the Environment and Forestry's efforts to pursue action against errant companies culpable for the fires, subjecting them to the full extent of the law, and pursuing necessary evidence to do so. As mentioned earlier, CEO (NEA) has written to his Indonesian counterpart to request for more information pertaining to this year's fires, so that we can investigate on our end. For this year's haze episode, NEA is closely monitoring the situation and will update as appropriate. We hope that the Indonesian Government will work with Singapore and other countries in the region by sharing substantiated information that could help identify companies suspected of causing fires. Indonesia should also publish information on land ownership and concession boundaries that can help ascertain which companies are involved. Indonesia's cooperation in this will be useful and necessary in providing the evidence of wrongdoing by any company that has contributed to haze in Singapore.
The THPA complements the efforts of Indonesia and other countries to hold companies to account and is not intended to replace their laws and enforcement actions. We respect the sovereignty of others but States also have a responsibility to ensure that the activities within their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the environment of other States or areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction. Given that these fires occur abroad, regional cooperation remains crucial in resolving transboundary haze pollution. We are pleased that Malaysia is also considering similar legislation. We remain committed to work with other countries to find a solution, as well as collaborate through ASEAN and other international platforms such as the UN.
The THPA is not a panacea or the only tool to fight transboundary haze. Although none of the investigated companies has been prosecuted yet, the THPA has nevertheless put added pressure on companies to behave responsibly. We have no plans to amend the THPA at this moment.
Third, consumer choices and demand play a crucial role in shaping the practices of forestry and palm oil industries. As more consumers opt for sustainable products, this will incentivise companies to adopt more sustainable practices which in turn contributes to reducing haze. For example, under the World Wildlife Fund Singapore's Southeast Asia Alliance on Sustainable Palm Oil (SASPO), efforts are being led by the industry and there is growing momentum towards adopting sustainable and responsible practices. The Singapore Environment Council (SEC) has established the enhanced Singapore Green Labelling Scheme (SGLS+) to help consumers identify sustainable pulp and paper. This certification demands full disclosure of the company's supply chain, imposes the legal sourcing of all fibre, has a zero-burning policy and includes fire and peatland management. Assessment is done through site audits, evaluation and risk assessments of companies' concession lands. As of 26 September 2019, 10 companies have achieved the SGLS+ certification. SEC will take punitive actions such as revocation of certification if there is proof of wrongdoing relating to companies of SGLS+ certified pulp and paper products.
Financial institutions can exercise influence over regional forestry and palm oil companies, and promote the adoption of sustainable practices through their lending and investment activities. The Association of Banks in Singapore (ABS) released a set of responsible financing guidelines in October 2015, comprising environmental, social and governance (ESG) criteria. In 2017, the ABS released the Haze Diagnostic Kit which provides best practices guidelines for member banks to assess their clients' commitments to haze risk management. To support climate-related disclosures, the Singapore Exchange introduced the \"Comply or Explain\" Sustainability Reporting Guide for listed companies, beginning from the financial year ending on or after 31 December 2017. Another important signal is that our investment entities do not invest in errant companies. Temasek Holdings has stated publicly that they consider ESG factors when making decisions as an investor looking to deliver returns on a sustainable basis and they fully support no burn policies for land clearance. GIC has also stated that they integrate sustainability considerations holistically into their investment processes.
Fourth, to provide the public with timely information to safeguard their health and well-being, NEA has been issuing daily advisories on the haze situation since 4 August this year. The daily advisories provide the forecast of the Pollutant Standards Index or PSI for the next 24 hours which could be used as the basis for major decisions, such as school closure. This is in addition to the 1-hour PM2.5 levels and 24-hour PSI which are updated every hour and are available online and on the MyENV mobile application.
During transboundary haze episodes, PM2.5 is the dominant pollutant and has the most influence on the PSI. The 1-hour PM2.5 levels provide an indicative measure of the current air quality, and is a useful indicator to guide immediate activities, such as whether or not to exercise outdoors.
Fifth, to minimise the impact of haze on the public, the Government has since 1994 set up a Haze Task Force (HTF), comprising 28 Government agencies. This is led by NEA. The HTF convened in early May this year, before the dry season, to begin preparations for a potential haze situation. With the onset of haze in mid-September, the HTF agencies have been rolling out actions to protect the health and well-being of the public, especially the more vulnerable groups such as the elderly, pregnant women, children, and people with chronic lung and heart diseases.
MOH worked with our healthcare institutions, including public hospitals, polyclinics and nursing homes, to prepare for any increase in the number of cases of haze-related conditions and on the timely activation of haze preparedness measures. These measures include using air purifiers and fans, and reducing ambient temperature by deploying portable air coolers where appropriate. Our public healthcare institutions are also monitoring patients closely for possible health effects of the haze and will institute appropriate medical intervention where necessary.
In addition, all classrooms of Primary and Secondary schools, MOE Kindergartens and Special Education schools have been equipped with air purifiers to enhance the well-being of students during a haze situation. Teachers will also be on the look-out for students who are unwell or have pre-existing lung or heart conditions. Contingency plans are in place should there be haze during the examinations period.
The HTF has also ensured that additional stocks of N95 masks are pushed out to retail shops, and there are sufficient stocks in the warehouses and Government stockpiles. The Singapore Government has a national stockpile of 16 million N95 masks. The HTF has plans in place to distribute N95 masks to vulnerable and needy residents if the 24-hour PSI crosses into the \"Very Unhealthy\" (PSI 201-300) range. N95 masks are, however, not required for short exposure, like commuting from home to school or work, or in an indoor environment. The elderly, pregnant women and those with severe lung or heart problems who have difficulty breathing at rest or on exertion should consult their doctor as to whether they should use the N95 mask.
We have considered cloud-seeding but there is a lack of reliable means to validate its effectiveness for Singapore. Given our small size and the variability of winds, the induced rain, if any, may not fall directly over our island.
In the first half of October, the Southwest Monsoon is expected to transition to inter-monsoon conditions characterised by light and variable winds and increased showers. Some parts of the region can still experience periods of dry weather in October, and hotspot activities may persist in parts of Sumatra and Kalimantan. However, the change in wind conditions will help to reduce the risk of transboundary haze affecting Singapore.
NEA will continue to monitor the haze situation closely. For updates, members of the public can visit the NEA website (www.nea.gov.sg), MSS website (www.weather.gov.sg), the haze microsite (www.haze.gov.sg), mobile apps (myEnv and Weather@SG) or follow NEA Facebook (www.facebook.com/NEASingapore) and NEA Twitter (@NEAsg). For information on the distribution of hotspots detected over the past fortnight in the region, please refer to the ASEAN Specialised Meteorological Centre (ASMC) website at asmc.asean.org.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"19","footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Most Common Mosquito Breeding Grounds","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"38 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) in the past five years, which is the most common area that residents have neglected resulting in mosquito breeding; (b) how many areas are at common areas (i) outside their house and (ii) within their house respectively; and (c) how many houses have been forced open for inspection in the absence of a response from owners/tenants.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: From 2014 to 2018, the National Environmental Agency (NEA) conducted an average of 1.3 million inspections annually, which uncovered more than 17,000 mosquito breeding habitats each year. The most common mosquito breeding habitats found in homes were domestic containers, such as pails, dish trays, flower pot plates and ornamental containers such as vases. The most common habitats detected in common areas were closed perimeter drains, discarded receptacles and gully traps.
NEA takes a systematic and holistic approach to arrest dengue transmission in Singapore. NEA conducts Gravitrap surveillance, regular inspections of premises for potential breeding sites and intensive search-and-destroy operations to remove mosquito breeding habitats. Through NEA's public communication efforts and the support of grassroots organisations, most residents understand the danger of dengue transmission and have been cooperative in facilitating NEA's home inspections.
For premises which NEA officers are unable to gain access to, for example when no one is at home, NEA will serve a letter to the owner or occupier to arrange for another date to inspect the unit. If our officers are still unable to enter the premises at the next inspection, a legal notice under section 35 of the Control of Vectors and Pesticides Act (CVPA) will be served to the occupiers, requiring them to open their homes for inspection at a specified time. If the owners or occupiers still fail to contact NEA and all attempts to contact the owners or occupiers via neighbours, grassroots, neighbourhood police and official records again fail, NEA will invoke section 36 of the CVPA to gain entry into the premises to check for mosquito breeding. From 2014 to 2018, 214 homes were inspected under section 36 of the CVPA.
We need to remain vigilant and continue to work as a community to prevent mosquito breeding and keep dengue transmission in check. Everyone can play a part in preventing dengue by regularly doing the five-step Mozzie Wipeout.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Correct Disposal Method for Household Pharmaceutical Waste","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"39 Ms Irene Quay Siew Ching asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources what is the correct disposal method for household pharmaceutical waste consisting of cytotoxics, antibiotics and controlled drugs.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Generally, household pharmaceutical waste, including those consisting of cytotoxics, antibiotics and controlled drugs, can be safely disposed of together with household general waste. All our household waste is collected by licensed waste collectors and safely incinerated at our waste-to-energy incineration plants before the ash is landfilled at Semakau Landfill.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Standardising Labelling and Colour Coding of All Recycling Bins","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"40 Mr Ang Hin Kee asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources whether the Ministry plans to align and standardise the colour codes of all recycling bins beyond housing estates to the shopping malls, hotels, offices and industrial estates for easy recall and identification as there is currently no consistency in how bins are labelled and can be confusing to users.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Currently, owners of commercial and industrial premises have the flexibility to choose the type and colour of recycling bins and recycling bin labels used on their premises. This is to cater to the different considerations that building owners may have, such as the recycling culture and awareness level of building occupants, space availability, and the overall design and aesthetics of the premises.
Notwithstanding this, my Ministry and the National Environment Agency (NEA) will study further the standardising of recycling bin colours. The NEA will consult the various stakeholders involved, such as waste collectors and building owners.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on NEA Life Cycle Assessment Study on Plastics","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"41 Mr Pritam Singh asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources when will the NEA life cycle assessment study on plastics be made public in its entirety for the use of academics, professionals and the lay public so as to promote an evidence-based approach to climate solutions suited for the Singapore context.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The National Environment Agency (NEA) commissioned a lifecycle assessment (LCA) study on carrier bags and food packaging in September 2016, in order to take an evidence-based approach to the issue of disposables in Singapore. It was conducted by Assoc Prof Kua Harn Wei from NUS School of Design and Environment (SDE) and his team of researchers from SDE and NUS Environmental Research Institute.
NEA released a factsheet on the key findings in 2018. The key findings showed that every type of material, including bio-degradable and paper materials, imposed different environmental impacts, and that consumers can reduce their impact on the environment by opting to use reusable bags and food containers, instead of disposables. We therefore encourage the public to reduce the excessive consumption of all types of disposables and to use reusables where possible.
NEA will work with NUS to release more information on the study, focusing on the methodologies and assumptions. This approach will enhance readability and ease of understanding by the general public. We will release the additional information when ready.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Insect Farms in Singapore","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"42 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) how many insect farms are currently located in Singapore; (b) what types of insects are currently allowed to be cultivated in Singapore; and (c) whether there are plans to allow for post-consumer food waste to be used for insect farming to help in recycling food waste.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: There are currently two licensed establishments in Singapore that rear insects. One of them is licensed by the Animal & Veterinary Service (AVS) as it rears insects for pet food.
The other is licensed by the Singapore Food Agency (SFA) as it rears insects to produce animal feed. This establishment rears Black Soldier Fly Larvae (BSFL) using waste streams from local food manufacturing companies such as okara, a by-product of soybean milk and tofu manufacturing, and spent brewery grains. The BSFL are processed into aquaculture feed for fish.
As part of the licensing requirements for establishments rearing insects to produce animal feed, SFA requires that the substances used to feed the insects are properly handled and traceable to ensure the safety of insect-derived animal feed.
Insects can be a good alternative source of feed for animals reared for food, due to their high feed conversion efficiency. This also supports Singapore's efforts to pursue circular economy approaches to reduce waste and be more environmentally sustainable.
However, insect farming is still a developing field. SFA is closely monitoring developments in this area, such as rearing practices, research and scientific literature, as well as relevant regulations adopted by overseas regulatory authorities. SFA will continue to refine its regulations and support for insect farming in Singapore.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Singapore Climate Rally Movement and Plans to Raise Awareness of Overconsumption, Waste and Carbon Footprint Reduction","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"43 Ms Rahayu Mahzam asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources in light of the recent Singapore Climate Rally (a) what are the Ministry's plans to engage the climate enthusiasts in novel ways to raise awareness of high levels of over-consumption, waste reduction and our carbon footprint; and (b) whether the Ministry will also consider leveraging on this movement and lead the efforts in the region.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Groups coming forward to raise awareness of, and taking action against climate change, is not a new development. More groups have come forward since Singapore designated 2018 as our Year of Climate Action to rally businesses, households and individuals to take collective action for a sustainable future. These include community groups, grassroots organisations, corporations, schools and non-governmental organisations (NGOs). In fact, over 800 climate action-related events were initiated and organised by our partners during the year. We have also received more than 341,000 climate action pledges from individuals, organisations and educational institutions.
The Government is heartened by the latest ground-up efforts by youths to generate greater public awareness of climate change. Climate change poses existential challenges for Singapore, including rising sea levels, extreme weather and potential threats to our water and food supply. We need all Singaporeans to come on board to address these issues collectively and with urgency.
To sustain the momentum for climate action, we designated 2019 as our Year Towards Zero Waste, to encourage Singaporeans to treasure our resources and make it a habit to Reduce, Reuse and Recycle. We are also nudging businesses to adopt a circular economy approach, and engage in sustainable production and consumption, so that we can reduce the amount of waste we generate. This will in turn reduce the amount of carbon emissions.
In July this year, we also launched the inaugural Climate Action Week, which we will be holding annually to sustain climate action. The week began with our Partners for the Environment Forum which gathered over 200 participants from the People, Private and Public (3P) sectors for discussions on climate change, and waste reduction and circular economy initiatives. This was followed by a series of ground-up activities and events organised by our 3P partners, including businesses, NGOs and youths.
Youths are important agents of change, and we have been actively reaching out to them and the broader community to encourage environmental stewardship. Earlier this year, MEWR worked with two youth-led environmental groups, Zero Waste SG and LepakInSG, to co-organise and facilitate focus group discussions on our inaugural Zero Waste Masterplan. The National Climate Change Secretariat also held a public consultation exercise on how Singapore can be a low-carbon global city state, which wrapped up end of last month.
Moving forward, we want to partner Singaporeans to co-create and co-deliver solutions to address our sustainability challenges. MEWR has convened our first Citizens' Workgroup, where 48 Singaporeans of diverse backgrounds are working together to look at how we can improve the way households in Singapore recycle. Next year, we plan to convene a second Workgroup to look at the excessive consumption of single-use plastics. We welcome youths and members of the public to join us in co-creating practical solutions to make Singapore more sustainable.
To broaden our outreach and engage key stakeholders, my Ministry has embarked on various collaborations with partners. One example is the Climate Action SG Alliance (CASA), which was set up in 2018 by a group of corporate and civil society leaders. The Alliance has 20 members, and includes youth-led groups such as Singapore Youth for Climate Action. CASA has initiated a series of projects to galvanise businesses and public to take action for the environment. Two members of the Alliance, Sembcorp and Eco-Business, just recently released a new video to raise awareness of the contamination in our blue recycling bins, and to educate the public on how to recycle right. Many of our partners have also engaged the public on climate action through activities such as movie screenings, dialogues and festivals. To encourage more ground up initiatives, we have provided support for projects related to waste reduction and recycling through our \"Towards Zero Waste Grant\", which was announced at the start of the year. We encourage individuals, interest groups, NGOs, grassroots organisations and corporations to apply for the grant.
Singapore's efforts to address climate change goes beyond our shores. We participate actively and constructively in international negotiations at the annual Conference of the Parties (COP) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). In July 2018, we convened the first ever Special ASEAN Ministerial Meeting on Climate Action (SAMCA). This October, we will also be hosting the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) meetings for the first time. To help build our community's understanding of key issues in international environmental negotiations, we have facilitated the participation of Singapore NGOs in the United Nations Environment Assembly in 2018 and 2019.
The Government's joint efforts with our 3P partners have demonstrated that Singapore can come together as a nation to address the challenges of climate change. We must continue on this journey of sustainable development. By working together to raise awareness and take collective action, we will ensure that Singapore remains a vibrant and liveable city for our future generations.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Review of Payout Duration for CPF Retirement Sum Scheme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"44 Ms Foo Mee Har asked the Minister for Manpower whether the CPF Board will consider reviewing the payout duration for the CPF Retirement Sum Scheme such that CPF members can receive higher payouts.
Mrs Josephine Teo: MOM and CPF Board are currently reviewing the payout rules for the Retirement Sum Scheme (RSS).
The RSS is the main retirement payout scheme for CPF members born before 1958. RSS payouts are designed to last up to 20 years from the payout eligibility age, taking into account the base interest rate earned on Retirement Account savings, which is now 4%.
Rising life expectancy over the years has increased the risk of members outliving their payouts. In 2018, more than half of Singapore residents aged 65 were expected to live beyond age 85 and about one in five were expected to live past age 95.
Therefore, when Extra Interest and Additional Extra Interest were introduced by the Government in 2008 and 2016 respectively, they were used to extend the RSS payout duration beyond 20 years. This extension reduces the risk of members running out of savings in old age. Even with the extension, CPF Board ensures that RSS payouts do not stretch beyond age 95.
We have received feedback from some members who feel that a payout duration up to age 95 is too long. The on-going review of RSS payout rules will consider how to address this concern. We expect to complete the review before the end of 2019 and will announce the outcome thereafter.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Foreign Instructors Conducting Classes as Work Pass Exempt Activity","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"45 Assoc Prof Walter Theseira asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what are the reasons why foreign instructors may conduct classes as a Work Pass Exempt Activity, provided that no administrative work is carried out; (b) what are the reasons for the exclusion of administrative work such as the setting and grading of assessment materials; and (c) whether this exclusion can be waived in cases where educational objectives can be strengthened through having the same instructor integrate teaching and assessment.
Mrs Josephine Teo: MOM exempts foreigners conducting workshops or speaking at seminars or conferences from the requirement to apply for a Work Pass, as such activities typically take place over a short period of time and the individuals do not become part of our regular workforce.
The exemption does not cover foreigners who are employed on a more permanent basis as faculty or instructors of an educational institution. Such faculty or instructors would typically also perform other administrative duties, such as setting and grading of assessment materials. In these cases, MOM requires the educational institution to apply for a Work Pass for the particular instructor.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Needy Families Paying Less Than $10 and $5 Per Child for Full-day Childcare Services and Qualifying Criteria for Comprehensive Subsidy","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"46 Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) how many needy families currently pay less than $10 and $5 per child respectively for their full-day childcare services; and (b) what are the qualifying conditions to receive this comprehensive subsidy.
Mr Desmond Lee: Pre-school expenses are a function of fees, less subsidies and financial assistance, if applicable. The Government is committed to ensure the affordability of preschools, especially for low-income families, through the following measures.
First, the Government supports Anchor Operators and Partner Operators so that they can keep their fees within fee caps and fulfil quality targets. Together with MOE Kindergartens, these Government-supported operators make up slightly over half of pre-school places today. This helps to keep overall industry median fees in check.
Second, the Government provides subsidies to families with Singaporean citizen children in all childcare centres. A universal Basic Subsidy is provided to all families regardless of income. Mothers can qualify for higher Basic Subsidy if they are working at least 56 hours per month, or around two days per week. This includes part-time and freelance work. To further support low- and middle income working families, we also provide a means-tested Additional Subsidy.
Where there are good reasons, non-working mothers may qualify for higher working mother subsidies under Special Approval. For example, if the non-working mother is undergoing training, pregnant, medically unfit to work, or providing full-time care for a younger child aged 24 months and below, or a sick or special needs family member. Non-working mothers looking for employment may also be considered. Applications under Special Approval will be considered on a case-by-case basis.
Third, financial assistance is also provided to low-income families if they need help paying the monthly childcare fees even after the childcare subsidies. They can also apply for a one-time grant to cover the initial costs of enrolling their child in the centre. To be eligible, the child should be enrolled in an affordable childcare centre. Applications for financial assistance will be considered on a case-by-case basis.
Taking the Government's efforts together, around 4,100 families currently pay $10 and less per month for full-day childcare, of which around 70% or around 2,900 families pay $5 and less. This remaining amount can be fully covered by the $3,000 Child Development Account (CDA) First Step grant provided by Government.
In August 2019, the Government announced further measures to provide higher subsidies for more families from January 2020, to expand the share of Government-supported preschools to 80% by around 2025, and to lower fee caps for full-day childcare in the medium term. These measures underscore the Government's commitment to ensure preschool affordability for all Singaporeans, with the greatest level of support given to low-income families so that every child can have a good start in life.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Youth Suicides by Gender for Past Two Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"47 Mr Sitoh Yih Pin asked the Minister for Social and Family Development what is the number of youth suicides, broken down into male and female youths, for the past two years.
Mr Desmond Lee: The number of suicides fluctuates from year to year, and the number involving 10- to 19-year-olds in 2017 and 2018 is as follows:
48 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Social and Family Development for each year from 2011 to 2017, out of each cohort of children and young persons who enter a place of safety, what is the absolute number and percentage of them who subsequently enter (i) boys' or girls' homes or (ii) prison, respectively.
Mr Desmond Lee: Children and young persons (CYPs) in need of care or protection may be referred by MSF or ordered by the Youth Court to reside in places of safety under the Children and Young Persons Act. CYPs who commit offences may also be ordered by the Youth Court to reside in the Singapore Boys' Home (SBH) or Singapore Girls' Home (SGH), if they are aged below 16.
The table below provides the breakdown of CYPs in need of care or protection who were admitted to licensed Homes and subsequently committed offences.1
49 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Social and Family Development for each year from 2011 to 2017, what are the highest, lowest, mean and median numbers of children per social worker at places of safety.
Mr Desmond Lee: Children in need of care or protection may be referred by MSF or ordered by the Youth Court to reside in licensed Homes that are gazetted as places of safety under the Children and Young Persons Act.
Social workers and other professionals in the Homes provide care to and support the daily needs of residents. The care staff to child ratio (care ratio) varies across the sector as the number of children in the Homes may vary at any one time. The table below provides the median, mean, lowest and highest care ratio in the Homes in December of each year from 2016 to 2018, and August 2019.1
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":["1 : Similar analysis for data prior to 2016 is not readily available. "],"footNoteQuestions":["49"],"questionNo":"49"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Care-givers Given Special Approval for Higher Subsidy Support for Infantcare and Childcare","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"
50 Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) how many current care-givers have been given Special Approval for higher subsidy support for infant care and childcare because they are not working or they are non-parent care-givers; and (b) what is the average higher subsidy support they receive.
Mr Desmond Lee: Under Special Approval, eligible applicants who are not working or who are non-parent care-givers may receive the higher subsidy support that working mothers receive. This includes the working mother Basic Subsidy, as well as the means-tested Additional Subsidy for household incomes that are $7,500 per month and below.
Currently, 2,100 applicants receive higher subsidy support under Special Approval. On average, these applicants receive $520 and $950 per month in total subsidies for childcare and infant care respectively.
Low-income families who face difficulties paying for childcare even after subsidies may apply for financial assistance.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Average Cash Savings Per Member of Households Receiving ComCare Short-to-Medium Term Assistance and ComCare Long-term Assistance in Last Five Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"51 Ms Anthea Ong asked the Minister for Social and Family Development in each of the last five years (a) what is the average amount of cash savings per household member for households who receive (i) ComCare Short-to-Medium Term Assistance (STMA) and (ii) ComCare Long-Term Assistance (LTA) respectively; (b) what is the number and percentage of applications rejected for (i) STMA and (ii) LTA respectively due to the household's cash savings; (c) whether the amount of cash savings owned by the applicant is considered in assessing his ComCare application; (d) what is the maximum amount of cash savings per household member allowed; and (e) whether this is communicated publicly.
Mr Desmond Lee: In assessing ComCare applications for financial assistance, we examine applicants' income, owned assets, including personal savings and expenditure. Where applicants need assistance for their basic living needs, such assistance may take the form of cash assistance, assistance with their household bills, and referrals to other agencies for services such as family services and employment assistance.
In considering applicants' savings, MSF takes into account factors, such as contingency savings for emergency expenses and household size. There is no hard threshold, and Social Service Offices can exercise flexibility taking into account the applicants' circumstances and needs.
Table 1 provides the average amount of cash savings for households receiving ComCare Short-to-Medium-Term Assistance (SMTA) and Long-Term Assistance (LTA) per household member for 2016 to 2018. Data before 2016 is not readily available.
Table 2 provides the number and percentage of ComCare SMTA and LTA applications that were rejected due to their household's cash savings from 2016 to 2018.1
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":["1 : Note: Other key reasons for rejecting a ComCare application would include clients withdrawing their applications or being uncontactable, and clients having a stable source of income or financial support. "],"footNoteQuestions":["51"],"questionNo":"51"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Singaporeans and PRs Suffering from Food Insecurity over Past Five Years and Help Measures Available","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"
52 Ms Anthea Ong asked the Minister for Social and Family Development over the past five years (a) what is the number of Singaporeans and PRs who are suffering from food insecurity, broken down to different extents; (b) how does the Government measure food insecurity and why is this method chosen; (c) what is the total amount of social welfare budget spent on providing food support; (d) how many charities in Singapore provide food support, broken down by type of food support; and (e) what is the total estimated operating expenditure of these charities in providing food support.
Mr Desmond Lee: Whilst MSF does not track the number of Singapore residents specifically experiencing food insecurity, we support low-income households in a number of ways, including with their food-related needs.
When people apply to the Social Service Offices (SSOs) for assistance under ComCare, their needs are assessed holistically – finances, food, healthcare, employment, family-relationship issues, and housing. When ComCare financial assistance is provided, it includes provision for food. Based on the assessed needs, SSOs may also link families with other Government agencies and social service agencies for other forms of support. One example is MOH's Meals-on-Wheels programme, which provides cooked meal deliveries to eligible clients who are unable to buy and prepare their own meals.
The community plays a strong role in complementing the Government's efforts on food issues. MSF is aware of more than 20 registered charities and a growing number of informal groups in Singapore providing a variety of food support, including cooked meals, dry rations, and perishables, such as bread and vegetables. Apart from such charities, grassroots organisations and religious organisations such as mosques, churches and temples also provide free food to those in need. These organisations and informal groups are largely volunteer-driven and collaborate closely with community agencies such as Family Service Centres in their food collection and distribution.
These community efforts provide support for households to meet their food-related needs, while contributing to food sustainability and reduced food wastage in Singapore. Such collaborations are good examples of the impact the community can make and how the community can partner with the Government to support those in need.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Commercial for-profit Surrogacy and Deterrent Measures in Place","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"53 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Social and Family Development whether he can provide an update on the Ministry's position on commercial for-profit surrogacy and whether measures will be put in place to deter it.
Mr Desmond Lee: Currently, Assisted Reproduction Technology (ART) centres in Singapore are not allowed to provide surrogacy treatment. We are still carefully reviewing our position on surrogacy, bearing in mind the following considerations.
Surrogacy is a complex issue with several ethical, social, health and legal implications.
Singapore's public policy encourages parenthood within marriage. Consistent with this, we will generally not object if married couples with fertility problems apply to the Singapore Court to adopt their children born through surrogacy that is carried out overseas. This is provided they are medically assessed to be unable to conceive children, and that the surrogacy arrangement is carried out in a jurisdiction where surrogacy is not illegal or unlawful.
The Government does not encourage planned and deliberate single parenthood as a lifestyle choice. Hence, as a matter of public policy, we do not support the use of Assisted Reproduction Technology (ART) or surrogacy by singles to conceive children and adopt them. We also do not support the formation of same-sex families through adoption.
All adoption applications will continue to be assessed on a case-by-case basis. Besides factors concerning the child's well-being, such as parenting practices, family circumstances and available support networks, the circumstances surrounding each application must also be taken into account to ensure that the adoption does not go against public policy. It should thus not be taken as a matter of course that applications to adopt children born overseas and outside of wedlock would be successful.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Clarification by Minister for Education","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WS","content":"[(proc text) The following statement was in the speech given by the Minister for Education (Mr Ong Ye Kung) during Question Time for the Parliamentary Question \"Reasons for Cancellation of 'Dialogue and Dissent Programme' at Yale-NUS\" at the Sitting of 7 October 2019: (proc text)]
The Minister for Education (Mr Ong Ye Kung): I should add that a talk by AWARE was also listed in the programme, but AWARE has since clarified with YNC as well as the media that they had not agreed to participate in the programme, though they had received an invitation. [Please refer to \"Reasons for Cancellation of “Dialogue and Dissent” Programme at Yale-NUS\", Official Report, 7 October 2019, Vol 94, Issue No 112, Oral Answers to Question section.]
[(proc text) Written statement by Mr Ong Ye Kung circulated with leave of the Speaker in accordance with Standing Order No 29 (5): (proc text)]
After my statement during\tQuestion Time for the Parliamentary Question \"Reasons for Cancellation of 'Dialogue and Dissent Programme' at Yale-NUS\" at the Sitting of 7 October 2019, AWARE made a clarification with MOE. My reply should read as follows:
The Minister for Education (Mr Ong Ye Kung): I should add that a talk by AWARE was also listed in the programme, but AWARE has since clarified with YNC as well as the media that they were added to the programme without their knowledge, they had nothing to do with the project and did not receive any invitation.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null}],"writtenAnswersVOList":[],"writtenAnsNAVOList":[],"annexureList":[],"vernacularList":[{"vernacularID":3322,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Er Dr Lee Bee Wah","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20191007/vernacular-Lee Bee Wah MRHA 17Oct2019-Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Lee Bee Wah MRHA 17Oct2019-Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":3323,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20191007/vernacular-7 Oct 2019 - Mr Faisal Manap - MRHA.pdf","fileName":"7 Oct 2019 - Mr Faisal Manap - MRHA.pdf"},{"vernacularID":3324,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Dr Mohamad Maliki Bin Osman","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20191007/vernacular-7 Oct 2019 - Dr Mohd Maliki Osman - MRHA.pdf","fileName":"7 Oct 2019 - Dr Mohd Maliki Osman - MRHA.pdf"},{"vernacularID":3325,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Ms Rahayu Mahzam","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20191007/vernacular-7 Oct 2019 - Ms Rahayu Mahzam - MRHA.pdf","fileName":"7 Oct 2019 - Ms Rahayu Mahzam - MRHA.pdf"},{"vernacularID":3326,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Gan Thiam Poh","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20191007/vernacular-Gan Thiam Poh MRHA 7Oct2019-Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Gan Thiam Poh MRHA 7Oct2019-Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":3327,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Ms Joan Pereira","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20191007/vernacular-Joan Pereira MRHA 7Oct2019-Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Joan Pereira MRHA 7Oct2019-Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":3328,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Mohamed Irshad","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20191007/vernacular-Mr Mohamed Irshad (Take 24 @ 4.15pm to 4.30 pm) - 7 Oct 2019 MRHA Bill Tamil Transcribed Version.pdf","fileName":"Mr Mohamed Irshad (Take 24 @ 4.15pm to 4.30 pm) - 7 Oct 2019 MRHA Bill Tamil Transcribed Version.pdf"},{"vernacularID":3329,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Saktiandi Supaat","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20191007/vernacular-7 Oct 2019 - Mr Saktiandi Supaat - MRHA.pdf","fileName":"7 Oct 2019 - Mr Saktiandi Supaat - MRHA.pdf"},{"vernacularID":3330,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20191007/vernacular-7 Oct 2019 - Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar - MRHA.pdf","fileName":"7 Oct 2019 - Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar - MRHA.pdf"},{"vernacularID":3331,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Terence Ho Wee San","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20191007/vernacular-Terence Ho MRHA 7Oct 2019 -Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Terence Ho MRHA 7Oct 2019 -Chinese.pdf"}],"onlinePDFFileName":""}