1 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Communications and Information (a) whether the Ministry plans to do more to encourage companies to sign up for the Singapore SMS SenderID Protection Registry; and (b) how does the Ministry intend to stay ahead of the curve and prevent scammers from circumventing the anti-SMS spoofing registry.
2 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for Communications and Information (a) in the past two years, how many cases have been prosecuted under the Spam Control Act 2007 and the Personal Data Protection Act 2012 in connection with unsolicited SMSes offering job opportunities; and (b) what other actions are being taken to combat the problem of such unsolicited SMSes in addition to the establishment of the Do Not Call registry in 2014.
3 Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui asked the Prime Minister (a) what is the uniqueness of the recent phishing scam via SMS notifications which avoided rapid detection; (b) whether other technology solutions, such as artificial intelligence, will be used by MAS and the Police to support our banks to trace the funds; (c) whether the bank’s full goodwill payouts to all affected customers will be a guideline for future settlements of such occurrences; and (d) how will MAS be working with banks from other jurisdictions to enable systems-level responses for future scams.
4 Mr Sharael Taha asked the Prime Minister with regard to the recent phishing scams via SMS notification (a) whether OCBC Bank’s goodwill payouts will set precedence for such future occurrences; (b) how will the Ministry ensure that these payouts do not lead to complacency towards being vigilant to phishing scams; and (c) whether such goodwill payouts will encourage scammers to focus more on Singapore banks.
5 Mr Seah Kian Peng asked the Prime Minister (a) whether the Government can consider a requirement for banks to commit to a minimum ratio of online call centre officers to customers; (b) whether the Government has data on (i) such current ratio for the banks and (ii) the average waiting times for a call to be answered; (c) if so, what are they; and (d) whether the Government has guidelines for an acceptable waiting time and, if so, what is it.
\tThe Minister for Communications and Information (Mrs Josephine Teo): Mr Speaker, Sir, may I seek your permission, also on behalf of Minister Lawrence Wong, to take Question Nos 1 to 5 during our Ministerial Statements to be delivered later in the Sitting?
\tMr Speaker: Yes, please.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Assessment of Use of Non-mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines in Wider Population","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"6 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Health with regard to individuals who completed their primary vaccine course with non-mRNA vaccines (a) how many of these individuals’ fully-vaccinated status will expire by 14 February 2022; (b) whether those who are medically ineligible for mRNA vaccines can receive a booster dose of a non-mRNA vaccine; and (c) if not, when will non-mRNA boosters be made available.
7 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Health (a) what are the considerations for not making the Sinovac-CoronaVac and Sinopharm vaccines generally available to children and adolescents, except adolescents who are not medically eligible for the Pfizer-BioNTech/Comirnaty vaccine; and (b) whether the Ministry has plans to make at least one non-mRNA vaccine generally available to children under 18 in order to maximise the vaccination rate of the Singapore population.
The Senior Minister of State for Health (Dr Janil Puthucheary) (for the Minister for Health): Mr Speaker, may I seek your permission to take Question Nos 6 and 7 together, please?
\t\tMr Speaker: Yes, please.
Dr Janil Puthucheary: Sir, as of 9 February 2022, there were about 1,000 individuals who completed the primary vaccine course with non-mRNA vaccines and would have their “fully-vaccinated” status expire by 14 February 2022.
Persons who are medically ineligible to receive the mRNA vaccine and aged 18 and above, can receive Sinovac-CoronaVac vaccine under the National Vaccination Programme (NVP) as a booster vaccine.
The use of the Sinovac-CoronaVac vaccine under NVP is only for persons aged 18 and above, as the vaccine manufacturer did not include children and adolescents when filing for interim authorisation of the vaccine under the Health Sciences Authority (HSA)’s Pandemic Special Access Route (PSAR). Both Sinovac-CoronaVac and the Sinopharm vaccines are also not currently recommended for routine use in persons aged below 18 by the World Health Organization.
Notwithstanding the manufacturer’s filing on the use of the vaccine, limited data from the Sinovac-CoronaVac vaccine manufacturer’s early Phase I and II trials in healthy children and adolescents aged three to 17 do not show safety concerns and we recognise the need for alternative vaccines for persons medically ineligible for the currently approved vaccine in this age group.
MOH has, therefore, also separately introduced a dedicated public health programme – Sinovac after mRNA (SAM) – outside of the NVP, to offer the Sinovac-CoronaVac vaccine to individuals aged 12 to 17 who are medically ineligible for the Pfizer-BioNTech/Comirnaty COVID-19 vaccine, to afford them some level of protection against COVID-19 while closely monitoring their safety.
SAM is, therefore, part of a research study which, under our current regulatory framework, enabled the administration of the Sinovac vaccine to an age group outside the scope of PSAR approval. In January 2022, the programme was further extended to eligible children aged five to 11, after the data from the older age group indicated that the safety profile of the vaccine was generally consistent with that of other registered vaccines used in immunisation against other diseases.
MOH is working to bring in other non-mRNA options for those who are medically ineligible. The Novavax COVID-19 vaccine has been assessed by HSA to be safe and effective for persons aged 18 and above, with two doses demonstrating a vaccine efficacy of 90% against symptomatic infection and 100% against severe disease with the wildtype SARS-CoV2 and the Alpha variant, with no significant safety concerns.
Therefore, in February 2022, HSA issued its PSAR interim authorisation letter to Novavax for its COVID-19 vaccine. Novavax recently released data that the vaccine was found to be 80% effective against COVID-19 in a late-stage trial in adolescents aged 12 to 17 in the United States when the Delta variant was the dominant strain. HSA and MOH will evaluate the data from this study and will continue to monitor for more data on its efficacy and safety in children and adolescents.
The Expert Committee for COVID-19 Vaccination (EC19V) has also reviewed data on the vaccine’s safety and efficacy and has recommended the use of the Novavax COVID-19 vaccine under the NVP for primary and booster vaccination in individuals aged 18 and older.
We hope that the initial doses of the Novavax COVID-19 vaccine will arrive in Singapore within a matter of months, provided that there are no disruptions to the shipment schedule. Meanwhile, those who are medically eligible are encouraged to take the available mRNA vaccines as they offer more optimal protection.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Yip Hon Weng.
Mr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Senior Minister of State for his reply. I have a related supplementary question on COVID-19. How are the healthcare workers and healthcare system coping with the increased number of infected cases from the Omicron wave?
\tThe Minister for Health (Mr Ong Ye Kung): Mr Speaker, the Member asked a question not quite related to vaccines but on healthcare workers, so, I thought I might as well answer.
Right now, we are getting 10,000 or more cases on a daily basis. It is within our expectations. We had earlier said that, at its peak, we may reach 15,000 to 20,000 cases a day or even more. That is within our expectations.
Right now, the week-on-week increase is about 1.5. So, it is not increasing at three times multiples anymore. But whether cases will go up further, I think that is a possibility and we should be prepared for that.
Having said that, as we have always explained, what is important now is not so much the topline infection numbers but how that translates into disease severity and impact on our healthcare capacity. Yesterday, there were a few Written Questions on this topic, and we put out some responses to those.
By and large, our healthcare system is coping well. I will give an example – the ICU beds. At its peak, during the Delta wave, we had 171 ICU beds occupied, out of a capacity of 200-plus, close to 300. Today, even at 10,000 cases a day, as of last night, it was 23 beds occupied. The week before, at one point, it reached 30 and it actually came down and it is now 23. So, we see it hobbling between 20 and 30. So long as we maintain that, ICU is in good shape.
If you look at those who need oxygen supplementation, those who require hospitalisation, the healthcare system is coping.
But I think where we face pressure now is not on the clinical side of healthcare but on the operational side of healthcare because the number of calls from patients to our hotline is increasing. Fortunately, we have the help of many public agencies like CPF Board, and SAF stood up a fairly big team to support the operations. So, we are able to answer well over 90% of the calls without them dropping. So, that is coping well.
But the GPs are facing quite a bit of pressure. Queues are long. If you go to our community GP clinics, you can see there are queues. So, I think on that front, we have to help the GPs. GPs have given feedback to us that the patients either have mild or no symptoms. They had self-tested, got a positive result and decided, \"I had better see a GP, either to get an MC or some ART kits from the doctors.\" Many of them also worry about travel. If they have to go through a PCR test while travelling, they like to say, \"I register a positive result, but I am a recovered shedder\". They want to show that, actually, they have had COVID-19, they are shedders and they have recovered.
So, for various reasons, people are visiting doctors and GPs, not because they are very sick. So, it is the operational side that is posing a challenge.
Later, MOH will be making an announcement. We are going to allow individuals to come to the Quick Test Centres (QTCs), go through a supervised ART test and, within 30 minutes, we can ingest their infection record, if they are tested positive, into their HealthHub record. From there, they can also withdraw ART kits. What they will not get is a doctor's MC because, for that, you would have to see a doctor.
So, that way, I hope we can divert many of the very mild cases away from GP clinics into the QTCs. We have about 200 QTCs now, all over, including in malls. We will start with about a quarter of them. So, by the end of today, you will be able to book an appointment with the QTCs and go through an ART test and then ingest the record, if you are positive, into your HealthHub.
I hope I have answered the question.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Gerald Giam.
\tMr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): Sir, there remains about 3% of 12- to 19-year-olds who have yet to get vaccinated and this works out to almost 10,000 unvaccinated adolescents, not counting children aged five to 11. Given the findings that adolescents and children have a higher COVID-19 Omicron infection rate than older age groups, does the Senior Minister of State agree that it is better for them to get vaccinated with the Sinovac vaccine, than remain unvaccinated?
I recognise that it is generally better for them to get the Pfizer vaccine because it is more efficacious. However, these adolescents have chosen not to for various reasons. Anecdotally, from the residents I have met, either they or their parents have a preference for non-mRNA vaccines and are unlikely to change their stance. So, why not approve the Sinovac vaccine for adolescents so that they will get vaccinated and our population can reach closer to a full vaccination rate earlier?
Secondly, the Sinovac vaccine has already been approved in Singapore for adolescents who are medically ineligible for the Pfizer vaccine. Jurisdictions like China and Hong Kong have already approved it for those aged three and above. So, what are the residual safety concerns to it becoming generally available for children and adolescents?
\tDr Janil Puthucheary: Sir, as the Member will appreciate, the issue of safety when it comes to medication, vaccines, medical therapeutics, is not absolute. Nothing is completely absolutely safe or absolutely unsafe. It is about the relative risk and the relative benefit.
The individuals under the age of 17 who are getting the non-mRNA vaccines – currently, the Sinovac-CoronaVac vaccines – in those circumstances, because they are medically ineligible for the mRNA vaccines, the benefits of being vaccinated with any vaccine are, indeed, outweighed by the risks and safety concerns that currently exists for those vaccines, and weighed up against the risk of getting a Coronavirus infection. But for the others who are not medically ineligible, the safety and efficacy data are quite clear. Therefore, we would continue to recommend for them an mRNA vaccine.
Because it is not just about their risks and their immunity at this point in time, but over the next few months, as the pandemic continues to be a challenge for us and around the world, we have to think about how quickly their immunity will wane, what would be their ability to deal with the future waves or even this existing wave as it makes its way through our society. So, we continue to recommend the mRNA vaccines.
As I have explained, we are trying to bring in other options for these individuals in the near future.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Discussion with SPH Media Trust on Funding Support Measures to Ensure Sustainability in Competitive Media Industry and Limited Local Market","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"8 Ms Tin Pei Ling asked the Minister for Communications and Information (a) whether there are any updates from the Government’s discussion with SPH Media Trust and on the level of funding support that the Government will provide; and (b) how will the Government ensure that the funding provided will be used to achieve the necessary digital transformation.
9 Ms Tin Pei Ling asked the Minister for Communications and Information whether the Ministry will require SPH Media Trust to have adequate emphasis on thought leadership content from Singapore’s perspective so as to increase Singapore’s mindshare on the global stage.
10 Mr Alex Yam asked the Minister for Communications and Information with the commitment of the Government to provide funding support to SPH Media Trust, how will the Ministry ensure that editorial independence continues to be upheld in the newsrooms.
11 Ms Hany Soh asked the Minister for Communications and Information what steps will the Ministry take to ensure that its funding support for SPH Media Trust will go towards the development of news media on online platforms that are engaging for younger audiences.
12 Ms Hany Soh asked the Minister for Communications and Information (a) how will the Ministry ensure that the Singapore Media Academy and the planned SPH Media Academy differentiate themselves in terms of skillsets and avoid an overlap of functions; (b) whether the Ministry has a definite roadmap for SPH’s upcoming media academy to help achieve the goal of nurturing more local talent for the mass communications industry; and (c) whether a collaboration with SG Women In Tech will be considered to attract, retain and develop more female talent in the infocomm workforce.
13 Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo asked the Minister for Communications and Information (a) how will SPH Media Trust remain relevant and sustainable in a highly competitive media industry given digital disruption and declining demand for print news; (b) how can the quality of local journalism keep pace with global standards since audiences can easily access digital versions of international newspapers; and (c) what are the desired outcomes for SPH Media Trust and how will the Government track the progress.
14 Mr Sharael Taha asked the Minister for Communications and Information (a) what will be done to ensure the viability of our vernacular news media, given their limited local market sizes; (b) how will the Ministry (i) ensure that our vernacular news media has enough resources, talent and technology to continue to produce good quality news and (ii) create opportunities for our vernacular news media to grow beyond Singapore readership; and (c) how does vernacular news media remain relevant, given the declining use of vernacular languages amongst our younger generations.
\tThe Minister for Communications and Information (Mrs Josephine Teo): Mr Speaker, may I seek your permission to address Question Nos 8 to 14, and for all related supplementary questions to be taken thereafter?
\t \tMr Speaker: Yes, please.
\tMrs Josephine Teo: I will also provide more information for written Question No 50 in yesterday's Order Paper, which was filed by Miss Cheryl Chan.
In May last year, Singapore Press Holdings Limited announced the restructuring of its media business to a not-for-profit entity. The restructuring process is complete and the new SPH Media Trust, or SMT, shared its plans with the public about two weeks ago.
\t
I thank Members for their questions. My reply is organised around three themes.
First, the need for Government support for SMT’s transformation; second, how transformation preserves trusted media for our citizens and serves the larger public interest; and third, how the Government will maintain accountability.
Ms Tin Pei Ling and Miss Cheryl Chan asked about the Government’s plans to support SMT.
MCI has worked closely with SMT to understand the challenges they face. In fact, readership and trust in SMT’s journalism continue to be high. Based on a survey last year, SMT’s weekly reach extends to almost 75% of Singaporeans. Three in four Singaporeans trust SMT to produce reliable news and content.
However, the global digital shift has severely disrupted print business models. Traditionally, they have relied heavily on advertising revenue to support quality journalism. But today, the proliferation of free news aggregators and user-generated content compete with newsrooms for eyeballs and, correspondingly, advertisers. Globally, print advertising revenue is declining 7% year-on-year. Although digital advertising revenue has increased, a large share of it goes to Big Tech platforms like Google and Facebook, or Meta, as it is now known.
On top of the cost of producing quality content, newsrooms must also invest in reaching audiences in a crowded digital space. In 2019, German publisher Axel Springer committed €100 million in investments for digital growth projects at two of its papers. This is on top of its IT development projects supporting its digital business model, which amounted to another €100 million. The New York Times, prioritising its digital growth, has seen its product development costs increase over 25% year-on-year. In 2020, this exceeded US$130 million. The high costs to achieve success online, even for those who already have significant readership, are testament to the challenging industry conditions.
As an open, cosmopolitan city-state, we consume varied perspectives from around the world. Nonetheless, preserving our local news media remains critical. Our local news media provide a vital Singaporean lens through which citizens can make sense of global events. It is an essential public good in our multiracial, multi-religious society. In discharging this role, SMT now produces six daily newspapers in four languages. Few of its competitors do the same.
To achieve its mission, SMT must do three things: first, make long-term investments in the capability development of technology and talent; second, sustain and develop our vernacular news media; and third, position itself as a regional thought leader.
Ms Jessica Tan and Ms Hany Soh asked about maintaining SMT’s relevance amidst digital disruption, especially for younger audiences. It is vital to understand the media consumption habits of our digital native audiences. Based on an MCI survey, around 65% of respondents access SMT’s digital content frequently in 2020. This is a steep jump from about 40% a year before. In contrast, hardcopy reach declined from about 40% to 30% over the same period, a single year. The digital pivot of SMT will be key to growing its reach with the young and old, and even with overseas audiences. More will need to be done.
In terms of user experience, digital content must be delivered swiftly, websites must be intuitively designed, applications must allow for personalisation.
In the newsroom, content management resources, data analytics and investments into artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning tools can help newsrooms push out news quickly, accurately and effectively. Continual evolution of content forms will also be key. As with other major publications today, SMT must package complex information in a variety of ways – texts, videos, podcasts and interactive infographics. This is especially important for younger audiences, who demand engaging news they can consume on-the-go.
At the backend, infrastructure will have to be robust enough to support the digital transition. With increasing digital viewership, SMT will also have to ensure resilience and reliability in its news provision.
Ms Hany Soh rightly asked about talent development. In today’s landscape, the skills required of journalists have changed dramatically. For example, beyond covering announcements, journalists have to be data-literate. They need to know when, where and how to reach their digital audiences so that critical news is not buried under masses of information on social media. As part of the transformation, the new SPH Media Academy will update the newsroom’s training programmes for the digital age. They will also partner internationally renowned institutions like the Poynter Institute and the Reuters Institute at Oxford University. They will offer programmes and fellowships to local journalists.
To Ms Hany Soh’s question about external collaborations, SPH Media Academy’s immediate focus will be on equipping its own journalists with digital skills and multimedia capabilities. We believe there will be good areas of synergy with the Singapore Media Academy. We will work with Mediacorp and SMT, along with our Institutes of Higher Learning, to promote collaborative efforts. In the long term, SMT can look into extending its programmes to the larger media industry in Singapore and journalists around the region.
The newsrooms will also keep pace with the increasingly complex information landscape. SMT will set up a fact-checking service to debunk fake news and launch media awareness and financial literacy programmes for the public. These initiatives complement the newsrooms’ core strengths, educating readers on identifying misinformation and scams, which are key challenges in today's digital society.
Mr Sharael Taha asked about the viability, relevance and growing the reach of vernacular media. Although vernacular readership is smaller and, therefore, much more challenging to independently sustain, it is critical to provide credible news products that serve our multiracial society.
Mr Speaker, in the 1980s, it was founding Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew who mooted the idea for the vernacular press to merge with the English press. He did so because he foresaw that the vernacular press would inevitably come under pressure as English became the language of business, Government and education. SPH was thus established in 1984 to preserve the Chinese and Malay media.
If we had allowed our vernacular media to wither, Singapore would have been the poorer for it and we would have lost our souls. Even if they were to be unviable business propositions – which they are not – we believe it is in the public interest to do all we can to preserve and develop all the vernacular outlets in both SMT as well as Mediacorp.
Government funding for SMT will go towards sustaining vernacular newsrooms and developing new content formats like videos and podcasts, to reach the younger generations.
In addition, support from the community is essential to achieve the shared goal of safeguarding our culture and heritage. In this regard, SMT will be partnering clan associations, community groups and schools to provide students with greater access to its vernacular products.
Ms Tin Pei Ling asked about thought leadership content. With Singapore’s position as a global hub, SMT is well-placed to provide deep domain knowledge about the region, with a Singapore voice. To boost its capabilities, SMT will expand its foreign bureaus, host more events and forums and establish more partnerships to build their international audience. Today, a third of The Straits Times’ readers come from overseas. Zaobao’s websites see around seven million unique visitors monthly, more than half of which are from outside Singapore. The Chinese Media Group will be partnering Berita Harian, Tamil Murasu, as well as other media outlets in the region to promote mother tongue language media to a wider audience.
As much as the media is coming under challenge throughout the world, we must be mindful that the major powers are waging a constant battle for hearts and minds worldwide – including our hearts and minds in Singapore. As a small country, we are especially prone to influence campaigns – overt and covert. And as a multiracial, multilingual country, we are especially prone to the cultural, social and even political influence that countries like China and India can continue to exert abroad.
As open as we must remain to the world, and as welcoming as we are to global media outlets broadcasting and reporting out of Singapore, we must also have Singaporeans reporting on the world from the Singaporean perspective. A Singaporean reporting on China, for example, would afford us a lens very different from an American or a European doing so. Thus, the growth of SMT’s overseas bureaus is an important area of capability development we want to support.
Mr Speaker, the direction that SMT is charting out is promising, but it will require significant investments over a period of time. During the transition, it will likely be loss-making. In the UK, The Guardian, which has a highly successful digital subscription model with almost a million paying supporters, has lost millions of dollars since 1998. It only returned to the black in 2019, after years of persistent transformation efforts. Yet, they still had to cut 12% of their workforce in 2020 to stay afloat.
The Government is ready to put support behind SMT’s transformation. We are committed to safeguarding the information space for our citizens.
Government funding of news media is commonplace in many countries and has increased in some cases during COVID-19. This underscores the public good that trusted journalism provides in a complex environment. In 2020, the French government introduced a subsidy package of over €480 million to support its news media in weathering COVID-19 losses and moving to digital platforms. In the same year, Norway and Sweden rendered €43 million and €65 million of aid respectively to their press.
Prior to its restructuring, Singapore Press Holdings Limited had invested almost $50 million annually in technology and digital talent. This has yielded some success but, from the kind of investments we see elsewhere, they clearly need to do more to accelerate the newsrooms’ transformation. The steep decline of print media and, correspondingly, the migration to the digital space, has brought SMT to an inflection point. It will tap on Government funding to make essential investments that move it decisively into the digital age.
\tMCI has, therefore, set aside funding support of up to $180 million annually, over the next five years. This will provide SMT with more capital to invest in the future while ensuring that they are able to sustain their current operations during this critical transition period.
In its initial years, we expect SMT to spend approximately 40% of the funding on tech investments and digital talent. The remainder will be spent on newsroom capability building and training, in particular, the vernacular newsrooms.
Ms Tin Pei Ling and Ms Jessica Tan asked about accountability measures. With such a significant amount of public funding, MCI will monitor SMT's performance closely through Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) that track total reach and engagement of SMT’s products, with a focus on their digital platforms; specific reach indicators for vernacular groups and youths; and resilience of SMT’s flagship products to minimise downtime and disruption.
SMT is required to provide progress update reports to MCI on a half-yearly basis. This allows MCI to track their progress and for the Government to help achieve its desired outcomes when necessary. We will also review the funding quantum after the first five years, based on the progress that SMT has made.
Mr Alex Yam asked how the Ministry will ensure editorial independence continues to be upheld in the newsrooms. SMT has exercised editorial independence since its establishment in 1984 as Singapore Press Holdings. Funding support does not change that, as is the case with Mediacorp since 2011.
In fact, the 2021 edition of the Reuters Institute Digital News Report indicated that 79% of respondents expressed trust in CNA. Is such a high level of trust attainable without objective and balanced reporting? The same report indicated that The Straits Times, one of SMT's flagship products, enjoyed a similarly high level of trust among 77% of respondents. Would SMT wish to erode this foundation?
If nobody is reading The Straits Times, Lianhe Zaobao, Berita Harian or Tamil Murasu, if nobody is viewing Channel 8, Suria, Vasantham or CNA, there is no use in funding SMT or Mediacorp. It is precisely because people are reading, viewing and hearing our mainstream media that they deserve to be supported. It is because the public see them as trusted sources of news that we must do all we can to keep them as viable propositions.
As can be seen also through the KPIs set by MCI, the Government's key interest is to ensure the reach of SMT's products. No one gains if these products lack credibility and are ignored by audiences. On the contrary, we are funding them precisely because they do have readers who trust them.
Mr Speaker, to conclude, the coming years will be an exciting period as we expect a major digital transformation of our local news media landscape. MCI will work closely with SMT to ensure that our local news media upholds quality journalism delivered in innovative and engaging ways.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Alex Yam.
\tMr Alex Yam (Marsiling-Yew Tee): Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I thank the Minister for the reassurance of the journalistic integrity of the newsroom with Government funding. I have two supplementary questions.
One, in terms of access to future print copies of the newspaper. I remember fondly riding in my father's car, rolling down the manual window and shouting out in dialect \"ma biew po\" and exchanging a couple of coins for a copy of the evening tabloid. Many of our older generation continue to rely on access to news via the printed copies. In this restructuring and the pivot towards digital, how will the Government ensure the continued availability of printed copies in the future so that our elders in society are not left out?
Two, in terms of the workforce in SMT. Over the last few years, I recall that in October 2009, there was a restructuring and 70 staff from SPH's Media Group were laid off. And I think in 2020, a further 5% of the workforce, over 100, were also laid off as part of addressing the challenges of COVID-19. As it continues to pivot and transform itself, how will the Government, through its funding mechanism, ensure that workers within the Media Group are fairly treated as it continues to pivot towards the digital sphere?
\tMrs Josephine Teo: Mr Speaker, I thank Mr Alex Yam for both his questions. On his question about access to print, both the Government and SMT are very mindful that significant segments of our population rely on print to read about the daily happenings in Singapore and to get a perspective of the issues that are of importance to us. So, retaining the availability of print will remain a priority for quite a while, I believe.
The key issue is how SMT can do this in a way that is still efficient and does not drain its resources unnecessarily. Some of the moves that they have taken are practical and sensible ones, such as, assessing whether it makes sense for them to continue to have two evening papers, Shin Min Daily News and Lianhe Wanbao. And after a careful strategic review, looking at the reach of both evening papers and satisfying their own desire to ensure that the evening papers continue to reach a wide enough audience, decided that they will cease the publication of Lianhe Wanbao by focusing on Shin Min instead.
These kinds of decisions, I think, will continue to be taken, if necessary. But SMT as well as the Government are committed to ensuring that even those who access news mainly through print will be able to do so on a continued basis. So, I can give Mr Alex Yam that assurance.
Secondly, Mr Alex Yam has asked a very important question with regard to fair treatment of the staff of SPH and also how the Government funding will seek to ensure that. The best thing I think we can do to retain talents within SMT is to provide them with the support to make that transformation. Talents everywhere, including journalistic talents in media companies, want to know that they have a future. It is the main reason that they will stay on, invest their time and effort to produce quality journalism. And the only way we can do so is if the digital transformation is not a start-stop process, not a half-hearted process, but one that is taken with great commitment and passion. This is what energises them and this is what makes them want to stay.
At this present moment, as it turns out, there is intense competition for talent. So, SMT and, actually, all media companies, are working very hard to keep as many talent as possible. Against this backdrop, it would be most unwise if SMT or any other media company were to be perceived by their employees of unfair treatment. It is in their own interest to ensure that they paint a realistic vision of the future and they commit the resources to help their talent grow and develop along with the organisation's transformation.
So, I have confidence in SMT that they are minded to look after their people because they are committed to the public to provide quality journalism, which cannot be achieved without the talent within their vault.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.
\tMr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Minister, with close to $1 billion of Government funding for SMT committed over the next five years, how will the Government assure Singaporeans that SMT's content will not be tainted by allegations of political interference?
\tMrs Josephine Teo: Mr Speaker, firstly, the Government has committed to set aside up to $180 million dollars annually over the next five years. And I want to emphasise this: up to $180 million dollars. What is actually going to be disbursed will depend on the specific investments that SMT makes, through their progress updates to MCI, whether we are satisfied that these are the right things to do and that they will produce or they have the likelihood of producing good results. So, it is up to $180 million annually and, therefore, up to $900 million over five years.
I am actually not so surprised that Mr Pritam Singh put this question up. And if I may, Mr Pritam Singh's question, again asking about influence on editors, journalist, is too predictable, if I may put it this way. His question seems to suggest that he does not trust the journalists and our mainstream media to be objective in reporting, to apply their minds and to be discerning or to have a sense of responsibility to truthful reporting for the public. I hope I am wrong in thinking that this is what Mr Pritam Singh is suggesting, but that is what came to mind when he spoke those words.
Regardless of what I say or what Mr Pritam Singh may suggest, the true test is whether the public trusts the media and how they exercise their choice on a day-to-day basis in consuming news media, when so many alternatives are available to them at zero cost. And, fortunately for us, for all of us, our local mainstream media are trusted by people and we have every reason to keep it so.
\tMr Speaker: Ms Hany Soh.
\tMs Hany Soh (Marsiling-Yew Tee): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have filed a Parliamentary Question in relation to women and tech. I am very heartened to also find out recently that SMT has appointed a female CEO with vast experience in the IT industry to lead the organisation in this transformation. It is just a suggestion which I wish to put across to the Ministry to urge SMT to take into consideration that, in this transformation, they can be a very good and leading role model to encourage more women to enter, stay and progress with the organisation in this challenging yet meaningful journey.
\tMrs Josephine Teo: Mr Speaker, I thank Ms Hany Soh for her very well-intended and wise suggestion to SMT. We will be more than happy to convey it.
I think, looking at the leadership of SMT all the way from its Chairman to its CEO and its senior team, I have no doubt that they are open to all kinds of talent, whether they are men or women, and they will do everything they can to hold as many of them in this organisation and help to propel its forward transformation.
Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.
\tAssoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): Thank you, Speaker. If I may just quickly follow up with the question for Minister Josephine Teo. She mentioned that she felt that there was trust in our local media. I am wondering: (a) if she would also argue that our local media marketplace is generally competitive; and, hence, part (b) of my question would be, if that is so, whether consumers are actually exercising their choice, but perhaps they do not entirely trust the local media, with not purchasing the various publications of our local media outlets, which has, therefore, necessitated this usage of public funds to fund SMT.
\tMrs Josephine Teo: Mr Speaker, it is not me that feel that our local mainstream media can be trusted. This is the readers voting with their hands when they swipe their mobile phones on the screen and giving that demonstration of confidence in our local mainstream media through the reach and engagement data that is publicly available.
It is not me claiming that the local mainstream media is trusted. They are asked these questions through surveys conducted by institutions that have good standing; I mentioned the Reuters Institute. They did not give this response to a question that I put to them; this is an independent survey done by a respected organisation. So, the facts speak for themselves and it is not for us to speculate why.
But I think what Assoc Prof Jamus Lim is trying to say is that, if they trust these local mainstream media so much, why are they not buying or paying for subscription? And if they were doing so, then the local mainstream media would not have to turn to the Government for funding support.
I thought that in my earlier responses to Members' questions, I had made it quite clear that this situation for print media companies is not unique to SMT. It is worldwide, whether it is in the US with the New York Times, or in the UK with The Guardian. It is very hard to translate eyeballs into dollars. And without advertising revenue, these media outlets and companies will be loss-making. The Guardian's example is a very stark one. And the figures I quoted, since 1998, they have been trying to be in the black. They managed to only in 2019, after two decades of transformation. And even then, last year, they had to cut people, 12% of the workforce.
So, it is not just your ability to reach audiences. The audiences can get news content free of charge almost anywhere. You and I are beneficiaries of that. We do not have to pay to get news, but we will choose where we spend our time, in order to get trusted news. And that is what is the most important of all and that is why our local mainstream media deserve to be supported.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Firms in Built Environment Sector that have Ceased Operations in Recent Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"15 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for National Development (a) how many firms in the built environment sector have ceased operations in 2021 due to insolvency, as compared to 2018 to 2020; (b) given the intention for the extended relief periods under the COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) Act 2020 (COTMA) to expire in Q1 2022, whether the Government is considering any transitional measures to prevent firms from suffering a hard landing; and (c) what are the examples of “unforeseen circumstances” which would see a further extension of the relief period under COTMA.
\tThe Minister of State for National Development (Mr Tan Kiat How) (for the Minister for National Development): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government has put in place a wide range of support measures to help construction firms cope with the cost pressures brought about by COVID-19. This includes the $1.36 billion Construction Support Package to help firms in the construction industry cope with the cost of implementing safe management measures at worksites, as well as to co-share prolongation costs for public sector projects. Firms have also received support for their manpower costs through the Jobs Support Scheme and Foreign Worker Levy waivers and rebates. The Government has also put in place unprecedented legislative measures through the COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) Act, or COTMA, to provide relief for contractors and to enable equitable co-sharing of increased costs by project parties due to the pandemic.
These measures have helped the construction industry tide over the COVID-19 pandemic. About 2,200 construction firms ceased operations in 2021, which is comparable to the average number of firms that wound up annually between 2018 and 2020. There were 2,187 firms that wound up in 2018; 2,347 firms that wound up in 2019; and 2,027 firms that wound up in 2020.
We do not take decisions to intervene in private contracts lightly. The COTMA reliefs are meant to be temporary and firms will need to partner one another for long-term sustainability and resilience. However, given the significant impact of COVID-19 on the Built Environment (BE) sector, we have extended the relevant COTMA reliefs several times. This has provided firms with additional time and support to negotiate amicable outcomes between the parties.
And we have seen encouraging signs of the sector’s recovery. Based on project progress payments made at the industry level, the current level of construction output is close to pre-COVID-19 levels. This indicates that construction works are progressing at a steady state. As such, barring any unforeseen circumstances, such as a severe industry-wide disruption to construction works caused by COVID-19, the reliefs under COTMA Part 2 and Part 8B will end on 28 February 2022. We strongly encourage all contracting parties to agree on mutually beneficial arrangements to sustain their projects.
Part 10A of COTMA has been extended until 31 March 2022. This Part pertains to the co-sharing of cost increases attributed to foreign Work Permit holder salaries. While the foreign manpower inflow has been improving in recent months, we will continue to monitor the situation and review whether a further extension is needed.
Mr Speaker: Mr Saktiandi Supaat.
\tMr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Speaker, I would like to thank the Minister of State for his reply. I have two supplementary questions, short ones. The progress that the Minister of State mentioned is good news, especially if COTMA is going to be tapered off this year. But I have a bit of concern in terms of expectations of disputes probably going up later this year, especially between contractors and their respective employers. So, my first question is whether there will be any low-cost ways for these firms to resolve disputes going forward, especially if measures taper? Secondly, are there any specific arrangements to transition workers from these BE firms that go out of business?
\tMr Tan Kiat How: Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Member for the two supplementary questions. On the first point, I would just like to assure the Member that we are very focused on this issue, making sure that the construction works in the BE sector proceed safely and seamlessly. There are very important public sector projects, from housing to transportation, to private residential projects that we know are important to Singaporeans and we want to make sure the construction works continue smoothly and safely and that the entire sector is on a steady keel.
We have been in regular contact with the construction industry, the BE sector, from developers to consultants, architects, engineers, contractors, facility managers, companies big and small. Especially since the Government accounts for almost 60% of the total construction output in Singapore, we have been working very closely with the industry. All the Government agencies, the Government procurement entities, like HDB and LTA, have been working very closely with their contractors and their subcontractors, making sure that work continues.
So, I would just like to reassure the Member that we are monitoring the situation very closely. In fact, my colleagues from MOM and MND meet these firms on a very regular basis, going through issues of payment, workers, inflow of workers, salaries and so on.
On a related second point around the movement of workers, we have been working together with the Singapore Contractors' Association Limited, or SCAL, to look at different mechanisms. For instance, if one firm decides to wind up or decide to shed workers, how can the workers be so allocated or shared with other firms which may be growing their business? There are certain mechanisms in place, including the Manpower Exchange. We are also in close contact with the various firms through the Association. These are issues that we are working on very closely and we will monitor the situation in the coming months.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Types and Frequency of Enforcement Actions Taken against Errant Active Mobility Device Riders who Speed or Ride on Pathways","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"16 Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng asked the Minister for Transport (a) what are the types and frequency of enforcement actions taken against errant active mobility device riders who speed or ride on pathways where they should not; and (b) whether more resources can be provided for stricter enforcement, especially on pathways affected by infrastructure works in the Central District.
\tThe Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Transport (Mr Baey Yam Keng) (for the Minister for Transport): Mr Speaker, Sir, for the safety of all path users, several teams of Active Mobility Enforcement Officers (AMEOs) are deployed daily, including at night, to deter and detect errant active mobility device riders. They also conduct frequent joint enforcement operations with NParks officers in parks and along park connectors. LTA has also been tapping on technology for enforcement, including a pilot deployment of mobile closed circuit televisions (CCTVs) to catch errant users and identification of hotspots based on public feedback from the MyTransport.SG mobile application.
Offenders caught speeding or using the wrong path, for example, e-scooter or power-assisted bicycle (PAB) riders who use footpaths, are issued with an offence form on the spot. AMEOs also conduct checks on active mobility devices to ensure that the devices meet the requirements stipulated by LTA and have not been illegally modified. Non-compliant devices will be immediately seized.
Where footpaths are affected by infrastructure works, LTA will ensure that alternative crossings or paths are available and signages are installed to guide path users. If necessary, LTA will deploy AMEOs to tackle egregious active mobility offences at these locations. With close to 6,000 kilometres of footpaths and cycling paths islandwide, enforcement alone will not prevent errant behaviour. Ultimately, path safety is a collective responsibility and we urge all users to play their part to use our shared spaces in a responsible manner.
Mr Speaker: Ms Denise Phua.
\tMs Denise Phua Lay Peng (Jalan Besar): I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the answer. I would like to request special attention be given to especially the North-South Corridor (NSC), which is a long stretch of project works along roads in the Central District. Works, such as the NSC, are right in the residential areas in central Singapore, such as Thomson Road and so forth. Not anybody's fault, but it poses a lot of challenges for both LTA and the residents.
My grassroots and I meet very regularly with the LTA team. And I know they are trying really hard, but I think they will need a lot more resources to be dedicated to address a lot of these issues that happen. Things like the narrow pathways, where there are errant PMD riders and errant contractors who proceeded with noisy works even beyond the agreed hours. I feel so much that the LTA team needs a lot more support. I am, therefore, asking for MOT to direct more resources to support these staff, for a win-win for both the residents and the staff. I would like to request special attention and resources be given to the NSC staff working on the project in central Singapore.
\tMr Baey Yam Keng: I would like to thank Member Denise Phua for her very useful feedback, and also from grassroots leaders about the inconveniences caused by the works of the North-South Corridor, along Thomson-Balestier area.
Because of the works, a lot of the diversion has to take place and, therefore, the paths become a bit narrower than usual and, especially along bus stop areas, where there is a concentration of commuters, cyclists, it does pose a challenge.
So, with feedback, LTA has been periodically deploying enforcement officers at these areas to look out for errant riders. We really seek the public's understanding during this period. When the NSC is completed, there will be dedicated active mobility paths where users can enjoy such conveniences.
I also note Members' feedback about the works causing noise during certain hours. We will take note and we will work with the contractors to ensure that the works do not cause unnecessary disturbances or inconvenience to the Member's residents.
We will deploy necessary resources to manage this, but as the Member knows, the NSC is a huge project, spanning from the northern part of Singapore to downtown. So, we will have to manage our resources properly.
At this point, I would like to also take this opportunity to urge all path users, both pedestrians and active mobility riders, to really take note and, especially in crowded places, in narrow spaces, to look out for one another, slow down and play a part to ensure that our common spaces, our shared spaces, are being used safely by everybody.
\t
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Toll on Public Service at Forefront of Fight against COVID-19 Pandemic and Measures to Ensure It Remains Competitive","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"17 Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan asked the Prime Minister in light of the Public Service being at the forefront of the fight against the COVID-19 pandemic and taking a toll on the workers in the Public Service (a) whether the Public Service is also seeing an increase in attrition; (b) what is being done to look after the health and welfare of workers in the Public Service; and (c) what is the Government doing to ensure that the compensation and benefits of workers in the Public Service remain competitive.
\tThe Minister for Education (Mr Chan Chun Sing) (for the Prime Minister): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Public Service has seen an increase in attrition across the board. The resignation rate for the Management Executive Scheme, the largest generic scheme in the Civil Service, reached a 10-year peak of 9.9% in 2021 and the attrition has clearly picked up momentum in the last six months. Some specific segments, such as Info-communication Technology (ICT), are experiencing elevated competitive pressures in the face of talent shortages and facing resignation rates that are even higher.
There are various factors contributing to attrition from the Public Service, including pressures of the job, pay and opportunities for professional development and progression. In particular, over the past two years, public officers have had to face intense pressure, working tirelessly to sustain the fight against COVID-19. At times, they also have to deal with anxious and even demanding members of the public in the course of their COVID-19-related work. The shift to remote work has also blurred the line between work and life. There is a risk of an increase in attrition from the Public Service, as the economy recovers, and job offers from the private sector increase.
Amidst the high demands of the work, the Public Service will step up efforts to streamline processes and continue to provide clarity of direction in helping our officers relate their work and contributions to the core purpose of serving Singapore and Singaporeans. At the same time, the Service has also stepped up efforts to support and care for the health and mental well-being of public officers. We are conducting regular webinars on well-being-related topics, such as resilience, mindfulness, nutrition and physical exercise. We introduced a 24/7 counselling hotline as well as a \"mindline at work\", a digital platform to help public officers access mental health resources. We have also built up a community of over 900 Wellness Ambassadors from 80 agencies. These are public officers who have volunteered to be trained to provide basic emotional support to fellow colleagues and act as ambassadors for mental well-being.
Mr Speaker, Sir, the Public Service will review salaries and benefits of public officers and adjust them where necessary to keep pace with the market. These periodic adjustments help to enable the Public Service to attract and retain its fair share of talent so that we can continue to deliver a high quality of services for Singaporeans. In addition, we have made several moves to enhance the employee value proposition of a career in the Public Service, by expanding job rotations and attachments outside the public sector, to make work more interesting and fulfilling as officers get to experience and learn new things constantly.
Mr Speaker: Mr Patrick Tay.
\tMr Patrick Tay Teck Guan (Pioneer): Sir, I thank the Minister for his reply. I have two supplementary questions. The first supplementary question is whether any of our Ministries, Statutory Boards or any key essential services in the public sector is at a critical manning level, hearing about the attrition earlier.
Secondly, what is the baseline work arrangement for the Public Service that is, the Ministries or the Statutory Boards, to ensure that as we move into the endemic state and the new normal, officers continue to have an acceptable level of mental health and wellness?
\tMr Chan Chun Sing: Mr Speaker, Sir, at this point in time, the general manning level of the Public Service is still healthy. But having said that, there are two areas of concern for me.
First, there might be some localised shortages, and we will have to redeploy our officers accordingly to serve the public and to maintain the standards of service we require. Thus far, we have been very fortunate that the Public Service officers have, in general, been able to be cross-deployed and help one another when the need arises. For example in the earlier reply to the Parliamentary Question (PQ), when MOH needed additional manpower to man the hotlines, we were able to mobilise resources from CPF and other volunteers from the Public Service in general, to be redeployed to help them on a temporary basis. So, we will continue to do this, and I would like to thank all the Public Service officers for stepping up to volunteer, to cover some of these gaps at the localised shortages.
But there is another area that I am concerned with, which is the longer-term impact, that is, our ability to make sure that we not only deliver the services for today, but we are also able to continue to improve our systems and processes for the future. In this particular area, the specific area of concern will be our ICT talent. Because in a lot of the ICT projects, we do need sufficient quantity and quality personnel in order to make sure that these projects are on track. Given the hot market in the private sector for ICT talent, it is, indeed, a big challenge for us to get our fair share of talent. Of course, we understand that in the Public Service, we do not compete just on the basis of pay, but we also compete on the basis of offering our people exciting and meaningful work. So, we will continue to work on this.
But, in general, to answer Mr Patrick Tay's first question, we are still able to hold up the system by redeploying and cross-deploying officers, as needed, to maintain the current level of service. But we must pay attention to the forward-looking services that we want to put in place to serve Singapore and Singaporeans better in time to come.
To Mr Patrick Tay's second question, there is not exactly a new baseline arrangement because the spectrum of Public Service officers' duties vary quite a lot. Quite a lot of the Public Service officers, including those in the Education Service, will not be able to have work-from-home arrangements because they do need to be present to man their stations. But having said that, for the rest of the Public Service who are able to work from home, then we will try to lock in some of these gains, whereby, they have more flexible work arrangements transiting between working from home and working at their respective stations, depending on the demands of the job situation at this point in time, and, of course, depending on the national posture for our plans to fight against COVID-19.
So, what the Public Service wants to do is to make sure that we lock in some of the gains that we have been able to achieve through the COVID-19 arrangement and allow greater and more flexible work arrangements for our people to the extent possible. But having said that, we all know that quite a large proportion of the Public Service officers are in jobs that are frontline, public-facing, and it will not be very possible for these jobs to have work-from-home arrangements. So, they will have to take turns, depending on their rotation cycles, to see whether they can enjoy some of these flexibilities that we also hope to give our public officers.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.
\tMr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): I would like to thank the Minister for his reply. Just to clarify with the Minister. The Minister shared that the haemorrhage in 2021 with respect to Public Service officers on the MX scheme of service was 9.9%. Can I just confirm, Minister, is this figure similar for Public Service officers in the ICT sector or is the percentage for that unique sector far higher than the 9.9% that Minister shared?
My second question pertains to the ICT sector. We all know, on the basis of what has happened over the last few years with regard to cybersecurity weaknesses and digitalisation being an important prong for the Government, that the need for ICT talent would be either increasing or certainly going to be a far, far more important aspect of the Public Service than it ever has been. Coming back to my question, the Minister has shared that the demand in the private sector for ICT talent is very hot. Indeed, that is true. The salaries are very high. What strategies does the Government have in mind to, in the Minister's words, attract the public sector's fair share of ICT talent, going forward?
\tMr Chan Chun Sing: Mr Speaker, Sir, the first answer to Mr Pritam Singh's question is, the attrition is higher in the ICT sector than the general 9.9% that I have mentioned. So, ICT sector is higher.
On the second part, it is an important question because in meeting our ICT needs for the Government as a whole, we do apply a multi-pronged approach. One, is, of course, we try to recruit our fair share of talent from the open market. That, we will continue to do. And that, we have to make sure that our projects, our work, they are all meaningful and fulfilling for the people who come in, over and above a competitive pay. So, hiring from outside is one.
Second, growing our own timber is another strategy that we adopt. When we say we grow our own timber, we talk about helping our people to upgrade their baseline ICT skills so that more people will be able to take on some of the tasks that are required in the overall public sector. Retraining some of our own people are also possibilities that we are embarking on. So, there is external recruitment, there is also growing our own timber.
\t
The third prong that we use to meet our own ICT needs is also to rationalise the way we demand ICT manpower. For example, to the extent that we can aggregate projects of a similar nature, we will be able to do that because it helps us to save cost and reduce the demand on the ICT manpower. Of course, over the longer term, it also helps us to have a much more integrated Public Service ICT system.
So, through these various multi-pronged strategies, we hope to have a holistic arrangement to meet the ICT needs of our Public Service going forward.
\t
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Actions to Verify Vaccinations or ART Results Administered by Clinics Linked to Alleged Vaccine Fraud Case","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"18 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Health (a) what action is being taken to verify that all vaccinations or Antigen Rapid Test (ART) results administered by the clinics linked to the alleged vaccine fraud case are accurate and for any discrepancies to be corrected in the relevant database; and (b) what action will be taken against patients who receive falsified vaccinations or ART results.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Health (Dr Janil Puthucheary) (for the Minister for Health): Mr Speaker, MOH takes a serious view of the accuracy of vaccination records and Antigen Rapid Test (ART) results that are recorded and stored into our national systems, as this has a direct impact on public health and safety.
MOH had lodged a complaint with the Singapore Police Force as soon as our investigations against the alleged errant clinic detected false vaccination and false positive ART results. Both MOH and the Police are working closely to establish the false records in the clinical database. Investigations are ongoing but once the records are verified to be false, MOH will make the correction on our national systems immediately and these patients will have their vaccination or recovered status correctly recorded.
Patients who have obtained falsified vaccination status or false positive ART results and have had the false data uploaded to our national systems will also be referred to the Police for investigations.
\tMr Speaker: Ms He Ting Ru.
\tMs He Ting Ru (Sengkang): I thank the Senior Minister of State for his reply. I think the second part of my question which relates to whether any further action will be taken against patients who have been found to have approached these doctors for false ART test results and vaccination records has not really been answered.
On the second part of my supplementary question, I would like to know whether there have been any proactive investigations carried out by the Ministry to find out if any other clinics are carrying out these false certifications, how many of these have been carried out and whether any other irregularities have been found.
\tDr Janil Puthucheary: Sir, I thank the Member for her question. The short answer is that we are always looking at the systems that we have in place to gather information for clinical results and information that is useful for us to fight the pandemic and to secure our public health systems. So, some of these include audits, some of these are about how we look after the licence issuing governance processes of the professionals at the clinical sites involved. But, so far, the system appears to be working well.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Steps to Diversify Sources of Seafood and Vegetable Items Ahead of Major Festivities to Mitigate Price Increases","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"19 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked\tthe Minister for Trade and Industry (a) what measures has the Ministry taken to diversify the sources of popular seafood and vegetable items ahead of major festivities; (b) whether existing measures have helped mitigate the rise in the costs of such items; and (c) whether more can be done to keep prices affordable for consumers.
\tThe Minister of State for Trade and Industry (Ms Low Yen Ling) (for the Minister for Trade and Industry): Mr Speaker, the Government has been actively diversifying our food supply sources. Most of our top vegetable and seafood imports are well-diversified, with over 10 source countries, which include China, Vietnam, Indonesia, Australia, various European countries, the United States, United Kingdom, Canada and even Ecuador. This has helped to strengthen the resilience of our seafood and vegetable supplies.
Nonetheless, prices of popular food items tend to rise ahead of festive periods because of a surge in demand. Retailers and importers would try to mitigate this by planning ahead and securing more supplies from multiple sources.
Apart from the diversification of food import sources, the Government continues to work with the Consumers Association of Singapore (CASE) to promote consumer awareness and help consumers make informed purchasing decisions.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Melvin Yong.
\tMr Melvin Yong Yik Chye (Radin Mas): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have two supplementary questions and I thank the Minister of State for her reply earlier.
Singapore is a small city-state with very limited resources. Only 1% of our land is available for food production and over 90% of our food is imported. From a world that is increasingly being disrupted by both climate change and also supply chain issues, can the Minister of State share with us what are the factors that play a part in influencing food prices today and how is MTI helping to keep the prices of our food stable in spite of all these challenges?
\tMs Low Yen Ling: Mr Speaker, Sir, I want to thank the Member Mr Melvin Yong for his two supplementary questions. I want to assure him and everyone in the House that MTI, the Government and the various Government agencies will spare no efforts in our multi-pronged strategy to keep our food supplies and food prices stable.
He has two supplementary questions. On the first one, he asked what are the factors that contribute to and influence the cost of food. There are many. There are a combination of factors and these include imported prices, animal feed, energy costs, freight costs, labour costs, seasonal weather patterns and possible supply chain disruptions. I want to share with Mr Melvin Yong that the regional weather disruptions that are currently putting upside pressures on Singapore's imported food prices should fade as the monsoon season passes. The general appreciation of the Singapore dollar against the currencies of many of our key import source countries will also continue to temper cost pressures.
To Mr Melvin Yong's second supplementary question, as a small and open economy that imports most of our food supply, Singapore is, indeed, impacted by trade and possible supply chain disruptions. The Government has in place a multi-pronged strategy involving import diversification, local production \"30 by 30\" and also stockpiling to reduce the impact of unforeseen disruptions to our food supply. This also serves to lower our vulnerability to larger price fluctuations and ensure that the prices remain competitive. This strategy is important because, to a certain extent, it will help to act as an important hedge to mitigate the risks of price and also supply disruptions.
I want to assure Mr Melvin Yong that to ensure the continuity of our food supply, MTI has been working very closely with our local companies, especially in the past few years, to ensure sufficient supply of essential food items.
Today, we import our food from 170 countries all over the world. I also want to add that our multi-level mitigation efforts include bringing in stocks ahead of time where possible by working closely with our importers, distributors and even our retailers to anticipate and even mitigate delays as well as closely monitoring and looking out for potential disruptors.
I was very heartened and I am sure all of us are very heartened to learn about the efforts by our retailers, such as the FairPrice Group and some of our supermarkets. They are making concerted efforts to moderate prices despite the cost pressures and disrupted supply chain. Just yesterday, we read that FairPrice supermarket announced their \"Stretch Your Dollar\" campaign which will give consumers and customers a weekly additional 5% discount on basic food items every Friday, I believe, starting on 4 March. And besides existing discount schemes for the Pioneer and Merdeka Generations and blue CHAS cardholders, FairPrice is lowering or holding the prices of popular breakfast items stable in their Kopitiam and Foodfare chains. And this morning, as I read the Lianhe Zaobao, I was also very heartened to read that not just FairPrice but other supermarkets, like Giant, Sheng Siong, Prime and also HAO mart, have also come up with very creative ways to keep the prices to consumers friendly. So, I want to assure Mr Melvin Yong and everyone in the House that MTI, the Government and relevant agencies, like SFA and MSE, will spare no efforts in our multi-pronged approach to keep our food supply and food prices stable.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures to Encourage Supermarkets and Companies to Adopt More Sustainable Forms of Packaging without Passing on Costs to Consumers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"20 Dr Shahira Abdullah asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment what measures will be introduced to ensure that supermarkets and other corporate entities do not pass on the costs of adopting sustainability-friendly measures to consumers.
21 Dr Shahira Abdullah asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment what measures will the Ministry introduce to encourage supermarkets to (i) reduce packaging waste (ii) use more sustainable forms of packaging and (iii) reduce the need for groceries to be pre-packaged, without passing on the cost of sustainability to consumers.
\tThe Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien): Mr Speaker, Sir, may I have your permission to take the next two questions together?
\t\tMr Speaker: Yes, please.
\tMs Grace Fu Hai Yien: Thank you. The transition to a sustainable and greener economy is necessary for Singapore to thrive in a carbon and resource-constrained future. Consumers are increasingly demanding sustainable products and services. Consumers are also choosing to buy from businesses with more sustainable practices. Businesses have responded by adopting more sustainable practices and introducing greener goods and services. The pricing of these products and services is part of this commercial decision.
In some cases, products and services may cost a bit more. But in a competitive market, businesses will compete to provide consumers with the most value-for-money products and services. As sustainable products and services become more mainstream, economies of scale could bring down costs. There could also be cost savings from going green. For example, energy-efficient products may cost more upfront but provide savings over their life cycle.
Packaging waste is one of our main waste streams and a priority area for waste reduction for my Ministry. We have required large producers of packaged products and retailers, including supermarkets, to report annually the amount of packaging they introduce into Singapore, as well as their plans to reduce, reuse or recycle packaging. This Mandatory Packaging Reporting framework focuses companies’ attention on the packaging that they are placing on the market and encourages them to reduce packaging use. It also lays the foundation for an Extended Producer Responsibility scheme for packaging waste eventually.
Packaging serves an important function of reducing damage, minimising cross-contamination and enhancing the shelf-life of certain food types, thereby reducing wastage of food products. Supermarkets and businesses can preserve the quality of their products through more sustainable packaging models, such as reusable and refillable packaging.
The Singapore Manufacturing Federation and NEA launched the Packaging Partnership Programme in 2021 to support companies in adopting sustainable packaging waste management practices through workshops and resources.
I encourage businesses to minimise waste in their use of packaging and consumers to avoid the excessive use of packaging.
\tDr Shahira Abdullah (Nominated Member): I thank the Minister for her clarification. I just have two supplementary questions.
I am very happy that we have this Packaging Partnership Programme. I realise it has been there for a few years. Would the Minister know how has the take-up rate for this programme improved over the years or has it stayed the same? And how are the companies being encouraged to take up this Packaging Partnership Programme so that consumers would have a wider range of choices who prefer food products or packages that have greener carbon footprints because I realise that they can actually put a logo for reduced packaging for these particular companies?
\tMs Grace Fu Hai Yien: I thank the Member for the supplementary question. As I have mentioned, this Packaging Partnership Programme is something new that we have launched in 2021. At the moment, we have conducted 12 events, including sessions of workshops, two webinars, five training sessions for the companies. They are across the entire packaging supply chain from packaging, manufacturing and logistics service providers to retailers, such as supermarkets.
\t
This is something new. It is for sustainable packaging, and we hope that more companies will come on board and we hope that the programme, through its time, will bring about more sustainable packaging practices into the market.
Mr Speaker: Order. End of question time. Ministerial Statement. Minister Lawrence Wong.
[Pursuant to Standing Order No 22(3), Written Answers to Question Nos 22 and 24-59 on the Order Paper are reproduced in the Appendix. The remaining Questions have been postponed to a later Sitting of Parliament or withdrawn.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Bolstering the Security of Digital Banking","subTitle":"Statement by Minister for Finance","sectionType":"OS","content":"The Minister for Finance (Mr Lawrence Wong): Mr Speaker, Sir, I am speaking in my capacity as Finance Minister and also as the Deputy Chairman of the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS). Today, Minister Josephine Teo, Minister of State Desmond Tan and I will address a total of 39 Parliamentary Questions (PQs) that have been posed to MAS, MCI and MHA arising from the recent OCBC phishing scams. They cover a wide range of issues – from whether the banks can do more to mitigate the risks of such scams, to how the telco infrastructure, enforcement actions and consumer education can be enhanced to deal with this growing problem. The breadth of the issues raised underscores that we need to take an ecosystem approach to strengthen our collective defence against phishing scams and scams in general. Everyone in this ecosystem must play their part.
The Ministerial Statements will explain the Government’s comprehensive approach, working with each party in the ecosystem, to counter the threat of phishing scams. I will provide more details on the OCBC phishing scam and on the steps that MAS and the banks are taking to strengthen safeguards against such scams. Minister Josephine Teo will then set out the measures being taken to enhance the broader communications infrastructure. And Minister of State Desmond Tan will elaborate on measures to strengthen enforcement and consumer education.
None of these measures can be foolproof in and of themselves, but, collectively, they should work to significantly reduce the scope for scams to succeed and their cost. With everyone on guard, including individuals, the industry and infrastructure providers, we hope not to see a recurrence of a large-scale scam as was seen in the OCBC case.
Taken together, Minister Josephine Teo, Minister of State Desmond Tan and I will address Oral Question Nos 7 to 32 and Written Question Nos 1, 2 and 8 on yesterday’s Order Paper, Oral Question Nos 1 to 5 and Written Question Nos 1, 2, 9 and 27 on today’s Order Paper. Mr Mohd Fahmi Bin Aliman has filed an Oral Question scheduled for a future Sitting on these issues. As today’s Ministerial Statements will address these questions, Mr Speaker, I would like to invite these Members to seek clarifications should they have any on these issues after the Statements.
Let me first round up the key facts regarding the recent OCBC SMS phishing scam. Seven hundred ninety OCBC customers lost a total of $13.7 million to the scammers, mostly over the year-end festive period from 23 December to 30 December. This is by far the most serious phishing scam we have seen involving spoofed SMSes impersonating banks.
Spoofed SMSes were sent with a fake sender ID, which, in many cases, made them appear in the same message thread as genuine SMSes. The victims, having received the spoofed SMSes in the same thread of messages from OCBC, were deceived into clicking the links in these SMSes that led them to scam websites. These scam websites were almost indistinguishable from the real OCBC website, such that people could not tell the difference unless they compared the URL of the scam website with that of the genuine one. Hence, many keyed their login credentials and one-time passwords (OTPs) into the scam websites. The scammers used these credentials and OTPs to take control of the victims’ bank accounts and made fraudulent transfers.
I should add that this was not a cyber attack on OCBC but a phishing scam on OCBC’s customers who were deceived into providing their banking credentials and OTPs at scam websites set up by the scammers. At no time was the bank’s own systems breached.
In its efforts to stem the phishing scam, OCBC took various actions. It warned customers to be alert to spoofed SMSes, initially through general advisories on its website, and then, subsequently, through SMSes and emails to customers; it worked with the Singapore Police Force and the Cyber Security Agency to block and take down the scam websites; it ceased sending customers SMSes with clickable links; it enhanced its anti-scam controls; and it verified through a phone call every customer who submitted a request for digital token activation.
These actions were taken at various stages during the month as the phishing scams built up. OCBC should, however, have responded faster and more robustly at the first sign of the scams, which the bank had picked up in early December. OCBC informed MAS on 24 December that it had activated its incident response team. By then, the OCBC call centre was overwhelmed. It faced a surge in calls from affected customers as well as other worried customers who had not themselves received phishing messages. Despite the bank deploying additional resources, some affected customers experienced delays in reaching the bank to report the scams. To address Dr Tan Wu Meng’s query, prior to the OCBC incident, MAS had received only a few complaints concerning delays in customer service related to similar scams, in other words, the spoofed SMSes that impersonated banks.
OCBC has apologised for falling short of its own expectations in customer service and response. As a one-off goodwill gesture, the bank has undertaken to reimburse in full all customers affected by this phishing scam. It has made arrangements to do so with all the affected customers. To date, more than 90% of them have received reimbursements and the remaining reimbursements should be disbursed soon.
OCBC has also engaged an independent external party to conduct a thorough review of its anti-scam processes, including fraud surveillance, incident management and customer service, and to recommend necessary remedial actions, on top of what it has already done.
MAS will review these findings, take appropriate supervisory actions against the bank and closely monitor the bank’s implementation of remedial measures.
MAS has long had in place expectations for banks to have measures to secure the risk of digital banking. For example, banks have to implement multi-factor authentication, such as dynamic passwords or OTPs that can only be used once, to verify the customer’s identity and to authorise online transactions; they must maintain fraud monitoring systems to facilitate timely detection and blocking of suspicious transactions; and they must send notification alerts to customers for outgoing transactions, including credit card transactions, that exceed a threshold that customers can determine, so that they can report unauthorised transactions as soon as possible.
SPF, MAS and banks have also been issuing regular advisories to alert the public to online scams. Minister of State Desmond Tan will touch on that later.
In view of the increase in the number of scam cases, particularly in the last two years, MAS had, in the third quarter of last year, carried out a focused supervisory review of the adequacy of fraud controls in the digital banking channels of the three local banks.
The review surfaced a number of gaps. In October 2021, MAS conveyed to each of the banks its specific findings and recommendations for the remediation of the gaps observed.
The banks had committed to timelines to take these remedial actions, with most measures to be fully implemented by June 2022, while those requiring extensive changes in IT systems to be completed by December 2022, at the latest. In agreeing to the timelines for implementation, MAS was mindful that the banks had multiple priorities, including mitigating the overarching cybersecurity threat that has been rising and ensuring business continuity and robust risk management, amidst COVID-19.
When faced with the escalation in phishing scams in December 2021, OCBC fast-tracked the implementation of some of the measures identified in MAS’ supervisory review. For example, it extended the cooling period after a digital token is set up on a new mobile device, during which, higher risk transactions cannot be carried out.
The recent OCBC scam signifies a step-up in the persistence and deceptiveness of phishing scams involving banks. The scammers used a combination of well-orchestrated tactics, to achieve a level of realism not seen in previous phishing scams. The Government is, therefore, further strengthening the safeguards in digital banking channels and the broader ecosystem to help thwart this enhanced threat.
MAS has accelerated the process of strengthening anti-scam control standards across all retail banks. As an urgent first step in this process, MAS and the Association of Banks in Singapore (ABS) announced a set of additional measures on 19 January 2022 for immediate implementation by retail banks in Singapore. These measures will substantially bolster the security of digital banking against scammers employing similar tactics as the OCBC scam cases. The measures include removing clickable links in all bank emails and SMSes sent to retail customers; delaying by at least 12 hours before a new soft token can be activated on a mobile device; lowering to $100 or below the default threshold for sending transaction notifications to customers; sending a notification alert to the customer’s existing mobile number or email registered with the bank whenever there is a request for change; sending scam alerts directly to customers through email or SMS; and setting up dedicated call centre teams on a 24/7 basis to assist customers facing a potential scam and to freeze compromised accounts immediately to prevent further illicit withdrawals.
These measures have reduced the risk of successful phishing scams. But they do not eliminate them altogether. Beyond these immediate measures, banks can and should do more to safeguard their customers.
MAS and ABS have stepped up work on further measures to comprehensively strengthen banks’ ability to deter, detect and combat phishing scams. Members have also raised some useful suggestions on additional measures that can be put in place. Let me outline the key measures that are being considered with regard to banks.
First, banks are working to further strengthen their fraud surveillance capabilities to identify suspicious and anomalous transactions. This includes credit card transactions. Most banks do have some rule-based parameters to trigger suspicion, for example, large transfers to a new recipient. But these parameters need to be expanded to take account of a broader range of scam scenarios. Beyond pre-defined parameters, MAS will expect banks to develop more versatile algorithms employing artificial intelligence and machine learning to detect suspicious transactions. Such algorithms should be based on multiple sources of information, including customer profile and vulnerabilities, past transaction patterns, account activity and mobile device identification. I must caveat that while these advances will help, fraud monitoring systems are not a silver bullet. It is not possible to detect every scam.
Second, banks should step up their ability to immediately block suspicious transactions and reach out to their customers to verify their authenticity. The transactions will be unblocked and processed only upon confirmation by the customer. Banks today do have some of these capabilities, but they are not consistent across various types of transactions. We are also looking into enabling customers to trigger a freeze on their own accounts without having to contact the banks if they suspect their accounts have been compromised.
Third, MAS and the banks are looking to introduce additional customer confirmations – not just notifications – for significant changes to their accounts or high-risk transactions, such as changes in account holder details, activating a token on another device, fund transfers that are large relative to their overall balances and overseas transfers. This will introduce some friction to customers carrying out genuine transactions. But we will all need to adapt and get used to these inconveniences, in order to strengthen the security of digital banking.
Fourth, banks are exploring expanding the use of biometric technology, in addition to passwords and OTPs, as a means of authentication. This will add one more layer of security that cannot be easily phished by scammers to access a customer’s account.
Fifth, banks will accelerate the shift towards the use of mobile banking apps for customer authentication, transaction authorisation and delivery of bank notifications. If implemented well, it will be harder for scammers to abuse mobile banking apps. At the same time, MAS and the banks are reviewing the use of SMS to deliver OTPs and the potential measures that should be taken to reduce risk if such a practice should continue.
Sir, there is no single measure that can guarantee the security of digital banking. The techniques employed by scammers are constantly evolving and gaining in sophistication. This is why in the fight against scams, banks need to employ a combination of measures in prevention, detection, response and recovery, and constantly review and recalibrate these measures.
Most of our banks already have many of these measures in place in one form or another. MAS will work with the banks to strengthen these measures and set minimum parameters. But it would be counter-productive to publish the specific calibration of these controls. This is no different from why the red flags that banks look out for to detect money laundering transactions are not published in full.
The enhanced measures that banks are taking will mitigate the risks posed by phishing scams. But realistically, it will not be possible to eliminate such scams completely.
MAS has set out expectations for banks to treat their customers fairly when looking into reports of fraudulent transactions. These include comprehensively investigating all cases and suspending late fees for disputed card transactions. Disputed transactions will not adversely affect consumers’ credit records with licensed credit bureaus during the investigation period.
Beyond this, it is important to establish a common and equitable framework for sharing the losses incurred by the customer. No matter which bank you go to, you should still receive the same fair treatment. OCBC’s recent goodwill payouts to fully cover customer losses were made as a one-off gesture and do not set a general precedent for future cases.
The Payments Council chaired by MAS has been working on a framework for equitable sharing of losses arising from scams. Under this framework, both banks and their customers have their respective responsibilities and the share of losses each party bears will depend on whether and how the party has fallen short of its responsibilities. Financial institutions should bear an appropriate share of losses arising from scams, but care must also be taken to ensure that any compensation paid to customers does not weaken their incentive to be vigilant.
MAS aims to publish the framework for public consultation within the next three months. Other than financial institutions, the players operating the communications infrastructure play a key role in digital security against scams. So, MCI and MAS will consider the shared responsibilities of all the key parties in the ecosystem to ensure that there is proper accountability.
To conclude, Sir, let me assure Members that digital banking itself is safe and secure. The threat we are facing is one of deception of customers, where scammers mimic bona fide communications and transactions to gain the trust of victims, induce in them a heightened state of anxiety or excitement, and exploit their lapse of attention to steal their credentials and passwords.
In the same way that we are all vulnerable to misinformation, we are also vulnerable to scams and must not be complacent. The digital world we live in today demands a posture of constant vigilance. The additional measures put in place by banks will mean more controls that a scammer will have to overcome, but they cannot guarantee that a customer will not be deceived.
SPF and MoneySense, the national financial education programme, will continue to step up their public education efforts to provide useful tools and tips that can help members of the public avoid falling prey to scams. There is no dominant customer profile of scam victims across different scam types, whether by education, wealth, age or gender. Everyone needs to be on their guard.
The problem of scams requires robust responses at the individual, industry and infrastructure levels – in short, an ecosystem approach where the various measures work in synergistic fashion. We are addressing the risks at every part of the digital ecosystem, so that, taken together, the measures will significantly mitigate risks for the entire system and enable us to operate safely in a digital world.
As I had explained earlier, this must involve the financial sector but it must go beyond it. MAS has been working in close coordination with MHA and MCI on a Government-wide approach towards scams. So, Minister Josephine Teo and Minister of State Desmond Tan will elaborate on this in their Statements.
Mr Speaker: Minister for Communications and Information and Minister of State for Home Affairs will be making related Ministerial Statements. I will allow Members to raise points of clarifications on all three Statements after the third Statement. Minister Josephine Teo.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Combating Online Phishing and Spoofing Scams","subTitle":"Statement by Minister for Communications and Information","sectionType":"OS","content":"The Minister for Communications and Information (Mrs Josephine Teo): Mr Speaker, Sir, scams have been around a long time. However, technology has increasingly enabled scammers to operate at scale across the globe and their tactics have become more sophisticated by the year. Yet, while the tactics have changed, at its heart, scammers use the tried-and-tested formula of exploiting their victims’ fears and hopes.
Scammers do not respect geographical boundaries, seeking out victims wherever they can. These scams would often have originated abroad.
Minister Lawrence Wong has spoken about the enhanced protections in our banking system. I will focus on the upstream measures – how we can intervene through our communications infrastructure to fight scams. Minister of State Desmond Tan will speak later about enforcement as well as the continuing, crucial efforts in public education.
But, first, let me assure Members that the OCBC scams were not the result of a cyber attack or weaknesses in cybersecurity. This addresses questions by Mr Alex Yam regarding CSA’s assessment and Assoc Prof Jamus Lim on whether financial institutions met cybersecurity standards.
If I could use an analogy in the physical world, the scammers in this case did not manufacture a special key or special keys to break into the bank premises and to steal from the customers’ deposit boxes. Instead, they stood in front of the bank and tricked customers into handing over their identity cards (IC) and keys. They then pretended to the bank teller that they were the real customers, accessed the deposit boxes and cleared them out quickly.
Why did the victims fall prey? Because the scammer looked real by wearing the correct uniform and name tag bearing the bank’s logo. Why did the bank fall prey? Because the scammer was in possession of items that only real customers were expected to have.
In the physical world, the scammer’s pressure tactics to hand over the IC and key might have raised an alarm. Likewise, for the bank, branch managers might have noticed and made gentle enquiries as to the hurried manner in which the deposit boxes were emptied out. But in the digital world, where we have become so used to instant communications and transactions, our guard is down.
The OCBC scam was, therefore, not a result of a cyber attack or a breach of cybersecurity, which, typically, involves hacking or breaking into a system to steal information or assets. Instead, it was a classic case of deception, executed with speed and repeated at scale.
The use of SMS to reach potential victims is, unfortunately, becoming even more common and sophisticated. But it is not the only channel. Scammers have used it together with phone calls and emails to phish for information or spoof legitimate organisations. In other words, scammers are taking advantage of our communications infrastructure to reach even more potential victims, faster.
To combat phishing and spoofing by scammers, we should disrupt as many parts of their modus operandi as possible. Apart from enhanced safeguards in the banking system to prevent scams from easily succeeding, upstream measures are also needed to disrupt scammers’ reach to potential victims. Ms Joan Pereira and Mr Christopher de Souza are, therefore, right to ask how we can strengthen our defences through our telco networks.
It is useful to first step through how a phishing and spoofing scam is usually carried out. Typically, the scammer starts by contacting the victim, through phone calls or SMS. The victim is then tricked into surrendering their credentials or personal information.
In many cases, the act of surrendering credentials and personal information takes place on a scam website, something designed to look like the real website of a legitimate organisation. Compared to asking for such information by phone or SMS, no direct human interactions are required since victims themselves enter their details on a scam website. This allows such scams to be processed with greater scale and speed. And this is why much of our upstream measures have focused on blocking scam websites. It is a key part of disrupting the scammers’ plans.
On any given day, more than 90% of Singaporeans go online for various activities. SPF and IMDA work closely with Internet Service Providers to block scam websites. When consumers are led by scammers to these websites, they will be alerted to be vigilant.
In 2020, we blocked about 500 suspected scam websites. By 2021, the net had been cast much more widely and 12,000 such websites were blocked. Countless more victims would have been otherwise scammed. In fact, we have the capacity to block many more suspicious websites.
However, this does not mean that they will completely disappear from our screens. This is because scammers react quickly and dynamically to such blocks.
In the OCBC case, more than 350 scam websites have been blocked. At the peak, we blocked around 52 sites in a single day or one every 30 minutes. But the scammers were quick to create new websites over the course of their campaign.
This pattern of behaviour will persist. Nonetheless, website blocking remains important. We will continue to strengthen detection and reporting mechanisms to be more responsive.
As mentioned by Minister Wong earlier, the banks will be enhancing their fraud surveillance systems. Government agencies will also explore the use of artificial intelligence to more quickly identify and block scam websites.
In addition, the National Crime Prevention Council will start a WhatsApp channel to crowdsource from the public, information on scam websites and messages. To ensure processes are in place for proper follow-up, this channel will be launched by the third quarter of this year.
Website blocking is part of the suite of upstream measures to disrupt the scammers’ plans. But before they are lured to a scam website, victims may have been contacted by phone or SMS. Sometimes, the scammers get what they want without even leading the victim to a scam website.
Members will be familiar with scam callers impersonating officials from China. These scams started several years ago.
During COVID-19 times, the scam callers switched their masquerades, pretending to be the Police or other trusted organisations, such as MOH. Their messages were adapted to exploit concerns about vaccination or other COVID-19-related measures.
These calls deploy what is known as \"social engineering\" techniques to cause fear and panic in their victims, using topical concerns that scammers know people are worried about. As most of these calls come from overseas, scammers will often seek to appear more credible by spoofing local numbers.
An important set of upstream measures, therefore, involves blocking these suspicious calls. Every month, the telcos block around 15 million, or one in seven of all incoming overseas calls to Singapore.
We expect the number of scam calls to rise, given the changing tactics of scammers to increase their reach. They include, for example, incoming overseas calls that resemble phone numbers of our local Government agencies or emergency services.
Overseas scam callers may also add a prefix \"65\", without the \"+\" prefix, to give the impression that they are calling from within Singapore. Since April 2020, telcos have also added the “+” prefix for all incoming overseas calls, to help alert their customers.
Many scam calls were averted through such measures. But more is needed. Our telcos plan to incorporate additional analytics to block more of these suspected scam calls. We estimate that up to 55 million calls will be blocked each month.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat and Assoc Prof Jamus Lim asked about the Do Not Call (DNC) registry.
The DNC registry was not designed to prevent scam messages. Instead, it was created to allow individuals to opt out of receiving unsolicited telemarketing messages or calls. Scammers will, of course, not take the trouble to check this registry before conducting their illegal activities.
Mr Speaker, the extent of call blocking needed shows just how persistent scammers are in reaching potential victims. Even if our telcos can block millions of incoming overseas calls, we must not be lulled into a false sense of security. Moreover, as each avenue becomes harder to break through, scammers turn to other channels. In the case of the OCBC scams, the SMS channel was exploited.
To better understand how it happened, it is useful, firstly, to recognise that SMS is an old technology.
For many Singaporeans, it is more common these days to communicate with each other using messaging platforms, such as WhatsApp and Telegram. Nevertheless, SMS is still being used by many organisations because it is a cheap and convenient way to reach many customers. All handphones, whether smart or not, can receive SMS. But the SMS system was never designed for secure communications. Together with its widespread use, this makes it an attractive channel for scammers to reach potential victims.
For example, legitimate senders can use an alphanumeric ID to make themselves more easily known to customers. Instead of a string of numbers, customers receive an SMS from a sender identified as, say, \"ABC company\". However, this alphanumeric ID is not automatically protected as part of the SMS protocol. This means, unfortunately, that a scammer can use the same alphanumeric ID \"ABC Company\" and enter the message thread between the legitimate business sender and its customer. Members know by now this was what happened in the OCBC scams. As a result, the victims did not even realise they were communicating with the scammer, rather than OCBC itself.
Mr Desmond Choo, Mr Yip Hon Weng and Mr Melvin Yong asked how SMS could be made safer.
The gap I described above had, in fact, been identified by MAS and IMDA. Last year, the agencies started a pilot for SMS Sender ID protection. An organisation can register the alphanumeric ID that they use, thus reducing the risk of an illegitimate sender spoofing the same alphanumeric ID and having the message appear within the same message thread. MAS has decided that all major retail banks must sign up to register the alphanumeric IDs they use to communicate with their customers. The Government has also committed that all its agencies will do likewise.
In addition, IMDA will require SMS service providers and telcos to check SMS senders against the registry. SMSes that try to spoof registered IDs will thus not be delivered, as the sender details would not match registry records. All organisations seeking to send SMSes using registered IDs to phone subscribers in Singapore must also have a valid Unique Enterprise Number (UEN). This will help Police with investigations in the event of a scam.
Once these immediate measures are completed, the threat surface will be reduced. However, if an alphanumeric ID is not placed by an organisation into the registry, it cannot be protected. Observers have also pointed out that scammers can still use similar-looking alphanumeric IDs that are not in the registry, to trick potential victims.
To further close these gaps, we will consider requiring all users of alphanumeric IDs to be registered. Scammers will then not be able to send SMS using alphanumeric IDs except by joining the registry. This protects legitimate senders. It will also provide more assurance to receivers of SMS messages that an alphanumeric ID indicates a registered source.
These further measures will take time to implement and come at a cost, including to businesses. Businesses that choose not to register alphanumeric IDs will have their SMS messages appear only with their telephone number. Their customers can then choose to save the number in their own contact list to help them recognise future messages.
Given the implications, IMDA will study this matter carefully before deciding whether or not to mandate the registration of all alphanumeric IDs.
At the same time, organisations should rethink how they use SMS to communicate with their customers. As I have mentioned earlier, SMS was never meant for secure communications. Where the message contains or will lead to the transmission of sensitive, confidential information or high value transactions, there should be more restraint. It is like our postal services. They are generally safe, but we would not send very valuable items even using registered post.
One other area that Dr Shahira Abdullah asked about was clickable links. Although her question was related to its use by MOH, the considerations are applicable to many other agencies and companies.
Members will know that clickable links are everywhere. They appear on websites, in our emails and, of course, our SMS messages. You find them, too, in WhatsApp, Telegram and many other apps. They are used extensively because they are highly effective in getting people to take action. For example, using such links, millions of vaccination appointments were quickly and conveniently booked.
Unfortunately, clickable links have also been used for criminal purposes. MAS has ensured that banks discontinue their use in SMS communications with customers. However, the removal of clickable links in many other settings will only erode convenience. More importantly, the loss of effective outreach in cases like vaccination registration could be detrimental to our people. A blanket removal must, therefore, be very carefully considered.
Mr Speaker, please allow me to briefly summarise in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, some Members asked if the OCBC scam was a result of a cyber attack, or a breach of the bank's IT system which had enabled the criminals to carry out their crimes.
This is not the case. In the series of scams, the criminals did not hack into the bank's IT system to steal money. What they did were classic acts of deception by misleading the victims into believing that they were communicating with the bank and, therefore, tricking the victims into providing their account details. With these stolen account details, scammers then logged into the victims’ bank accounts and stole the victims’ hard-earned monies via electronic transfers.
Once again, the communication system has become the channel for scammers to get into contact with victims at scale and quickly. However, compared to the past, the scammers’ acts of deception were far more realistic this time.
MAS has since stepped-up countermeasures. Meanwhile, IMDA has enhanced preventive measures in the communication infrastructure, and MHA has also strengthened public education efforts. In combination, these multi-layered measures are aimed at disrupting scam syndicates' modus operandi.
However, we all know that every move that we make to derail the syndicates will be countered by more sophisticated moves by them. When carrying out their crimes, the scammers have no regard for borders nor the law; whenever we come up with new countermeasures, they will certainly also be cooking up new ways to continue with their operations.
Even with new measures in place, everyone in the ecosystem must work together and raise our defences in all areas to prevent these criminals from succeeding easily.
(In English): Mr Speaker, our additional safeguards underscore the importance of telcos in combating phishing and spoofing scams.
As part of our efforts to continuously strengthen our defences, we will require telcos to put in place enhanced safeguards in our networks. This includes blocking scam calls, SMSes and websites. We also expect them to do more to help their customers avoid becoming victims. Scammers change methods and tactics to evade detection and our capabilities will need to, likewise, adapt. IMDA will work with the telcos to continuously strengthen their anti-scam capabilities.
We should recognise that, even with best efforts, the network defences alone cannot block all scams. At every part of the chain, upstream and downstream, we are taking steps to reduce the risk. The measures in our communications infrastructure, for example, reduce the available avenues for scammers to reach victims. As mentioned by Minister Lawrence Wong, MCI is also working with MAS to consider the shared responsibilities of all the key stakeholders in the ecosystem. Taken together, we should be able to significantly reduce the risk of consumers falling victim to scams.
Mr Speaker, I believe Mr Christopher de Souza has correctly characterised the problem of scams as one needing a multi-pronged response. Indeed, I would add that our approach is an ecosystem approach — what was described by Minister Lawrence Wong. This has multiple layers of defence – no single layer providing a complete answer, but all layers reinforcing each other to disrupt the scammers' plans.
To Mr Sitoh Yih Pin's question, this will prevent some types of scams from recurring. But our best defence against new types of scams is a vigilant public. Ultimately, they determine the extent to which we can prevent scams.
The public should, therefore, also arm themselves with knowledge on scams and how to protect themselves and their loved ones who might be less tech-savvy. There are tools, such as ScamShield, that can help to prevent some scam calls and SMSes. Minister of State Desmond Tan will say more on these later.
At the same time, for our own long-term success as a nation, digital transformation must continue. Mr Alex Yam is rightly concerned about the impact of these scams on digital adoption.
We will strengthen public confidence in online transactions, raise awareness on good cyber-hygiene habits and bolster the digital resilience of our citizens, a call also made by Miss Cheng Li Hui. This is part of a whole-of-nation approach to safeguard Singaporeans against online threats, especially for the more vulnerable groups.
As part of these efforts, IMDA launched the Digital for Life (DfL) Movement to galvanise the people, private and public sectors to provide Singaporeans with skills, tools and habits to navigate the digital domain safely and confidently.
Many partners have kickstarted projects related to digital literacy and wellness. For example, the Lions Befrienders led a project, \"Say No to Scams\", where staff and volunteers teach seniors about staying safe from online scams and harms. This included measures, such as changing settings and installing apps, to increase security on smartphones. They are also working on a scam simulation app to help seniors identify scams.
The DfL Movement will do its part to complement efforts by SPF, the National Crime Prevention Council and CSA.
For example, the curriculum for seniors offered by the SG Digital Office has been updated to provide cybersecurity tips on topics, such as Digital Government services, e-payments and digital transactions. The Media Literacy Council (MLC) has also produced tip sheets on e-commerce scams, online impersonation scams and loan scams. These are available and translated into the vernacular languages for different audiences.
All of us – banking institutions, telco operators, Government, businesses, individuals – have a role to play in the fight against scams.
Across the ecosystem, making these changes may result in additional cost and some loss of convenience. But they are necessary to better safeguard our people from scams. Equally importantly, they will help to uphold confidence in our digital journey.
Mr Speaker: Minister of State Desmond Tan.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Strengthening Enforcement and Public Education","subTitle":"Statement on behalf of Minister for Home Affairs","sectionType":"OS","content":"The Minister of State for Home Affairs (Mr Desmond Tan) (for the Minister for Home Affairs): Mr Speaker, Minister Lawrence Wong and Minister Josephine Teo have given an update on the measures to secure banking and communications channels from phishing scams.
I chair the Inter-Ministry Committee on Scams, or IMCS in short, which was set up in April 2020. The IMCS brings together Government agencies, such as MHA, SPF, MCI, MAS and MTI, and also works with private sector partners, such as the Association of Banks in Singapore, or ABS, to coordinate efforts to combat all scam types. These include phishing scams, job scams, loan scams, just to name a few, as well as e-commerce scams. IMCS focuses its efforts to coordinate across agencies to review the scam types and trends, as well as to propose countermeasures. It also enhances enforcement and responses to these scams. Thirdly, IMCS strengthens public education and vigilance against scams.
My Statement will focus on two aspects of our anti-scam strategy: enforcement and education.
The main challenge in enforcement is that the vast majority of scams are perpetrated by syndicates that are based overseas. Such cases are difficult to investigate and prosecute for three reasons.
Firstly, our ability to solve these cases depends on the level of cooperation from overseas law enforcement agencies, as well as their ability to track down scammers in their own jurisdictions.
Second, these scammers are typically part of an organised criminal syndicate. They run sophisticated transnational operations which are not easy to detect or dismantle. The syndicates are well-resourced and adept at using technology to cover their tracks.
Thirdly, when monies have already been transferred out of Singapore, recovery is very difficult.
SPF works closely with our overseas counterparts to exchange information and conduct joint operations. For example, in 2021, SPF’s collaboration with law enforcement agencies, such as the Royal Malaysia Police, as well as Hong Kong, led to the takedown of 16 scam syndicates and the arrest of around 230 persons.
Coming back to the OCBC phishing scams, Dr Tan Wu Meng, Mr Sitoh Yih Pin and Mr Dennis Tan asked for an update on the ongoing investigations into the OCBC phishing scam.
As at 13 February, SPF has frozen 121 local bank accounts and recovered about $2 million. In addition, about $2.2 million of victims’ funds have been traced to 89 overseas bank accounts.
Based on SPF’s preliminary investigations, at least 107 local and 171 overseas IP addresses were linked to the unauthorised access of the victims’ Internet banking accounts. Many of the scam websites used in the phishing scam were hosted by web hosting companies that are based overseas.
SPF has commenced investigations into the local IP addresses linked to the scam and the owners of the local money mule accounts. SPF is now also working with INTERPOL and foreign law enforcement agencies to investigate the beneficiaries of the funds transferred overseas and the hosts of the scam websites.
As investigations are right now ongoing, we are not able to divulge any more information at this moment.
The OCBC phishing scam cases occurred amidst a rise in the number of scams reported in Singapore, which Mr Ang Wei Neng, Dr Tan Wu Meng and Miss Cheng Li Hui asked about.
In 2021, 23,931 cases of scams were reported, of which 5,020 were phishing scam cases. This is more than a fourfold increase from the 5,147 cases of scams reported in 2017, of which only 16 were phishing scam cases.
Specifically, for phishing scams involving SMSes impersonating banks in Singapore, there were no cases in 2017, but there were 91 in 2018; 57 in 2019; 149 in 2020; before increasing significantly to 1,021 in 2021, in view of the OCBC phishing scams. The OCBC phishing scam alone accounted for 790 customers in the two months from December 2021 to January 2022, by far the largest phishing scam involving spoofed SMSes, as mentioned by Minister Lawrence Wong earlier. The use of a combination of highly-orchestrated tactics, involving spoofed SMSes appearing in the same thread as genuine messages from the bank and links directing victims to a scam website, as well as the large number of customers targeted in the OCBC scam, shows that the threat is now significantly heightened.
On Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim’s query, in 2021, card fraud cases reported by major credit card issuers in Singapore to MAS formed less than 0.1% of total credit card transactions. MAS and SPF do not track the percentage of funds recovered for these unauthorised credit card transactions.
Mr Murali Pillai and Mr Ang Wei Neng asked if SPF is sufficiently resourced to combat scams. Police are extremely stretched. Our officers have been trying to cope with increasing workload and expectations, without proportionate increase in manpower. We will need to review this untenable situation.
Nevertheless, with whatever resources we have, we have reorganised ourselves for greater efficiency and effectiveness. For example, SPF set up the Anti-Scam Centre (ASC) in 2019 as a specialised unit focused on anti-scam interventions and enforcement.
In 2021, the ASC conducted 26 islandwide anti-scam operations, which resulted in the arrest of around 7,500 money mules and scammers.
The ASC also partners private sector stakeholders to disrupt scammers’ operations. For example, it has worked with telecommunications companies to terminate scam-tainted phone lines, and with online marketplaces to remove suspicious online monikers and advertisements.
Since 2019, the ASC has frozen around 24,000 bank accounts suspected of being involved in scam activities and recovered about $160 million in scam proceeds.
This would include part of the $17 million lost since 2020 to about 1,300 cases of phishing scams involving spoofed SMSes impersonating banks in Singapore, a question which Dr Tan Wu Meng asked about. SPF does not track the amount of funds recovered by scam type.
Recovery of monies lost to scams is very difficult. Where we have been able to, it involved close partnerships with financial institutions, in particular, by having a DBS staff co-located with SPF at the ASC to provide swifter and real-time coordination and intervention.
ASC and MAS are working with more banks to co-locate their staff at the ASC, to further enhance the ASC’s capabilities to freeze accounts, as well as to trace the flows of money.
SPF will be forming an Anti-Scam Command this year to consolidate expertise in scams across all SPF land units, and thereby further improve coordination of anti-scam enforcement and investigation. The Command will also oversee the newly-formed Scam Strike Teams in the seven Land Divisions, which were set up to enable us to take swifter action against scams.
As Mr Edward Chia and Mr Christopher de Souza suggested, SPF has also leveraged technology and will continue to do so.
The ASC uses technology to automate manual work processes, such as the generation of electronic production orders to the banks for the freezing of bank accounts that are associated with scams and sending out personalised crime advisories to members of the public. This will allow the Police resources to focus on essential criminal investigations and enforcement work.
SPF also uses technology, such as ScamShield, to crowdsource information on scam calls and SMSes. It provides SPF with information on emerging trends. This enables SPF to react faster to the various scams.
Another example is SPF and MAS’ ongoing study with banks to explore the use of enhanced fraud surveillance systems based on artificial intelligence to flag suspicious transactions and identify possible fraudulent behaviour in real-time.
Next, I will touch on improving public education.
Enforcement, by itself, is not sufficient. To Ms Foo Mee Har’s question on how consumers can be better protected, the best defence is a discerning public. Hence, the Government has been creating strong public awareness on scams.
Miss Cheng Li Hui asked about the challenges in educating Singaporeans on anti-scam precautions and measures. A key finding from the 2019 National Prevalence Survey of Scams was that scam victims tend to lack practical knowledge on safe practices. While the majority of scam victims had come across anti-scam public campaigns and messages, many of them could not recall specific scam prevention tips. They also exhibited poor online hygiene, such as opening emails from unknown sources.
The Government’s anti-scam public education campaign, called \"Spot the Signs. Stop the Crimes\", aims to address these challenges. The campaign emphasises the importance of individual responsibility and also uses real-life examples to build awareness and vigilance on the tell-tale signs of scams. As part of this campaign, we have disseminated materials advising the public on scam prevention tips, such as never to share one-time-passwords (OTPs) with unverified parties and to be wary of requests for gift cards and online credits.
Mr Mohd Fahmi Bin Aliman asked if there is an age group that is most vulnerable to phishing scams and the common scams that different segments of the population fall prey to.
Scam victims are of a wide range of ages; everyone is susceptible. That said, different profiles of victim falls prey to different types of scam.
For phishing scams, job scams, e-commerce scams, investment scams, loan scams, China official impersonation scams, as well as fake gambling platform scams, we found that young adults between 20 and 39 years old formed the largest group of victims, compared to other age groups. For social media impersonation scams, Internet love scams, and fake friend call scams, adults between 40 and 59 years old formed the largest group of victims. Hence, the Government has also rolled out prevention initiatives targeted at specific population segments.
SPF and NCPC have partnered ABS on various initiatives to educate bank customers. For example, the banks have introduced an online quiz on scam prevention. They have also sent out advisories to customers to remind them not to share their OTP with others.
Banks have also stepped up their efforts to also train their frontline staff to help customers spot signs of scam. For example, in June 2021, OCBC staff helped to prevent a 57-year-old customer from being scammed. The customer had wanted to remit around 6,000 euros to her Internet “boyfriend” based in the United States. OCBC branch staff noticed that the fund transfer was to be made to a personal bank account in Thailand and suspected that the customer was being scammed. The OCBC staff spent hours trying to dissuade the customer from transferring the funds and worked with SPF officers to try to advise the customer from sending any money. Eventually and thankfully, they managed to convince the customer that she was being scammed, after the “boyfriend” was not available for a video call that bank staff worked with the customer to arrange.
Another example of a preventative initiative is the “SG Cyber Safe Seniors Programme” launched in June 2021 by the Cyber Security Agency of Singapore (CSA), Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) and SPF. The programme seeks to raise seniors’ awareness of online scams and encourage them to adopt good cyber hygiene. Under the programme, CSA and its partners, such as the SG Digital Office, offer scam prevention tips, including how to spot signs of phishing and avoiding the sharing of personal information and OTPs.
The IMCS will step up our public education efforts by scaling up targeted outreach. We will partner agencies and stakeholders that serve as key touchpoints for population segments of interest and leverage their communications channels to push out anti-scam messages targeted at different segments.
For example, IMCS has started working closely with the Agency for Integrated Care, MOE, MOM and MoneySense to push out anti-scam information and awareness programmes for our seniors, students, even migrant workers and professionals.
The IMCS has also started to work with stakeholders from the private sector: partnering ABS to reach out to consumers who use banking services and major e-commerce platforms and marketplaces to reach out to consumers transacting on those online platforms.
Everyone should also download ScamShield, to filter out scam messages and block scam calls.
To date, ScamShield has been downloaded about 257,000 times. About 3.5 million SMSes and calls have been picked up as potential scams by the in-app algorithm and user self-reporting through the app. About 15,500 phone numbers have also been blocked. We are unable to provide Mr Gerald Giam with the percentage of scam calls and SMSes successfully blocked, as ScamShield does not track the number of calls and SMSes made or received by the users.
ScamShield picked up and filtered about 2,000 scam messages used in the OCBC phishing scams. Unfortunately, a lot more scam messages managed to reach the SMS inboxes of ScamShield users, mainly because they appeared in the same thread as legitimate messages. This gap will be addressed as agencies enhance our SMS ecosystem, as Minister Josephine Teo explained.
That said, ScamShield, in itself, is not a panacea and all parts of the ecosystem need to work together to combat scams, including vigilance from all members of the public.
When ScamShield was developed, we made it available to iOS devices first as it was functionally easier to build. We had, initially, planned to launch the Android version of ScamShield in late 2021, but it was delayed as GovTech had to reprioritise resources towards supporting our efforts against COVID-19. Agencies are now working towards developing and releasing the Android version in the coming few months.
IMCS will continue our efforts to encourage the public to download ScamShield, including through community engagements by SPF and Volunteer Crime Prevention Ambassadors. I would also like to call on Members of this House to encourage your residents to download ScamShield.
In concluding, combating scams needs a whole-of-society effort. Even as SPF steps up enforcement, members of the community still play a vital role. We urge the members of public to be individually alert and also to raise collective awareness by sharing scam prevention tips with your friends and family. Together, I am confident we can build a safer Singapore. Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker: Dr Tan Wu Meng.
Dr Tan Wu Meng (Jurong): Mr Speaker, I thank the Ministers for their Ministerial Statements. I have two questions and one suggestion. Sir, many of my Clementi residents were very worried to hear about what happened and it is important that MAS has recognised that there needs to be equitable sharing of losses when an incident happens.
My first question is, will this proposed equitable sharing look at the difference between an unforced error compared to a forced error, where a customer was led or pressured into making an error, as appears to have been the case with the OCBC phishing scam?
The second question, Mr Speaker, will this proposed framework for equitable sharing of losses also consider the speed of the bank response when a consumer is trying to get help? One of my Clementi residents described it thus. He said, \"Imagine you got tricked, someone copied your house keys, they are looting your house now, you call for help and you are put on hold. You wait to press a number or get to the right department.\" That is what my resident said and they are worried what happens if this is their experience in a scam.
Sir, for the suggestion, may I suggest to the Ministries, if they have not already done so, there can be Red Teams looking at not just fighting the last scam war, but the next one because, today, we know there are deepfakes for voices, deepfakes for video calls as the technology improves. We have to be ready for the next character of scams. Likewise, is there a role for white hat scammers, just like there are white hat hackers – white hat scammers actively testing the bank's procedures to look for vulnerabilities before fellow Singaporeans suffer avoidable losses?
Mr Lawrence Wong: Mr Speaker, I thank Dr Tan Wu Meng for his suggestion on the last point. Indeed, we cannot be fighting the last war, we have to look ahead, anticipate vulnerabilities and continually look at different ways to improve our system, and MAS is certainly committed to this process.
On the framework for the sharing of losses incurred by customers, this is a complex issue. I mentioned just now that it is being deliberated upon by the Payments Council, which is chaired by MAS, and it aims to put up something for public consultation within the next three months. I do not want to get ahead of the process, but I would just want to set out some key principles which the Council is using to guide its deliberations.
First, the framework for the sharing of losses should be consistent and common. So, it should not matter which bank you go to; it has to be applied consistently across the entire industry.
Second, the framework should be equitable in determining how losses are to be shared, because both banks and customers have their respective responsibilities. So, Dr Tan Wu Meng talked of some scenarios about speed and whether or not it is a forced or unforced error. But what we intend to do is to be quite clear and specific about what these responsibilities are for financial institutions and customers and what each party is expected to do to prevent scams. Then, the share of losses each party bears will depend on whether and how the party has fallen short of these very clearly stated responsibilities.
I think that is a fair and equitable principle, But, obviously, there are many details to be worked out. So, the Payments Council chaired by MAS will go about these deliberations with the different stakeholders. And I should add, the stakeholders, as I have mentioned earlier, also include players operating the communications infrastructure because we want to ensure that there is proper accountability across the entire ecosystem.
Mr Speaker: Ms Foo Mee Har.
Ms Foo Mee Har (West Coast): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Ministers for their comprehensive replies. I agree with the Minister that we need to adopt an ecosystem approach to tackle banking scams. I have two supplementary questions for the Minister for Finance.
First, given the unprecedented wave of online banking frauds hitting consumers – actually, not just in Singapore, we have read about such accounts in the UK and around the world – may I ask how does MAS fare in terms of anti-scam controls, compared to some of the best practices in other jurisdictions to protect the interests of our consumers?
Sir, the second question relates back to the new framework being debated to establish how losses behind scams are to be shared between consumers and financial institutions. I want to ask, specifically, whether MAS will be imposing a set of minimum standards for the banks' fraud surveillance system to better protect consumers.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Mr Speaker, I thank Ms Foo Mee Har for the very important question. MAS' approach and what MAS has done so far has, in fact, gone beyond the usual practices among financial regulators. In major jurisdictions, regulators do not themselves prescribe the specific anti-scam controls for the banks. Instead, they take a supervisory approach, which means they set up the broad supervisory expectations of the banks, then they place the responsibility on the banks to develop the specific anti-scam measures. Then, the regulators will assess the adequacy of these measures and they will impose penalties if the banks fall short of expectations. So, that is the approach that other regulators take, most regulators will take, and that is also the basic approach that MAS has undertaken.
But, as I mentioned, MAS has, in fact, gone beyond most regulators in being quite clear about its expectations, as well as the specific anti-scam measures that are required. Amongst the three local banks, this started last year, following MAS' focus supervisory review. Then, earlier this year, in January, as I mentioned just now, MAS and ABS put in place a comprehensive suite of measures and controls that will apply across all retail banks. That is, in fact, more than what major jurisdictions have in place.
And we are going beyond that, because, as I have highlighted in my speech, MAS is also considering and studying further enhancements to the measures that we can put in place across banks to reduce the risk across our digital banking channels. So, let me assure Members that MAS takes this work very seriously. It has been, and will continue to do everything it can, working together with other partners and stakeholders to strengthen the security across our digital banking channels and also across the entire digital ecosystem.
On the second question on the framework for the sharing of losses, I do not want to get into details because, as I have highlighted, this is still work in progress. But, as I mentioned just now, our intention is to clearly set out basic responsibilities expected of financial institutions. Indeed, if financial institutions were to fall short of these responsibilities, then they should bear their share of the losses. So, this is work in progress and we will put out the details in due course when we are ready.
Mr Speaker: Mr Gerald Giam.
Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): Sir, I have clarifications for the Minister for Communications and Information as well as the Minister for Finance.
For the Minister for Communications and Information, once the sender ID registry becomes a whitelist like what she described just now, will scammers still be able to send SMSes from overseas with the sender ID that is not registered in Singapore's registry? And if so, how would such scam messages be prevented? Secondly, is there a fast-track channel in which scam websites can be reported even by members of the public and blocked expeditiously?
For the Minister for Finance, recent scams have demonstrated that SMS is an insecure channel for sending either one-time passwords or hyperlinks. According to MAS' Technology Risk Assessment Guidelines to financial institutions, end-to-end encryption should be implemented for the transmission of customers' passwords. SMS is not an end-to-end encrypted channel. So, why is MAS not immediately prohibiting the use of SMS one-time passwords, especially to protect the less tech-savvy customers who are at risk of getting scammed?
Mrs Josephine Teo: Mr Speaker, I do not mean to be too technical, but to answer the Member's question, I will have to explain how the SMS service providers will interact with the SMS sender ID registry.
Basically, the SMS service providers will be approached by a party to say that here is a message that I would like to send to these numbers in Singapore. The imposition that we are making on the SMS Service provider is to look at the header that is being requested by the customer to send it under and check against the registry.
So, if a name already appears on the registry, then, regardless of who the customer is or where they are requesting this service from, as long as the name appears in the registry and this party's details do not match the other record in the registry in terms of their UEN, in terms of the path that they described, how they want to send the SMS across, then this business has to be turned away by the SMS service providers. So, the purpose of having the registry is to allow the SMS service providers to know whether this is a legitimate request and if these signs of legitimate requests are not matched, the requirement for the SMS service provider is to turn away the business.
So, I hope that that provides an answer to the Member's question.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Mr Speaker, on the use of SMS to deliver OTPs, I mentioned just now that we are reviewing this practice and, if we were to continue, whether potential measures should be taken to reduce the risk. I should highlight that, really, as I mentioned in my speech, there is no single measure that can guarantee the security of digital banking.
Issuance of SMS, even if it were to be done through a very safe and encrypted channel, for example, that would not stop deception from happening and, if the scam succeeds in identity theft, as has happened here, impersonating a bank, getting the person to think that this is, in fact, a genuine bank, then the person with the OTP will still provide the OTP to this scam website or scam account or whatever it is.
So, it is a broader issue that we have to look at holistically and, as I mentioned, we are determined and committed to this process to review the entire ecosystem and strengthen it.
Mr Speaker: Mr Don Wee.
Mr Don Wee (Chua Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, Sir, in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] With the sharp increase in online fraud cases amidst the COVID-19 pandemic which has led to most institutions to minimise in-person transactions, will the Singapore Police Force step up collaboration and education efforts with SG Digital Office and the Silver Generation Office to reach out to and assist seniors, such as increasing its presence in the heartlands by setting up more SG Digital Community Hubs and sending out more Silver Generation Ambassadors to visit seniors at home? Many grandmas and grandpas are unable to understand how ScamShield works.
Mr Desmond Tan: I will reply in English and I will say a few remarks in Mandarin. I thank the Member for the question. Actually, Minister Josephine Teo has highlighted many of the measures that we have implemented in relation to helping our seniors go digital as well as to continue on our digital transformation journey. I think the question is a valid one in relation to how this incident may have affected some confidence, especially among our users and seniors. I want to emphasise that, as I had mentioned in my speech earlier on, the groups of people who are affected by scams are not just the seniors. In fact, our data showed that the younger people who have been transacting more online are more susceptible, or just as susceptible, to scams.
So, there are two areas that we need to focus on in relation to the Member's question.
One is how can we bolster confidence among our users? That is something that Minister Lawrence Wong, Minister Josephine Teo and I have been trying to explain and let Members know the measures that we are taking to make the digital space a safer environment for all of us to operate in.
The second area is to build a more resilient community in the use of the digital space. That is something that we have been working with the different stakeholders and partners – Government as well as the private sector – to strengthen.
More specific to Member Don Wee's question on the seniors' programme, we have introduced a number of programmes and, given this incident, we will continue to step up our outreach to our seniors to not just help them to acquire the skillsets but also to explain to them what are the telltale signs of scams and how to protect themselves from scams.
Today, the SDOs have done a good job in reaching out to 130,000 seniors in our community at the community centres, different libraries and so on. So, we will continue to step up these efforts.
I want to end off by saying that this education effort is an important one. We want to build a Smart Nation. We also want to build a Scam Smart Nation, where our people understand the telltale signs and to protect themselves and help one another.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, Singapore has seen a rising number of scam cases in recent years. Therefore, MHA and other Ministries will do our best to work with community partners to strengthen prevention measures and raise awareness against scams.
In 2021, online phishing scams were on the rise. Scammers used various ways to mislead victims into revealing their personal information. Here, I urge everyone to stay alert and not to believe strangers easily, nor to share your personal information or even transfer money.
The public can also download ScamShield from Apple Store. Mr Don Wee said our grandmas and grandpas might not understand ScamShield. However, I believe that once they realise the benefits of ScamShield which offers them greater protection, they will be able to use digital platforms more confidently.
Mr Speaker: Ms Hazel Poa.
Ms Hazel Poa (Non-Constituency Member): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Ministers and the Ministries for the efforts that they have put in and continue to put in to prevent future scams. I have two supplementary questions.
Firstly, is MAS considering the contingency reimbursement model in the UK where banks reimburse scam victims which started on a voluntary basis but there are now plans to legislate it?
The second supplementary question: in working out the shared responsibility between banks and their customers, would MAS consider putting the onus more on the banks on the basis that: one, the banks are more tech-savvy and scam-savvy than the average bank customer and they have better resources to keep up-to-date with the latest tactics; two, it provides additional incentives on the banks to adopt a pre-emptive approach, for example, to consider the scam potential before pushing out new procedures or facilities; and thirdly, it is probably more cost-effective to focus on scam prevention efforts from the ends of a few banks rather than public education on a whole wide range of bank customers?
Mr Lawrence Wong: Mr Speaker, this must be my third question on the loss-sharing framework. I can appreciate that there is a lot of interest in this and, as I have said, it is a work-in-progress. But to quickly answer Ms Poa's two questions.
Number one: MAS will certainly look at models around the world in developing the details of this framework for the sharing of losses in an equitable fair share.
Number two: as the Member has highlighted, the responsibility will be different for individuals and financial institutions. We are very mindful that individuals have a different set of resources and capabilities, compared to financial institutions. So, in developing the specific responsibilities for individuals and financial institutions, we will certainly take that into consideration.
Mr Speaker: Mr Vikram Nair.
Mr Vikram Nair (Sembawang): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have one clarification for the Senior Minister of State for Home Affairs. One of the issues with scams is that the perpetrators are normally based abroad. I just wanted to check whether there is any framework in place for us to actually cooperate with foreign agencies in order to identify the perpetrators and have them prosecuted for these actions?
Mr Desmond Tan: I thank the Member for the question. I mentioned in my speech that this is an area that MHA and SPF will continue to sharpen, to build our networks across the different foreign law enforcement agencies as well as working with Interpol to enhance our ability to respond and to investigate across jurisdictions.
At the same time, I also mentioned some of the difficulties, including how we can get our foreign law enforcement agency partners to work within their jurisdiction. And once the money has been transferred, there are also some difficulties as well. But it is an effort we will continue to do, as we have done in recent times, and we will step up this collaboration with the partners – foreign law enforcement agencies – to try and strengthen our enforcement as well as recovery of lost monies with the foreign banks as well.
Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.
Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have two questions.
The first is for Minister Lawrence Wong. I wonder if the Ministry has plans to introduce complementary legislation to bolster the additional regulatory actions that he has already proposed and the reasons are, because while regulation is often useful for guiding actions, to use the example Minister Lawrence Wong raised earlier about allowing certain transactions to be disputed, without the force of law, it might still fail to adequately ensure an equal distribution of liability even in the presence of, as he described, the fair, equitable framework.
Using the same example, if I may, requiring charges above $50 to be subject to dispute under the Fair Credit Billing Act in the US has meant that financial institutions have, actually, been a lot more proactive in deploying fraud detection systems and securing fraud insurance. This is something that Member Hazel Poa has mentioned as well.
My second question is for Minister Josephine Teo and it is to ask if there are plans to comprehensively audit the compliance of technology systems with their official safeguards. I say this because, in a recent little experiment with my Sengkang colleague, Louis Chua, we tried to test the limits of the PayNow system, as applied by banks. The stated PayNow transfer limit, in the absence of additional authentication via token, is meant to be $1,000. However, we were able to transfer sums in excess of this amount just by instantaneously changing the daily transfer limits, and, again, without any two-factor authentication beyond the PIN prior to executing the transfer. Others have reported similar lapses in banks' checks and balances in guaranteeing customer security. One banking customer, writing to The Straits Times, shared that they were able to breach the credit limit by 1.8 times in transactions occurring over multiple countries in foreign currencies without the incident being flagged.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Mr Speaker, in developing any new measures, MAS will want to ensure that these measures are effective – effective in reducing the risk in our banking system, effective in implementation. And if new legislation is necessary or amendments to the laws are necessary, we will certainly not rule out those options.
Mrs Josephine Teo: Mr Speaker, there are two parts to the Member's question. One is in terms of the banks' information systems, IT systems, we classify them as part of our critical information infrastructure. As a result of this classification, they are subject to higher requirements and also regular audits. So, earlier on, when I had explained, and Minister Lawrence Wong had also explained why this was not a cyber attack or cybersecurity breach, that has to do with the kind of defences that are part of the banking system being a critical information infrastructure. Is it subject to regular audits? It has to be. Otherwise, we would not know whether the cyber defences that are intended to be put up are, in fact, effectively done. So, that part is done.
But I would always caution that this is not something you brag about. Just because the system is sound at any point in time does not mean it is not continuously being subject to testing. And whether it is banks, whether it is our telcos, as part of the operators of our critical information infrastructure, they always also have to conduct their own penetration testing, in order to assure themselves that there are no vulnerabilities or gaps that are glaring and that have not been patched. So, that is one part of it.
The second part of it, and his experiment with Mr Louis Chua using PayNow, I think it is very similar to what Dr Tan Wu Meng had already suggested earlier, whether you would consider subjecting your own banking processes to white hat scammers. And I think Minister Lawrence Wong had already responded to that question to say that the answer is yes; it is a good suggestion. And we should be seriously thinking about how to do so.
Mr Speaker: Mr Ang Wei Neng.
Mr Ang Wei Neng (West Coast): Thank you, Speaker. I thank the Ministers and the Minister of State for their comprehensive replies. I would like to ask a couple of supplementary questions. We understand from Minister of State Desmond Tan that once the money is transferred out of Singapore during an Internet scam, it is almost as good as gone.
So, I would like to ask the Minister for Finance what the proportion of Internet transfers is involving accounts overseas. Is it possible for the local user to opt, by default, to not allow the transfer of money out to overseas, unless authorised otherwise with the two-step verification? This is similar to what local mobile phone users do, where they can disable the auto-roaming so as to minimise the cost.
Secondly, when banks are alerted to the significant increase in banking scams, can the bank deactivate all overseas bank transfers for a short period, so as to minimise the scam's impact?
Mr Lawrence Wong: Mr Speaker, the short answers to both questions are yes. As I have mentioned in my speech, MAS is, indeed, looking to introduce additional customer confirmations for higher-risk transactions, and that would include fund transfers that are large, relative to the overall balances, as well as overseas transfers, recognising that once the funds leave our local banking system, they are very hard to recover, indeed.
So, as I have mentioned, these are additional strengthening and enhancements we are looking at, which will require customer confirmation. It will add friction to the transaction for genuine customers but we hope that everyone understands that these inconveniences are necessary to have a safer digital banking system in Singapore.
The second point about having a cooling-off period, if the banks are aware of the scam and whether or not they can put in place some cooling-off periods, indeed, that is something that has been done. And we will continue to look at how these sorts of measures and safeguards can be strengthened.
Mr Speaker: Ms Yeo Wan Ling.
Ms Yeo Wan Ling (Pasir Ris-Punggol): I thank the Ministers for their comprehensive replies. I would like to follow up on the hon Member Ms Foo Mee Har's question on anti-scam standards set by MOF.
My residents who came to me to seek help on the recent OCBC bank scam incident shared that information from the bank during the investigation process and the support during the processes itself, were found wanting. Many of them had interactions only with the call centre staff and this has left them very afraid and stressed and, indeed, worried that their life savings were kept in limbo.
So, I would like to ask if the Ministry, or the agencies in charge of this, will be putting in standards and requirements for the banks in the management of scam victims during the investigation process.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Mr Speaker, again, the short answer is yes. But I should clarify the standards are not set by MOF; they are set by the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) and I am speaking also in my capacity as the Deputy Chairman of MAS. This is under MAS' purview.
As I explained in my speech just now, we have assessed that OCBC itself, in this incident, could have done better. There were areas, in terms of its responses to customers, which, certainly, could be improved. That is why we are reviewing the conduct of OCBC, and we will take the appropriate actions. That is for the OCBC incident.
But with regard to standards, expectations and responsibilities, these are in place today for all the retail banks and we will continue to review and ensure that these standards are set in such a way that provide assurances to customers and hold the banks accountable to meeting these high standards.
Mr Speaker: Mr Melvin Yong.
Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye (Radin Mas): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is sobering to learn that our current anti-scam systems are blocking millions of scam calls each month. I would like to ask Minister Josephine Teo whether this useful protective filter extends to blocking scam calls made using Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP), which allows calls to be made over the Internet as well as telecommunications applications, such as WhatsApp call, which is also becoming very popular even among our seniors. If not, are there any plans by the Ministry to safeguard these channels?
Mrs Josephine Teo: Mr Speaker, as a general point, we are constantly looking at what channels are being exploited for scams to be perpetrated. But the Member is right. The current call blocking, as well as the website blocking, is now mainly done through Domain Name System (DNS) blocking. So, unless my technical understanding is flawed, and I would have to check this up, my understanding is that it does not block VoIP calls. But I will have to get back to him properly.
Mr Speaker: Order. Business Motion. Leader.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Simultaneous Debate on Motions","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"The Leader of the House (Ms Indranee Rajah): Mr Speaker, I beg to move, \"That, notwithstanding the Standing Orders, the Motions on:
(a) \"Committee of Privileges Report (Recommendations in respect of Ms Raeesah Khan)\"; and
(b) \"Committee of Privileges Report (Recommendations in respect of Mr Pritam Singh, Mr Faisal Manap and Ms Sylvia Lim)\", be taken together, and the debate on these Motions and on any amendment proposed thereto be proceeded with simultaneously as though the debate were on a single Motion.
Mr Speaker, both Motions arise out of the Report of the Committee of Privileges issued last week in respect of the complaint against Ms Raeesah Khan for untruth spoken in Parliament.
The First Motion deals with the Committee’s findings and recommendations in respect of the conduct of former Workers’ Party Member of Parliament (MP) Ms Raeesah Khan which I had previously referred to the Committee.
The Second Motion deals with the Committee’s findings and recommendations in respect of the conduct of the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Pritam Singh, and Workers’ Party MPs Mr Faisal Manap and Ms Sylvia Lim, which arose in the course of the Committee’s inquiry.
Given that both Motions arise out of the same report and, further, given that the facts and matters pertaining to the Motions are interlinked and the same set of evidence applies to both, I wish to move that the two Motions be considered together and debated concurrently. A concurrent or simultaneous debate will allow Members to address both Motions in a single speech and enable the issues raised in the two Motions to be considered holistically. It will also allow for more efficient conduct of parliamentary business.
To be clear, and for avoidance of doubt, it is only the debate that is to be concurrent. The Motions remain as two separate Motions and, at the end of the debate, the votes on the two Motions will be taken separately. Mr Speaker, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Resolved, That, notwithstanding the Standing Orders, the Motions on: (a) \"Committee of Privileges Report (Recommendations in respect of Ms Raeesah Khan)\"; and (b) \"Committee of Privileges Report (Recommendations in respect of Mr Pritam Singh, Mr Faisal Manap and Ms Sylvia Lim)\", be taken together, and the debate on these Motions and on any amendment proposed thereto be proceeded with simultaneously as though the debate were on a single Motion. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: The Clerk will now proceed to read the Notices of Motion.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Committee of Privileges Report (Recommendations in respect of Ms Raeesah Khan) and Committee of Privileges Report (Recommendations in respect of Mr Pritam Singh, Mr Faisal Manap and Ms Sylvia Lim)","subTitle":"Simultaneous debate on both Motions","sectionType":"OS","content":"Mr Speaker: Leader.
The Leader of the House (Ms Indranee Rajah): Mr Speaker, may I seek your permission to move both the Motions standing in my name on today's Order Paper one after another and for my opening speech and reply at the end of the debate to range over both Motions.
Mr Speaker: In view of the earlier decision of this House to have both Motions taken together and the debate to proceed simultaneously on both Motions, I will allow the Motions to be so moved. Leader, please proceed.
Ms Indranee Rajah: Mr Speaker, I beg to move the First Motion standing in my name on today's Order Paper titled \"Committee of Privileges Report (Recommendations in respect of Ms Raeesah Khan)\".
I also beg to move the Second Motion standing in my name on today's Order Paper titled \"Committee of Privileges Report (Recommendations in respect of Mr Pritam Singh, Mr Faisal Manap and Ms Sylvia Lim)\".
Sir, with your permission, can I ask for the distribution of the copies of the two Motions that I have referred to? I thought that it might be more convenient for Members to have copies so that they can refer to them as I am speaking.
Mr Speaker: Please do. [Handouts were distributed to hon Members.]
Ms Indranee Rajah: Sir, may I proceed as the copies of the two Motions are being distributed?
Mr Speaker: Yes, please.
Ms Indranee Rajah: Mr Speaker, on the face of it, the Motions before us today require us to make certain decisions about the conduct of certain Members of Parliament (MPs). However, the Motions are of a far deeper and greater significance.
Fundamentally, the Motions are about safeguarding the essence of democracy – our democracy – and preserving its most vital and essential characteristic, which is, trust. They are about the need to ensure the integrity of our institutions, and Parliament in particular, and about the confidence Singaporeans can have in their elected representatives.
These things are not given. Established democracies, like Australia and the United Kingdom, have, in recent months, had to deal with allegations of senior parliamentarians being untruthful. The consequences are the erosion of public trust. Now, regrettably, we have to deal with our own situation of parliamentarians being untruthful.
How we deal with this will reflect on our values and the standards of conduct to which we hold ourselves as MPs.
How did we come to this point? Let me provide a quick recap.
On 3 August 2021, Ms Khan spoke during the debate on the Workers' Party's Motion titled \"Empowering Women\". She claimed that the Police's response to sexual assault survivors who lodged Police reports was sometimes \"disheartening\". She alleged that three years ago, she had accompanied a sexual assault survivor to make a Police report against a rape that was committed against the survivor.
She claimed to have witnessed the survivor come out crying. The Police officer had allegedly made comments about her dressing and the fact that she had been drinking. Ms Khan made that statement twice on 3 August and repeated it during a later session on 4 October.
However, on 1 November 2021, Ms Khan confessed in Parliament that she had not, in fact, accompanied the survivor to the Police station. I will refer to this as \"the Untruth\".
I raised a complaint under Standing Order 100(7)(b) against Ms Khan for breaches of privilege and the matter was referred to the Committee of Privileges (the Committee).
The Committee was duly convened and began its inquiry on 29 November 2021. The Committee completed its work and presented its Report to Parliament on 10 February 2022, making findings and recommendations in respect of Ms Raeesah Khan’s conduct. However, in the course of its inquiry, the conduct of three senior members of the Workers' Party leadership also came into question. This led the Committee to also make certain findings and recommendations relating to them as well.
Before I go into the Report, Mr Speaker, let me say something about the privileges and immunities of Parliament and the corresponding duty that arises.
One of the most powerful things about a parliamentary democracy is the ability to speak freely and candidly in Parliament. This is so that MPs can raise matters of public importance, safe in the knowledge that they have immunity from civil or criminal proceedings outside this House. That is a great privilege. In Singapore, this is enshrined in the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act 1962, the PPIPA. But because it is such an important privilege, it must also be used responsibly and must not be abused. This includes the need to be truthful on, and to be able to substantiate, matters said in Parliament or any committee of Parliament.
The other aspect of parliamentary democracy is that MPs are expected to act honourably and to respect the processes of Parliament as an institution, and not act in a manner that would undermine it or the work of its committees.
Thus, dishonourable conduct, abuse of privilege and contempt of Parliament, including its committees, are offences under the PPIPA.
Parliament is expected to keep its own House in order. Hence, the Act gives Parliament power to deal with such offences ranging from a reprimand, suspension of privileges from Parliament, a fine or even committal to prison and expulsion from Parliament. In addition, if the conduct constitutes an offence listed under Part 5 of the PPIPA, Parliament also has the power to refer the matter to the Public Prosecutor.
Let me now deal with the findings and recommendations of the Committee.
First, in respect of Ms Raeesah Khan for abuse of privilege.
In terms of liability, the case against Ms Khan is clear and straightforward. She has admitted that she lied in Parliament twice on 3 August 2021 and again on 4 October. The Committee has, therefore, found she “acted with disregard for the dignity and decorum of the House” and recommended that Parliament find Ms Khan guilty of abuse of privilege on all three occasions. You will see that this is dealt with in para 2(a) of the First Motion.
The next issue is what penalty she should receive for these abuses of privilege.
Here, it is undisputed that when she lied on 3 August, she was the only one who knew that what she had said was untrue and, therefore, acted entirely of her own accord. Hence, she should bear the full and sole responsibility for those transgressions. The Committee has accordingly recommended that a fine of $25,000 – that is, half of the maximum penalty – be imposed on Ms Khan for lying twice on 3 August. That is dealt with in para 2(b) of the First Motion.
I turn now to the penalty for the lie that was repeated on 4 October 2021. This is the issue that occupied the bulk of the Committee’s inquiry. Because by this time, she had disclosed the Untruth to the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Pritam Singh, and the two senior Workers’ Party (WP) leaders, Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Faisal Manap, who are the Chairman and the Vice Chairman of WP respectively.
So, the issue is this: when Ms Khan repeated the lie in Parliament on 4 October, was she acting on her own accord or was she acting on the guidance of her senior party leaders?
If she was acting on her own, then the penalty should be higher, because it means that she and she alone was responsible for deliberately repeating the lie despite being told otherwise – as claimed by Mr Pritam Singh – showing a lack of remorse.
But if as a young and inexperienced MP, she was acting on the instructions or guidance of her party leaders, to whom she deferred and to whose views she gave weight, then that would be a mitigating factor, because then she is not the only one responsible. In this case, the penalty should be lower.
Here, the accounts of Ms Raeesah Khan and the three senior WP leaders are diametrically opposed – so much so that, in fact, there can be no possibility of this being a case of differing interpretations or of any misunderstanding. It is a situation where either Ms Raeesah Khan lied to the Committee, or else Mr Pritam Singh, Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Faisal Manap lied to the Committee. There is no in-between.
Ms Khan’s evidence is that when she repeated the lie on 4 October, it was her understanding, based on what Mr Singh said to her on 3 October, that there would be no consequences if she continued with the Untruth.
Mr Singh, on the other hand, says that Ms Khan did so on her own accord and contrary to instructions given.
Ms Lim and Mr Faisal say they did not discuss the issue with her. They left it to Mr Singh.
Two meetings are key to this issue: the meeting between Ms Khan and the three senior WP leaders on 8 August 2021, or \"the 8 August meeting”, and the meeting between Mr Singh and Ms Khan on 3 October 2021 at her home, or “the 3 October meeting”.
Regarding the 8 August meeting, Ms Khan’s evidence was that the three senior WP leaders told her to continue with the Untruth. There was no need for her to clarify the truth in Parliament, and Mr Singh told her to “take the information to the grave”.
The three WP leaders, on the other hand, say that there was simply no discussion on the matter after Ms Khan confessed to them, or, indeed, for nearly two months which passed thereafter. Instead, the discussion moved on to other matters.
Next, the 3 October meeting. This is of critical importance because it took place the evening before the Parliament Sitting of 4 October, where Ms Khan said the lie for the third time. This meeting involved just Ms Khan and Mr Singh. No one else was present.
The issue with regard to the 3 October meeting was whether Mr Singh had made it clear to Ms Khan that she had to tell the truth. Or Mr Singh gave Ms Khan a choice as to whether to tell the truth or keep to the Untruth, and if he did give her such a choice, whether he pointed her in the direction of how that choice should be exercised.
Ms Khan’s evidence is that “the conversation was that if [she] were to retain the narrative or if [she] were to continue the narrative, there would be no judgement”. Her understanding of this therefore was that there would be no consequences if she continued with the lie. She was not instructed to tell the truth.
Mr Singh’s evidence, on the other hand, was that he did not give Ms Khan a choice and that he made it “crystal clear” that she had to tell the truth.
Presented with such conflicting evidence, there is only one way to tell who is telling the truth, and, that is, to test it against objective evidence, which is what the Committee did. They assessed it against the contemporaneous evidence, against written documents, against the conduct of the parties both before and after the relevant events, and they tested it against whether the evidence given to the Committee made sense.
Taking all these into account, the Committee found that Ms Raeesah Khan was telling the truth and that Mr Pritam Singh, and to a lesser extent, Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Faisal Manap, had lied to the Committee.
(a) Immediately after the 8 August meeting, Ms Khan sent a WhatsApp message to her assistants, stating “they’ve\", meaning Mr Singh, Ms Lim and Mr Faisal Manap, \"agreed that the best thing to do is to take the information to the grave”. So, there is written, contemporaneous evidence immediately after the meeting.
(b) Her evidence was corroborated by Ms Loh Pei Ying and Mr Yudhishthra Nathan.
(c) On the three WP leaders’ own evidence, between 8 August and 3 October, nothing was discussed about clarifying the lie, but they all agreed that telling the Untruth in Parliament was a serious matter and should be corrected.
(d) There were no correspondence or documents from them on the issue at all.
(e) They did not speak with Ms Khan on the issue.
(f) While Mr Singh had claimed he was concerned with ensuring that Ms Khan’s family was told about the sexual assault before clarifying the Untruth, not once did he or the others check if she had spoken with her parents.
(g) No steps were taken for any clarification to be made in Parliament, ahead of the September or October Sittings.
(h) The other WP CEC members were kept in the dark. Mr Singh established a Disciplinary Panel consisting of the very same people who knew that she lied – himself, Ms Lim and Mr Faisal Manap – and they did not disclose this to the CEC.
All of these are consistent with a situation in which she was told to maintain the lie.
As to the 3 October meeting, the Committee found “the evidence was quite clear that Mr Singh strongly pointed Ms Khan towards continuing with the Untruth on 3 October”. They found as follows.
(a) On 3 October, Mr Singh visited Ms Khan at her home specifically to advise her on what to say at the 4 October Parliamentary Sitting because he “had a feeling” that the topic might come up. He did not tell Ms Lim or Mr Faisal Manap about the meeting.
(b) At this meeting, Mr Singh did not tell Ms Khan to proactively raise the matter, or to tell the truth. This is not disputed but this common position was only arrived at after inconsistencies in Mr Singh’s evidence was pointed out and he changed his evidence.
(c) Mr Singh initially said Ms Khan had to proactively clarify the truth on 4 October even if the issue did not come up. But when it was pointed out that no preparations had been made, there were no draft statements, for example, then he said no preparatory steps were taken because it was uncertain if Ms Khan would have to clarify the truth. At this point, he realised his earlier evidence was untenable and he changed his position and admitted that he did not tell Ms Khan to come clean proactively on 4 October. He then said she should tell the truth if raised.
(d) But Mr Singh’s claim that he made clear on 3 October that Ms Khan should clarify the truth if raised is contradicted by the fact that no preparation whatsoever was made prior to 4 October to prepare for the truth to be told. Ms Lim admitted, in the context of whether it would have been possible on 4 October to have Ms Lim clarify the truth the next day on 5 October, that this was not possible because time was needed to carefully structure Ms Khan’s clarification and to make the necessary preparations. [Please refer to \"Clarifications by Minister, Prime Minister's Office and Leader of the House\", 15 February 2022, Vol 95, Issue No 48, Corrections by Written Statement section.]
This is borne out by what happened after the decision was taken to come clean on 12 October when the whole WP machinery swung into action – there were discussions on what the draft statement should look like, the drafts were personally vetted by Mr Singh and shown to their CEC, their activists and their social media teams were prepped and so on.
(e) On 4 October, as Minister Shanmugam was asking Ms Khan in this Chamber to confirm if the incident had really occurred as she had described, Ms Khan texted Mr Pritam Singh to ask “What shall I do Pritam?” If, as he claimed, he had been clear that, if asked, she should tell the truth, there would have been no need for her to text him for guidance.
(f) Further, if Mr Singh’s evidence was true, it would mean that when Ms Khan lied again on 4 October, she would have flagrantly disobeyed his instruction of the previous day. So, you would expect that in such a situation, he would immediately have demanded an explanation. Yet Mr Singh did not speak to Ms Khan for the rest of the day, until close to midnight. And even then, there was no instruction to clarify the truth the following day on 5 October when Parliament was still sitting.
(g) Mr Singh told Ms Khan that he would not “judge her”. This makes no sense if he had told Ms Khan to tell the truth, as there would be nothing to judge. However, it makes a lot of sense if he had told or encouraged her to continue the lie.
(h) Ms Loh Pei Ying’s and Mr Yudhishthra Nathan’s evidence contradict what Mr Singh said. On 12 October, Mr Singh told Ms Loh and Mr Nathan that he had met Ms Khan on 3 October and told her “I will not judge you”. Both Ms Low and Mr Nathan understood this to mean that Mr Singh had given Ms Khan a choice as to whether or not to come clean, and that if she chose to repeat the Untruth she would not be judged.
(i) Mr Singh claimed he did not give Ms Khan a choice as to whether to tell the truth. But this is contradicted by Ms Lim’s notes taken during the Disciplinary Panel, in which she recorded Mr Singh as telling Ms Khan that “I told you it was your call”.
(j) On 7 October, Ms Khan had sent an email to Mr Singh, Ms Lim and Mr Faisal Manap seeking their advice on what to do because she had just received an email from the Police requesting her assistance. In her email, she thanked the senior WP leaders “for listening to me, for caring for me and for guiding me throughout this without judgement”. The Committee found that if Mr Singh had, indeed, told Ms Khan on 3 October to tell the truth, then after she lied again on 4 October, which would have been a breach of that instruction, she would not be thanking them for guiding her without judgement. Here, the operative word is \"guiding\". Implicit in her email is that she had followed their guidance until then.
The Committee found that by telling Ms Khan on 3 October that \"there would be no judgement\", Mr Singh had left her with the view that if she were to continue with the Untruth, there would be no judgement on her. The Committee further found that taken together, the events of the 8 August and 3 October meetings would essentially point Ms Khan in one direction, which is, to keep to the Untruth if the issue was raised, with the assurance that Mr Singh would not judge her if she did so.
The Committee therefore found that Ms Khan’s culpability in respect of her repetition of the Untruth on 4 October was mitigated by the following:
(a) the fact that she was a first-time MP who confessed to and sought guidance from her Party leaders as to what to do;
(b) regrettably, the guidance they gave, and which she followed, was to maintain the lie; and
(c) her conduct and evidence showed that she would have come clean, if she had been advised to do so from 8 August.
The Committee also took into account that Ms Khan's mental health had been \"unfairly and publicly attacked, in particular, by Mr Singh\", and that Ms Khan had resigned as a Member of Parliament. The Committee has, therefore, recommended a lower fine of $10,000 in respect of the repetition of the Untruth on 4 October 2021. This is dealt with in paragraph 2(c) of the First Motion.
Mr Speaker, Sir, I turn now to the recommendations regarding Mr Pritam Singh, Mr Faisal Manap and Ms Sylvia Lim.
Based on the objective evidence before the Committee, the Committee made these findings:
(a) that all three senior Workers' Party leaders have lied to the Committee as to what was discussed at the 8 August meeting, and that they guided Ms Khan to maintain the Untruth she had told;
(b) that Mr Singh lied about what had happened at the 3 October meeting and essentially gave Ms Khan to understand that it would be all right to maintain the Untruth if the matter came up in Parliament the next day.
In addition, Mr Faisal Manap refused to answer a question from the Committee at least eight times, despite being reminded that he had been called before the Committee to assist with its investigations, and that his refusal would amount to an offence and constitute a contempt of Parliament.
The Committee considered that Mr Singh and Mr Faisal Manap's conduct could constitute contempt of Parliament and offences under Part 5 of the PPIPA. As the Committee was convened to look into the complaint against Ms Khan, the Committee noted that it was beyond its purview to recommend any penalty in respect of the three senior Workers' Party leaders for their conduct which arose in the course of the inquiry.
Parliament, however, has the power to consider what should be done and take the appropriate action. To assist Parliament in this task, the Committee has made the following recommendations for our consideration:
(a)\tthat while Parliament has the option to refer the three senior Workers' Party leaders to another Committee of Privileges, it is unlikely that another Committee would make much progress in terms of uncovering more evidence; and
(b)\tthat a distinction should be drawn between the conduct of Mr Singh on the one hand, and Ms Lim and Mr Faisal Manap on the other, given their different roles and conduct. The Committee noted Ms Lim's and Mr Faisal Manap's roles were \"relatively subsidiary\", while Mr Singh appeared to have played \"the key and leading role in guiding Ms Khan in respect of the Untruth\".
The Committee has therefore recommended that Parliament refer Mr Singh's conduct to the Public Prosecutor (PP), with a view to considering whether to institute criminal proceedings. This is addressed in paragraph 2 of the Second Motion.
Mr Speaker, some may wonder why Mr Singh and Mr Faisal Manap should be referred to the PP and why this cannot be dealt with \"in-house\" by Parliament. Others may also wonder why it is the case that, for Ms Khan, who lied to Parliament, a fine is proposed whereas in the case of Mr Singh, who also lied, but to a Committee of Parliament, he should be referred to the Public Prosecutor (PP) instead of just being fined like Ms Khan.
These are important questions and I want to address them. Let me just explain a little bit about the PPIPA and how it works.
Under the PPIPA, there are what, I would term, and this is my term, general offences: offences of dishonourable conduct, abuse of privilege and contempt. These, Parliament can and often would deal with itself. But there is also a certain category of offences which could be dishonourable conduct or you could classify them as contempt, but they are very specific under Part 5 of the PPIPA. These include lying to a Committee in Parliament and refusing to answer questions as well as refusing to produce documents. There are other offences listed in Part 5. These are a special category. What is common about them and why they are also regarded as serious, is that they, essentially, pervert, obstruct or prevent the processes of Parliament. For the Part 5 offences, Parliament has the power to refer these to the PP. The PPIPA does not provide for other offences to be referred to the PP. It has to be under Part 5.
And you could have an offence, which is a Part 5 offence, but which Parliament may choose not to refer, if it does not think it is that serious. So, in this case, the Committee found that all three lied, but it is only recommending to refer Mr Singh to the PP, not Ms Sylvia Lim, not Mr Faisal Manap because their roles were subsidiary and their lies were not as egregious.
Then you may ask, so what is the difference between Mr Pritam Singh's lie and Ms Khan's? The seriousness of the conduct on the part of Mr Singh is this:
(a) Ms Khan lied to Parliament, and that was bad enough. But Mr Singh on the other hand, if what the Committee found is correct, not only lied but lied under oath. And not only that, but this was in proceedings before a Select Committee of Parliament conducting a formal inquiry and tasked with finding out the truth. Then, there is the question of the consequences of a lie in this context – because it would, if believed, have had a bearing on the punishment to be meted out to Ms Khan. The lies would have determined the fate of another MP who was being looked at before the Committee of Privileges. And that is a different order of seriousness altogether. That is a Part 5 offence under the PPIPA, and that is the reason why the Committee had recommended referring Mr Singh to the PP.
(b) The other thing is that it would mean Ms Khan was following his guidance when she lied on 4 October. And that is also very serious.
(c) So, given the seriousness of the matter, it would be the fairest course of action to all concerned to refer it to the PP. The PP will have the opportunity to consider all evidence afresh, including new evidence, in deciding whether or not to prefer criminal charges against Mr Pritam Singh.
It would also give Mr Singh the opportunity to defend and vindicate himself, with legal counsel, if criminal charges are brought.
(d) Fourth, the matter would be adjudicated by the Courts which are independent.
In the case of Mr Faisal Manap, his refusal to produce documents or answer questions can also amount to an offence under the PPIPA, and that is the Part 5 offence, so the Committee has recommended that he also be referred to the PP. This is addressed in paragraph 2 of the Second Motion.
Apart from the offences to be referred to the PP, there remain the following potential offences under the PPIPA that need to be dealt with by Parliament:
(a)\tDishonourable conduct and contempt of Parliament on the part of Mr Pritam Singh, for lying to the Committee, and for his role in guiding Ms Khan to lie to Parliament. The Committee has recommended that Parliament defer any action on this until the criminal proceedings (if any) are completed. This is dealt with in para 3(i) of the Second Motion.
(b)\tDishonourable conduct and contempt of Parliament on the part of Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Faisal Manap for lying about the 8 August meeting and for their initial concurrence in the guidance to maintain the lie by agreeing that it should be taken to the grave. Likewise, the Committee has recommended that any decision on this be deferred until the outcome of the referral of Mr Singh's conduct to the PP. This is dealt with in paragraphs 3(i) to (ii) of the Second Motion.
In conclusion, the conduct of Mr Singh and Mr Faisal Manap will be considered by the PP under the criminal justice process. Parliament will only consider the remaining issues (if any) after the criminal justice process has taken its course, by which time we will have the benefit of what emerges from that process. This is the fairest way forward for all.
Mr Speaker, the recommendations made by the Committee are sound and balanced, given the circumstances. I would ask Members to accept them and to support the Motions, as I do, so as to uphold public trust in Parliament and in our democracy. Mr Speaker, I beg to move.
Mr Speaker: The first Question is as moved by Leader of the House on the Motion titled \"Committee of Privileges Report (Recommendations in respect of Ms Raeesah Khan)\".
The second Question is as moved by Leader of the House on the Motion titled \"Committee of Privileges Report (Recommendations in respect of Mr Pritam Singh, Mr Faisal Manap and Ms Sylvia Lim)\".
In accordance with the earlier decision of this House to have a simultaneous debate on both Motions, I will now call on Members to make their speeches. Members are allowed to consider both Motions in a single speech.
At the end of the debate, I will put the questions on both Motions separately so that the House can express its vote on each Motion. In addition, I will also disallow any amendment to either Motion that has the effect of negativing or nullifying the other Motion.
Any Member who wishes to vote against either Motion can do so directly without such amendments. Leader of the Opposition.
Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It has been about 25 years since a Committee of Privileges (COP) Report has been tabled in this House. When seen as a whole, the COP's processes and the Report before Parliament leave many questions, gaps and omissions and, by extension, suggest political partisanship.
A key question is: who did this House commit to the COP? Raeesah Khan or the Workers’ Party leadership? The COP did not appear to want to get to the bottom of why Ms Khan lied in Parliament nor why she had a propensity to lie with respect to her anecdote, both in and out of this House. The fact that she had concocted a lie to bolster her anecdote in Parliament was not balanced against her evidence to the COP. What took centre stage instead was her uncorroborated testimony that she was instructed to take her lie to the grave by the Workers' Party leadership, a fabrication which never came out from any witness at the COP except Ms Raeesah Khan herself.
I reject this finding completely. At no time did I instruct Ms Khan to hide the truth. At the meeting on August 8, none of the three Workers' Party leaders told Ms Khan to take her lie to the grave.
I will speak on two main areas before concluding with a section on candidate selection in the Workers' Party. First, I will reflect on my judgement with respect to Ms Khan's reasons for lying in Parliament, arising from my meeting with her on 8 August. Second, I will raise some broad points about the selective nature of how the COP Report dealt with the evidence before it. However, as I intend to clear my name and cooperate with the Public Prosecutor, my comments on the COP Report will be limited in scope.
The most difficult aspect of this episode for me personally, and most certainly something that I have reflected on, is the approach to take when a fellow MP tells you, first, she is a rape victim; and second, how this episode caused an untruth to be told in Parliament.
From the moment I learned after the August Sitting that Ms Khan had lied in Parliament, there was no doubt in my mind that she would have to confess in Parliament that she had lied and that she would have to apologise for it in this House. I have shared publicly that the matter of the lie was something for Ms Khan to explain in Parliament.
My firm belief is that a Member of Parliament must be accountable in Parliament for what they say in Parliament. In addition, I considered that whenever she confessed, Ms Khan would have to explain her reason for telling her lie. I did not want Ms Khan's parents or loved ones to be caught by surprise before she had a chance to speak with them.
Looking back though, I gave Ms Khan too much time to settle herself before closing this issue with her. Between 8 August and 30 September, I should have been proactive and checked where she was in addressing the matter with her family. That omission is mine alone. I acknowledged the same to the COP in my evidence.
However, I will continue to be as sympathetic to anyone who shares such deeply personal details with me. My instinct, even today, would be to keep the information of the sexual assault to myself, or to a very small group of trusted individuals, given its highly personal and sensitive nature. I would allow such a person space to deal with the matter. I still believe that it was right that the clarification was made in Parliament rather than out of it.
That said, I will discuss with my party colleagues how, as an organisation and political party, we can handle such matters better while taking into account how delicate they are.
Sir, on to my brief comments on the COP Report.
For today, the principal point I will make is the disregard of evidence I submitted to the Committee. At minimum, I would have expected a listing of all the documents my fellow Workers' Party colleagues and I submitted to the Committee to be included in the COP Report, to indicate that they were actively considered in deliberations. I can only assume they were not considered, despite my colleagues and I being served with a summons to produce.
There are objective documents that I submitted to the Committee which raised serious doubts about the eventual findings reached in the Report, including the unparliamentary language used at various places, which is not supported by evidence.
The most egregious, in my mind, is the conclusion that in seeking a psychiatric evaluation from Ms Khan, I had somehow weaponised her condition. The following points need to be considered as to why I mentioned the psychiatric evaluation.
First, the notes of the Workers' Party Disciplinary Panel, or DP, which was submitted to the COP show that Ms Khan tendered on her own accord, documents which revealed that she was the patient of a psychotherapist who had referred her to a psychiatrist.
Second, on 29 November, Ms Khan voluntarily shared with the DP that she suffered from dissociation. Once again, the relevant DP notes were forwarded to the COP.
And third, I was asked an open question by the COP as to why Ms Khan would make certain statements. I attempted to give a fair answer in line with what Ms Khan herself had revealed.
If the COP was indeed a fact-finding body, should I not have raised the matter of Ms Khan possibly labouring under a condition to the COP?
In my evidence to the COP, I registered the point that the matter was raised because it covered issues of proportionality and culpability. I believe that Ms Khan should not be excessively punished for a condition she could be labouring under and the COP ought to see it as a mitigatory point in her favour.
This evidence of mine, supported by the COP's Minutes of Evidence on culpability and proportionality, is ignored by the COP. So, I reject this assertion that in raising the matter of Ms Khan's mental health to a fact-finding body with a view to consider an appropriate punishment, I had somehow smeared her, or worse, somehow cast aspersions on those with mental health conditions.
Another point I strongly disagree with the COP is how my evidence was characterised with regard to Ms Loh Pei Ying and Mr Yudhishthra Nathan's representations in antagonistic terms. I shared my view with the COP that in my opinion, loyalty to Ms Khan was an operative consideration on the minds of Ms Loh and Mr Nathan.
Ms Khan, in her own WhatsApp text to me on 22 November at Annex C-29, states that she would respect any decision the Disciplinary Panel (DP) makes, even if it is to resign. In my DP notes of 25 November covering the meeting with Ms Loh and Mr Nathan which, again, was submitted to the COP, Ms Loh made it clear that Ms Khan's resignation should not be on the cards because, in her view, what she did in Parliament was not serious and it was not as if Ms Khan had \"laundered money\". I believe many would take a different view that telling untruths in Parliament is serious.
Such documentary evidence placed before the COP would show that I had good reasons for concluding that loyalty to Ms Khan was a consideration for her closest allies. Ms Loh's perspective of the gravity of what Ms Khan did is one of those good reasons. Once again, such evidence does not appear to have been considered by the COP.
I can only speculate why. Could it be to strategically drive a wedge and disunite the Workers' Party and show that its leaders recklessly cast aspersions on their own members? And in making the point, the COP Report carefully omits the only character references I made in reference to Ms Loh and Mr Nathan.
And what did I say? I quote, that \"they are decent, good people and have done a lot for the party\". I still hold that view.
Finally, Mr Speaker, the COP's case at its highest relies on one pillar – it believes Ms Khan's evidence that she had been told to take her lie to the grave. This belief rests on an uncorroborated piece of evidence, a WhatsApp text originating from Ms Khan herself.
The COP deems the fact of its contemporaneousness to be critical in coming to its conclusion. The COP does not question Ms Khan's credibility even though she was the one who lied in this House, by her own admission, and even though she also lied when she first communicated with me about this matter.
So, if contemporaneous evidence is indeed central, one would expect the COP Report to exhibit a fidelity to such evidence. But it does not.
For example, at paragraph 93 of the Report, it makes the case that Ms Loh was surprised the DP was set up and that it advances Mr Nathan's view that the DP was self-serving.
However, what were Ms Loh's and Mr Nathan's contemporaneous views on the DP when it was set up? I submitted my WhatsApp texts with both of them to the COP. Once again, this evidence is left out from the COP Report.
For the record, Ms Loh's contemporaneous reply upon receiving my message was: \"I see. Is there something you need me to do?\"
Mr Nathan's reply was clearer: \"Hi, Pritam: Noted on this. I know it's difficult, but I think party members and supporters will be comforted by it.\"
These contemporaneous WhatsApp messages directly contradict the COP's findings at paragraph 93.
This leaves me to consider Ms Khan's behaviour after her resignation and her motivations for making her uncorroborated claim at the COP that she was told to take her lie to the grave. I would offer that the more natural explanation as to why she would do so is that it was in line with human behaviour, logic and common sense, to use the words of the COP. Her post-resignation behaviour was natural in the arena of political participation.
When our first Prime Minister executed the transfer of power from the 1G to 2G leadership, according to five-time PAP MP for Whampoa, Dr Augustine Tan, there was a lot of strain, tension and resentment when older Members and Ministers were told to step aside for the 2G PAP. In response, one outgoing Minister even spoke against the candidature of Prime Minister Lee at the 1984 elections. Such was the level of disenchantment.
The comparison with Ms Khan's behaviour and testimony at the COP is apt because not everyone reacts with loyalty to their party or their party leaders when they realise that the curtain is coming down on them or their political careers.
How did Toh Chin Chye, former Deputy Prime Minister and Chairman of the PAP, react when he was pushed to the backbench? He became a vocal critic of PAP policies and famously said, \"How can I remain a dumb cow?\" As to the handover of power, he said, \"For old party members who had been loyal, it was a painful process. You don't repay their loyalty by throwing them out. We had the responsibility to help them find jobs.\"
In fact, so serious was the concern of the unhappiness amongst some members of the PAP old guard about political renewal that the then Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew, as Secretary-General of the PAP, suggested to his Assistant Secretary-General Goh Chok Tong to pack new cadre members into the People's Action Party, in case the question of succession and renewal came to the fore at the next PAP party conference.
Sir, for the record, there are no \"jobs for the boys or girls\" for ex-Workers' Party MPs. When your departure is precipitated by an overwhelming loss of support from your party members and colleagues, except for your closest allies, from a human behaviour standpoint, I can understand why a person would turn against one's party leaders.
My final point, Mr Speaker, is on the legitimate questions raised by Singaporeans about candidate selection in the Workers' Party.
As this House knows, and as the Government has also previously shared, for example, when the chief of the Singapore Civil Defence Force was convicted in Court, no selection process is fool-proof, and people can change. Even PAP MPs have been found guilty of criminal conduct or forced by their party to vacate their seats for other reasons. Potential PAP general election candidates have also been substituted at the eleventh hour.
The point is that even people who exhibit politically attractive character traits can turn out to be unsuitable. The Workers' Party also has had its fair share of the same experience.
It can be very difficult, if not impossible, to test a person's judgement in all circumstances prior to fielding them as political candidates. This is so even for the PAP, with its massive resources and far greater ease in finding willing candidates, compared to opposition parties.
However, the Workers' Party does not use these realities as an excuse. In the main, our candidate selection processes can always be better in spite of the extraordinary circumstances and the political culture of a one-party dominant state.
I will confer with my colleagues with a view to finetune the processes in the Workers' Party as best as we can, taking into account the structural challenges we in the Opposition face. This would include the absolutely legitimate demands of Singaporeans that the Workers' Party field individuals who do not lower the esteem of Parliament, or who do not meet the standards expected of Members of Parliament. Of course, I will endeavour to the best of my abilities to ensure that our candidates are rational, responsible and respectable. And if any candidate selection decisions are wrong, I, as Secretary General of the party, take full responsibility.
In conclusion, with reference to the Leader of the House's First Motion at 2(c), the Workers' Party disagrees with the reasons behind the lower quantum of fine for Ms Khan, because it is predicated on alleged guidance given to her by myself, Ms Lim and Mr Faisal Manap, a case which the three of us reject.
On the Second Motion, I am unable to accept the COP's findings that offences have been committed under the Parliament Act by me or any other Workers' Party MPs. Therefore, I will object to the Second Motion as the basis for the recommendations is that offences may have been committed by us.
Nevertheless, should Parliament resolve to adopt the Motion, I intend to clear my name and will cooperate fully with the Public Prosecutor. In view of this, I have kept my comments on the COP Report for today's purposes very narrow and limited.
Mr Speaker: Dr Janil Puthucheary.
The Government Whip (Dr Janil Puthucheary): Mr Speaker, Mr Pritam Singh said that the recommendations by the Committee of Privileges rest on only one fact, only one pillar.
The reality is that in examining the evidence provided by him and his Workers' Party colleagues, MPs, cadre members, and the back and forth, the Committee came to conclusions on the basis of questions that they had, gaps in the logic, and omissions in the submissions of the documents.
The questions, gaps and omissions that he began his statement with are still present, and they are questions, gaps and omissions about what happened within the Workers' Party. What was the truth of the matter between him, his colleagues and Ms Raeesah Khan?
He talks about political partisanship and, unfortunately, the proceedings of the Committee of Privileges would lead a reasonable reader to come to the conclusion that it is him and his colleagues who engaged in political partisanship, by choosing to obfuscate the matter and to deal with Ms Raeesah Khan the way that they did.
He asked why was the Committee of Privileges not interested in getting to the bottom of why Ms Raeesah Khan lied. But actually, the reality is, they did. She herself gave a clearer explanation. He and his colleagues doubt that explanation and he has tried to justify why; I understand.
He asserts his innocence, but he has not yet filled in the gaps and omissions, nor has he answered the questions. These questions on the facts do go to the very heart of the matter as to whether or not Mr Singh has been honest in his dealings, including with Ms Khan.
On 8 August, Ms Khan went to Mr Singh, Mr Faisal Manap and Ms Lim, confessed to speaking an untruth in Parliament. And on their own evidence, not a word was spoken about how and when Ms Khan would tell the truth. In fact, Mr Faisal Manap said zero discussions were had; no question, no comment, despite an extensive discussion about a completely separate matter. Mr Singh has not explained how this is possible or even half credible.
Why is it that they were able to discuss the clarificatory statement on FGC and polygamy, but felt unable to make a single comment on a far bigger issue, a lie told in Parliament? Is this credible that this could have happened?
As to their concern about her mental state, why was there not a single word spoken between them, not a single contemporaneous exchange of email messages? What did they discuss amongst themselves? What did they decide to do or not to do? More importantly, why was there not a single step taken to prepare Ms Khan to tell the truth?
By their own admission, in the almost two months that followed the meeting on 8 August, there was no discussion, no one spoke to each other. Neither Mr Faisal Manap nor Ms Lim asked Mr Singh what he was doing to ensure that the truth will come out. Did Mr Singh check with Ms Khan or her parents as to whether they had become aware of the sexual assault? As Mr Singh has explained, he has perhaps given a bit too much time, but he stated it as a precondition, his foremost concern, he did not once ask about this.
The Workers' Party CEC was also not aware, neither were the Party members or cadres. In short, not a single step taken all the way from August until 3 October, remotely could be construed as preparing Ms Raeesah Khan to come clean and tell the truth. Why? We still do not know. That is an omission, a gap, a question.
But looking at all the rest of the statements, the evidence that is produced, is it not consistent with Ms Khan's account, which is that, if the matter did not come up, she would not have to tell the truth? Then, the truth could remain buried.
Mr Singh should explain clearly why no steps were taken, if indeed it was important and it remains important for Workers' Party MPs to come clean, to tell the truth, to clarify an untruth told in Parliament, as he claims.
On 3 October, Mr Singh went to see Ms Khan, did not tell Mr Faisal or Ms Lim about this meeting. He says that he made it clear that Ms Khan should tell the truth. But he also admits, at the same time, that he did not say to her that she should tell the truth. Only four words were necessary. Five words. \"Raeesah, tell the truth, please.\" Five words. Why did he not say that? Why did he instead, say another five words, \"I will not judge you\"? Not judging someone is only relevant if Ms Khan was to continue the lie. There was nothing to judge if she was going to be truthful.
If he had been so clear with Ms Khan, why is it then on 4 October, when Minister Shanmugam raised the matter, Ms Khan texted Mr Singh, \"What should I do, Pritam?\"
So, she continued with what she was told to do: continue with the narrative, continue with the lie. But Mr Singh's conduct tells us something as well. If he had been clear with Ms Khan to clarify the lie, why did he not respond to Ms Khan on that day and say, \"It has already been made clear. Tell the truth. There are no two ways about it.\" Why not insist that she stand up, correct the untruth that she had just repeated? Why not do this when she had just repeated the lie in front of him and the entire Parliament? And later, when they met, what did Ms Khan say? Mr Singh himself said that the first words to him were, \"Perhaps, there is another way, that is, to tell the truth\". Which to a reasonable person, sounds very clear. Ms Khan was suggesting to Mr Singh a different path away from telling a lie. Again, why not, at that point, make it clear that she needed to come back to Parliament now and clarify?
One untruth is a problem. The second time, worse. And why not at that point, ensure that the second lie in Parliament, the one which he, Ms Lim and Mr Faisal Manap were aware of to be a lie, be clarified immediately?
The Workers' Party stands for honesty, integrity, accountability. Where was all of that when Mr Singh was privy to a lie being told again in Parliament? And for all the excuses given about making sure that her father was aware, did Mr Singh ask Ms Khan whether her father was aware already? He says no. But why not? It was so important, it was the only reason he offers for Ms Khan not having to come clean earlier. Yet, at the critical moment, he does not bother to ask, he does not get the details.
On top of this, the Committee of Privileges heard from Ms Loh Pei Ying and Mr Yudhishthra Nathan. They both spoke to Mr Singh independently on 12 October, when he gave an account of what he had discussed with Ms Khan on 3 October. Both came away with the clear consensus that he had given Ms Khan an option, a choice. It was for her to decide. Completely contrary to what Mr Singh had said to the Committee of Privileges.
This is further supported by Ms Lim's own contemporaneous written notes on 29 November Disciplinary Panel meeting with Ms Khan. Mr Singh himself had described what he had said to Ms Khan on 3 October as, \"It was your call\". Mr Singh accepts that she, Ms Lim, was accurate in her recording. This makes it quite clear. Mr Singh was recounting his own conversation with Ms Khan on 3 October and said, \"It was your call\".
Again, an omission, a question left unanswered which runs up against Mr Singh's self-professed understanding that Ms Khan was left with no doubt on 3 October that she would have to come and tell the truth the next day.
On 7 October, the Police sent an email to ask Ms Khan for an interview. Ms Khan ignored it after counselling with Mr Singh, Ms Lim and Mr Faisal Manap. Why not advise her to come clean if that was so important to them? If it had been the intention all along for Ms Khan to come clean, explain herself, clarify the lie, then why not cooperate with the Police when they asked? What is there to hide if you are interested in integrity, honesty and accountability?
Further, Ms Khan then writes to Mr Singh and the others and says, \"Thank you for guiding me through this without judgment\". And according to the various testimonies, as of 7 October, exactly what guidance had been given? The only guidance that we are clear on her testimony was for her to continue with the narrative and not judge her. She had repeated the lie three days earlier. It underscores the idea that Mr Singh meant on 3 October when he assured her he would not judge her: follow the guidance, continue with the lie, there will be no judgement.
It was Mr Singh's own evidence that 12 October was the first time that Ms Khan was told that she should come to Parliament and tell the truth. That is the first time that this was expressed: for Ms Khan to tell the truth here in this House, to Parliament. At no time prior to this did Mr Singh tell Ms Khan that she should tell the truth, including when he had heard her double down on the lie on 4 October. Why?
Members will also remember that Mr Singh changed his evidence before the Committee of Privileges on this key point several times. He first said that Ms Khan was to come clean and raise it on her own accord, regardless of whether it was brought up or not. If that is the case, then he must have known on 3 October that it will come up one way or another on 4 October. Which means some preparation would have to be done prior to 4 October. But when it was pointed out to him that not a single step in preparation was done, he then changed his evidence. He then said she would bring it up and clarify only if she was asked. What is the truth? There is still a gap, an omission and a question. And Mr Singh has not provided an answer to it.
But the reality is that none of these questions, which go to the heart of the issue, has been addressed. These are important because they tell us whether Mr Singh has been honest or not in his evidence to the Committee of Privileges. These also tell us the kind of conduct that Mr Singh is prepared to engage in, in order to keep a lie hidden. Keep a lie, a lie.
Mr Singh should come out clearly and tell Parliament what is his response to the specific findings in the Committee of Privileges. What is his explanation for the various inconsistencies that have occurred on the facts based on his own accord? What is his explanation for the complete and deafening silence about an absence of steps whatsoever that could have been seen as consistent with wanting the lie to be clarified? For months, why is there nothing between him, Ms Lim and Mr Faisal Manap? Why is there no contemporaneous communication between them? Between me and my colleagues, just to settle what time we should meet in order to go through our Parliamentary Questions, we would exchange various pages of emails. But this, for a most important matter, nothing. Deafening silence. If it is so, it is hard to believe.
What about the Disciplinary Panel, which was set up to look into Ms Khan's conduct? Why not disclose to the Workers' Party CEC, their own members and their own cadres, that, in fact, Ms Khan had already admitted, come clean to three of the senior Workers' Party leaders, that they had discussed it with her, given her guidance and also disclosed that Mr Singh met with Ms Khan on 3 October? If indeed he had told her to tell the truth, would that not be relevant to the proceedings of the Disciplinary Panel? Would that, not mean that Ms Khan had gone against and disobeyed Mr Singh's advice and instructions?
If you look at it as a reasonable person, one conclusion is that Mr Singh's account of the facts did not happen. Which is why Mr Singh was eager to suppress this highly relevant and critical bit of information – the involvement of all three Disciplinary Panel members and their knowledge from August about the lie.
Still, a gap, an omission and a question unexplained.
Not explaining questions, not answering questions were something that Mr Faisal Manap also did. He refused to answer questions put to him by the Select Committee. He asked for this to be recorded. Quite extraordinary. I was quite struck by how extraordinary this behaviour was when I was watching it. He must have understood the severe consequences. Watching the video, reading the transcripts, the conclusion I came to at the time is that he knew that saying anything at all would be damaging to Mr Singh and Ms Lim. He could have lied to protect them. But he chose to remain silent, understanding the consequences, because lying under oath or affirmation, lying to a Select Committee, is a serious matter, needs to be dealt with properly.
People I have spoken to about the Committee of Privileges, my residents, have not always followed the intricate details of the allegations in the testimony. But when I asked them the question, did Mr Pritam Singh lie, the response is usually one of: \"maybe\", \"possibly\", \"probably\" or \"I don't know\".
Most reasonable people admit a serious possibility that he might have lied. And the Committee of Privileges has come to the conclusion that he did, indeed, lie, a serious transgression that, ordinarily, would require an investigation, leading either to exoneration or prosecution. Ordinarily, because that is the standard of the law that should apply to all of us.
Mr Singh and the Members of the WP have made many speeches – rhetorical flourishes about accountability and transparency. They put across the idea that these are high principles that they believe in. But a key test of one's principles is whether you apply them to yourself for a greater good because action speaks volumes, much more than high-soaring rhetoric. And there is no sign of that action in the details that the Committee of Privileges has recorded about what happened within the WP, away from the public spotlight, their communications, the conduct of the Disciplinary Panel, the statements by Mr Singh, their actions and their inactions.
What now is the right thing to do, given that the Committee of Privileges has found Mr Singh to have lied? What now is the right thing to do if you are not convinced by the Committee of Privileges Report, but you accept that Mr Singh may have lied?
Mr Speaker, in both cases, I believe the right thing to do is to support the Motion for three reasons.
First, we cannot normalise lying by politicians or, even worse, reward it. This sorry saga has already eroded trust in our institution. Only a clear and unambiguous resolution will restore trust in the political process.
Second, we must consider the impact on the future of our parliamentary democracy. We would not accept such behaviour among our own MPs or anyone else. We did not let the matter rest when there was suspicion that Ms Khan lied to the House. We must hold Mr Singh to the same standard.
In future, there will be mistakes, there will be transgressions. We must be able to deal with them and MPs must not think they can get away with lying, deceiving Parliament and the public. They must come clean, apologise and face the consequences. As a House, we must maintain our standards and our moral imperative to do the right thing now and for the future.
Third, Mr Speaker, the allegation that Mr Singh planned and executed, what sounds like a ruthless deception of his party, the public and Parliament, under oath to the Select Committee and then, possibly, threw his own party cadres under the bus when they exposed him, it cannot be left to fester unresolved, weakening trust in politics, politicians and this institution. It must be dealt with unambiguously and, if necessary, by the Courts with neither fear nor favour, for the sake of our democratic institutions.
Mr Speaker, what we do now will set the tone and standards for our future. It will, indeed, impact upon our democracy and the strengthening of our institutions, but in the opposite way that many members in the media have described. To oppose the Motions before us is to say that one values who a person is more than what they do – the very opposite of our ideals of meritocracy. To oppose the Motions is to say that a politically useful outcome is more important than upholding values, to accept the weakening of norms as an acceptable price to pay for political success. And I find this all unacceptable.
To support the Motions is to fight for a Singapore that is special, where politicians can be trusted and are expected to be honest, capable and upright. To support the Motions is to fight for a Singapore where politicians do the right thing, not the politically convenient thing. To support the Motions is to believe in our values and our integrity. Therefore, Mr Speaker, I support the Motions.
Mr Speaker: Minister Desmond Lee.
The Minister for National Development (Mr Desmond Lee): Mr Speaker, a clarification for the Leader of the Opposition. As a Member of the Committee of Privileges, I heard Mr Singh say earlier, very specifically, that, I quote, \"I had somehow weaponised her condition\", referring, I presume, to the Committee of Privileges' findings on what he had said about Ms Khan's purported mental health conditions; \"weaponised her condition\". Perhaps I can ask the Leader of the Opposition where in the Report he sees us use that term.
Mr Pritam Singh: Mr Speaker, let me have a look at the Report. It is in my folder; I will reply to that.
Mr Speaker: Yes, you may. Prime Minister.
Mr Pritam Singh: Mr Speaker, I think the Prime Minister can go ahead with his speech. I will try and get the information as soon as possible. But I think, generally speaking, the nature of the way my decision to bring up Ms Khan's condition was expressed in my speech for three reasons. I brought up those three reasons. I think it is incontrovertible that the COP used very uncharitable, I would even say unparliamentary, words to describe what I did. So, my speech sought to explain why I felt I was legitimate in raising the matter of Ms Khan's condition.
Mr Desmond Lee: Mr Speaker, just to clarify, is Mr Singh saying that he saw the word \"weaponise\" in the Report and he referenced it in his speech earlier?
Mr Pritam Singh: Mr Speaker, I just said I will have to check that. Let me have a look at it. I think it is a fair question. If, indeed, that word was not used and it was not right for me to use it, I am happy to withdraw it. But let me just, at least, look at the Report.
Mr Desmond Lee: Mr Speaker, I ask because \"weaponise a condition\" was a very specific term which was used in a draft of the Report's findings but which was subsequently taken out when the Committee discussed this in secrecy. And, so, it does not appear anywhere in the Report. So, I would like to ask the Leader of the Opposition, who told him about the use of the term \"weaponised\" with respect to Ms Khan's mental health condition?
Mr Pritam Singh: Mr Speaker, I looked at how the COP Report had put together that particular paragraph regarding Ms Khan's mental health condition. And this was the word that occurred to me as to what the COP was trying to do.
Mr Speaker: Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister (Mr Lee Hsien Loong): Mr Speaker, Sir, according to the Order Paper, we are debating what actions Parliament should take, having received the Report of the Committee of Privileges. But as the Leader of the House told us just now, the broader issue before us is how democracy should work in Singapore.
What are the institutions, the norms, the values, that are essential for our democratic system to function properly? How do we apply these general principles to specific cases, like the one before us now, so as to protect these institutions, norms and values? And how can we secure our democracy for the future, so that it can long deliver happiness, prosperity and progress for our nation? These are the three more fundamental questions that I wish to discuss today.
The quality of a country's democracy hinges on its people's values: what they judge to be right or wrong, what they deem important, the causes they espouse, the ideals they embrace. Whichever example you look at, at whatever point in history, you will find that good and functioning democracies have clear, strong norms. These norms are upheld both by the governed and those who govern them, or those who aspire to govern them one day.
That is how healthy democratic systems can elect good, incorruptible people with the right values and drive a virtuous cycle where good democracy begets good governance, and good governance begets good politics.
This cycle must be underpinned and sustained by strong institutions. Parliament sits at the apex of our system of democracy. It is where the most important matters of state are discussed, laws are enacted, supplies of money are voted, with the Government setting the direction and proposing policies, while answering to the public through Parliament and the Opposition holding the Government to account while also being a government-in-waiting should the ruling party lose the support of the people.
To fulfil its vital role, Parliament must be respected and its Members, processes and proceedings must be trusted.
Clear norms and incorruptible values are essential to protecting the dignity and standing of Parliament. The system cannot work if the standing of Parliament is called into question. This is why we need to set the right norms of conduct among Parliamentarians and guard them carefully. Tell the truth always and do the right thing by Singapore, even when it is hard or awkward; in fact, especially when it is hard or awkward. If something goes wrong, or something wrong has been done, own up and take responsibility. Do not hide, dodge or spin further lies, to obfuscate and cover up the original fib.
The right norms can only be upheld by people with the right values because norms are not merely social conventions that people comply with for appearance's sake. They have to be expressions of internal values that people believe in and hold dear. MPs must be people with integrity at their core, who speak and act in an upright manner, always putting duty before self, and country before party.
And our highest duty – our ultimate loyalty – is not to our party, but to Singapore. That is why when taking office, MPs swear \"to bear true faith and allegiance to the Republic of Singapore\". In fact, this applies to everyone engaged in Singapore politics, MP or not.
As Workers' Party cadre Ms Loh Pei Ying, who was Mr Pritam Singh's former assistant, told the Committee: \"It pains me greatly, but to me, beyond anything else, it's important to be truthful to my country\". I believe every Member of this House will agree with her.
Our democratic system also depends on the people of Singapore: voters endorsing, insisting on and backing the same norms and values, so that they can discern for themselves – as Ms Loh did – when something is wrong and hold accountable those in power, or aspiring to power, when their actions fall short of these high standards. That is how a democracy can function properly.
Inculcating voters and their leaders with the right values is the work of decades. It takes unremitting effort and passion, and it does not always succeed.
Most countries are founded and start off on the basis of high ideals and noble values. But more often than not, beyond the founding leaders and the pioneer generation, over decades and generations, gradually things change.
Things start off with passionate intensity. The leaders, who fought for and won independence, are often exceptional individuals of great courage, immense culture and outstanding ability. They came through the crucible of fire and emerged as leaders of men and nations. They are the David Ben-Gurions, the Jawaharlal Nehrus and we have our own, too.
Imbued with enormous personal prestige, they strive to meet the high expectations of their peoples to build a brave new world and shape a whole new future for their peoples and for their countries.
But beyond that initial fervour, succeeding generations often find it hard to sustain this momentum and drive. They start out as healthy democracies with idealism and zeal. But over time, the tone of the society changes. All too easily – a slip here, a blind eye there, a fudge, a trim – and gradually things go downhill. The texture of politics changes. Respect for politicians declines. After a while, the electorate comes to think this is the norm and you cannot expect better. And so, standards get debased, trust is eroded and the country declines further.
Many political systems today would be quite unrecognisable to their founding leaders. Ben-Gurion's Israel has morphed into one which can barely form a government, despite four general elections in two years. Meanwhile, a stream of senior politicians and officials in Israel face a litany of criminal charges, some have gone to jail. While Nehru's India has become one where, according to media reports, almost half the MPs in the Lok Sabha have criminal charges pending against them, including charges of rape and murder, though it is also said that many of these allegations are politically-motivated.
What is to prevent Singapore from going down the same road? Nothing. We are not intrinsically smarter or more virtuous than other countries. Modern Singapore does not come born with a fail-safe mechanism. Our founding fathers did their best to build strong foundations and institutions. Even after the Barisan Socialis, which was then the main opposition party, decided to vacate its seats in Parliament in 1966 and left the field entirely to the PAP, our founding fathers maintained our parliamentary democracy and multi-party system.
As Mr Lee Kuan Yew once explained at that time, with the PAP completely dominant, he could have changed the Constitution and made this a one-party state. But he deliberately chose not to because he knew that, without the need to contest and win elections, the governing party would, over time, become complacent and flabby and that would be disastrous for Singapore.
So, the founding fathers took the more robust way. They kept politics contestable, they built up institutions, Parliament, the Judiciary, the Civil Service, the Police and Armed Forces and, later, the Elected President and the Council of Presidential Advisers to enable Singapore to operate on a more resilient basis, not dependent on a few key people pulling all the levers, pushing all the buttons, making everything work. Still, to operate these institutions, you need good people and they needed to recruit, train and deploy Ministers, Members of Parliament, Judges, civil servants, experts in many fields, people of ability and commitment with a sense of public service and, above all, with honesty and integrity whom Singaporeans could rely upon to do their duty, put Singapore first and make this country succeed. And that is how the system we have today came to be.
It is incumbent on all of us, each succeeding generation, to protect and build upon this system that we have inherited and this requires us to uphold integrity, enforce rules and standards, apply the same rules equally to everyone, make sure nobody is above the law. If we can do that consistently, persistently, unflinchingly, then we have a shot at making things work.
People can trust our leaders, systems and institutions, our democracy can mature, deepen and grow more resilient. As both the governed and the governing embrace and express the right norms and values, Singapore can continue to flourish.
But if we allow ourselves to slacken, loosen standards here just a bit, overlook a lie there just this time, the virtuous cycle will stutter and start to fail.
What is the key factor that keeps this virtuous cycle going, keeps Singapore on the up and not on the down? It is trust.
On his 100th birthday, Mr George Shultz, the former US Secretary of State, reflected on this. This was a year and a bit ago, December 2020. He wrote an op-ed upon reaching 100 years old and he said it was one of the most important lessons in his long life that trust is the \"coin of the realm\". \"When trust was in the room,\" he wrote, \"good things happened. When trust was not in the room, good things did not happen. Everything else is details.\"
We saw how this worked in the COVID-19 pandemic. Trust was a key factor why some countries did better than others. I have been saying this for two years but, recently, there was a study published in the Lancet, a British medical journal, which confirmed this. It studied multiple countries and found that countries with high levels of trust and, together with low corruption, saw lower infection rates and higher vaccine coverage because the people's trust in government and their trust in one another made much more difference to the outcome than the resources spent on healthcare and even whether they had a universal healthcare system or not. What mattered mostest was: did they trust one another, did they trust their leaders?
Singapore is fortunate to be one of these \"high trust\" societies. We have tried to build upon it during the pandemic but it is something that we have today because we have nurtured it for decades and built it up patiently, assiduously, step by step, never allowing it to be eroded and, therefore, having this with us when we go into battle. An enormous asset.
The opposite happened in other countries, for example, in the US and the UK. In the US, trust in the political system has all but broken down. Three-quarters of Republican voters have been made to believe that the last presidential election in 2020 was stolen, that Mr Biden is not a legitimate president and Mr Trump should be the president today. How do you uphold a system when a large segment of the population is convinced that the elected government is illegitimate? Every issue is politicised, government becomes gridlocked, the country suffers. And that is a key reason why many Americans refused to be vaccinated or to wear masks, why they revolt against measures to keep themselves safe and why they have suffered so many COVID-19 deaths.
Or look at the ongoing uproar in Britain about the \"partygate\" scandal in Westminster, the Mother of Parliaments no less. The scandal has been attributed to failures of leadership and judgement in an official government report. By ignoring its own rules, the current UK government has caused a severe breakdown of trust and lost credibility in its COVID-19 controls.
Singapore may be a \"high trust\" society today, but nothing guarantees that we will always remain one. It is essential that we steadfastly maintain our high standards, ensure that we have leaders who embody the right values, call out wrongs when wrongs are done, mete out punishment when punishment is due, preserve the sanctity of our institutions, never take public trust for granted and never allow lies, half-truths and falsehoods to become the accepted norm in politics. That is what is at stake as we deliberate Parliament's response to the Committee of Privileges' Report.
Ms Raeesah Khan lied in Parliament twice on 3 August last year and the third time when questioned two months later on 4 October. Subsequently, she admitted to lying to Parliament. To deal with this breach of Parliamentary privilege, we convened the Committee of Privileges. Ms Raeesah Khan was called up, as were other witnesses. The Committee deliberated extensively before reaching a reasoned conclusion that Ms Khan was guilty and should be fined for each occasion she lied. I hope all Members can agree with these findings and the penalty to be imposed on Ms Khan.
But in the process of the Committee's deliberations, two other significant issues arose. The Committee has drawn them to Parliament's attention and suggested to Parliament how to deal with them. First, whether the three Workers' Party leaders, Mr Pritam Singh, Mr Faisal Manap and Ms Sylvia Lim, had instructed Ms Khan to continue with her lie in Parliament. If they did, this is surely as serious or more serious than misconduct as Ms Khan speaking an untruth in Parliament. Parliament will need to deal with this, but only after we have cleared the second even graver matter and this graver matter is, as the Leader has explained, whether, after having taken solemn oaths to tell the truth, the three Workers' Party leaders told untruths to the Committee of Privileges in order to cover up their instructions to Ms Khan to continue lying.
It became clear to the COP that there were striking contradictions between what the three Members of Parliament claimed to the Committee were their honourable intentions and the hard evidence of what they actually did or very often failed to do. And there were serious inconsistencies even between the accounts of the Workers' Party leaders. Being untruthful under oath is no small matter. It means lying despite solemnly affirming that you will tell the truth, in this case, not once, not twice, but repeatedly, over many hours of extensive questioning and on several days.
The Committee's assessment is that these untruths were not accidental or incidental errors but deliberate premeditated acts done with a definite intent to mislead and to deceive. They are not just breaches of parliamentary privilege but, if proven in Court, they amount to perjury, lying under oath, and perjury is a serious criminal offence.
So, there are two distinct problems. One, whether the three Members of Parliament instructed Ms Khan to lie; and, two, whether the three Members of Parliament themselves lied under oath. Both, if established, reflect very badly on the Workers' Party leaders and, in particular, on the Leader of the Opposition. Both issues, if not dealt with properly, will dishonour Parliament and bring this august institution into disrepute.
Some asked: was Ms Khan not the one who lied? Why are the Workers' Party leaders being treated more harshly? As the Leader of the House noted just now, if the Committee is right, then Mr Singh and his fellow Workers' Party leaders themselves lied and presented untruths to the Committee. They lied under oath to protect themselves, to cover up their role and to push the blame solely onto Ms Khan, claiming that she and other witnesses, like Ms Loh Pei Ying, had lied to the Committee. This is, indeed, more serious than what Ms Khan did, if it is so. By lying under oath, they sought to frustrate the Committee process. They displayed the same kind of misconduct that the Committee was set up to address. They betrayed the trust reposed in them as Members of Parliament and, not least, Mr Pritam Singh, the Leader of the Opposition. And this, I hope, Members appreciate, if true, is a very grave matter.
So, Members must decide what Parliament will now do about this. Can we pretend nothing happened? Or if that is too much to stomach, given the strong evidence laid out by the Committee, perhaps we lower our standards just a little, note that untruths were told but argue that it was, after all, not so serious a lie and no harm was done.
If we do either of these things, we, too, would become complicit in dishonouring and demeaning Parliament. We must take the transgressions seriously and act on it and I am glad that is the conclusion the Committee has come to and recommended to the House.
What alternative choices did the Committee have? It could have recommended to Parliament to administer a token slap on the wrist. But that would show that we were taking a very serious matter rather lightly. Worse, by lowering our norms, we would be telling Singaporeans that it is really not so bad for elected leaders to lie.
Alternatively, the Committee could have recommended that Parliament itself metes out an appropriately heavy penalty. This is something that Parliament has the power to do. But had the Committee recommended that and Parliament decided on the penalty itself, the Opposition would surely have cried foul and accused the PAP of using its majority to persecute the Opposition. In fact, they are already insinuating this as a smokescreen to obscure the real issue, that the Workers' Party had lied while under solemn oath.
I believe, therefore, that what the Committee recommends is the best way forward.
Since a criminal offence appears to have been committed, let Parliament refer the matter to the Public Prosecutor. Let the Public Prosecutor consider the evidence afresh. Let the system work. If the charges are filed, Mr Pritam Singh and also Mr Faisal Manap can defend themselves in Court. The Court will have to be satisfied that their guilt has been established beyond reasonable doubt and, if they are innocent, they have nothing to fear.
I commend this course of action to the House. And if I were Mr Singh, I would vote in favour of both Motions.
Fine Ms Khan, because she is guilty beyond doubt. In fact, Mr Singh's own party member Mr Dennis Tan, who was on the Committee, thinks she should be fined more heavily for the second offence.
And if Mr Singh maintains that he and his fellow Workers' Party leaders have done nothing wrong, he should also vote in favour of referring his own case and that of Mr Faisal Manap to the PP. Indeed, he should demand a Court trial, in order to have the full opportunity to defend himself, to vindicate his reputation and clear his name. That is what I would do if I were Mr Singh.
Regrettably, pro-Workers' Party voices on the social media have taken quite a different tack. Before the matter can be conclusively determined, if necessary, in Court, they are doing their best to confuse the issues and rouse sympathy. They are asking the public to clear the names of the three MPs, suggesting that referring the case to the PP is political persecution.
What they are really saying is this: do not look too carefully at what Mr Singh did. Just remember who he is. He is the Opposition that you voted for. He is the Leader of the Opposition. By virtue of his position, he should not be referred to the PP and any action against him must, by definition, be politically-motivated. Because who he is is more important than what he has done – even if he may have committed a crime.
Some people may be taken in and sympathise with this story. They say, why not just let the matter rest? Can we not find a compromise solution? After all, it would be easier for the Government not to have to pursue this matter against the three MPs. We have a full enough agenda.
But, Mr Speaker, as long as the PAP is the Government, we will not shy away from doing whatever is necessary to uphold the right norms in this House and to imbue Singaporeans and their leaders with the values critical to sustain trust in the system and critical to our success.
Mr Singh succeeded Mr Low Thia Khiang as Secretary General of the Workers' Party. Mr Low served for a very long time – 30 years as an MP, 17 years as party leader. He sat opposite me, where Mr Singh now sits. Mr Low was a formidable political opponent, but he was a patriotic Singaporean. He set a different tone for the Workers' Party. He said he hoped the Workers' Party could help to build a \"First World Parliament\" in Singapore. He must be saddened that, instead, this is what his successor has done.
Because what has happened is a betrayal of what Workers' Party claimed that it stood for. But judging by Mr Low Thia Khiang's public comments, he is confident the party can ride this out. And it need not be a setback for our democracy either, provided we hold Mr Singh and his colleagues accountable for dishonouring the standards of this House, and also for possibly breaking the law.
Mr Speaker, we are all engaged in the same project – to build up Singapore's democracy and create a political system that will serve Singaporeans well for many years to come, and, to do that, we must uphold the right norms and reinforce the right values. I know Singaporeans want to see more political contestation and I accept that. I expect that is the way Singapore will go in the longer term. That is how every parliamentary democracy evolves and it was precisely because I recognised this, that on election night in 2020, after the Workers' Party won a second GRC in Sengkang, I offered to make Mr Singh the Leader of the Opposition and equip him with the resources and support to play this role. That is the way a responsible government can help a credible, responsible opposition to emerge and contribute to the maturing of our political system.
But the office of Leader of the Opposition carries certain responsibilities: setting the tone for opposition MPs; enforcing standards of conduct on his own party; and, above all, maintaining his own integrity and keeping himself beyond reproach. The Leader of the Opposition does not have a blank cheque.
Mr Speaker, integrity is the linchpin of democracy.
The stakes of today's debate might have been lower if the opposition were a negligible presence, as they were from 1966 until the 1980s. The PAP was overwhelmingly dominant. The public, generally, had low expectations of opposition parties and politicians. The tone of the country and its governance was set by the PAP and the high standards that the PAP imposed on itself.
But with Singapore heading towards a more contested political landscape, the competence and honesty of the opposition is no longer an inconsequential matter. The question of \"what are the right values and how should we uphold them?\" becomes of fundamental importance for both the opposition and the governing party. Every election, henceforth, will be about who wins the mandate to run this country.
If the system is working properly, the governing party will be re-elected so long as it remains honest, competent and trusted. If the governing party falls short and Singaporeans come to deem an opposition party more honest and incorruptible, more competent and more trustworthy, then the governing party should be voted out, and that opposition party should be voted in to form the next government.
We cannot assume that the PAP will always continue in Government. Nor can we assume that the Workers' Party, or some other opposition party, or any other opposition party, will always stay in the opposition. I do not know when, or how, there will be a change of governing party in Singapore one day. My job as party leader is to make sure the PAP governs well to the best of its ability, so that it retains the mandate of the people for as many elections as possible.
But my duty as the leader of the country is also to maximise the chances that whichever party wins future elections, it will uphold and be held to the same high standards of proper conduct and honesty as the PAP, so that our democratic system can continue to operate properly, whichever party is in charge, and would not go down the drain.
Because a small island city-state like Singapore – the only one in the world like this – needs a strong, effective and good government, whoever leads it. With our lives and future at stake, everyone participating in the system must be held to the same standards. There can be no excuses, no double standards and no pardoning of inexcusable behaviour, just because the offending party portrays itself as the underdog.
Mr John Major, the former British Prime Minister recently made a speech, triggered by \"partygate\", I am sure, lamenting the state of British politics today. It was a cri de coeur cry from the heart. Let me read you a few excerpts:
\"There has been cynicism about politics from the dawn of time. We are told that politicians are 'all the same' and this untruth conditions electors to condone lies as though they were the accepted currency of public life.\"
\"But politicians are not 'all the same'. And lies are just not acceptable.\"
\"To imply otherwise is to cheapen public life and slander the vast majority of elected politicians who do not knowingly mislead.\"
\"But some do – and their behaviour is corrosive. This tarnishes both politics and the reputation of Parliament. It is a dangerous trend.”
\"If lies become commonplace, truth ceases to exist. What and who, then, can we believe? The risk is … nothing and no-one. And where are we then?\"
\"If trust in the word of our leaders in Parliament is lost – then trust in government will be lost too.\"
John Major's is a Western view, but in Eastern societies, too, norms and values are crucial. In fact, even more than in Western philosophy because Western philosophy says \"checks and balances\" but Eastern philosophy says \"your virtue, your moral standing, that is what gives you the right to govern.\"
In Confucian thought, there are four social guidelines, there is \"四维\", that hold a state together: rituals, righteousness, probity and shame – \"礼义廉耻\".
Probity, or desisting from corruption, is about upright behaviour; it is a norm that can be enforced using laws. But shame, a reaction to wrongdoing, is a moral disposition; it is about one's own sense of right and wrong, whether we know we have done the right thing, or we know we have fallen short even when nobody said so. That has to come from within ourselves, from our own values, our own consciences.
Absent that sense of shame, people may comply with laws for fear of punishment, but they will lack the moral compass to do the right thing simply because it is the right thing to do and to take responsibility when they have fallen short of the standards expected of them.
What I personally find most disappointing in the Workers' Party narrative and in their response, including in this House today, is the complete absence of any admission that the three MPs have done anything wrong. There is no contrition. Whether from a Western or an Eastern view, if lack of shame becomes the public norm, our political system will break down, progressively and irreversibly.
Mr Speaker: Order. Leader.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Time Limit for Prime Minister's Speech","subTitle":"Suspension of Standing Orders","sectionType":"OS","content":"The Leader of the House (Ms Indranee Rajah): Mr Speaker, may I seek your consent and the general assent of Members present to move that the proceedings on the item under discussion be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order 48(8) to remove the time limit in respect of the Prime Minister's speech?
Mr Speaker: I give my consent. Does the Leader of the House have the general assent of hon Members present to so move?
[(proc text) Hon Members indicated assent. (proc text)]
[(proc text) With the consent of Mr Speaker and the general assent of Members present, question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Resolved, \"That the proceedings on the item under discussion be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order 48(8) in respect of the Prime Minister's speech.\" – [Ms Indranee Rajah].(proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Committee of Privileges Report (Recommendations in respect of Ms Raeesah Khan) and Committee of Privileges Report (Recommendations in respect of Mr Pritam Singh, Mr Faisal Manap and Ms Sylvia Lim)","subTitle":"Simultaneous debate on Motions","sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]
The Prime Minister (Mr Lee Hsien Loong): Mr Speaker, Sir, whether we take a Western or an Eastern view, if lack of shame becomes the public norm, our political system will break down, progressively and irreversibly. The public will mistrust not only individual leaders, or particular political parties, but the whole political system. This has happened too often elsewhere.
If that happens, what do you do? What can you do? How can democracy function when there is no one we can trust to put in charge? How do you put Humpty Dumpty together again? How do you restart from zero? Press reset?
A democracy not founded on integrity stands on shaky ground and will sooner or later totter. If instead of trust being “the coin of the realm”, as George Shultz puts it, lies become “the accepted currency of public life”, as John Major said, all the sound and fury of contestation and debate will signify nothing good for the country.
As Singapore politics grows more competitive, we must make sure that the competition is honest, impartial and above-board, where the system runs properly and our institutions remain sacred and respected by all, where good people work together constructively to serve Singaporeans, wherever they stand on the political spectrum. And most basic of all, where Singaporeans can trust those who represent them to conduct themselves honestly and honourably, and act on behalf of the public and of Singapore.
Mr Speaker, the Committee Report is long and detailed, but the core issues are few and stark.
We have scrutinised Ms Raeesah Khan’s actions, and their rights and wrongs. She has admitted her wrongdoings and will be punished appropriately for them. We thought the matter could be closed off straightforwardly, but there turned out to be a much larger problem.
Online, people call this Raeesah-gate, after Watergate. And just like in the original Watergate affair, while investigating Ms Raeesah Khan’s transgressions, the Committee unexpectedly stumbled upon a cover-up by Workers' Party leaders, even more serious than the original offence.
The Committee did not expect this. But, now, with the findings before us, it is our responsibility, Parliament's responsibility, for the Members of Parliament (MPs) to take the necessary and appropriate course of action.
Mr Speaker, Sir, trust is crucial for democracy to work well. Being truthful is fundamental to establishing trust. Honesty is non-negotiable. If you tell lies, how can the public trust you? If someone in a position of responsibility tells lies and visibly gets away with it, how can the public trust the system? If Parliament condones lying among its own Members, how can Singaporeans trust the institution of Parliament?
If we let flagrant, egregious transgressions pass, it will erode trust in our leaders, respect for Parliament and support for our whole political system, and Singapore will be heading for trouble.
As the longest serving Member of this House, I feel a greater responsibility for this than most. When I first entered this House 37 years ago, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, Mr S Rajaratnam, Dr Toh Chin Chye, Mr Ong Pang Boon, Mr E W Barker and Mr Jek Yeun Thong were still Members. Six of the 10 who signed the Separation Agreement on 9 August 1965.
I have witnessed first-hand how the founding generation built up this place and handed it to us in good shape. For me, this is a sacred trust. And it should be a sacred trust to every MP. We must all never fail to serve Singaporeans to the best of our ability, responsibly and honestly, and uphold this institution of Parliament as the foundation of a robust and healthy democracy.
I call on all Members in this House, old and new, Government and Opposition, elected and nominated, to weigh the facts, vote with your conscience and join me to do your duty to Singapore. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Motions. [Applause.]
Mr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.
Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, just a few very brief points in response to the Prime Minister.
I agree with the Prime Minister in the main with regard to the sort of political system we want in our country: values of trust, honesty. I do not disagree with the Prime Minister.
My second point is with regard to his request to the House to vote in favour of both Motions. As I explained in my speech, the reasons why we are objecting, particularly to the First Motion, is with regard to limb 2(c). And the understanding behind limb 2(c) is that there is something for which Ms Raeesah Khan's fine, the quantum of the fine is what it is because the assumption is the COP has accepted that there is a mitigatory point to be made. We disagree with that because that is basically saying that we admit that we have told a lie to the Committee. And we disagree, certainly.
And for the same reason, we have to disagree with the Second Motion.
But as I made it clear in my speech, I am prepared to clear my name. And as a result, I will not be objecting to this House resolving to refer this matter to the Public Prosecutor. I have made the point that I will strive to clear my name not once, but I believe twice: first was in the introduction of my speech; and secondly, in the conclusion. And this is what I said, \"Should Parliament resolve to adopt the Motion, I intend to clear my name and will fully cooperate with the Public Prosecutor.\"
Mr Speaker: Minister Desmond Lee.
The Minister for National Development (Mr Desmond Lee): Mr Speaker, I would like to return to the earlier clarification that I sought. And the Leader of the House mentioned that after the Prime Minister's speech, he would let us know where he saw in the Report the reference to that specific term \"weaponised\".
I asked because it is a very specific word, it is a very specific way of characterisation. And this is important for the integrity of the COP process.
The initial draft read as follows: \"Mr Singh essentially weaponised unsubstantiated allegations that Ms Khan was unstable and unreliable and that she was prone to lying because of her mental health and this was connected to her being a sexual assault victim.\"
But in the Report before this House, which is the only public report put out, at page 58, paragraph 176(4), it says: \"Mr Singh then alleged that Ms Khan had mental health problems and suggested that she was predisposed to lying\", so on and so forth.
So, that phrase was debated in Committee and we decided to remove it. And this is what you see.
So, Mr Pritam Singh would not have reference to the specific term unless somehow earlier drafts were shared with him. So, can he confirm or deny that people told him about the drafts? So, that is my first clarification. I have a clarification to make after this.
Mr Speaker: Mr Singh.
Mr Pritam Singh: Mr Speaker, indeed, the word is not in the Committee Report. And I mentioned earlier that the word \"weaponised\" was my characterisation of what I made of that particular paragraph. Indeed, the word is also used publicly. I cannot remember whether I read this specifically, but Rice Media has an article which says: \"Now that the claims on Raeesah Khan's mental health have been refuted, how do you feel about weaponising an individual's mental health in an investigation?\"
So, generally, that was my characterisation of what I saw the COP Report was doing and, hence, the choice of my usage of the word \"weaponised\". I did not refer in my speech to saying that the Report specifically used the word \"weaponised\". I said, \"the most egregious is the conclusion that in seeking a psychiatric evaluation for Ms Khan, I had somehow weaponised her condition\". I hope that clarifies.
Mr Desmond Lee: Just to confirm before this House, Mr Singh was not referring to any drafts or reference to earlier drafts. No? Thank you.
Sir, can I just take the second clarification that in his speech, Mr Singh had said that the Committee of Privileges Report somehow was incomplete or inaccurate because it does not reflect all the evidence that was submitted. There was voluminous material submitted to the Committee and transcripts running to the thousands of pages, which we took time and care to go through.
He, in particular, said that the report did not reflect or did not capture or did not include or did not annex Ms Loh Pei Ying and Mr Yudhisthra Nathan's contemporaneous views about the formation of the DP as one example of his sense that the COP was not complete in its findings.
Mr Singh had cited a few lines from what Ms Loh Pei Ying and Mr Yudhisthra Nathan had sent in via WhatsApp. And Members had heard the exchange earlier, their responses to him when he messaged them about the DP hearing. What Mr Singh omitted to mention were two points.
First, that Ms Loh Pei Ying had messaged him to express grave reservations about the DP, as well as Mr Singh's suppression of material facts concerning his involvement to the DP. And I would like to read to Members because the Report annexes all of these.
On 10 November, I quote, Pei Ying tells Mr Singh: \"Hi Pritam, I've tried to reserve my comment on the Disciplinary Panel so far, but I just saw the message that was sent out to everyone. I feel that it's plain as day to me and people involved in her apology that this is a little backwards paddling. Clearly, the party didn't anticipate the backlash despite warnings, and it's trying to do something to quell people's anger. While I agree with it, I can empathise with it, I don't think it is at all fair to let party members think they have a say in this process. If this is done as a mock consultation exercise, then party members will be unhappy their opinions weren't really considered. If it is not a mock exercise, then they will likely ask Raeesah to resign when they do not have the full facts. I welcome the DP to be transparent and share the involvement in this, their findings barring personal information, so the party can make an accurate decision.\"
Mr Pritam Singh replies: \"And I hear you, PY, but I do think we need to give party members a platform to have their say on this important matter rather than commiserate privately or between each other and believe that the party leadership decides things without considering their views.\"
Pei Ying replies: \"I get that. But the DP hasn't exactly told the party of its knowledge and involvement.\"
Mr Pritam Singh replies: \"Despite that it will be good to hear people out.\"
Pei Ying replies: \"But their opinions are not accurate because they don't have the facts. Everyone is of the view that we can cut her loose and distance the party from her mistake. But if she's out of the party, she still subjected to the Committee of Privileges and there's not much we can do to what she says and shares when it gets there.\"
So, that is one set of WhatsApp messages that adds more complexion to what Mr Singh had read out earlier and which was also raised to Mr Singh. In fact, it is in the transcripts. If Mr Singh may remember, at paragraphs 10813, 10814, as well as 10815, 10816, 10817, where that extract was read out to him and he gave his views. So, it is a lot of these materials that are annexed in the Report.
Another response I have is that, in fact, on the same day that the DP was formed, on 2 November, this is what Ms Loh Pei Ying said to Mr Yudhisthra Nathan via WhatsApp, also contemporaneous, also in evidence. I will read it out to Members, in case you have not read it. It is in \"Annex CC\"-something. I will give you the numbers later.
It is very small, but it says at the bottom, in relation to their discussion with Mr Singh, immediately, they contemporaneously exchanged messages with each other. And Ms Loh Pei Ying said, \"Pritam just told me himself about the disciplinary committee… he didn’t say much more\".
Mr Yudhisthra Nathan said, \"He sent me the same message too\".
Ms Loh Pei Ying replied, \"I wonder why he is informing the both of us tho… I asked him if we would be questioned… he said no\".
Mr Yudhisthra Nathan said, \"OMG lol, tht didn’t cross my mind… I think he wanted to tell us just so we heard it from him before the party pg which is nice I guess... But I do feel he n Sylvia underestimated the backlash”.
Ms Loh Pei Ying said, “funny he made the special effort to tell the both of us but not rae? I also think he’s being too reactionary… I would have let it simmer for another 2 days\", so on and so forth. At the bottom, Ms Loh Pei Yong said: \"Here it comes”.
Mr Yudhisthra Nathan said, “he also being dragged”.
Ms Loh Pei Ying said, “so i don’t trust Pritam to put himself above things lol… like when it affects him personally, I’m worried he’ll cut the cord”.
So, these and other messages are in the Annexes, some of them are in the evidence and some of the messages were placed in front of Mr Singh and some of the other witnesses. They are in the transcripts. So, in a sense, all the evidence, all the exhibits will be placed before the Public Prosecutor (PP). And I welcome Mr Singh's support that all these will be placed before the PP to be considered so that he can clear his name and put his explanation out.
Mr Speaker: Mr Singh.
Mr Pritam Singh: Speaker, it still does not answer the point that I brought up in my speech about the contemporaneous evidence. The fact of the matter is, the COP relies on contemporaneous evidence and puts a high probative value on it in certain cases, but Mr Desmond Lee just read out a narration of text messages between Ms Loh Pei Ying and Mr Yudhishthra Nathan, which is on the record, and my point is, I have submitted documents to the COP, which are not on the record.
And there is an important difference there. If the Committee was minded to send us a summons to produce, we produced documents. I have also raised other examples in my speech, I am not going in my speech, I did not go into it, to the detail that I would have wanted because there is a recommendation to refer the matter to the PP. We are always told that it is important, when a matter is under investigation, let us not comment too much. I think I should be given that right as well. But Prime Minister has gone one step further and said: \"Go to trial!\"
I mean, that is certainly Prime Minister's view. I certainly expect a fair hearing.
But my point still comes back to the point I made in my speech and I do not believe Mr Desmond Lee's clarification deals with it. What I would request is for the Committee to return all those documents to me. I made a request to Speaker on Friday that all that evidence which I have submitted, including the cover letter, is returned to me. I do not believe I mentioned cover letter, but I mentioned documents and the cover letter is part of it. And I hope this will be done, because that is not in the Committee of Privileges' Report.
Mr Desmond Lee: I will just say in response to that, Mr Speaker, that the Committee did not rely purely on contemporaneous messages. It looked at the whole suite of action or inaction, that is quite plain from the Report.
Be that as it may, all the evidence submitted by all witnesses was placed before the Committee, was referred to, we assessed the evidence, we came to our conclusions and we placed it into the Report. But all materials, including materials that the relevant witnesses, including from the Workers' Party leadership, had submitted would be placed before the PP for consideration.
Mr Speaker: Order. I propose to take a break now. Leader of the Opposition.
Mr Pritam Singh: Speaker, can I confirm whether those documents will be returned to me?
Mr Speaker: The Committee will respond to you formally on that. Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 6.15 pm.
Sitting accordingly suspended
at 5.50 pm until 6.15 pm.
Sitting resumed at 6.15 pm.
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]
(Simultaneous debate on both Motions)
[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Mr Faisal Manap.
He is not here. Ms Sylvia Lim. Ms Janet Ang, perhaps you might like to deliver your speech. Mr Pritam Singh, would Mr Faisal Manap be speaking?
Mr Pritam Singh: Yes, Mr Speaker, but I think he is doing his prayers now.
Mr Speaker: Okay. Ms Janet Ang, you can proceed. Ms Sylvia Lim is not in the Chamber either.
Ms Janet Ang (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, I would like to start by acknowledging the Members of the Committee of Privileges and all who were involved in the investigation for the many days and nights they have put into the COP hearings and deliberations, with many of them probably having to abandon their December VTL travel plans. Thank you all for doing the work on behalf of the rest of us. It must have been a very painful and difficult journey for all involved.
I have listened to as many of the key recordings and read as many of the key transcripts as I could, and I am satisfied with the process and the effort that was put in by the Committee to establish the truth of the situation. Fortunately, I did not binge-watch; I actually watched one at a time.
Honesty, integrity and trust are the badges of honour which have put Singapore on the world map. That is how we have earned the reputation of high trust in business, diplomacy, Government and society. We hold one another to high standards and, almost always, we are not prepared to bend the rules or close a blind eye. We strive to be cleaner than clean. It is not easy to hold up to high standards, but that we must.
As individuals, every day, we have the freedom to discern and choose to do what is right and shun the temptation to take the easier road which could be to choose to do nothing, to do the popular thing, or to do what will result in less criticism and less trouble for ourselves. It is a daily test in every encounter with every situation and person I meet to make the choice to do the right thing.
But, of course, we are human and, despite our best efforts, we are not saints. We do make wrong judgements and, sometimes, there may be good reasons that led us to that bad call. Notwithstanding, a bad call is a bad call and we have to deal with it – own up to it, seek forgiveness and make amends.
With respect to the COP findings, I thought long and hard if there are other options that the COP could have taken. The Prime Minister has earlier on also alluded to – if you and I were in the COP, what would we, or could we, have recommended differently?
Well, for me, suffice to say that to ignore the evidence is not an option. Hence, the recommendation made by the COP to refer the new case to the Public Prosecutor is the right and best option. In that way, the parties who were not the original subjects of the COP have a chance to defend themselves and clear their names.
Trust is difficult to earn but easily broken. So, to do the right thing takes courage, but I hope we can also do the right thing with compassion.
Hon Speaker, I support the recommendations, and the Motion as set out by the Committee of Privileges.
Mr Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim, Mr Faisal Manap is not here. So, you can proceed.
Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, in my speech, I wish to make a critical clarification on a specific finding by the COP. I will touch on the referral, or intended referral, of Mr Faisal Manap and Mr Pritam Singh to the Public Prosecutor, and I will also argue why some reforms to the COP and its processes are much needed.
Sir, during the COP deliberations, a matter has risen about the handwritten notes tendered voluntarily by me to the Committee. These notes were used as evidence against Mr Pritam Singh to support the finding that he had given Ms Raeesah Khan a free choice to continue the lie she had told in August.
It is necessary for me to correct misconceptions that have arisen from the COP's findings here. At paragraph 237 of the Main Report, the COP finds that my handwritten notes were useful to the Committee in its deliberations. The COP further notes, among other things, the following:
Paragraph 237(3): \"Ms Lim, a lawyer and Chair of the Workers' Party, would have appreciated the effect of such evidence. It would be, and was, extremely damaging to the testimony given by Mr Pritam Singh. It directly contradicted Mr Pritam Singh's evidence that he did not give Ms Khan a choice.\"
Paragraph 237(4): \"Ms Lim was clear in her testimony that a choice to tell the truth cannot be given to the Workers' Party Members of Parliament, an obvious point. That was also directly contrary to what Mr Singh had done and Ms Lim recognised that.\"
Speaker, I take a different view. If read in the proper context, my evidence is not inconsistent and not damaging to Mr Pritam Singh. In fact, it is consistent with his evidence that he was telling her she had to tell the truth. Let me explain why.
I had testified that the extracts from my notes had to be seen in totality to understand it. First, let me quote the extract from my handwritten notes which were recorded in the form of question and answer.
\"Question by PS (Mr Pritam Singh): Before October session, I met you and told you it was your call. Did need to tell the truth in Parl (Parliament) occur to you?\"
\"RK (Raeesah Khan): Yes, but consumed with guilt and own experience. Thought it wouldn't come up.\"
\"PS: Can't lie, right?\"
\"RK: Yes.\"
Sir, just looking at this extract, we see that when Mr Pritam Singh said to her: \"Can't lie, right?\", Ms Khan did not contradict him. She said: \"Yes\", which is an acceptance that you cannot lie. Does this not mean that she understood what he meant all along that she had to tell the truth? When he put to her that she could not lie, she did not say that she was given a choice.
Secondly, Sir, I am baffled by the COP's conclusion that I had somehow recognised that Mr Pritam Singh had acted contrary to an MP's duty to tell the truth. As I was puzzled as to why the COP stated that, I examined the footnotes used by the COP for this conclusion. I submit that the evidence I gave does not support this finding.
For this, please allow me to refer to the transcripts of evidence.
The COP cited footnote 421 as the basis for saying that I was clear in my testimony that a choice to tell the truth cannot be given to Workers' Party MPs. But if one looks at footnote 421, it refers to a particular paragraph of my evidence, which is as follows, paragraph 12554, where I said: \"You see, it never crossed my mind and I cannot fathom this possibility that Pritam would have given her the option to choose between telling the truth or continuing the lie. That never crossed my mind and I do not believe it to be true.\"
Sir, the COP did not quote this paragraph accurately when it stated that I was clear that a choice to tell the truth cannot be given to MPs. I had also stated at the same time that I could not imagine Mr Pritam Singh giving Ms Khan a choice, and I did not believe it.
That puts a totally different complexion on the paragraph cited by the COP.
Later in my testimony, I was asked by the Chairman about the notes I recorded. I was questioned repeatedly about whether I agreed that the phrase \"it is your call\" could be interpreted as giving her a free choice to decide whether to tell the truth or not. When I referred back to the evidence that the COP relied on, I find that four vital paragraphs that immediately followed were not included, which are critical to properly understand my evidence.
The COP finds that I recognised that Mr Pritam Singh had acted contrary to a Member of Parliament's duty to tell the truth. For this, it quoted my evidence from transcripts at paragraphs 12936 to 12945. Please let me spend a little time on this.
Here are the paragraphs that the COP relied on.
At paragraph 12936, the Chairman said: \"In that last page, you mentioned regarding the conversation on 3 October. At the top of the page where Mr Pritam Singh said: “Before the October session, I met you and told you it was your call.” So, meaning that it was really up to her to decide what to do.\"
And my answer was, \"I don’t know the context but he phrased it in this way.\"
Then the Chairman asked, \"From this, it would seem to be that it’s really for her to decide, which is, I guess —\", and I said, \"She has to decide, yes.\" And the Chairman said, \" —I guess, if you follow from this, when he said that: 'I will not judge you', is that 'You decide what you want to do, I will not judge you for that'. Would that be a fair interpretation, as you see it? I know you were not there —\" And I said, \"I wasn't there.\"
Then the Chairman continued, \"I'm saying that as from what he has recounted here, as you have recorded, and what we know now of what would had been said specifically, this would be a reasonable interpretation of it?... That line came from Mr Pritam Singh himself who said: ‘to take ownership and responsibility, I will not judge you’.\"
\"So, I’m just asking\", that was the Chairman asking me, \"based on what Mr Pritam Singh has shared, and given what he said now here, would that be a reasonable interpretation, that it was really left for her to decide?\"
And my answer, \"Well, I mean, I don't know what he said because I've put myself on a news block-out for the last few days. But in any case, it is recorded as it is recorded, yes.\"
The COP then cut off its reference abruptly here. Now, up to this point, I was, at best, telling the COP that I was not there at the meeting on 3 October. Where was there any recognition by me that Mr Pritam Singh had done something contrary to the duty of an MP to tell the truth?
Crucially, the COP ignored the next four paragraphs which show that the Chairman was still continuing his clarifications with me, which I shall now read out.
Paragraph 12946, \"Chairman: Just to remind you, the specific line he said was: 'to take ownership and responsibility and I will not judge you'. So, these few lines came out across clearly as what he conveyed.\"
And I said, \"Okay\".
And the Chairman said, \"And I'm just asking you, that based on what you've recounted here, it would suggest that the option was left to Ms Khan to decide what to do\".
And my response was: \"I think it also has to be looked at in the whole context, because what we recorded here was that: 'I told you it was your call, did the need to tell the truth in Parliament occur to you?' Then she says: 'Yes, but I was consumed with guilt in my own experience and I thought it wouldn't come up.' Of course, she’s not saying here: 'You gave me a choice, so I made that choice'. She says: 'I was consumed with guilt in my own experience and I thought it wouldn't come up.' And he says, 'But you can't lie, right?' And she says: 'Yes'. So, it has to be taken, I think, in totality to understand it. Like I said, I wasn't there but this is what I recorded.\"
So, Mr Speaker, these last four paragraphs were curiously excluded from the COP's footnote 422, even though it was part and parcel of the Chairman's clarifications on the same topic. If included and properly understood, I submit that my evidence does not support the COP's conclusions.
Next, Sir, I will touch briefly on the referral to the Public Prosecutor (PP) or the intended referral to the PP of Mr Pritam Singh and Mr Faisal Manap.
Sir, if Parliament so resolves to refer both of them to the PP, it is only right to expect that the PP, law enforcement and the Courts will handle this matter impartially. How they approach this matter has serious ramifications.
A Court conviction may prematurely terminate the service of an MP who has been duly elected by the people. It is provided in Article 45 of the Constitution that convictions in a Court of law can disqualify an elected Member of Parliament from Parliament if the fine is $2,000 or more. Contrast this with fines meted out by Parliament itself under the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act, which can go up to $50,000 but will not disqualify an MP from continuing to serve this House.
Sir, before I end, I would like to make some observations about the COP composition and processes.
Sir, the COP has disciplinary functions and recommends punishments for MPs. There has been public discussion of the composition of the COP, as it is overwhelmingly dominated by ruling party Members.
I find the state of affairs unsatisfactory as well. As it currently stands, the Committee only has one out of its eight Members from the opposition Workers’ Party. This does not bode well for a fair hearing in Parliament, where the ruling party has a super majority of 90%.
There is public interest to ensure that elected MPs are subject to fair parliamentary hearings. One way towards this is to have a more balanced composition.
My suggestion is that Parliament consider amending the Standing Orders on the composition of the Committee of Privileges. If the Committee’s total strength is to remain at eight Members in all, then, three Members should be from opposition parties. This is likely to result in a less one-sided hearing and fuller consideration of relevant evidence.
I now move on to some observations of the COP process.
First, on representation before the COP, I would like to ask how the Committee decided on conducting the questioning of witnesses by itself? In a past COP in 1986, Parliament resolved to have questioning conducted by a law officer of the Legal Service. It was further resolved then that lawyers be allowed to represent the MP and other persons as well.
It seems to me that such a process is better. It would enable the Committee to sit back and concentrate on evaluating the evidence dispassionately, rather than have Committee Members actively positing a certain case theory and trying to break witnesses down.
If legal representation is allowed, there may be less need for Parliament to make referrals of cases to the PP. May I ask on what basis did the Committee decide to do the questioning itself and not allow lawyers in?
Secondly, I believe guidelines are needed to safeguard the dignity of such parliamentary hearings. Members of the public have noted the strenuous questioning of Mr Faisal Manap and Mr Singh. Mr Faisal Manap was questioned for about six hours in a single day. In Mr Singh’s case, the questioning was done for nine hours in a single day, which, including waiting time, took 12 hours.
While my own questioning was less than three hours, I waited for two days in a guarded room and was denied the use of any communication devices. When I needed to visit the bathroom, I was accompanied by security. When I requested to use the disabled toilet to have more space, permission was sought.
Does all this not border on oppressive? Our Courts of law do not subject witnesses to such treatment.
Sir, to summarise, I have clarified the effect of my handwritten notes in detail. I have also commented briefly on the referral to the PP that Parliament will be voting on. And I have also made my own observations about COP processes and why I think reform is needed.
Mr Speaker: Mr Faisal Manap.
Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, Sir, in Malay.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] This debate intends to approve the Motion, in a nutshell, on the recommendation of the parliamentary Committee of Privileges for Ms Raeesah Khan to be fined $35,000, and also to refer me and my colleague Mr Pritam Singh to the Public Prosecutor for further investigation.
I had given evidence to the Committee of Privileges on 9 December last year in a session that was nearly six hours long, as mentioned by Ms Sylvia Lim just now. In my speech, I will not touch on and repeat what I presented at that session. This is because I am sure that at the end of this debate, this Motion will be passed, and Mr Pritam Singh and I will be referred to the Public Prosecutor for further investigation.
I will give my best cooperation to the investigation that will be carried out. Therefore, it is more appropriate for me to give a statement later at the appropriate time.
What I will say is that, first, I would like to once again reject the accusation that I, and both my colleagues, Mr Pritam Singh and Ms Sylvia Lim, advised Ms Raeesah Khan to continue to lie. This is untrue and a total fabrication.
Next, I would like to assure residents of Aljunied GRC, especially residents of Kaki Bukit whom I have served for almost 11 years, that my services to you will not be affected. The Meet-The-People sessions, weekly house-to-house visits and other efforts will continue as usual.
For Sengkang GRC residents, I would like to reiterate my statement on 2 December that I will work closely with the three Sengkang GRC Members of Parliament, Ms He Ting Ru, Assoc Prof Jamus Lim and Mr Louis Chua in serving you, especially in matters related to Malay/Muslim community affairs. This commitment will continue.
Sir, ever since the news reports published the recommendations of the Committee of Privileges to refer me and Mr Pritam Singh to the Public Prosecutor for further investigation, many have expressed their concerns whether this would affect the Workers' Party. Concerns were also relayed about my situation and Mr Pritam Singh’s situation. Besides concern and worries, many have expressed support, words of reassurance and confidence, and quite a number of people also wished us well and sent prayers our way. Thank you very much for all the support and we deeply appreciate it.
I would like to reiterate the statement by the Workers’ Party that since our founding in 1957, the Workers' Party has faced and weathered many challenging situations. In facing this current situation, we are confident that we will continue to survive, persevere and carry on with our mission to contribute to the formation of a democratic society. This is our resolve and commitment.
In conclusion, I would like to share a quatrain for everyone who have expressed their support and concern about this situation.
\"Soldiers to the battlefield
Fighting hard for truth
Struggle requires sacrifice
Sacrifice brings change.\"
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker: Mr Zaqy Mohamad.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Exempted Business","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Resolved, \"That the proceedings on the business set down on the Order Paper for today be exempted at today's Sitting from the provisions of Standing Order No 2.\" – [Mr Zaqy Mohamad] (proc text)]
[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim.
Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim (Chua Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, Sir, it is with a tinge of sadness and regret that I am standing here before the House speaking on this Motion.
I am sad because one of the Members of Parliament (MPs) has admitted to lying before this House and the people of Singapore. I am sad because this whole incident has been protracted as the allegation and lies were left uncorrected for many months before the truth was finally revealed.
I regret the manner in which the young activists who boldly came forward to give evidence at the COP proceedings have now been alleged by their own party leader that they may have lied out of loyalty to the former Member, disregarding the many years of service and activism. Now, this is not the way young people, who only came forward to serve the nation, not just the party, should be treated.
I regret the manner in which the former MP has been characterised both by her own party's leadership and some members of the public, the same ones who had lifted her and backed her to the hilt before aspersions were cast about her mental health and the nature of the trauma that she suffered. This is not the way that survivors of sexual violence and people suffering from mental health issues should be treated.
In discussing this incident, whether during the COP proceedings, this Motion or elsewhere, let us all have some regard and consideration for common decency.
Let us all also have regard to the feelings of survivors of sexual violence, people who suffer from mental health issues and young people who are watching us today. In Malay, please.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Our responsibility to the people and in protecting the trust in the democracy of Singapore is a heavy one and should not be taken lightly. This responsibility falls upon all of us. Trust is earned when our actions are equal to our words and we walk the talk. But once that trust is lost, things will never be the same again. The actions of the former Member were clearly wrong. She has admitted her wrongdoing and we are now debating the issue of an appropriate punishment. But she is a young woman with no experience in politics. According to her, her party leaders told her to keep to the lie but they turned on her and, subsequently, she had to resign.
To have a first-class democracy, we need good contestable politics, in the best interest of the people. In ensuring that, we need to attract young people who will place Singapore and Singaporeans first; before party or politics.
In order to attract and retain young people to be involved in shaping the politics and future of Singapore, we need to have party leaders on both sides of the aisle who exemplify high moral courage and characters of great integrity. Not leaders who are the first to turn their backs on the young or leave them in the lurch in their time of need.
In this matter, the evidence of the hon Member Mr Muhamad Faisal bin Abdul Manap has been key to understanding the events that unfolded as stated in the COP Report. It is disappointing that Mr Faisal Manap has refused to answer a question put by the COP eight times.
The question that was asked was simple. When Mr Faisal Manap gave evidence, he said that he met with Mr Pritam Singh and Ms Sylvia Lim on 7 and 8 December 2020; just two days before he was due to give evidence to the COP. The meetings, according to him, lasted two to three hours on each day. He was asked about the documents that Mr Singh and Ms Lim brought to the meetings but he refused to answer the question. Even though he was asked about the materials which Mr Singh and Ms Lim brought to the meetings, he still refused to answer the question.
Despite being told that such a refusal to answer may be an offence, he still did not want to answer. He was asked eight times. Yet, he refused to answer. Hence, I can understand why the COP had no choice but to refer his conduct to the Public Prosecutor for his refusal to answer. What else can the COP do? Or anyone else among us could have done?
I am also disappointed on another aspect. Ms Raeesah Khan looked up to and got advice from Mr Faisal Manap as a senior Malay/Muslim Member of Parliament in her party. He is the Vice-Chairman of the party and someone who has had many years of experience as a politician. He was Ms Khan’s mentor. She asked him to guide her and give advice. And this was evident in the communication messages between them.
According to Ms Khan, she was advised to take the lie to the grave, and when exposed, she was eventually sacrificed. At the critical time during the COP proceedings, Mr Faisal Manap chose to remain silent rather than answer the question posed by the COP. Where is the compassion for a young person in need? Does this show exemplary and honourable character and morals?
As minority MPs who are Muslims, we also reflect the values, morals and principles of our community and faith, as responsible leaders.
As they say in the olden days:
\"Leaders must be capable
Earning the trust
Displaying bravery
Bound to promises and vows
Given the responsibility
For leaders are chosen by the people
Revered by the community
Placed high on a pedestal
And status accorded appropriately\"
(In English): We need to earn the right to lead and the respect to be called leaders. Mr Speaker, Sir, on the Motions, firstly, against the former Member, given her own admissions and the reasons stated in the COP Report, I concur with the penalties recommended against the former Member.
Secondly, on the Motion on adopting the COP's recommendation to refer the two party leaders and Members for further investigation by the Public Prosecutor, I think this is the fairest outcome as I am personally uncomfortable in judging my own peers and Parliamentary colleagues. Let an independent body like the Public Prosecutor investigate, as this would allow both Members to present their fullest case and provide their own explanations. With sadness and regret, Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Motions.
Mr Speaker: Mr Raj Joshua Thomas.
Mr Raj Joshua Thomas (Nominated Member): Sir, I support the Motions.
As regards the first Motion, the conclusions of the COP and the recommendations flowing from these conclusions are obvious as Ms Raeesah Khan had admitted to making the untruth. I will elaborate on my support of the second Motion, that is, the Motion to refer the conduct of Mr Pritam Singh and Mr Faisal Manap to the PP.
The facts underlying the second Motion arose in the course of the COP’s inquiry into the untruth. In order for the COP to have come to its conclusions, it must have inadvertently formed its mind on the testimony given by the persons who had appeared before it. As regards Mr Singh’s testimony, the COP has said that it has disbelieved several parts of it, thus giving rise to the possibility that the serious criminal offence of perjury had been committed. As regards Mr Faisal Manap’s testimony, he had declined to answer several questions that the COP had posed to him, which may amount to contempt of Parliament.
As set out by the COP, and as mentioned by the hon Leader of the House earlier, Parliament is perfectly equipped and empowered by law to deal with these two matters itself. However, the conclusions and recommendations of a fresh set of COP procedures considering these two matters are highly unlikely to depart from the conclusions already reached in the present proceedings.
Furthermore, the potential punishment that may flow from a finding of guilt may have political consequences, in particular, affecting the make-up of Parliament and would, inevitably, suffer from the mien of being politically motivated. This was also mentioned by the Prime Minister. The gravity of the offences, if made out, would then be lost in such circumstance.
In this regard, my view is that it is the correct thing to do, as recommended by the COP, to refer these two matters to the PP and, if the PP deems necessary for these matters to go to the Court, then for them to go to the Court. In fact, Sir, I would be extremely uncomfortable if the COP’s recommendations were the opposite, that is, for Parliament itself to take action against Mr Singh and Mr Faisal Manap based on the facts that arose from the COP's inquiry.
In fact, referring the matter to the PP affords Mr Singh and Mr Faisal Manap what may be seen as a second, even third bite of the cherry, because both the PP and the Courts, if it proceeds to the Courts, would consider all the facts anew. If the matter goes to Court, Mr Singh and Mr Faisal Manap would also be able to avail themselves of the adversarial process in criminal proceedings, with all the protections of the Criminal Procedure Code and the application of the higher evidentiary threshold of beyond reasonable doubt for criminal matters.
In this regard, I am glad that Mr Singh has said that he intends to cooperate fully with the PP, and the points that he and Mr Faisal Manap and, in fact, that Ms Lim made earlier as well are relevant and can be raised in these proceedings.
This should be a position that sits well with all parties in this House. Both the Government and the Opposition have expressed in this House and recognised that the Courts should be the impartial arbiters of truth in matters where there may be political consequences or overtones. An example is the debate on POFMA. In fact, this was precisely one of the positions taken by the Workers’ Party as regards FICA last year.
The Courts are also alive to this role as an independent arbiter in matters that may have a political hue. In a decision in 2020, in which the Court of Appeal considered a matter where the convicted party sought to vary his sentence from a fine of $5,000 to a jail term so that he would not be disqualified from running in the next elections, the Court of Appeal held: “…it would bring the Judiciary and the administration of justice into disrepute if we were to impose sentences with an eye towards the political process. After all, a Court that chooses to impose an inappropriate sentence in order to avoid disqualifying a candidate from standing for election as a Member of Parliament could just as easily do the same thing to achieve the opposite end. In truth, both outcomes are equally abhorrent and impermissible”. The Court of Appeal added that: “the only guide for a sentencing Court is that it must strive to impose a condign sentence”. \"Condign\", of course, meaning \"appropriate\".
Sir, I have seen some online chatter that it is a foregone conclusion that Mr Singh and Mr Faisal Manap will be convicted and lose their seats. I do not think, Sir, that it is a foregone conclusion. There had been instances in which the Courts have decided against the Government, even in favour of an opposition political party. Members may recall that in an October 2021 decision, the Court of Appeal allowed an appeal, in part, by the Singapore Democratic Party challenging a Correction Direction by MOM. In its grounds of decision, the Court of Appeal set out its reasons in extent as to why it allowed the appeal. We can expect that the Court will undertake a similarly rigorous examination of the facts and the law in these matters, as it does on all matters. I am heartened that Mr Singh had also said earlier that he expected that he would get a fair hearing if it went to that.
In this regard, I trust that all parties will allow the legal process to run its course, from the PP’s consideration of whether an offence is disclosed, to, if it turns out as such, the deliberation and ultimate decision by the Court. Parties, whether represented in this House or otherwise, should not cast aspersions on the Office of the Public Prosecutor and on the Courts, especially if the ultimate outcome is not one they expected or had hoped for.
While this matter involves members of political parties, Sir, I do not see the recommendations as political machinations. As is evident, the COP or the Government could not possibly have been aware of the facts underlying the Second Motion until they were disclosed in the COP proceedings. I see these Motions and any Court proceedings that may follow as an exercise to protect the public interest and the integrity and the standing of this House, and as a reminder that Parliament and Parliamentarians must deal in the currency of truth and that a failure to do so must have consequences. But equally, where there is no wrongdoing, an accused person must have a fair chance to vindicate himself. Not only must it be a fair chance, but it must also be seen to be a fair chance.
Politics is politics, Sir, but the facts are the facts, and the law is the law. In the circumstances, my view is that the best forum to determine the facts in these matters and to apply it to the law, is the Courts.
Mr Speaker: Ms Sim Ann.
The Deputy Government Whip (Ms Sim Ann): (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, thank you for letting me join this debate. The saga involving former Member of Parliament Ms Raeesah Khan's lies has now culminated in the Report of the Committee of Privileges, published on 10 February.
I read it with a very heavy heart.
The core issue of the Report is about lies. Ms Raeesah Khan first spoke an untruth in Parliament last August, which is already no small matter. The Workers' Party (WP) leadership was found to have guided her and condoned her in perpetuating the lie. This is more serious. Even worse, WP leadership was found to have lied to the COP in attempting to cover up their role in the saga. This is a potential criminal offence.
This is a major problem which needs to be dealt with seriously. The COP has recommended fining Ms Raeesah Khan and referring WP Secretary-General Mr Pritam Singh and Vice-Chairman Faisal Manap to the Public Prosecutor for lying under oath and refusing to answer the COP's questions and showing contempt for Parliament, respectively.
But some question whether things are truly this serious. Some WP sympathisers pointed out that the majority of COP members are from the PAP and painted the proceedings as bullying. Even some among the ruling party's own supporters are worried that it will be penalised by the public opinion. Clearly, the Workers’ Party is prepared to make the most of such sentiments, as evidenced by its statement issued on 11 February, suggesting that if Mr Pritam Singh and Mr Faisal Manap are referred to the PP, then the work of the COP is politically-motivated.
These sentiments have obscured the central point, that is, as a democratic country, can we tolerate lying politicians? We must be clear on this question.
Singapore is a one-man-one-vote democracy. Every voter votes for the party he supports, and governments are formed from the outcome of popular elections. Voters must be able to trust that political parties and candidates are truthful and do not spout untruth at will. Only then can electoral outcomes reflect the will of the citizenry. If politicians are free to lie and act in a way that is inconsistent with their words, then voters cannot trust political parties. Elections become meaningless and our democratic system would gradually disintegrate.
Of course, we cannot count on every politician being irreproachable in his conduct and values. There should also be safeguards built into the system. This is why contempt of Parliament or lying in Parliament would be subject to investigations by the COP, and penalties meted out by Parliament. Lying to the COP would be dealt with more seriously. If there are still questions regarding whether the person giving evidence is truthful, then our Courts would be the final arbiter of the truth.
Any democratic society that hopes for stable governance must commit to upholding the truth. The problem is that the truth is never universally popular. A responsible ruling party will not lie, nor should it. But this also creates space for its opponents to use half-truths or empty promises to win support.
When faced with an honest ruling party with a proven track record, every opposition party can choose between two paths. The first path is to deal only with the truth, point out where the incumbent has genuinely fallen short in terms of its policies and propose workable alternatives. The second path is to opportunistically and cynically distort the truth and inflame emotions, all for the sake of winning more support and votes at little cost. A responsible opposition party should commit only to the first path and stoically reject the second path.
In a democracy, dealing only with truths that are not universally popular comes with a price, which is why both incumbent parties and opposition parties face an ever-present temptation to relax their commitment to the truth. This is a temptation that is as dangerous as the temptation to be corrupt. As the people's representatives, we have to stay vigilant about the thin end of the wedge and guard against lies, however small, while party leaders must hold themselves and their Members of Parliament to the highest standards. All parties must fully support mechanisms that protect the truth.
What weighed on me is that the COP Report shows that the Workers' Party leadership is leaning not towards the first path, but towards the second path.
They have demonstrated an opportunistic and cavalier attitude towards the truth, when it came to deciding whether Ms Raeesah Khan should own up, and when and how it should be done.
First, when they came to know about Ms Khan's lie, the Workers' Party leaders did not cause her to clarify immediately and proactively. They tried their luck with a \"wait and see\" approach. If the matter was not brought up, Ms Khan was to \"take the information to the grave\".
The Workers' Party leaders also guided her to maintain her original narrative, resulting in her doubling down on the untruth in Parliament on 4 October, compounding her initial offence.
The Workers' Party then arranged for Ms Khan to assume full responsibility for both occasions where she lied, on 1 November, while obscuring the Workers' Party leaders' role in guiding her.
Clear conflicts of interest were present in the hastily convened Disciplinary Panel that was announced by the Workers' Party on 2 November. The three Workers' Party leaders withheld from its CEC the fact that they had already known about Ms Khan's lies, and the guidance that had been given to her. All the blame for doubling down on the lie was pushed onto Ms Khan. The CEC subsequently resolved that she should resign or be expelled from the party.
Problems cannot remain covered up forever. The COP was tasked to investigate this case. But when the Workers' Party leaders appeared before the COP, their performance was even more chilling.
When asked about the impact of Ms Khan's lie on the reputation of the Police, Mr Pritam Singh attempted to minimise the issue. His view was that the Police was not a \"broken-back\" organisation, implying that it was, therefore, alright to make false allegations about them.
He also claimed that he had not required Ms Khan to clarify the truth as he wanted her to have time to inform her parents of her sexual assault. But as he did not follow up to see if this was indeed done, this excuse proved incredible.
The Workers' Party leaders also suggested that Ms Khan might be mentally affected and possibly more prone to lying due to her having been a victim of sexual assault. This was proven to be baseless by a mental health professional.
On the whole the COP found Mr Singh to have lied under oath, while Mr Faisal Manap was in contempt of Parliament by refusing to answer the COP's questions. These are possible criminal offences.
Who have been hurt by the Workers' Party leaders' machinations?
First, Ms Khan herself. She lost her party membership as well as her parliamentary seat. I imagine that over the past few months, every day would have been unbearable for her. If she had heard what Mr Singh said about her earlier, she would have been cast under an even darker shadow. I hope that she can walk out of that shadow and soldier on bravely and optimistically.
Second, the Workers' Party as a whole, and its supporters. You only need to read the statements by party cadres Ms Loh Pei Ying and Mr Yudishthra Nathan to feel their pain.
Third, Parliament. The scant regard for Parliament's dignity and credibility demonstrated by Workers' Party leaders, despite being Members of Parliament themselves, has undermined its prestige.
Fourth, victims of sexual assault and mental health patients. The statements made by Workers' Party leaders have reinforced the prejudices that these people already face.
Last but not least, our political ecosystem. Condoning the lies and being cavalier with the truth already undermine the foundation of honesty and trust that our democracy is built on. To exploit the public’s sympathy for the underdog and paint the COP as being politically-motivated not only distract the public from the core issue, but also seek to numb the public to lies and dishonesty gradually.
It is wrong to lie, and it is worse for a Member of Parliament to do so. But if party leaders, including the Leader of the Opposition, lie, then it must be looked into seriously. The behaviour of a party leader sets the tone for the values of the entire party and is critical to the preservation of healthy dynamics within our political ecosystem.
Mr Speaker, this regrettable saga began with condoning one lie. It snowballed beyond control because those involved kept trying to cover their tracks. Nonetheless, before the debate today started, I had held out hope that the Workers' Party leaders could be forthright and sincere and support the two Motions. However, the speeches of the three Workers' Party leaders earlier showed no intention to make things right. They seem to have made up their mind to carry on with perverse prevarication. If so, our democratic system would simply have to deal with their tactics every step of the way.
I hope that when all is said and done, the Workers' Party leaders can come to realise the meaning of the idiom “a country is nothing without the people’s trust”. For other Workers' Party Members of Parliament, it is not too late yet. I hope they can support the two Motions based on their conscience and their initial resolve to serve the people, so that the Workers’ Party can shake off the shadow of prevarication, choose to be truthful and get back on the right track.
Mr Speaker, I support the Motions.
Mr Speaker: I will now call upon Leader to make a reply on both Motions.
Ms Indranee Rajah: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, I had listened to the speeches of Mr Pritam Singh, Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Faisal Manap. They have raised a number of points, but the points do not really address the core of this matter. They do not address the key findings of the Committee of Privileges.
So, I can understand, tactically and strategically, why you do that, because you have got this big uncomfortable report that says these really strong statements. So, it is probably, as a strategy, a good idea not to deal with those head-on, but to pick small little things here and there, and to hope that other people will look at that.
But since that is how it has been presented to this House, let me address all those small little points first, before I come back to the key issue.
The first thing Mr Singh had said is that it has been something like 25 years since we have had to have proceedings before the Committee of Privileges. Yes, indeed. And it is a very shameful thing that we had to have a Committee of Privileges for something like this. For so many years, we were able to do without it. But now, after we have the office of the Leader of Opposition, we have Workers' Party coming in, and then, we have to deal with this. So, yes, it has been some time.
But I suppose when these things happen, they serve as a good reminder to all of us about the values that we uphold and the things that we need to do. And in some ways, this process has been educational.
The second thing Mr Singh said was that the COP did not appear to want to get to the bottom of why Ms Khan lied in Parliament. Actually, there are hundreds of pages in the COP Report that are all directed to why did she lie on 4 October.
The first part, we know, was off her own bat. It is undisputed. That was something she did of her own accord. She admits it; it is not in dispute.
The big question was why it was done on 4 October. And reams and reams of paper have been directed at precisely that question. So, I do not think one can say that the Committee of Privileges did not want to get to the bottom of why she lied.
The next thing Mr Singh said was the fact that she had concocted the lie was not balanced against her evidence to the COP. What that allegation really is is this. The allegation is that she has lied before, she must be lying again. In Courts which deal with this, it is known as the similar fact evidence rule. Just because somebody has done something once, does not necessarily mean that they are guilty of the same thing again. If you want to get to the bottom of something, if you want to get to the truth of something, you always have to look at each instance by itself and weigh it objectively. And that is exactly what the Committee of Privileges did.
The next thing Mr Singh said was that what took centre stage was the uncorroborated testimony that she was instructed to lie.
I spent a great deal of time in my opening speech listing out what exactly the factors were that the Committee of Privileges took into account, in terms of corroborative testimony, contemporaneous evidence, written documents, the evidence of other witnesses, and whether or not something made sense. So, I do not think that that is a fair accusation to level against the Committee of Privileges.
The next thing he mentioned was the selective nature of the COP Report. It did not mention certain documents, he said. But then, as we can see, when he made reference to certain WhatsApp messages, Minister Desmond Lee read out other WhatsApp messages. I mean, there was so much evidence, you cannot possibly be referring to every single piece. But what is clear is that the Committee took into account and considered all relevant documents.
So, the essence of the allegation by Mr Singh is that the Committee had cherry-picked the evidence. Well, Mr Singh is a lawyer. I am a lawyer. He knows that evidence that is given is considered by a tribunal. Relevant evidence is referred to. Not all evidence that is put in is relevant. And when you write your final report, you refer to relevant evidence.
Tribunals, and in this case the COP, do not necessarily have to put in everything that was submitted, but they did include a lot of documents – the Report does include many documents submitted by Mr Singh, Ms Lim and Mr Faisal Manap. If he feels that something is relevant and was not taken into account, he will have the opportunity to refer to it, if this matter goes to Court.
But then, what is important is that, at this point of time, we should not try to give the impression that the COP purposely left out certain things or cherry-picked evidence.
I come now to Ms Lim's speech just now. I think she made reference to the notes that she took during the Disciplinary Panel proceedings. And obviously, because that piece of paper, those notes were very damaging to Mr Singh, she sought to explain it, to put her interpretation on it and to suggest that this was not really taken into account by the COP.
That is not actually accurate. I think at paragraph 51 of the Report, the Report expressly quoted her as saying that her notes had to be taken in totality to understand it. It said that Ms Lim said she did not know the context in which Mr Singh used the phrase and essentially the Committee noted her position. So, it is not as though the Committee did not consider the things that Ms Lim said just now.
The other thing is Ms Lim said much about the fact that the notes did not just refer to the words \"It was your call\". The notes also had the phrase \"Did the need to tell the truth occur to you\", \"can't lie, right?\" And she suggested that those notes were really in favour of Mr Singh.
That was dealt with at paragraph 55 of the Report. [Please refer to \"Clarifications by Minister, Prime Minister's Office and Leader of the House\", 15 February 2022, Vol 95, Issue No 48, Corrections by Written Statement section.]
The way the Committee dealt with it was, they said that those questions were quite telling. If Mr Singh had been very clear on 3 October, then Mr Singh would be saying, \"I told you to tell the truth and you did not. You went against my instructions in telling the truth to Parliament. That was a serious breach of party discipline.\" He would not be saying as he did, \"I have told you that it was your call. Why it did not occur to you to tell the truth\" and \"can't lie, right?\"
So, in short, the points that Ms Lim talked about just now were something that the Committee considered, and it is in the Report.
Then, the next strategy is really to cast some aspersions on the COP itself and to suggest that, somehow, there is something wrong with the composition of the COP.
The composition of the COP is dealt with in the Standing Orders of Parliament, in Standing Order 100(7), sub-paragraph (a)(i), \"There shall be a Committee to be known as the Committee of Privileges to consist of the Speaker as Chairman and seven members to be nominated by the Committee of Selection as soon as may be after its appointment, in such manner as shall ensure that, so far as it is possible, the balance between the Government benches and the Opposition benches in Parliament is reflected in the Committee\".
In other words, what the Standing Orders seek to do, is to make sure that the Select Committee, which is a standing Select Committee, reflects the same balance that is here in Parliament. And Mr Singh has spoken many times about why do we not have more Select Committees, and about the supremacy of Parliament.
So, all of these are in the rules which have been there for a long time. And these rules, they have been revised from time to time. And if I recall correctly, I believe Mr Low Thia Khiang was on the Committee for the revision of the rules at one stage. They have always had an Opposition Member. And nobody has complained about the composition of the Committee.
And, in fact, when we had to determine who would be the Opposition representative on the Committee of Privileges, Mr Dennis Tan was nominated by Mr Singh and he certainly did not complain at that time, or say that he should have more Opposition Members.
So, it just really rather does sound as though, if you do not like the outcome of the Committee of Privileges, then you complain about how it is composed, when it was never an issue before.
Then, I think Ms Lim talked about the length of the proceedings, why was it necessary to question Mr Singh for so long. The answer is that the length of time that it takes to do an inquiry or to question somebody, really depends on the answers that they give.
I have done cross-examination in Court myself. The witnesses who give you the answers in a straightforward and straight manner, actually go off very quickly. The ones who do not give a straight answer, the ones who you really have to extract the information from, those take a long time. In this case, Ms Lim’s evidence was relatively short, because the answers that she gave were to the point.
Then, I should also say that she questioned how come there was no legal representation on the Committee of Privileges for the people who appeared before it. Well, the default position is that, for the Committee of Privileges, generally speaking, they do the questioning. But by special application, where it is necessary, if there is good reason for it, witnesses can apply to bring outside counsel. But I think the more important point to remember here is that Mr Singh is a lawyer. And so is Ms Lim. I do not think they really needed external counsel to be able to answer the questions that were put to them, which were not particularly difficult – well within their ability to understand and respond to.
So, now, I come to the point about what these speeches did not address. The speeches did not address the core findings of the Committee of Privileges, which was: why did it take so long to have the truth told to Parliament?
You would think that from the time that it is disclosed to them, the first reaction should be: \"Oh, no, this is terrible. We better go back and clarify\". But no, this matter dragged on for one month, two months, three months. And it only came about after the Police had already put in their request for an interview and it became clear that this issue was not going to go away.
The other is this very puzzling thing about why there was no direct instruction to tell the truth. Because after all this evidence – and this is not disputed – there was no clear instruction from Mr Singh, or anybody else, to say, \"Raeesah, please go back to Parliament and tell them the truth.\" Instead, there is this parsing of words, this \"take ownership\", \"take responsibility\", \"I will not judge you\". I mean, how difficult is it to just say, \"Raeesah, tell the truth\"? How difficult is it to do that? Not very. Anybody should know how you can do that.
So, this business of asking Ms Khan, being worried about her telling her parents, or have the parents found out, if that was so, how come nobody asked her whether she had told her parents? Why was no effort made to find out if she had cleared that, so that she could come back to Parliament and tell the truth?
And why was their own party not told about it? How do you have a Disciplinary Panel that is set up to sit in judgement upon somebody, to judge her for something where, in fact, she has already told you – you know what she has done from months back? But you are sitting there, in judgement on her.
I mean, these are questions that have not been answered, and these are pertinent questions. So, that leaves us with a situation where we have to decide what to do.
And as I wrap, let me just wrap where Mr Singh began when he said, \"Who did this House commit to the Committee of Privileges – Raeesah Khan or the WP leadership?\"
Now, that is somewhat misleading. You see, under the Standing Orders and the way the procedure goes, when a complaint arises and it comes to Parliament's attention, Parliament has to deal with it somehow. You cannot ignore it, right?
So, in this case, once Ms Khan came to Parliament and admitted that she had lied, it had to be looked into. I referred it to the Committee of Privileges. The Committee of Privileges was inquiring into the complaint about her. But in the course of that, these things came up and it became clear to the Committee of Privileges that there is a problem. Because they think that the three senior WP leaders were lying and had guided her to not tell the truth in Parliament, until there was no other choice.
What is the Committee of Privileges supposed to do? Pretend it did not happen? Ignore it? It cannot do that. It was not set up to look into the three WP leaders. That part is correct. But if you are then seized with information, or it comes to your attention, that the three WP leaders have done something wrong, the Committee of Privileges has a duty to come back to Parliament and tell us, which they have done in the Report. And we here, in this Chamber, now have a duty to consider it and to do something about it.
There are only three things we can do. One, we can just say, \"I am not going to look at it. I do not want to discuss it. I do not want to deal with it.\" And that would be wrong. It would be wrong for all the reasons that the Prime Minister has said. It would be wrong because it would be an abdication of our responsibility. And it would be wrong because it is a rejection of our values.
The second thing we can do is to say, \"Okay. Let us punish them straightaway.\" But then, Mr Singh is saying that he denies this. He is saying that they did not do these things. So, he is actually objecting. And so, you could ride roughshod, you could steam roll, but that is not the right thing to do either. Because just like Ms Raeesah Khan was inquired into, somebody has to inquire into this.
And there are only two ways. One is, you set up another Committee of Privileges. And the COP has said they do not think it is going to get very far because they have pretty much heard what there is to hear. And if you go back, you are going to have the same thing and, not only that, there are probably going to be aspersions cast on the new Committee of Privileges.
So, for the more egregious, serious transgressions – in this case, the findings that Mr Singh had lied and that Mr Faisal Manap had prevaricated, refused to give documents, refused to answer questions – the recommendation is that those be referred to the Public Prosecutor. [Please refer to \"Clarifications by Minister, Prime Minister's Office and Leader of the House\", 15 February 2022, Vol 95, Issue No 48, Corrections by Written Statement section.] And the other things, for example, that Ms Lim lied, that Mr Faisal Manap lied, those we hold back until the PP has decided what to do.
So, whatever it is, we cannot run away from the fact that we have before us a Report. The Report has highlighted things that we cannot ignore and we have to make a decision. And referring Mr Singh and Mr Faisal Manap to the PP is the fairest thing to do because, if they maintain their innocence, they will have a chance to vindicate themselves. They will be entitled to legal counsel, legal representation and it will go before the Courts who are independent and they need not fear that there is any political interference.
So, I think, Mr Speaker, I have dealt with the various things that have been raised.
The only thing I wanted to check with Mr Singh was this. Because I had understood, when he spoke just now, that there are some things that the Workers' Party or he agrees to. One is the finding against Ms Raeesah Khan for abuse of privilege. I think that is not disputed. The second thing is that of the fine in respect of the untruths told on 3 August (twice). That, I think, is not disputed and they agree with that.
What they do not agree with is the fine for the third time that she lied, the $10,000, because implicit in that was that she was acting on their guidance. So, they do not agree with that and they do not want to vote on that.
What I am asking Mr Singh is whether he can clarify that they would be prepared to vote in favour of the first two parts of the First Motion, but not in favour of the last part, which imposes the $10,000 fine.
And then, in respect of the Second Motion, because I had heard him say that he wishes to clear his name and that he will go before and cooperate with the PP, I am asking: is Mr Singh prepared to agree to the part of the Motion which says that he and Mr Faisal Manap be referred to the PP? I can understand that they do not want to vote on the other parts of the Motion.
So, perhaps, if Mr Singh could clarify that part and then we can think about how we can deal with the votes on the two Motions.
Mr Speaker: Mr Singh.
Mr Pritam Singh: Mr Speaker, just to confirm what Leader of the House is suggesting. Indeed, for Motion number one, with regard to 2(a) and 2(b), we will be voting in favour. And then for 2(c), indeed, as Leader said that implicit in that, we are going to vote no, and she is right. Implicit in that is an acknowledgement that our actions somehow mitigate the quantum.
For the very same reason, Leader of the House is right, Mr Faisal Manap and myself have no objections to being referred to the Public Prosecutor. But – and this is a big \"but\" – we will still vote no to Motion number two, because in the same way it is implicit in Motion number one, 2(c), it is also implicit in the second paragraph of Motion number two that the basis of the referral to the PP arises from evidence uncovered at the COP; and we reject those findings.
So, I hope that is clear.
Ms Indranee Rajah: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his clarifications. Just to be sure that I have this correct. So, for the Second Motion, the Leader of the Opposition and WP will be voting against it in its entirety, is that correct?
Mr Pritam Singh: That is correct. But an important caveat is as what I mentioned about Mr Faisal Manap and myself. We are prepared to be referred to the Public Prosecutor.
Ms Indranee Rajah: I understand. And for the first one, they would be prepared to vote in favour of the first paragraph, that is, taking note of the special reports. That is alright?
Mr Pritam Singh: Leader, could you put that question again?
Ms Indranee Rajah: If you look at the First Motion, the first resolution of the First Motion is to take note of the special reports. It is actually not a resolution, just to take note of the special reports. So, you do not have a problem with taking note of the special reports, right?
Mr Pritam Singh: No. No objection.
Ms Indranee Rajah: Okay. Then, paragraph 2, you would have no objection to paragraph 2(a), that is the resolution that resolves that Ms Raeesah Khan is guilty of abuse of privileges of Parliament?
Mr Pritam Singh: That is correct. Paragraph 2(a), no objection.
Ms Indranee Rajah: Okay. And you have no objection to paragraph 2(b)?
Mr Pritam Singh: The one that covers the fine of $25,000? Yes, no objection.
Ms Indranee Rajah: Okay. So, it is really only in respect of the $10,000 fine.
Mr Pritam Singh: Mr Speaker, rather than standing up and sitting down, may I be allowed to just stand at the rostrum?
Mr Speaker: Please do.
Mr Pritam Singh: Leader, please.
Ms Indranee Rajah: So, I am just confirming that paragraphs 2(a) and 2(b) you agree with, and paragraph 2(c) you do not agree with.
Mr Pritam Singh: That is correct.
Ms Indranee Rajah: Okay. I am not going to ask you anything else, so you may sit down.
Normally, when you vote for a Motion, you vote for the Motion in its entirety. So, if there are three things in the Motion and you agree with two, but not one, normally, you would vote against the entire thing, right?
But there is a way to allow us to vote for 2(a) and 2(b), and remove 2(c) which is voted on separately, if we lift the Standing Orders. And what I will do, with the Speaker's permission, is to ask to lift the Standing Orders in respect of the First Motion, to allow the votes for 2(a) and 2(b) to be taken, and then for 2(c) to be taken separately, which will then record that the first two were unanimously passed, and the third one was rejected by the WP.
Mr Speaker: Please proceed.
Ms Indranee Rajah: I would have to ask for the procedural note. Would the Clerks have a copy of the procedural note for this? Just give me a moment, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker, may I seek your consent and the general assent of Members present to move that the question on the First Motion in respect of the \"Committee of Privileges Report (Recommendations in respect of Ms Raeesah Khan)\", be put and voted in two parts, that the first question to be put upon paragraphs 1 and 2(a)-(b) of the Motion; and that the second question to be put upon paragraph 2(c) of the Motion.
[(proc text) Hon Members indicated assent. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Leader, please proceed.
Ms Indranee Rajah: Mr Speaker, I beg to move, that notwithstanding the Standing Orders, the question on the First Motion in respect of the \"Committee of Privileges' Report (Recommendations in respect of Ms Raeesah Khan)\", be put and voted in two parts, that the first question be put upon paragraphs 1 and 2(a)-(b) of the Motion, and that the second question be put upon paragraph 2(c) of the Motion.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Resolved, (proc text)]
[(proc text) That on the First Motion in respect of the \"Committee of Privileges Report (Recommendations in respect of Ms Raeesah Khan)\", be put and voted in two parts, that the first question be put upon paragraphs 1 and 2(a)-(b) of the Motion, and that the second question be put upon paragraph 2(c) of the Motion. (proc text)]
Ms Indranee Rajah: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would not be seeking to lift the Standing Orders in respect of the Second Motion since Mr Singh has said that they would not be agreeing to any part of it, with the important caveat that they have put on record that he and Mr Faisal Manap are prepared to be referred to the Public Prosecutor to clear their names.
Dr Janil Puthucheary: Mr Speaker, may I propose that we proceed with the original amendments to the process that Leader had articulated, to split the second vote because there are other Members in the House and they may have different views from the clauses as we have described. I would propose that we do split the Second Motion into two votes.
Mr Speaker: So, as moved by the Leader of the House, shall we proceed?
Ms Indranee Rajah: Sir, I think what Dr Janil Puthucheary is asking me to do is to also move to allow the Second Motion to have split votes, the reason being that there may be other Members in the House who may not wish to vote it in its entirety. So, if you will permit, I will then move a Motion now to seek that the Second Motion be allowed to be voted in a split manner as well.
Mr Speaker: Understand. Please do.
Ms Indranee Rajah: Let me just make sure that I understand Dr Janil Puthucheary correctly. Yes.
Mr Speaker, may I seek your consent and the general assent of Members present to move that the question on the Second Motion in respect of the \"Committee of Privileges Report (Recommendations in respect of Mr Pritam Singh, Mr Faisal Manap and Ms Sylvia Lim)\", be put and voted in two parts: that the first question be put upon paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Motion and that the second question be put upon paragraph 3 of the Motion.
[(proc text) Hon Members indicated assent. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Leader, please proceed.
Ms Indranee Rajah: Mr Speaker, I beg to move that notwithstanding the Standing Orders, the question on the Second Motion in respect of the \"Committee of Privileges Report (Recommendations in respect of Mr Pritam Singh, Mr Faisal Manap and Ms Sylvia Lim)\", be put and voted in two parts: that the first question be put upon paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Motion and that the second question be put upon paragraph 3 of the Motion.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Resolved, (proc text)]
[(proc text) That on the Second Motion in respect of the \"Committee of Privileges Report (Recommendations in respect of Mr Pritam Singh, Mr Faisal Manap and Ms Sylvia Lim)\", be put and voted in two parts, that the first question be put upon paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Motion and that the second question be put upon paragraph 3 of the Motion. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: We have now come to the conclusion of the debate. I shall put the necessary questions to the House for decision. We will first deal with the Motion on the Committee of Privileges Report (Recommendations in respect of Ms Raeesah Khan).
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Resolved, (proc text)]
[(proc text) That this Parliament: (proc text)]
[(proc text) 1. Takes note of the Special Reports of the Committee of Privileges contained in: (proc text)]
[(proc text) (a)\tPaper Parl 5 of 2021; (proc text)]
[(proc text) (b)\tPaper Parl 6 of 2021; (proc text)]
[(proc text) (c)\tPaper Parl 7 of 2021; (proc text)]
[(proc text) (d)\tPaper Parl 8 of 2021; (proc text)]
[(proc text) (e)\tPaper Parl 9 of 2021; (proc text)]
[(proc text) (f)\tPaper Parl 10 of 2021; (proc text)]
[(proc text) (g)\tPaper Parl 11 of 2021; and (proc text)]
[(proc text) 2. Agrees with the recommendations of the Committee of Privileges relating to Ms Raeesah Khan, as stated in the Committee’s Report contained in Paper Parl 13 of 2022, and resolves: (proc text)]
[(proc text) (a) that Ms Raeesah Khan is guilty of abuse of the privileges of Parliament for an untruth (“Untruth”) spoken in Parliament on 3 August 2021 (twice) and repeated on 4 October 2021; (proc text)]
[(proc text) (b) that a fine of S$25,000 be imposed on her for stating the Untruth twice in Parliament on 3 August 2021. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: The second question.
[(proc text) Question put, \"That this Parliament agrees with the recommendations of the Committee of Privileges relating to Ms Raeesah Khan, as stated in the Committee’s Report contained in Paper Parl 13 of 2022, and resolves that a fine of S$10,000 be imposed on Ms Raeesah Khan for repeating the Untruth on 4 October 2021\". (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Leader of the Opposition.
Mr Pritam Singh: Mr Speaker, can I request that the dissent of the WP MPs be recorded.
Mr Speaker: Yes. Those who are dissenting, please stand in your place so that we can record your dissent.
[(proc text) Hon Members Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis, Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song, Ms He Ting Ru, Mr Leong Mun Wai, Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim, Ms Sylvia Lim, Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap, Mr Leon Perera, Ms Hazel Poa, Mr Pritam Singh and Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong rose in their place for their dissent to be recorded. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Thank you, you may sit.
[(proc text) Resolved, (proc text)]
[(proc text) That this Parliament agrees with the recommendations of the Committee of Privileges relating to Ms Raeesah Khan, as stated in the Committee’s Report contained in Paper Parl 13 of 2022, and resolves that a fine of S$10,000 be imposed on Ms Raeesah Khan for repeating the Untruth on 4 October 2021. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: We will now deal with the next question on the Second Motion.
[(proc text) Question put, \"That this Parliament: 1. Notes that it appears from the Report of the Committee of Privileges (Paper Parl 13 of 2022) (“Report”) that offences under Part 5 of the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act may have been committed before the Committee of Privileges; and (proc text)]
[(proc text) 2. Resolves, under section 21(1)(c) of the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act, to refer the conduct of Mr Pritam Singh and Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap before the Committee to the Public Prosecutor\". (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Leader of the Opposition.
Mr Pritam Singh: Mr Speaker, for the same reason I mentioned with regard to the original Motion number one, paragraph 2(c), while Mr Faisal Manap and myself are prepared to be referred to the Public Prosecutor, we do not agree with this particular paragraph because the basis of the referral to the Public Prosecutor arises from the findings of the Committee of Privileges and we reject the allegations that we told untruths.
Mr Speaker: Noted. Would you like to record your dissent? Those recording your dissent, please stand.
Mr Pritam Singh: Yes.
[(proc text) Hon Members Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis, Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song, Ms He Ting Ru, Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim, Ms Sylvia Lim, Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap, Mr Leon Perera, Mr Pritam Singh and Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong rose in their place for their dissent to be recorded. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Thank you, you may sit.
[(proc text) Resolved, (proc text)]
[(proc text) That this Parliament: 1. Notes that it appears from the Report of the Committee of Privileges (Paper Parl 13 of 2022) (“Report”) that offences under Part 5 of the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act may have been committed before the Committee of Privileges; and (proc text)]
[(proc text) 2. Resolves, under section 21(1)(c) of the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act, to refer the conduct of Mr Pritam Singh and Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap before the Committee to the Public Prosecutor. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: That brings us to the last question.
[(proc text) Question put, \"That this Parliament further resolves that the findings in the Report of the Committee of Privileges (Paper Parl 13 of 2022) (\"Report\") regarding: (proc text)]
[(proc text) i.\tMr Pritam Singh's, Ms Sylvia Lim’s and/or Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap's respective roles as set out in the Report, in relation to the untruth spoken by Ms Raeesah Khan in Parliament on 3 August 2021 (twice) and repeated on 4 October 2021; (proc text)]
[(proc text) ii.\tMs Lim/Mr Faisal's stating of untruths to the Committee on oath/affirmation; (proc text)]
[(proc text) and the appropriate sanctions in respect thereof, be deferred until after the conclusion of the investigations and criminal proceedings (if any) against Mr Singh.\" (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Would you like to record your dissent?
Mr Pritam Singh: Yes, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker: You may just stand in your place.
[(proc text) Hon Members Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis, Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song, Ms He Ting Ru, Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim, Ms Sylvia Lim, Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap, Mr Leon Perera, Mr Pritam Singh and Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong rose in their place for their dissent to be recorded. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Thank you, please be seated.
[(proc text) Resolved, (proc text)]
[(proc text) That this Parliament further resolves that the findings in the Report of the Committee of Privileges (Paper Parl 13 of 2022) (\"Report\") regarding: (proc text)]
[(proc text) i. Mr Pritam Singh's, Ms Sylvia Lim’s and/or Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap's respective roles as set out in the Report, in relation to the untruth spoken by Ms Raeesah Khan in Parliament on 3 August 2021 (twice) and repeated on 4 October 2021; (proc text)]
[(proc text) ii. Ms Lim/Mr Faisal's stating of untruths to the Committee on oath/affirmation; (proc text)]
[(proc text) and the appropriate sanctions in respect thereof, be deferred until after the conclusion of the investigations and criminal proceedings (if any) against Mr Singh. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Leader, Adjournment of Parliament.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Adjournment","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Resolved, \"That at its rising today, Parliament do stand adjourned to Friday, 18 February 2022.\" – [Mr Zaqy Mohamad]. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"A Fairer and More Inclusive Singapore for Low-wage Migrant Workers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"The Deputy Leader of the House (Mr Zaqy Mohamad): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, \"That Parliament do now adjourn.\"
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, let me start by thanking members of the public, students from Cape Yale-NUS and NGOs like ItsRainingRaincoats, Sama Sama and COVID-19 Migrant Support Coalition (CMSC), who are here in the gallery in Parliament to support this Motion, for their unwavering efforts in helping our migrant friends and giving a voice to the voiceless.
Sir, every parent wishes for the opportunity to watch their child grow up. Witnessing your child's first words and first steps are magical moments for any parent. I feel lucky to have been there for my three daughters through their years of laughter, tears, tantrums and, of course, joy over unboxing LOL dolls. Children do grow up so quickly and these precious, fleeting moments will never happen again. It is time we will never get back.
Unfortunately, for most of our low-wage migrant workers, these are milestones they will experience only through phone screens, from thousands of miles away.
Sir, three years ago, I accompanied Hanif, a cleaner at Nee Soon Town Council, as he visited his family back home in Bangladesh and to also welcome his first child into the world. During that trip, I met the wives, parents, siblings and children of Nee Soon Town Council cleaners who had not had the opportunity to visit home. I watched these family members video-call our Nee Soon cleaners in Singapore. I could hardly bear the sight as they wept with heartache and longing for one another.
I met so many of our cleaners' families who have never met their fathers. It is the same for Hanif's son, Al Ameen, who is now three years old. Hanif has not been there to watch his son grow up. He proudly shows me all the photos of his son on his phone, including this morning when we met. But deep inside, I know how painful it must be for him to not be there with his family.
I am sure our migrant workers all wish to be home with their loved ones. Who does not wish to be? But they know that working here gives their family a chance at a better life.
Hanif's wife, Tania, shared quite painfully: \"Sometimes, I think, if he can come back to Bangladesh, how amazing that would be. I feel sad and I miss his presence. However, reality is very tough, so he has to work hard abroad for us. Obviously, I feel sad for my son that he will be deprived of his dad's love and affection\". As Hanif sums it up, \"We are poor people. To survive, we have to make these kinds of sacrifices.\"
Sir, our migrant workers make extraordinary sacrifices to be here in Singapore. They deserve to be treated with fairness and dignity like anyone else.
Unfortunately, this has not been the case for many migrant workers. Today, I will outline three major problems they face: kickbacks, confinement and exhaustion. I will also propose feasible and impactful solutions to solve these problems.
The first problem is forced kickbacks. Today, many workers are forced to pay kickbacks to their employers. MOM has said that it receives about 960 reports of kickback offences a year, with an average of 102 employers taken to task each year. Senior Minister of State Koh Poh Koon might not feel this is a widespread problem, but if you break it down, that is one employer every three days in Singapore being taken to task for collecting kickbacks from their migrant workers. One every three days.
Sir, let us also start by being clear: 960 cases is 960 too many. This does not even include the unreported cases and could just be the tip of the iceberg. These are workers earning the lowest salaries in Singapore, forced to return their pay cheques to their bosses just so they would not be fired. If any Singaporean were in their shoes, they would be outraged.
I recently met some migrant workers who had been asked to pay about $3,000 to be allowed to continue their employment. For some, this is more than four times their salary. For these men, being sent home is to be sentenced to financial ruin. They would have no way to repay the loans each of them took to make their way here in the first place. These workers were terrified when they spoke to me. They feared the repercussions of reporting their bosses. What would happen to their job, family and debts? What would happen to them? I could see their hands trembling as they spoke.
A crime had been committed against them, yet their first emotion was not anger but fear. One of the workers told me, \"When I came to Singapore in 2016, I paid $14,000, then in 2018, I paid $1,500 for my Work Permit. Now they said that if I don’t give them $3,000 they will fire me. I am a really poor man, I have no money to give them. In this situation, I am really helpless and feeling depressed. I am an honest and hardworking man.\"
Sir, hearing these stories first-hand reminded me that these 960 cases are not just a statistic. They are humans with mothers, fathers and families, suffering a grave injustice. But let us, for a moment, talk about numbers. MOM says that these cases form \"only about 10% of all complaints that MOM receives.\" This is the wrong comparison. We should be clear about what a forced kickback is. It is a criminal act. It is employers forcing migrant workers, who have no choice but to pay money.
Forced kickbacks are just as damaging to Singapore's rule of law as corruption cases punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act. To put things in context, CPIB received 239 reports of corruption in 2020. This means MOM's 960 kickback reports are more than four times of all corruption cases in Singapore.
It is a massive number. For a nation founded and built on the principle of zero tolerance for corruption, forced kickbacks are an equally severe problem that we have not adequately tackled.
I propose two solutions to this problem.
First, we need to treat kickbacks as seriously as corruption by sharply increasing penalties against employers and individuals caught collecting kickbacks.
I agree with Senior Minister of State Koh Poh Koon when he said that strict penalties and a strong stance against employers who collect kickbacks are key and that deterrence should be on the side of the employers. But the current maximum sentence of two years of imprisonment and a $30,000 fine under the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act is far too low to be a deterrent. Kickbacks are just as damaging as bribes to the integrity of Singapore's systems. They should be treated as severely as bribes.
I propose that the maximum sentence be raised to five years of imprisonment and a $100,000 fine, matching the maximum penalty for bribery cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
My second proposal is to create a permanent scheme that allows migrant workers to change employers.
Currently, we have a temporary programme called the Retention Scheme. This was introduced last year by MOM and the Singapore Contractors Association Limited, or SCAL. Under this scheme, migrant workers who leave their employers get a 30-day window in which SCAL will try to match them to a new employer. This scheme reduces COVID-19-related labour shortages, but also can allow workers to leave abusive employers.
It is an age-old solution that all of us already benefit from. If your boss abuses you and steals from your pay cheque, your first step is surely not to stick around. It is to say I quit and find a new job. Why should migrant workers not get this same opportunity?
My proposal here is not only to make the Retention Scheme a permanent one, but to make it better. MOM said last October that there are plans to cover the manufacturing and marine sector. I hope we can do more and cover all sectors that employ Work Permit holders. The scheme also needs salary controls. Workers should not face a decreased salary, employers should not see bidding wars and Singaporeans should not expect price inflation.
Sir, forced kickbacks trap workers in abusive workplaces. But there is a second problem that traps workers, literally: physical confinement. In a few weeks' time, we will reach a two-year anniversary. This anniversary is not a happy one. It marks two years since our migrant workers have been free to leave their dormitories.
For two years, most of the 300,000 workers living in dormitories have not been able to walk free. They leave their dormitories almost exclusively for work. They do get to use recreation centres (RCs), but these are hardly any substitute for the community, with their limited physical amenities and, most importantly, the absence of the workers' social network.
In the words of Bangladeshi worker Zakir: \"It's like we are inside a cage.\" He described the mental torture of being allowed out of the dormitory only to go to work. Dormitory and work. That is it. He shared how the continued confinement will lead to mental health issues amongst our migrant workers. Another worker, Sharif, said, \"This is prison life. This is a captive's life.\"
Sir, some feel that RCs are a solution. But as Zakir shares, going to the RC only helps a little. Like all of us, migrant workers want to meet friends who are living in other areas in Singapore. They miss one another, a feeling we all understand.
MOM has said that the movement restrictions are \"to protect the health of our migrant workers and to mitigate the risk of further transmission\". But, for Sharif, he feels more like he is being punished than being protected.
Sir, socialisation, entertainment and physical freedom are basic needs. But these are needs that migrant workers living in dormitories have been denied for far too long now. Our lockdown of migrant workers is also not grounded in risk management principles. Migrant workers, by and large, are at very low risk of putting our healthcare system under a strain. This is based on four factors.
First, they are exceedingly healthy. Last year, 99.9% of COVID-19-infected migrant workers had either no or mild symptoms.
Second, they are tested very frequently. Dormitory residents today have to undergo the Fast and Easy Testing-Rostered Routine. This means they are tested once every seven days. By contrast, the vast majority of Singaporeans do not undergo routine testing.
Third, their place of residence is audited and enforced with health controls. All dormitories are configured to implement Safe Living Measures. Large dormitories face Infection Prevention and Control audits at least once a week. Residents must also complete mandatory COVID-19 education programmes.
Fourth, nearly all of them are fully vaccinated: 98% of dormitory residents are fully vaccinated. By contrast, only about 87% of Singapore's overall population is fully vaccinated.
Healthy, tested, audited and vaccinated. What more could we ask from our migrant workers?
I do understand that dormitories are communal places that carry a heightened level of risk. But we do not place residents of military dormitories under nearly the same kind of restrictions. Would it be acceptable to bar NSFs from booking out for their entire two years of National Service, in the spirit of protecting them? Why do we treat migrant workers living in dormitories differently?
Sir, my recommendation is straightforward: we should allow all vaccinated and boosted migrant workers to enter the general community as long as they comply with their intensive regimes of safe practice and frequent testing. When in the community, dormitory residents will have to comply with all existing safety measures that the general public already have to comply with, such as mask wearing and dining group sizes. Workers should be required to demonstrate understanding of these measures prior to leaving their dormitories by completing quizzes on the FWMOMCare app. Those found in breach of these measures should face a graduated scale of penalties, including restricted access to the community.
I know that Senior Minister of State Koh Poh Koon will share that MOM already has some limited programmes for allowing dormitory residents into the community. Up to 3,000 vaccinated migrant workers may visit the community on weekdays and up to 6,000 on weekends and public holidays. In addition, they are working with community partners to plan and organise events and activities for workers.
Three thousand workers on weekdays and 6,000 on weekends. This means on any given day, only about 2% of dorm residents are free to enter the community. Surely, we will all agree that this is not nearly enough. Would we all sitting here accept letting only 2% of our NSFs into the community?
This drip-drip offering of tiny community visits does not help the vast majority of workers. A broad-based relaxation of movement controls is needed and small-scale community visits are not an adequate substitute.
Sir, our NSFs live, work, shower and eat in a communal setting and are allowed into the community with appropriate safe management measures, such as taking regular tests and being cohorted into smaller groups. These measures allow NSFs to remain part of our community. If there are any additional assurances required before our migrant workers can be allowed into the community, can we apply the same measures for NSFs to our migrant workers?
The third and final problem I will highlight today is exhaustion.
Workers need rest, whether they think they need it or not. We already accept this by mandating holidays and leave entitlements to workers covered under the Employment Act, and by soon requiring foreign domestic workers to take at least one rest day a month.
But this benefit has not been extended to other migrant workers. It is not just a matter of consistency; it is a matter of safety. The year 2021 has been an awful year for workplace safety. The latest statistics from the first half of 2021 showed a higher level of major injuries and fatalities, compared to 2019 and 2020.
It should be no wonder to us that burned-out, overworked workers, pushed to their limits, break the rules and get sloppy.
To some extent, we can blame errant individuals, but we also have to accept the biological fact that a worker’s body, eventually, hits a limit.
Workplace fatigue has been known as a contributing factor of workplace injuries. Our office workers need rest. Our frontline workers need rest. Our foreign domestic workers need rest. Our low-wage migrant workers need it, too.
My proposed solution to this problem is to provide one mandatory rest day a month to all migrant workers. Workers should not be allowed to sell these rest days back to their employers; they should be required to rest. This aligns with what we will apply to foreign domestic workers.
If we all agree that foreign domestic workers need one mandatory rest day a month, then how can we not agree that migrant workers also need one mandatory rest day a month?
Sir, in conclusion, let me summarise the three problems I have highlighted today and the solutions.
First, many migrant workers face forced kickbacks. There need to be much harsher penalties against such law-breaking employers and individuals. Workers also need a universal and permanent programme that allows them to switch employers, with salary limits, to ensure labour costs do not spike.
Second, the vast majority of migrant workers living in dormitories remain without access to the community. Vaccinated and boosted dormitory residents should be allowed to enter the community, subject to all of the intense safe practices and frequent testing that they already face. Small-scale releases should not be seen as the solution.
Third, migrant workers should be given at least one rest day every month that they cannot sell back to their employer. They should be required not to work for that day, similar to foreign domestic workers, so they have some minimum level of rest. This keeps them healthy and would also improve workplace safety.
Kickbacks, confinement and exhaustion. These are core problems facing too many migrant workers in Singapore, and there are feasible, workable, research-based solutions for each of them.
I am not asking for any special treatment for our migrant workers. I am only asking that they be treated fairly and equally, like the rest of us.
I am also not proposing anything new. My proposals merely extend to migrant workers protocols we already have in place for dealing with corruption in the corporate sector, with health risks in military dormitories and with exhaustion among foreign domestic workers.
Sir, at the start of the pandemic, Ministers and Members of Parliament stood in this House, broadcasting our support for the sacrifices of our migrant workers. Our words matter, but so do our deeds.
Migrant workers are members of our society and builders of our nation.
Sir, I started this speech stressing about how difficult it must be for them to live so far from their home and their loved ones. Today is, actually, my daughter Ella’s birthday. Honestly, I feel bad and it does break my heart that I am not able to be there with her today and to spend time with her on this special day. By the time I get home, probably, she will be asleep. I will do my best to make it up to Ella tomorrow and spend some precious time with her.
It is a painful feeling to not be there for your children, a feeling that migrant workers who are fathers must feel each and every day.
Sir, it is a long speech but I do not think any amount of words can adequately describe the difficult lives migrant workers lead – being in debt, being exhausted from the backbreaking work they do, the confinement, earning so little and yet having to pay kickbacks, never being able to hug their own children, some of whom they have never even met. I do not think any of us can truly understand what they go through.
Sir, they miss their families and the least we can do is make them feel like they are a part of the Singapore family. The very least that we can do is to ensure that we treat them with the fairness and dignity that everyone in Singapore deserves.
Mr Speaker: Senior Minister of State Koh Poh Koon.
The Senior Minister of State for Manpower (Dr Koh Poh Koon): Thank you, Sir. Sir, I thank the Member for sharing his concerns and suggestions on how we can create a fairer and more inclusive Singapore for our migrant workers. Indeed, migrant workers have and will continue to contribute immensely to Singapore’s development. They are welcomed members of our society. And MOM is committed to ensure that our migrant workers are treated fairly and that their employment rights and well-being are safeguarded during their time here in Singapore.
MOM agrees with the Member that the collection of employment kickbacks is a serious offence as it shifts the burden of employment costs from employers to workers and increases the debt burden on the migrant workers. Thus, MOM undertakes a multi-pronged approach to detect and deter the collection of employment kickbacks from migrant workers.
Under the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act (EFMA), accused persons, upon conviction, may be sentenced to imprisonment for up to two years or a fine of up to $30,000, or both – per charge. Those who abet the collection of kickbacks will face the same penalties.
To the Member’s suggestion to increase the penalties for kickback offences to match the maximum penalty for bribery cases, I would like to highlight that accused persons can be charged on a per-worker basis. For instance, in 2018, an employer was fined a total of $120,000 for 10 charges for collecting kickbacks from migrant workers. This, in fact, is higher than the $100,000 penalty suggested by the Member.
Substantial fines of $7,000 to $12,000 per charge or short imprisonment terms have been imposed by the Courts. These sentences have not approached the maximum fine or imprisonment term set out under the EFMA currently. This indicates that the current maximum in terms of fine or imprisonment term for the collection of kickbacks has been sufficient for the Courts to impose sentences that reflect the gravity of offences in all previous cases.
On top of the fines and imprisonment terms meted out, the Courts are also obligated to order the offender to pay a sum which is equal to the amount of the sum or other benefit that the offender had deducted or received.
Besides the strict penalties, MOM also actively enforces against employers, unlicensed agents or employment agencies, who collected kickbacks from migrant workers. In recent years, MOM made use of data analytics to identify and detect unusual patterns in hiring practices more quickly and accurately. This has helped MOM to proactively detect cases of employment kickbacks, in addition to complaints that we receive directly.
Migrant workers who are pressurised into giving kickbacks should step forward and report the matter to MOM. Our FAST Team officers were deployed to dormitories or to reach out to the NGOs, many of whom are very active in the dormitories today, such as the Migrant Workers Centre.
We share the Member’s view that migrant workers who are treated unfairly should be allowed to change employers. Migrant workers with valid employment claims, including those who have been forced to pay kickbacks, are permitted to transfer to another employer and continue working here in Singapore. This is an important safeguard for migrant workers who have been unfairly treated.
In addition, measures are in place to facilitate the retention of experienced Work Permit holders in Singapore. Workers can transfer to a new employer at the end of their contract, without the need for the current employer’s consent. This is currently allowed in all business sectors.
The Retention Scheme in the construction sector is an additional effort to retain workers whose employment has been terminated and who wish to continue working in Singapore. Under the Retention Scheme, the Singapore Contractors Association Limited (SCAL) takes over the upkeep and maintenance of these workers and matches them to another employer in the construction sector.
Since its implementation in September 2021, about 430 workers have been enrolled in the scheme. We are in discussions with SCAL on extending the Retention Scheme for a few more months, to support the industry in retaining experienced workers.
At the same time, as we had announced in November last year, we are working with the respective trade associations and chambers (TACs) to implement the Retention Scheme in the Marine and Process sectors as well. The TACs have been preparing for this implementation and, hopefully, would be ready soon. We will provide an update on these in due course.
While these Retention Schemes play a part in ameliorating the manpower challenges faced by the industry today, the fundamental solution is to safely increase the inflow of new workers into Singapore. MOM has, therefore, been facilitating various industry initiatives to progressively allow more Construction, Marine and Process (CMP) sector workers into Singapore safely. Subject to the public health situation, we will continue these efforts to bring in workers safely to support the needs of the industry.
The Member also suggested salary controls for workers who transfer to a new employer. Salary is one of many factors that workers and employers may consider when negotiating a new employment. We should not introduce rigidity into this process by anchoring on an arbitrary salary point or increment rates. Employers and workers should have the flexibility to negotiate employment terms with consideration of various factors, including the worker’s skills and training, and the prevailing market conditions.
Besides ensuring employment standards, we agree with the Member that all employees, including migrant workers, should have sufficient rest to ensure their well-being and safety.
Last year, MOM announced our intention to implement, by end-2022, the requirement for migrant domestic workers to be given at least one rest day per month that cannot be compensated away. Migrant domestic workers work and live in their employers’ homes. Hence, having a mandatory rest day that cannot be compensated away, will provide migrant domestic workers with mental respite and also more opportunities to form a network of support outside of the households.
Let me correct the Member's misperception and, that is, for migrant workers, there are protections under the Employment Act on the maximum hours that employees can work per week and per day, as well as the maximum number of overtime hours per month. These protections apply to all employees, including migrant workers and local employees.
Employers are also required to grant all employees, including migrant workers, at least one rest day without pay per week, unless there is a prior written agreement between the employer and the employee to work on the rest day. The employee must also be provided monetary compensation for working on his rest day. If work is done on the rest day at the employer's request, the employee must be compensated at twice his regular rate of pay.
As a safeguard, employers cannot compel their employees to work on their rest days, unless under exceptional circumstances. Migrant workers who are forced to do so should approach MOM for assistance and we will investigate.
We share the Member’s concern on the importance of workplace safety. Fatigue and overworking can affect a worker’s safety at work. This is why the Workplace Safety and Health (WSH) Council promotes the protection of workers to prevent fatigue through its Total WSH programme, WSH Council guidelines and platforms, such as the annual National WSH Campaign. Last year’s National WSH Campaign emphasised Care Time for workers to take care of their safety and health. Simple actions, such as regular exercise, constantly being hydrated and having adequate sleep, can improve one’s physical and mental health and allow workers to be more alert to unsafe acts or conditions at their workplaces.
Lastly, the Member has asked to allow all vaccinated and boosted migrant workers in dormitories to enter the general community as long as they comply with the current safe management measures and testing regimes. We are very mindful that social and recreation activities are important to the well-being of migrant workers. At the same time, we are also responsible for safeguarding their health and reducing disruption to their lives and work.
The good health outcomes of our workers residing in dormitories were achieved through the steadfast support and significant efforts from all our stakeholders – dormitory operators, employers and the workers themselves as well as many of the NGOs. With COVID-19 still circulating in Singapore and the recent Omicron wave, we must not lift these rules in the dormitories too quickly and risk a re-ignition of cases which will unwind all the gains that we have so painstakingly made in the last two years.
As dormitories are communal settings where transmissions can occur rapidly, MOM’s strategy is, therefore, to take a careful and calibrated approach to progressively allow more migrant workers to visit the community while actively working to make sure that their well-being is taken care of.
First, we have allowed a range of social and recreation activities within the dormitories, subject to group size restrictions and safe management measures.
Second, migrant workers can now visit any Recreation Centre daily. We are also working with Recreation Centre operators and community partners, as well as NGOs, to introduce programmes and new offerings to make the Recreation Centre visits much more engaging.
Third, from 18 December 2021, 3,000 vaccinated migrant workers per day are allowed on community visits on weekdays and 6,000 per day on weekends as well as public holidays. While the visit slots are not fully utilised even today, we are prepared to adjust the quota to allow even more migrant workers to visit the community as the COVID-19 situation improves further.
While the Member highlighted that full-time NSFs similarly stay and work in a communal setting but can remain part of the community, the key difference here is that NSFs would be able to return to their own homes, separate homes, and be quarantined when necessary. This is unlike the dormitory setting where our dormitory-dwelling migrant workers whose fixed place of residence is in a communal setting, making a potential re-ignition of the cases in the dormitories a health risk for many workers.
Having said that, I must put on record our grateful thanks to our migrant workers for their patience, cooperation and support during this pandemic. I want to assure our migrant workers that, in line with the progressive adjustment of the Safe Management Measures for our general community, MOM will calibrate measures to allow more workers to visit the community while ensuring that the risk of COVID-19 is contained.
Sir, taking good care of our migrant workers is a continual effort and MOM will continue to partner stakeholders, such as NGOs and employers, to build a better ecosystem for our migrant workers who have contributed so much to Singapore.
I thank the Member for his Motion. I want to wish his daughter a happy birthday as well.
Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Ng. One minute, so you could go back a bit earlier. [Laughter.]
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang: May I thank Senior Minister of State Koh Poh Koon for the reply.
Let me just ask two clarifications then.
One, we have a piece of legislation, quite a serious one, against kickbacks that is broken once every three days. Do we not feel that there is no deterrence and that maybe it is time to review it, at least to see whether it can serve as a deterrent?
Two, I understand that the Retention Scheme expires on 28 February. I think the Senior Minister of State mentioned that they might be extending it a few months. Could I just ask whether that is confirmed just for the construction sector, or are we also going to look into expanding the Retention Scheme to all other sectors, not just the marine and manufacturing?
Mr Speaker: You have 20 seconds.
Dr Koh Poh Koon: Sir, as I have replied, the kickback offences, the penalty today is significant and the Courts have enough leeway to actually mete out harsher sentences if they want to. But yet, at the same time, that has not been exercised to the maximum. So, I think we should allow the Courts to make the judicial assessment of what the maximum fine should be because there is a lot of headroom for them to use under the current law.
As for the extension of the Retention Scheme, as I have said, we are working with the trade associations because there is an implementation mechanism. If we can open it to more sectors, obviously, we can consider that. But you need a receptacle – somebody must want to take the responsibility. So far, we have been talking to trade associations within the process and the marine sectors, who were prepared to do so.
Mr Speaker: Order. The time allowed for the proceedings has expired. I adjourn the House pursuant to the Standing Order. Order.
[(proc text) The Question having been proposed at 7.47 pm and the Debate having continued for half an hour, Mr Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order. (proc text)]
Adjourned accordingly at 8.19 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":"Safeguards to Prevent Deterioration in Residential Waste Disposal Methods Given Move to Reduce Use of Plastic Bags","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"22 Dr Shahira Abdullah asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment given the move to reduce the use of plastic bags in Singapore, what measures or safeguards will be put in place to avoid any deterioration in residential waste disposal methods.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: In Singapore, our residents do need disposable bags for bagging rubbish to ensure public hygiene. This will prevent pest infestation in our bins and chutes. The proposed bag charge will not remove the public’s access to disposable bags. Disposable bags will still be available from supermarkets, including those for the bagging of fresh produce, such as fish and meat, as well as from other non-supermarket retail outlets and wet markets.
The intent of a disposable carrier bag charge at supermarkets is to discourage excessive use, which is unsustainable as it uses up resources and adds to carbon emissions when incinerated in our waste-to-energy plants. We hope that the bag charge will encourage people to be more mindful of how they consume disposable carrier bags and build environmentally-friendly habits.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Annual Budgets Provided to Primary Care, Community Hospitals and Nursing Homes in Last Three Financial Years and Plans for Higher Allocations Given Ageing Population with More Chronic Diseases","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"24 Ms Ng Ling Ling asked the Minister for Health for the last three financial years (a) what are the annual budgets provided respectively to (i) public hospitals, (ii) public specialist outpatient clinics, (iii) primary care including both polyclinics and subsidies under the Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS) to private general practitioners, (iv) community hospitals and (v) nursing homes; and (b) whether there will be considerations for a higher budget allocation to primary care, community hospitals and nursing homes given the ageing population with more chronic diseases.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: MOH’s expenditure on public acute hospitals, including public specialist outpatient clinics, grew from $6.7 billion in FY2017 to $6.9 billion in FY2019. MOH’s expenditure on the primary care sector and intermediate and long-term care sector, including community hospitals and nursing homes, increased from $1.4 billion in FY2017 to $2 billion in FY2019. We expect this trend of rising investment in primary and intermediate and long-term care to continue.
We have ramped up capacity and capability in the primary care and intermediate and long-term care sectors to provide care that better meets the needs of patients closer to their homes. By 2030, the number of polyclinics will increase from 23 today to 32, and we will build another three new public community hospitals. Aged care services will also expand considerably to support seniors to age-in-place.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Amount and Breakdown of Funds Disbursed to Town Councils for Implementation of Safe Management Measures","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"25 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for National Development in each of the Financial Years in 2019, 2020 and 2021 (a) what was the total amount of funding allocated to Town Councils (TCs) for the implementation of safe management measures; (b) what was the total amount of claims from TCs submitted to the Ministry; (c) what were the actual amounts reimbursed to TCs; and (d) what was the average duration from the time the claims were submitted to when they were reimbursed.
Mr Desmond Lee: MND has been providing funding support to Town Councils (TCs) for the implementation of safe management measures (SMMs) at TC-managed hawker centres, wet markets and market produce shop clusters since 7 April 2020 when SMMs came into effect. This funding support is subject to cost caps, based on the Government’s assessment of the operational requirements TCs would need to put in place as a result of the prevailing SMM guidelines. MND regularly reviews the cost caps and has increased the cap several times to reflect the additional requirements expected of TCs, as the COVID-19 situation and SMM guidelines evolve. The cap was last increased on 1 December 2021, when TCs were additionally required to implement Vaccination-Differentiated Safe Management Measures (VDS) at TC-managed hawker centres.
For FY2020, TCs submitted claims amounting to $1.38 million in total, and MND disbursed $1.24 million in funding. As at 31 December 2021, TCs have submitted total claims of $4.66 million for FY2021, of which $4.65 million has been approved. The difference between the claimed and disbursed or approved amounts is due to claims that exceeded the cost caps set or claims for non-claimable items.
TCs’ SMM claims are collectively processed in batches, upon receipt of most TCs’ completed claims for the stipulated period. This is to facilitate analysis of trends, and comparison of claimable items across TCs so that MND can exercise due diligence and seek clarifications if there are anomalies, before disbursing the funds.
Typically, upon receipt of most TCs’ claims, it would take about one month for the claims to be verified and for payment to be credited to TCs’ accounts. However, there were cases of late claims submissions, and claims which contained errors or incomplete documentation. This held up the claims process, as clarifications or requests for further documentation had to be made. As the SMM claims are collectively processed upon receipt of most TCs’ claims, TCs which submitted their claims earlier might have experienced a longer period between claims submission and disbursement.
To streamline the claims process, MND transited to a subvention model for SMM funding in August 2021. TCs now no longer need to provide supporting documents when submitting their claims to MND. Instead, TCs’ SMM expenses and the supporting documents will be audited by each TC’s external auditor, as part of the annual financial statements audit. This will expedite the reimbursement process and shorten the interval between claims submission and reimbursement.
TCs can expect to receive payment for the FY2021 claims before end-March 2022. For TCs that have submitted late or incomplete claims, their claims will be processed at the next payment cycle.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Potential Breaches of COVID-19 SMMs at Sky Gardens of HDB Blocks and Proposal to Gate Up such Gardens","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"26 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for National Development in light of potential breaches of COVID-19 safe management measures and disamenities that may occur at sky gardens located at HDB blocks, whether the Ministry will (i) review its policy and consider gating up these sky gardens and (ii) provide key card access to residents.
Mr Desmond Lee: HDB estates are designed with community spaces to encourage social interactions and bonding. These areas are intended to be open and accessible to the public, as well as the residents of the block or estate. In some newer estates, sky gardens are included among community spaces. While we recognise the potential for disamenities from visitors to sky gardens, gating them up or providing key card access to residents will alter the open character of our HDB estates.
Instead, HDB works with relevant parties, such as the Town Councils and Government agencies, to implement targeted measures to address potential disamenities.
For instance, in the case of HDB blocks at the SkyVille @ Dawson project in the Member’s ward, patrols by Safe Distancing Enforcement Officers have been stepped up at the sky garden in general, given an increase in the number of gatherings. They have taken enforcement action against individuals who disregard COVID-19 safe management measures, and will continue to do so. Should residents encounter non-urgent municipal issues or observe breaches of COVID-19 safe management measures at sky gardens, they may also submit their feedback via the OneService App. During New Year’s Eve 2021, agencies, including HDB, SPF, NEA, as well as the Town Council and Residents’ Committee, had also worked with the Member to implement measures to mitigate potential disamenities, such as restricting access to the sky garden after 10pm and increasing patrols by Safe Distancing Enforcement Officers.
HDB will continue to work with the Member and agencies, such as Town Councils and NEA, to ensure that while communal spaces like sky gardens in HDB estates remain open for all to enjoy, potential disamenities for residents are minimised.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Increasing Awareness of Risks amongst Retail Investors of Special Purpose Acquisition Companies","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"27 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Prime Minister (a) what are the steps being taken to educate and protect retail investors of Special Purpose Acquisition Companies (SPACs) given the risks associated with investing in such companies; and (b) whether the Government will consider restrictions on retail investors’ access to the initial public offering of such companies.
Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam (for the Prime Minister): The Singapore Exchange’s (SGX) listing framework for SPACs includes safeguards to protect investors’ interests against the risks posed by the unique features of SPACs. The framework was introduced after an extensive public consultation with a range of stakeholders, including market professionals, industry associations, members of the public and potential SPAC founders.
SPACs provide an alternative capital-raising avenue for enterprises, offering them faster time-to-market while providing investors with access to early stage investments typically available only to professional investors. Unlike a traditional company, a SPAC has no prior operating history or revenue-generating businesses at the time of listing. The SPAC’s founding shareholders (typically referred to as the sponsors) will use the capital raised to acquire an operating business within a specified period of time. Investors would, typically, invest in a SPAC IPO based on their assessment of the SPAC sponsors’ ability to identify and acquire a good quality target company. Once a target company is identified, SPAC investors get to vote on whether the acquisition should be made.
The characteristics of SPACs could pose a number of specific risks to investors. First, sponsors may push ahead with a less than ideal acquisition in order to be entitled to fees for completing the acquisition. Second, investors’ interests could be unduly diluted if the sponsor’s fees, which, typically, take the form of shares in the SPAC, are excessive. Third, warrants that are issued alongside IPO shares may also cause further dilution for investors.
In view of these risks, SGX’s SPAC framework has a number of safeguards. In fact, in a number of areas, SGX has imposed stricter requirements than other jurisdictions with SPAC frameworks. For example:
(a) sponsors have to maintain a minimum level of equity participation in the SPAC;
(b) sponsors have to retain their shareholdings until at least six months after acquisition;
(c) in putting the acquisition of the target company for approval by the SPAC’s shareholders, the sponsors are prohibited from exercising the voting rights attached to shares obtained from their fees; and
(d) there are hard caps on the amount of shares that sponsors may receive and on the maximum dilution that can arise from warrant issuances.
In addition, SGX has partnered the Securities Investors Association (Singapore) (SIAS) to ensure that independent research on the target company will be made available to investors when a SPAC puts forward an acquisition proposal. Investors will need to decide whether to vote for the acquisition to take place, and, if the acquisition proceeds, whether to redeem their shares or to remain invested. The research reports will help investors analyse the various scenarios, the courses of action available to them and the related factors to consider.
SGX has also been mounting education efforts to help retail investors develop a better understanding of the key features and risks associated with SPACs. These efforts include collaborating with SIAS to conduct online webinars, making available comprehensive educational materials about SPACs on the SGX website, and working with various stakeholders to put out educational articles, including on social media platforms.
Ms He Ting Ru also asked if restrictions should be placed on retail investors’ access to SPACs' IPOs. This is a balance that we always consider in regulating the capital markets, and it depends on the overall risks and safeguards. The various regulatory safeguards and educational efforts outlined above should provide adequate protection for retail investors and enable them to assess the risk-return trade-offs and make informed investment decisions.
Restricting retail participation in SPACs, which goes beyond the afore-mentioned safeguards in SGX rules, will curtail retail investors’ access to new investment opportunities. It may also have unintended effects. For instance, investors may seek out unregulated alternative investments and take on even more risks.
We will continue to assess if any of the safeguards need to be adjusted over time. Investors, on their part, should ensure they understand the unique features and risks of SPACs and carefully assess whether SPACs are suited to their risk appetite and investment objectives before investing.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Progress on Efforts Taken to Bring In New Workers for Construction Industry","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"28 Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether the Ministry can provide an update on the Retention Scheme in partnership with the Singapore Contractors Association Ltd (SCAL); and (b) what is the progress of efforts taken to bring in new workers with relevant skills to meet the needs of the construction industry, given the pandemic and transition towards a post-COVID-19 endemic environment.
Dr Tan See Leng: The Retention Scheme has helped to reduce the number of construction workers leaving Singapore after their Work Permits have been cancelled. Since its implementation in September 2021, about 430 workers have been enrolled in the scheme. Sixty percent of them have already been successfully matched to new employers. The rest are in the process of being matched.
MOM has also been facilitating the entry of more construction workers into Singapore, within the parameters set by the Multi-Ministry Taskforce that take into consideration the COVID-19 situation domestically and internationally. There are also ongoing industry initiatives to bring in Construction, Marine and Process (CMP) workers safely with tightened end-to-end safe management processes. To date, 21,000 migrant workers have entered Singapore through these industry initiatives. In January, I updated that between November and December 2021, 18,000 CMP workers entered Singapore on average each month. Subject to the public health situation, we will continue efforts to bring in workers safely to support the industry.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Character-building in Students in Tertiary Institutions' Curriculum","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"29 Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked the Minister for Education whether tertiary institutions in Singapore will focus on building character values in their students as part of their curriculum.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: The nurturing of character and values is an essential aspect of every student’s educational journey. This starts with a holistic school experience that includes Character and Citizenship lessons. The Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs) build on this foundation to equip our youths with the values, soft skills and competencies needed for work and adulthood.
Beyond the academic curriculum, character is shaped through experiential learning opportunities, including student life on campus, service learning projects, internships, co-curricular activities and overseas immersion programmes. These experiences allow students to build resilience and self-confidence, interact with people from diverse backgrounds, and broaden their perspectives of Singapore and the world.
From AY2022, our Polytechnics and the Institute of Technical Education (ITE) will be implementing a revised LifeSkills curriculum to strengthen focus on key competencies and attributes, including self-awareness and mental resilience, personal effectiveness, interpersonal and collaboration skills, and sense of national and global perspectives. The Autonomous Universities (AUs) will also continue to strengthen LifeSkills among their students, through a rich range of learning and student experiences.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Conditions Diagnosed through Employer-arranged Health Screenings and Implications on Future Health Insurance Eligibility","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"30 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether there are human resource (HR) best practice recommendations regarding the provision of health screening to employees whereby the employer has arranged, facilitated or encouraged the health screening; and (b) whether such recommendations include the informed counselling of employees regarding the potential implications for future health insurance eligibility in the event a condition is incidentally diagnosed, even if the condition is deemed benign at the time.
Dr Tan See Leng: Employer-arranged voluntary health screenings are a form of staff benefit offered to employees to help them take care of their health on a preventive basis. It is not mandatory for the employee to undergo the screening.
The HR community has not experienced complications or difficulties in administering such programmes at the firm-level, and there has not been a need to make recommendations on this issue. The Government also does not require health screening providers to counsel individuals undergoing health screening on the potential implications for future health insurance eligibility. This applies whether the health screening is arranged by employers or on an individual’s own initiative.
As such benefits are voluntarily offered by employers and taken up voluntarily by the employees, it is better not to be too prescriptive.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Applications for Flats under Public Rental Scheme in 2021","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"31 Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui asked the Minister for National Development (a) what is the number of flat applicants under the Public Rental Scheme in 2021; (b) how many of these applications have been successful; (c) how many of these successful applicants are placed on the waiting list and what is their estimated waiting time; (d) what is the Ministry’s current assessment of the housing situation in Singapore; and (e) whether the Ministry can provide an update on its plans and alternative housing options for Singaporeans.
Mr Desmond Lee: In 2021, HDB received 10,240 requests for rental flats, of which 3,230 or 32% were approved. The remainder comprised general enquiries on eligibility, incomplete requests where HDB is still waiting for a further response from applicants, and requests from applicants who did not meet the eligibility conditions.
There are 1,800 approved applicants currently awaiting allocation of a rental flat, and the average waiting time is less than a year. While the total number of vacant rental flats exceeds the total number of approved applicants, a majority of the vacant rental flats need to be spruced up before they can be let out. Manpower shortages in the construction industry have resulted in a slightly longer wait for flats to be spruced up. Applicants will also need to be matched to the flat type and location they applied for. Flat types and application zones that are more popular tend to have a longer waiting time due to limited supply.
HDB has taken steps to expedite sprucing works, such as engaging more contractors to complete the works, and to facilitate key collections as quickly as possible. For applicants who are in urgent need of a rental flat, such as those with medical grounds or other extenuating circumstances, HDB will prioritise and expedite flat allocation. In 2021, about 40% of approved applicants were given priority allocation.
In terms of the overall housing situation, there is currently strong demand for public housing, as shared previously with this House. To meet this demand, HDB will ramp up the supply of BTO flats over the next two years, by launching up to 23,000 flats per year in 2022 and 2023. This represents a significant increase of 35% from the 17,000 flats launched in 2021. The increased supply of flats will provide more housing options for Singaporeans.
Our public housing policy continues to prioritise homeownership as a key tenet of Singapore’s social compact. The Government provides significant subsidies to ensure that homeownership remains attainable for Singaporeans. For those who are not ready for homeownership, other than the Public Rental Scheme, there is also the Interim Rental Housing (IRH) for lower-income households who are in the queue for rental flats or awaiting completion of their flats. IRH is offered on a case-by-case basis to those with no other temporary housing options. Other households awaiting completion of their flats can also apply for the Parenthood Provisional Housing Scheme (PPHS), for which HDB is doubling the supply over the next two years, or seek available options in the rental market.
MND closely monitors trends and social norms to identify market gaps, and we are constantly studying how Singaporeans’ preferences and aspirations evolve over time. We will continue to develop our public housing programme and offerings, to ensure that public housing remains responsive to the changing needs of the population.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Extending GST Voucher Scheme to Seniors Whose Homes Exceed $21,000 Annual Value but Who Have Little Cash Savings","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"32 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Finance whether the Ministry will consider extending the GST Voucher scheme to seniors whose annual value of their homes exceed $21,000 if they have little cash savings and do not have children or family members supporting them.
Mr Lawrence Wong: The GST Voucher (GSTV) scheme provides support to lower- and middle-income households for their expenses, in particular, what they pay in GST.
We use Assessable Income (AI) and Annual Value (AV) to determine eligibility, as these are the best available proxies to measure an individual’s means and access to family support. Properties with AVs exceeding $21,000 are private properties. A person living in a higher-value property is, in general, more likely to have access to more means or support through family resources.
That said, MOF carefully considers appeals by Singaporeans who are unable to qualify for the GST Voucher but are in financial difficulty. Apart from the GST Voucher scheme, seniors also receive support from other schemes, such as the Pioneer Generation Package, Merdeka Generation Package and healthcare subsidies.
We continue to review the GST Voucher scheme from time to time, to ensure that it continues to benefit those who need it most.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Inclusion of Questions on Caregiving in National Census Survey to Better Inform Caregiver Support Policies for Ageing Population","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"33 Ms Carrie Tan asked the Minister for Health whether the Ministry has, or plans to include, questions on caregiving in the National Census survey, to get more data on the number and profile of informal caregivers in Singapore in order to better inform the Ministry's caregiver support policies as our population ages and caregiving burdens increase.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The Census of Population provides a broad statistical profile of the population and households in Singapore. In the latest Census conducted in 2020, we collected data on the number of Singapore residents facing difficulties in performing basic activities and information on the living arrangement of elderly residents with difficulty performing at least one basic activity.
Given the broad-based intent of the Census, it may not adequately capture the needs and preferences of caregivers. The Government will thus continue to conduct targeted dialogues with our stakeholders and caregivers to better understand their needs. For example, the Government recently concluded the Conversations on Singapore Women’s Development. These sessions provide insights which help refine our caregiver support policies.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on Caregiving-related Expenditures Incurred by Families Caring for Elderly Persons","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"34 Ms Carrie Tan asked the Minister for Health (a) whether the Ministry has data on the annual caregiving-related expenditures incurred by families caring for elderly persons based on the number of activities of daily living they require assistance in; (b) if so, where is this information published; and (c) whether the Ministry will enhance the Home Caregiving Grant quantum based on different levels of care needs.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Caregiving expenses vary across households, depending on care needs and preferred caregiving arrangements. Hence, while MOH does not track the caregiving expenses incurred based on the number of activities of daily living that care recipients need assistance in, MOH does monitor the expenses incurred for various care services and review the level of financial support accorded to caregivers accordingly.
To this end, MOH introduced the Home Caregiving Grant (HCG) in October 2019 to support community caregiving. The HCG provides a monthly $200 cash grant which can be used flexibly to defray the costs of caregiving for eligible individuals with at least permanent moderate disability. MOH is studying how to enhance the scheme and will announce more details in the coming months.
The HCG is one of many financial support measures that can help to defray caregiving expenses. Other support measures include subsidies for long-term care services and schemes like the Seniors’ Mobility and Enabling Fund to defray the cost of assistive devices and home healthcare items. For severely disabled Singaporeans, other schemes, such as CareShield Life, ElderShield and MediSave Care, may also provide monthly cash payouts. Families who require additional support can approach the AIC Link or the Social Service Office.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reasons and Preventive Measures for Continued Rise in Premiums for Motorcycle COEs","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"35 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether the continued rise in premiums for motorcycle certificates of entitlements (COEs) can be attributed to speculative bidding by motorcycle dealerships and motorcycle-leasing firms; (b) what are the measures put in place to prevent speculative bidding of COEs; and (c) whether the Ministry intends to review if such measures are sufficient in curbing speculative bids in the COE market.
Mr S Iswaran: I thank the Member for his questions. I have addressed them in my reply for Question No 61 for oral answer on the Order Paper for the 14 February 2022 Parliament Sitting. [Please refer to “Reasons for Recent Record High Premiums of Motorcycle COEs and Measures to Help Those Impacted and Dependent on Motorcycles for Livelihoods”, Official Report, 14 February 2022, Vol 95, Issue 47, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer Not Answered by End of Question Time section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Rationale for Collating and Then Ceasing Publication of Indigenous Gross Domestic Product and Indigenous Gross National Income Data","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"36 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) what was the rationale for publishing indigenous Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and indigenous Gross National Income (GNI) in the past and the timeframe in which such data was published; (b) when did the Department of Statistics (DOS) cease compilation of the indigenous GDP and indigenous GNI series; and (c) whether the Government has or is able to make available historical data as part of the Government agencies' Open Data efforts.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Indigenous GDP and indigenous GNI are not national accounts concepts nor part of reporting standards stipulated by international organisations, such as the IMF and World Bank. They are also not compiled by other countries. The Department of Statistics (DOS) had first compiled these statistics in the early years of Singapore’s economic development to track the contributions of Singaporeans to GDP and GNI. Both series were published for the first time in 1978, with data for reference years 1967 to 1977.
Due to the lack of public interest in the two series, DOS decided to cease the publication and compilation of both series for public use with effect from data for reference years 2011 and 2016 respectively, so that resources can be diverted to the compilation of other statistics with greater demand.
DOS can provide historical data for reference years 1967 to 2016 to the public upon request.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Maintaining Diverse Curriculum with Liberal Arts at New NUS College Following Closure of Yale-NUS College","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"37 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Education (a) how will a diverse curriculum that includes the liberal arts be ensured for the new NUS College and its students in order to maintain the interdisciplinary and global perspectives from Yale-NUS College (YNC) and NUS’ University Scholars Programme (USP) experiences; and (b) how will small-group teaching and vibrant residential living be kept for students of both the YNC in the interim, and the new NUS College.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: In line with NUS’ broader plans to enhance interdisciplinary learning, NUS will merge the best elements of Yale-NUS College (YNC) and the NUS’ University Scholars Programme (USP) to form the new NUS College. NUS College will offer an education model that is interdisciplinary, inclusive and accessible. It will have a diverse and vibrant student community, with small-group teaching within a residential living and learning environment.
The curriculum of NUS College will draw on the liberal arts tradition, supplemented with data and computational studies which are critical areas of skills and expertise for the future. There will be a flagship Global Pathway Programme, which will give students the opportunity to spend six months to a year overseas, where they will participate in curated activities centred around specific themes, such as technology, entrepreneurship, diplomacy and environmental and climate action.
NUS remains fully committed to preserving the education experience for YNC students in the meantime. Students will continue to have access to the full range of majors and minors currently offered by YNC until 2025. There will be no change to class sizes or to YNC’s current practice of small-group teaching and residential learning.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Teachers' Workload and Hours Spent Working In and Outside of School","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"38 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Education for each year in the past five years, what is the official mean and median number of hours that teachers (i) work per week, (ii) work per week in school, (iii) work per week out of school, (iv) spend on administrative work and (v) spend on work that does not involve teaching or preparing for classes.
39 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Education whether the Ministry has conducted reviews on teachers’ workload following the introduction of hybrid learning in schools.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: MOE monitors our teachers’ workload through periodic surveys and polls and various forms of staff engagements, including school visits by senior management. Such feedback gives us a holistic appreciation of the workload, so that we can adjust our policies and programmes as necessary.
From the internal surveys conducted over the last five years, the work hours that our teachers reported during term time has remained stable, averaging 50 to 53 hours per week. MOE works with schools and partners to manage the work demands on our teachers. For instance, MOE has enhanced IT systems, such as Parents’ Gateway, to significantly streamline administrative processes. To reduce the workload and stress on teachers and students over the past two years, we have reduced the coverage of national examinations and removed some school-based examinations.
MOE recognises the exceptional demands on our education system due to the COVID-19 pandemic. In particular, our teachers have borne the brunt of it by taking on more responsibilities to ensure our students continue to learn in a safe environment. We have also had to move much faster in adopting blended learning as part of our response to the disruption caused by the pandemic. Home-based learning, as part of blended learning, provides opportunities for students to grow as self-directed learners. But it also means that our teachers have to adapt and learn to design effective lessons and develop suitable resources for home-based learning. Recognising the need to support teachers in this effort, MOE offers professional development programmes and has made available a growing set of curriculum resources for teachers to use on the Singapore Student Learning Space, our national online learning platform.
We will continue to see how best to keep workload manageable for our teachers. For example, schools have been given greater flexibility to pace the implementation of certain initiatives, including deferring implementation if this helps to spread out staff workload.
I want to also highlight two aspects about workload which are not covered by a singular measure of hours worked in a typical week: first, to ensure teachers are not expected to respond at night and over the weekends to parents and students unless it is an emergency; second, to ensure that teachers are given sufficient protected time during the school holiday period to take a proper break. We will continue to uphold these guidelines and we also urge parents to support us in this effort.
MOE will also work closely with schools and school leaders to further strengthen well-being support in the following ways.
First, strengthen teachers’ knowledge and practical skills for self-care and emotional literacy. MOE provides well-being resources and organises workshops for teachers in areas, such as managing difficult conversations and stress management.
Second, enhance school culture for well-being by working with school leaders to foster a supportive culture of transparency, trust and open communication with teachers. MOE encourages school leaders to communicate expectations to help teachers better manage their workload. Teachers can also access well-being resources, including approaching the Wellness Ambassadors in their schools or calling the Whole-of-Government Counselling hotline.
Teachers are the pillars of our education system. Our focus is to ensure that teachers continue to be well supported and their workload remains sustainable in the long term. We care for their well-being and will continue to work with all stakeholders, including school leaders, parents and the teachers' unions, to support them.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Plan to Shift Public Service's Operating Model from \"Just in Time\" to \"Just in Case\"","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"40 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Finance (a) whether the proposal in the Public Accounts Committee’s recent report to shift the Public Service’s operating models from \"just in time\" to \"just in case\" will be considered for implementation; and (b) if so, how will buffer and stockpiles become the new planning parameters while ensuring there will be no over-budgeting or compromising of the budgets of other important programmes.
Mr Lawrence Wong: In planning and building for the future, the Government assesses how much of our plans cater for some insurance or \"just in case\" provisions against shocks. In such assessments, we consider the nature of potential risks and appropriate models of insurance or resilience.
As it is not feasible to fully insure or protect against all possible risks, the Government continues to strike a judicious balance between resilience and efficiency. A \"just in case\" model will be more expensive because, by definition, it caters for redundancy as insurance against a particular risk. This higher cost will, ultimately, be borne by our society, either in the form of higher prices or higher taxes.
While it would not be practical or fiscally prudent to seek guarantees against all risks, we have actively ensured resilience in key areas, through both fiscal and non-fiscal measures.
For example, to ensure water security, we have built a robust and diversified supply of water from four sources – our Four National Taps. Water is priced to incorporate the higher cost of producing water through desalination and reverse osmosis (NEWater).
Our Rice Stockpile Scheme helped to ensure an adequate supply of rice in the market when COVID-19 first struck and there was significant uncertainty. We are taking further steps to diversify our import sources and grow local to strengthen food supply resilience.
Another risk we have been actively preparing for is the impact of climate change. In 2020, we set up the Coastal and Flood Protection Fund, so that we invest sufficient resources whenever our fiscal situation allows, to protect Singapore against rising sea levels and more intense rainfalls. We are also taking active steps in infrastructure development to address this risk, such as to raise the minimum platform levels at new critical infrastructures, such as Changi Airport Terminal 5, to higher levels.
Amid tightening fiscal space, MOF carefully assesses resilience-related measures to ensure sustainable outcomes and spending. MOF works with agencies to put in place cost-efficient ways to maintain resilience, such as through dual-purpose facilities, with uses in both crises and peacetime. For example, MOH’s pandemic operational plan would include the ability to convert non-medical sites, such as car parks, quickly into medical facilities, such as COVID-19 isolation wards.
The Government will continue to look for new and better ways to secure resilience while taking into account fiscal sustainability.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Actions by Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore against Retailers for Profiteering in Past Three Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"41 Mr Pritam Singh asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) over the past three years, what actions has the Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore taken against retailers for profiteering that are consistent with the Ministry's tough stance against profiteering; and (b) what new approaches does the Commission intend to take against profiteering going forward.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: MTI and the Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore (CCCS) take a multi-pronged approach against profiteering, including promoting competition, helping consumers make informed decisions, and encouraging a diversified supply chain. CCCS investigates all reports of anti-competitive behaviour by businesses, and firmly enforces action against such conduct. The CCCS’ Guidelines on Price Transparency states clearly the standards for ensuring transparent and accurate pricing which are essential for a well-functioning market. CCCS also works with CASE to leverage technology to help consumers make informed decisions on their purchases. For example, the Price Kaki app developed by CASE allows consumers to easily compare prices of groceries or hawker food items from different sellers.
Besides promoting good business practices and consumer habits, the Government also works with businesses to ensure there is ample supply of essential goods. For example, we have been actively diversifying our food supply sources and, more recently, working with manufacturers and distributors to ensure a reliable supply of face masks.
The Government keeps a close watch on the prices of essential goods and will not hesitate to investigate any reports of profiteering behaviour. The incidence of profiteering has, generally, been low. However, there have been exceptions, such as the initial high prices of masks at the early stage of the pandemic. When this happened, the Government stepped in quickly to investigate the merchants involved and issued letters of demand compelling them to declare their basis of pricing. This resulted in the merchants reducing their prices to more reasonable levels. We will continue our heightened level of surveillance, especially during this challenging period, to prevent profiteering and other anti-competitive conduct. We encourage consumers to report to MTI any suspected cases.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number and Profile of Single Parents Successful in Obtaining HDB's Proximity Housing Grant for Families","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"42 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for National Development over the last five years (a) what is the number of single parents who have been granted the Proximity Housing Grant for families; and (b) of these, what is the number of single parents who are (i) divorced or widowed and (ii) unmarried.
Mr Desmond Lee: The Proximity Housing Grant (PHG) was introduced in August 2015 to encourage Singaporeans to live with or close to their parents or children for mutual care and support. All eligible resale flat buyers can receive the PHG once, regardless of the number of housing subsidies they have enjoyed, their household income or if they have owned a private property. Eligible families and singles who buy a resale flat to live with or near their parents or married child can receive a PHG for families and PHG for singles respectively.
From 2017 to 2021, 2,034 single parents received the PHG for families, of whom 2,029 were divorced or widowed and five were unmarried.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Teachers Seeking Counselling Services in Past Five Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"43 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Education for each year in the past five years, how many teachers have sought counselling services broken down by (i) the Ministry’s in-house counselling services and (ii) whole-of-Government’s counselling hotline, respectively.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: The well-being of our teaching staff is of paramount importance to MOE. We provide a range of resources to support their well-being, including professional development courses, avenues for peer support, and free counselling services which are available to all staff when needed.
The number of teachers in schools seeking support through MOE’s in-house counselling services averaged about 40 per year from 2017 to 2019, before COVID-19. This average number has risen to about 70 in the last two years. As an additional channel of support, the whole-of-Government counselling hotline was rolled out in March 2021, with about 90 MOE staff using the hotline last year across both MOE schools and HQ.
MOE recognises the exceptional demands that COVID-19 has placed on the entire education system, and our teachers, in particular, have to shoulder many more duties to keep the school safe while still ensuring learning continues for our students. MOE has, therefore, made adjustments both at system-level and school-level to re-prioritise initiatives and school programmes to pace out work for the teachers to better support them.
To enhance the support for the mental well-being of teachers, MOE introduced a new initiative on Wellness Ambassadors in September 2021. Nominated staff receive training to provide basic peer support and encourage their peers to seek help where necessary. Teachers can also access Mindline at Work, an online platform which provides self-care and well-being tips and resources, tailored to meet the needs of individual users. Teachers can also attend sharing sessions and workshops on teachers’ well-being offered by MOE.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Subsidised Drugs for Treating Depression and Anxiety","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"44 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Health whether the number of drugs being subsidised for medicating depression and anxiety can be expanded, so that psychiatrists can have a wider range of treatments to choose from, for their patients.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: MOH provides subsidies for a list of drugs that are assessed by the Drug Advisory Committee (DAC) to be clinically-effective and cost-effective following evaluation by the Agency for Care Effectiveness (ACE). The DAC regularly reviews the list to ensure that it stays relevant to local population needs, medical practice and evidence on clinical and cost effectiveness. Clinicians in Public Healthcare Institutions (PHIs) also submit recommendations for further drugs to be evaluated by ACE for DAC’s consideration for subsidy coverage, so that the list continues to be relevant and up to date.
Singaporeans who have difficulty coping with their medical bills can apply through medical social workers in PHIs for additional MediFund support, including for non-standard drugs, where clinically appropriate.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Rationale for Five-metre Requirement within which Smoking is Prohibited under Smoking (Prohibition in Certain Places) Regulations","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"45 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) what is the rationale for specifying five metres as the distance within which smoking is prohibited under the Smoking (Prohibition in Certain Places) Regulations considering that second-hand smoke can drift beyond that; and (b) whether the Ministry is considering increasing this distance; (c) if so, how will the new distance be determined; and (d) if not, why not.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: No smoking is allowed within five metres of certain smoking-prohibited places, such as bus stops and entrances and exits of public buildings. The five-metre buffer distance specified under the Smoking (Prohibition in Certain Places) Regulations was determined with reference to local and international standards for the intake of ambient air into building ventilation systems or building openings. This distance is also similar to buffer distances implemented overseas.
Given Singapore’s dense urban environment, five metres is a reasonable and realistic buffer distance to protect the public from second-hand tobacco smoke at certain smoking-prohibited places commonly accessible to the public. Nevertheless, my Ministry will review the smoking prohibition regulations from time to time.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Insurance Coverage Provided by Taxi or Private Hire Vehicle Services Firms","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"46 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether firms providing taxi or private hire vehicle services are required to provide insurance coverage specifically covering damage caused to other vehicles by the actions of passengers; and (b) what recourse is available to vocational drivers facing a potentially ruinous claim arising from third party damage caused by a passenger failing to exercise due diligence despite the driver's advice.
Mr S Iswaran: The Motor Vehicles (Third-Party Risks and Compensation) Act requires users of motor vehicles, including taxis and private hire cars (PHCs), to be covered with a valid insurance policy with liability coverage against third-party claims arising from personal injury or death resulting from use of their vehicles on our roads. This includes injury or death due to accidents caused by passengers. Taxi and PHC fleet operators provide insurance coverage for vehicles that are rented out to drivers. Such insurance, generally, includes coverage against third-party vehicle damage.
Drivers who are involved in a third-party claim for property damage caused or contributed by their passengers’ actions can seek independent legal advice for civil recourse. As safety is a shared responsibility, I urge both taxi and PHC drivers and passengers to ensure safety of themselves and others.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proposed Legislation for Corporate Criminal Liability to be Transferred to Acquiring Companies in Merger and Acquisition Transactions","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"47 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Law whether the Ministry will consider introducing legislation that allows for corporate criminal liability for any act constituting an offence that is committed by an acquired company prior to a merger and acquisition (M&A) transaction to be transferred to the acquiring company where the acquired company becomes a shell company or dissolved after the M&A.
Mr K Shanmugam: The starting point of our current approach is that each company is a separate legal entity and is thus not criminally responsible for the conduct of another. However, depending on the facts of each case, there are other principles that may be relevant. For example, a fraudulent transfer of property with the intention of preventing the property from being taken in satisfaction of a fine under a sentence that has been, or is likely to be, pronounced, may give rise to an offence under section 206 of the Penal Code, which is punishable with imprisonment of up to two years, a fine, or both. This could apply to both the individuals and companies involved in the fraudulent transaction, including the acquiring company.
To deter offences by those who are responsible for the company’s acts, the individuals involved in the acquired company may be held criminally liable for the offence. In some instances, this is reinforced by provisions which attribute the company’s criminal liability to its officers or controllers. For example, under section 32(2) of the Precious Stones and Precious Metals (Prevention of Money Laundering and Terrorism Financing) Act, where a corporation commits an offence under the Act, the officers or individuals involved in management are also liable for the same offence if they, among others, ought reasonably to have known that the offence would be or is being committed and failed to take all reasonable steps to prevent or stop the commission of the offence. Such individuals can still be held to account, as their criminal liability is not affected by the merger and acquisition.
We will study these issues further. If the Member has any particular incidents that he has in mind, we invite him to share them with us.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Possibility of Singapore's Accession to Hague Service Convention","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"48 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Law what is the progress of the Ministry’s feasibility study on the possibility of Singapore acceding to the Hague Service Convention.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Hague Service Convention is an international treaty that facilitates and streamlines the transmission of judicial and extrajudicial documents for service abroad in civil and commercial matters.
After undertaking a careful review of the Convention and consulting stakeholders, we have decided to accede to the Convention. By becoming a Party to the Convention, Singapore will be able to leverage an internationally harmonised set of rules for the service of judicial and extrajudicial documents abroad in many jurisdictions, including many of Singapore’s major trading partners. As the channels of transmission are internationally recognised, this would go towards ensuring that Singapore legal proceedings are not challenged or stayed due to invalid service, and the Singapore judgment that is subsequently issued may be recognised or enforced outside Singapore.
This would, in turn, provide legal certainty for Singapore litigants in civil and commercial matters. For example, in the course of a commercial dispute involving a Singapore litigant and a defendant who is located overseas, the Convention may be utilised to validly serve a Writ of Summons on the overseas defendant. Subsequently, if the Singapore Courts issue a judgment in favour of the Singapore litigant, the latter may seek to enforce the judgment in the jurisdiction where the defendant’s assets are located.
We are currently working on the draft legislation to give effect to the Convention.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Government Procurement Function Office's Role to Manage Global Inflation and Supply Disruption","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"49 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Finance since the Government Procurement Function Office was set up (a) what role has it played to manage the challenges of global inflation and supply disruption; and (b) what are the plans and targets to minimise procurement-related lapses in the Civil Service, especially if the Government were to stockpile resources.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Managing the challenges of global inflation and supply chain disruption for Government procurement is a multi-agency effort, which includes using fiscal and monetary policies to mitigate the impact of inflation and taking a multi-level approach to address supply chain resiliency.
At the national level, Government agencies collaborate to ensure that there is forward planning, diversification of supply and development of contingency plans.
At the sectoral level, agencies overseeing the respective sectors are tasked to drive resilience outcomes for their sectors. For instance, GovTech engages the industry widely to promote participation in Government infocomm technology (IT) tenders and ensures that sufficient diversity of suppliers are appointed in IT demand aggregated contracts.
At the project level, agencies monitor their supplier concentration risk and strive to structure their procurement to avoid over-reliance on a small pool of suppliers.
The Government Procurement Function Office (GPFO) in MOF works with agencies to establish the appropriate policies, systems and structures and develop capabilities to enable the Government to procure effectively, efficiently and in a publicly-accountable manner. For example, during the COVID-19 pandemic, GPFO activated Emergency Procurement procedures which allowed agencies to more easily and quickly secure the necessary goods and services amidst global disruptions, while balancing the need to ensure financial governance. GPFO also worked with agencies to establish the framework for the Government to co-share reasonable cost increases experienced by our construction contractors during the pandemic to ensure essential projects are not too seriously disrupted.
To minimise procurement lapses:
(a) GPFO is working on the consolidation of procurement teams across agencies to achieve the scale necessary to develop and sustain strong procurement teams. The pooling of expertise will enable these procurement teams to better manage large-scale and complex procurement, including stockpiling or other means of managing supply chain disruptions. We have started the consolidation process with IT procurement and construction procurement and will be expanding to other areas of buys.
(b) GPFO also sets standards on the competencies expected of procurement officers. The Finance and Procurement Academy has partnered the Civil Service College to develop the learning and development roadmaps. We have also stepped up training of non-procurement officers who are involved in various parts of the procurement process.
Our efforts to strengthen procurement is a continual process. We will continue to strike a balance between strengthening controls and ensuring that our procurement is agile and responsive to broader trends.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Extension of \"Smaller Bites to Swallow Right\" Campaign aimed at the Elderly to Hawker Centres","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"50 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Health regarding the Smaller Bites to Swallow Right campaign initiated by Alexandra Hospital (a) whether the campaign will be extended to other hawker centres; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider providing incentives for this campaign, such as special vouchers, for the elderly with swallowing difficulties, to be redeemed at the participating stalls.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Dysphagia is a swallowing impairment which can occur due to multiple medical conditions. The prevalence of dysphagia increases with advancing age. In October last year, Alexandra Hospital (AH) started a pilot – Smaller Bites to Swallow Right (SBSR) campaign – to help their dysphagia patients. Such patients or their caregivers can ask participating stalls or hawker centres to get their food chopped, minced or pureed at no charges.
The campaign had started at Alexandra Village Food Centre and ABC Brickworks Food Centre, as well as Keng Eng Kee Seafood Restaurant. AH intends to expand it to Mei Ling Market and Food Centre and Tanglin Halt Food Centre by 2H 2022.
MOH will learn from AH’s experience and work with other stakeholders to explore expanding participation at other food establishments.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Deferred Prosecution Agreements and Conditional Warnings Involving Corporations","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"51 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Law (a) to date, how many deferred prosecution agreements (DPAs) with corporations have been entered into; and (b) what are the considerations for the Public Prosecutor to issue conditional warnings to corporations in lieu of prosecution, as opposed to entering into DPAs in respect of offences which are covered under the Sixth Schedule of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Mr K Shanmugam: To date, no deferred prosecution agreements (DPAs) have been entered into, since their introduction in 2018.
The second part of the Member’s question touches on the exercise of prosecutorial discretion by the Public Prosecutor (PP). Whether the PP issues a conditional warning, enters into a DPA, or takes some other approach, will depend on the PP’s assessment of which option best serves the public interest, based on the specific facts of each case.
A conditional warning may be more suitable in cases where the entity had sufficiently addressed the wrongdoing, made restitution or substantial reparations, and had cooperated with law enforcement authorities.
On the other hand, a DPA may be more suitable for more complex arrangements, because these are clearly provided for under the statutory framework. For example, the legislation provides that a DPA may require the entity to implement a compliance programme or enhance an existing compliance programme, and to appoint persons to supervise and monitor its internal controls and implementation of the compliance programme.
It is not possible to exhaustively describe the considerations, as each case will be assessed on its own facts.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Cyclists Summoned for Riding at Excessive Speeds at Footpaths or Shared Paths in Past Two Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"52 Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked the Minister for Transport how many cyclists have been summoned for riding at excessive speeds at footpaths or shared paths in the past 24 months.
Mr S Iswaran: To ensure the safety of path users, all active mobility users must abide by the speed limit of 10 kilometres per hour on footpaths and 25 kilometres per hour on shared paths. LTA also maintains a strong enforcement presence to deter errant riding on paths. From 1 January 2020 to 31 December 2021, 84 notices were issued to cyclists for speeding on footpaths and shared paths. The numbers have remained relatively stable, notwithstanding the increasing popularity of cycling.
The Government will continue to enforce against errant cyclists and promote a safe and gracious path-sharing culture through sustained education and outreach efforts. These include gracious path-sharing campaigns and the propagation of safe riding rules and practices for cyclists through the Confidence on Wheels programme.
However, education and enforcement are only part of the solution. The best way is for all of us – cyclists, pedestrians and all public path users – to be responsible, follow all rules and stay alert at all times.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Increasing Number of Daily Singapore-Malaysia and Singapore-Indonesia Vaccinated Travel Lane Flights to Allow More Workers to Return Home","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"53 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Transport whether the Ministry will consider increasing the number of daily Singapore-Malaysia and Singapore-Indonesia Vaccinated Travel Lane flights to allow more workers to return home.
Mr S Iswaran: MOT and the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore (CAAS) closely monitor the demand for Vaccinated Travel Lane (VTL) flights. In the week ending 6 February 2022, there were still unused VTL (Air) quotas for Indonesia and Malaysia, despite a 50% limit we have imposed on the daily number of VTL travellers to manage the risk of imported Omicron cases, and higher demand for travel during the Chinese New Year period.
We will review the quotas for the VTL flights, including for Malaysia and Indonesia. This will take into account travel demand, as well as MOH’s public health risk assessment based on the local and global COVID-19 situation. As part of learning to live with COVID-19, we will press on with our efforts to restore our connectivity with the world while safeguarding public health.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proportion of CPF Members Covered under Home Protection Scheme (HPS) and Those Rejected for HPS due to Health Conditions","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"54 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what is the current number of CPF members who own a HDB flat and are using CPF savings or cash to pay a housing loan, with a breakdown into those (i) covered under the Home Protection Scheme (HPS) and (ii) not covered under the HPS; and (b) what is the number of rejected HPS applications in the last five years due to health conditions.
Dr Tan See Leng: The Home Protection Scheme (HPS) is a mortgage reducing insurance that protects CPF members and their families from losing their HDB flats in the event of the member’s death, terminal illness or total permanent disability. HPS is required for members who use CPF savings to pay for their HDB housing loans, and optional for members who use cash.
Today, nearly all members who use CPF savings or cash to pay for their HDB housing loans and apply for HPS are covered under the scheme. This includes some with pre-existing medical conditions without premium loading. The majority of remaining members have equivalent private mortgage insurance and, hence, are not required to be covered under HPS. About 1.2% of applicants are not covered under HPS due to serious pre-existing medical conditions in the last five years.
In line with industry practice, HPS is not extended to applicants with serious pre-existing medical conditions to ensure the affordability of premiums for members and the viability of the scheme. For flat owners who face difficulties with their mortgage repayments, HDB has various assistance measures available to help them.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Support for Public Sector Healthcare Employees to Cope with Personal Caregiving Responsibilities","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"55 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for Health (a) what are the specific forms of support for public sector healthcare workers, including doctors, nurses and allied health personnel, who have post-childbirth, childcare, eldercare or other family caregiving responsibilities; (b) whether these include flexible working arrangements; (c) if so, what is the take-up rate for the past year, broken down by gender; and (d) whether professional development pathways and traineeships for healthcare workers are being updated to better accommodate mothers, fathers and adult children with family caregiving responsibilities.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Public Healthcare Institutions have various support measures for staff with family caregiving responsibilities. Employees with at least three months of service are entitled to three to six days of Childcare Leave, Extended Childcare Leave or Family Care Leave, depending on the eligibility criteria. Those whose new-born child is a Singapore Citizen are eligible to 16 weeks and two weeks of maternity and paternity leave respectively. Three days of Compassionate Leave will be given to staff whose immediate family have critical illness or passed on.
Beyond leave benefits, there are additional options, such as flexible hours, staggered shifts and compressed work weeks. Public healthcare institutions have progressively moved to electronic rostering systems to support flexible work arrangements in a bigger way. Work-from-home arrangements also enable staff to work remotely where feasible.
In the past year, 100% of eligible female staff in the public healthcare clusters took up post-childbirth maternity leave, while 80.4% of eligible male staff took up paternity leave. Fifty-three percent of female staff tapped on childcare, eldercare and other family caregiving leave, whereas 48% of male staff did so. The take-up rate for part-time work arrangements was 1.3% for males and 4.1% for females.
Aside from flexible work arrangements and leave benefits, other support measures have been put in place. Most public hospitals have childcare centres and caregiving facilities, such as lactation rooms, on site for their staff. NUHS has a \"Eat with Your Family Day\" every quarterly to remind employers and families to spend dedicated time with their loved ones. Change of job roles, where feasible, can be requested to accommodate staff’s family caregiving needs. SHS has a Contingency Nurse Pool allowing nurses who have left service because of family responsibilities to continue with clinical practice on an ad-hoc basis by signing up to be activated on a contingency basis.
Professional development pathways and traineeships for doctors, nurses and pharmacists do make accommodations for healthcare workers with family caregiving responsibilities.
Doctors on postgraduate medical training are also entitled to additional study leave. While there is a maximum number of days that they can be absent from training to ensure that the quality of training is not compromised, flexibility has been provided for them to manage their leave arrangements with their training programmes to attend to their caregiving responsibilities. Special consideration has also been provided during the COVID-19 period to allow for slightly longer periods of absence.
Provisions have also been made to accommodate nursing students who are pregnant to defer training. With supporting documents, students will be given approved leave if their children and parents require their care.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Application and Approval Process for Registered Fund Management Company, Licensed Fund Management Company and Venture Capital Fund Management Permits","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"56 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Prime Minister (a) what is the respective average, minimum and maximum duration from application to the final approval of licences of (i) Registered Fund Management Company (RFMC), (ii) Licensed Fund Management Company (LFMC) and (iii) Venture Capital Fund Management (VCFM); and (b) what are the usual challenges faced by applicants for licences of RFMC, LFMC and VCFM that result in longer-than-usual processing times.
Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam (for the Prime Minister): The processing times for applications to conduct fund management activity in Singapore depend on the specific licence type, the proposed business models, the profiles of the applicants, as well as the quality of the submitted application.
The time taken to process a Licensed Fund Management Company or a Registered Fund Management Company application ranges from one to 10 months, with an average of five months.
The time taken to process a Venture Capital Fund Management application ranges from one to six months, with an average of three months.
Applicants may face longer processing times and additional engagements with MAS due to the following reasons:
(a) Incomplete, inconsistent or erroneous submissions;
(b) Insufficiently concrete or credible business plans;
(c) Adverse records on key personnel, such as the chief executive officer, directors and investment professionals, that were not adequately addressed or disclosed;
(d) Insufficient relevant experience of key personnel to carry out the proposed activities; and
(e) Significant conflicts of interest with the business interests of key personnel.
To aid applicants in the process, MAS has put up on its website, reference guides for licence and registration applications. These guides provide details, such as admission criteria, information required in the application, and factors that MAS focuses on when assessing different types of business models. MAS also publishes an annual licensing and registration report that shares average processing times, factors that lead to extended processing times, as well as broad reasons behind unsuccessful applications.
Our fund management industry is growing well. In the past two years, applications for fund management licences have seen an uptrend, in line with the growth of the sector. The number of applications grew by 14% in 2021 to almost 300 applications. Application growth was 33% in 2020. MAS has and will continue to enhance the application experience where possible, by simplifying and automating the process, and factoring in market feedback.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proposal to Increase Penalty for Littering to Reinforce Anti-littering Message","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"57 Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment whether the Ministry intends to increase the penalty for littering in order to reinforce the message against littering.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: To strengthen the deterrent effect and signal the Government’s zero-tolerance for litterbugs, the maximum Court fines for littering were last raised in 2014 from $1,000, $2,000 and $5,000 for the first, second and third or subsequent conviction, to $2,000, $4,000 and $10,000 respectively. Recalcitrant offenders may also be issued a Corrective Work Order (CWO). My Ministry has no plans to increase the penalty for littering for now.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Processing and Preservation of First-generation, decommissioned MRT Trains in Singapore","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"58 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Transport (a) how are decommissioned trains in Singapore processed; and (b) whether any of the first-generation trains will be preserved in a public place to record Singapore's transport history.
Mr S Iswaran: The first 106 trains which have served on the North-South East-West Line (NSEWL) and 19 trains on the Bukit Panjang LRT (BPLRT) are progressively being decommissioned. These old trains have served Singapore well and played an important part in Singapore’s history.
LTA is, currently, in active discussion with several organisations which have expressed interest to use some of these trains for education, training and heritage purposes. Interested parties can contact LTA for more details.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Adequate Mix of Food Options at Local Universities","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"59 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Education whether guidelines can be provided on food options in local Universities to ensure that (i) an adequate mix of food options is provided to meet the diverse dietary needs of students, such as halal and vegetarian diets, and (ii) places with high footfall and residential areas on campus have a minimum quota of such food options.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: The Autonomous Universities (AUs) regularly engage their student and staff communities on their well-being, including on the availability of food and beverage (F&B) options. To ensure there are sufficient food options to meet the different needs of students and staff, the AUs require both halal-certified and vegetarian options to be included in tender bids submitted by prospective food court operators.
The decisions taken by F&B tenants are also driven by business viability considerations. In some circumstances, this may affect the mix of F&B options on AU campuses. Where this is the case, the AUs will source for replacement operators and work closely with their campus community to provide other options, such as through food delivery apps, or by providing free internal shuttle bus services to enhance access to F&B options across the campus.
The AUs will continue to work with their communities to help ensure there are enough food options on campus to cater to different dietary needs.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Multi-pronged Approach by Government, Telcos and Banks to Combat Phishing and Credit Card Scams","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"1 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Prime Minister what is the multi-pronged approach taken by MAS and the Singapore Police Force alongside telcos and banks to combat phishing scams.
2 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Prime Minister (a) in the past year, what is the percentage of unauthorised transactions made on credit cards; (b) what is the percentage of recovery of the sums involved in the unauthorised transactions; and (c) whether additional safeguards, beyond one-time passwords, will be required for implementation by local financial institutions for credit card transactions, such as mandatory notification for anomalous transactions identified via computer algorithms.
Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam (for the Prime Minister): These questions have been addressed as part of the three Ministerial Statements to be delivered by Minister for Finance and Deputy Chairman of MAS, Lawrence Wong; Minister for Communications and Information and Minister-in-charge of Smart Nation & Cybersecurity, Josephine Teo; and the Minister of State for Home Affairs Desmond Tan at today’s Sitting.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Efforts to Ensure Mindef and SAF's Vendors Maintain Best Practices and Stay abreast of Cyber Threats in Light of Data Breach Incidences","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"3 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Prime Minister in light of the data breach where vendors for MINDEF and SAF have been hit by malware (a) how do Ministries ensure vendors stay abreast with the increasingly sophisticated cyber threats; (b) how regularly are audits conducted to ensure vendors maintain best practices; and (c) where data leaks occur more than once with a particular vendor, whether there will be stronger follow-up action.
Mr Teo Chee Hean (for the Prime Minister): The Government requires vendors to implement cybersecurity and data protection measures that are benchmarked to industry standards, such as the US National Institute of Science and Technology’s National Checklist Program. For example, vendors are required to install updated anti-virus software on the endpoint devices used to process Government data. These measures are reviewed every quarter to ensure that they remain relevant and are aligned with the latest practices. To complement these standards, we have also implemented recommendations from the Public Sector Data Security Review Committee (PSDSRC) to clearly specify cybersecurity and data security requirements in vendor contracts and to conduct regular audits for compliance.
The Government audits vendors regularly and those that handle more sensitive and critical systems are audited more frequently. Vendors managing the most classified and sensitive data are audited annually while those handling less classified and sensitive data are audited once every two or three years. Vendors are required to submit a remediation plan within two weeks after the release of the audit report to address all audit findings.
The Government will impose penalties on the vendor if data is leaked. Repeat offences will be taken as an aggravating factor when determining the severity of penalties and may result in harsher penalties, such as seeking liquidated damages from the vendor, contract termination or debarment from all Government contracts for a period of time. In cases of deliberate or reckless mishandling of personal data, the negligent vendor may also be found criminally liable under the Personal Data Protection Act.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Goals and Priorities Set under Research, Innovation and Enterprise 2025 Plan","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"4 Ms Foo Mee Har asked the Prime Minister (a) what are the goals and priorities set under the Research, Innovation and Enterprise 2025 Plan (RIE2025); and (b) how investment in R&D is expected to translate into commercial applications to benefit Singapore companies and workers.
Mr Heng Swee Keat (for the Prime Minister): The Research, Innovation and Enterprise (RIE) 2025 Plan sets out the Government’s RIE plans from 2021 to 2025. We have allocated a total of S$25 billion for the RIE2025 Plan, which sustains our investment in RIE at about 1% of our GDP, similar to our commitment to RIE2020 and earlier research plans.
The RIE2025 Plan has three focus areas.
First, RIE2025 aims to address a broader spectrum of national needs and to better drive economic growth post-pandemic. In RIE2020, we organised our efforts around four domains to focus our efforts in core areas, such as manufacturing and healthcare. However, as science and technology become more pervasive, we have refreshed the scope of the four RIE domains as follows.
The Manufacturing, Trade and Connectivity domain has broadened its scope beyond manufacturing to raise capabilities in the trade and connectivity sectors, for example, aviation, sea transport, logistics.
The Human Health and Potential domain has expanded beyond Human Health to include Human Potential, with a focus on enhancing development during pregnancy and early childhood, augmenting learning outcomes and fostering healthy and meaningful longevity.
The Urban Solutions and Sustainability domain will address new challenges in sustainability and resilience, including climate change, decarbonisation, healthy cities and transformation of our built environment.
The Smart Nation and Digital Economy domain will further our strengths in strategic technologies to enhance our resilience and anchor Singapore’s position as a trusted digital innovation hub.
Second, RIE2025 will enrich our scientific base, by sustaining our support for basic research at about one-third of the overall budget.
Our consistent investments in basic research have allowed Singapore to develop a base of scientific capabilities and intellectual property that we can now draw on. As science and technology are evolving rapidly, the National Research Foundation (NRF) will introduce mechanisms to systematically review our basic science capabilities and identify potential peaks of excellence that will differentiate Singapore internationally.
RIE2025 also emphasises talent by building a robust base of research scientists and engineers, such as through our NRF Fellowship and Investigatorship schemes which will support both promising young scientists and established experts to pursue groundbreaking research in Singapore. In addition, the Returning Singapore Scientist Scheme will continue to attract overseas-based Singaporean research leaders home to contribute to Singapore’s pursuit of scientific excellence.
Third, RIE2025 will strengthen our support for companies and scale up Innovation & Enterprise (I&E) platforms to drive tech translation and accelerate enterprise innovation that benefits our companies and workers.
For instance, our investment in the Diagnostics Development (DxD) Hub supported development and productisation of the Fortitude test kit for COVID-19. The Fortitude test kit has been deployed in over 45 countries to date, with over seven million kits sold.
Going forward, we will support I&E platforms to expand into adjacent areas with high growth potential, for example, from diagnostics to medtech. Where necessary, we will also establish new platforms to tap on Singapore’s R&D strengths and bridge ecosystem gaps.
Beyond I&E platforms, we will also customise our support for different enterprise segments, such as startups, Small & Medium Enterprises (SMEs) and large enterprises.
For local startups, our approach has been to help groom them to translate deeptech research into commercially-viable products and services and connect them to international partners and venture capitalists who can help them grow and scale. We have built up a thriving startup ecosystem in Singapore. Startups in Singapore raised S$11.2 billion during the first nine months of 2021, more than double the S$5.5 billion raised in the whole of 2020, and up from S$8.5 billion in 2019. In 2021, Singapore also saw a bumper crop of 11 new Singapore-based unicorn startups, that is, startups with a valuation exceeding US$1 billion.
With regard to SMEs, we support their efforts to leverage public R&D and innovation capabilities to build new products and solutions, as well as strengthen their own innovation capabilities and capacities. This is achieved through various initiatives, such as T-Up, Centres of Innovation and the Innovation Advisors Programme. These initiatives provide our SMEs with critical enablers necessary for their growth:
(a) T-Up helps to address SMEs’ deep-tech talent gap by seconding research scientists and engineers to these companies;
(b) Centres of Innovation offer SMEs with technology consultancy and access to technical equipment; and
(c) Innovation Advisors impart industry-relevant tech advice and business networks to help SMEs innovate, secure new customers and grow their businesses.
As for large enterprises, we want to encourage them to invest in R&D and create globally leading products, services and businesses out of Singapore. This could be through research collaborations with our public research performers, such as the Agency for Science, Technology & Research (A*STAR) research institutes and Institutes of Higher Learning, as well as the establishment of corporate laboratories. Large enterprises can also explore and develop new business ventures together with the Economic Development Board (EDB) New Ventures team.
Our R&D investments have also benefited Singapore workers by giving them new opportunities to upskill and work in deeptech sectors. For instance, the Industrial Postgraduate Programme co-sponsors locals to pursue full-time postgraduate studies while undertaking an industrial R&D project at a Singapore-based company. This form of training allows trainees to develop a stronger appreciation for the commercial applications of research, and develops more \"industry-ready\" postgraduates.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Plans to Regulate Activities in Non-fungible Tokens","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"5 Mr Don Wee asked the Prime Minister whether MAS has any plans to regulate activities in relation to non-fungible tokens.
Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam (for the Prime Minister): Non-fungible tokens (NFTs) are a form of digital token, where each token has distinct and unique features that are verified and secured by blockchain technology. NFTs are still a relatively new development in the technology space. While NFTs can be used to represent any underlying asset, they have for, now, been mainly used to tokenise digital art and other collectibles.
MAS does not and cannot possibly regulate all things or products that people choose to invest their money in. We consider the substance of an asset when assessing whether a product or activity should come under MAS’ regulatory remit. MAS does not currently regulate NFTs, given the nature of their underlying assets, such as the few examples earlier. This is also the stance taken by most other leading jurisdictions.
More fundamentally, with regard to digital tokens, such as NFTs, MAS takes a tech-neutral stance and “looks through” to the underlying characteristics of the token to determine if it is to be regulated by MAS. Should an NFT have the characteristics of a capital markets product under the Securities and Futures Act (SFA), it will be subject to MAS’ regulatory requirements. For example, should an NFT be structured to represent rights to a portfolio of listed shares, it will, like other collective investment schemes, be subject to prospectus requirements, licensing and business conduct requirements1.
MAS would like to remind consumers that investments in digital tokens, including NFTs, are not suitable for retail investors. We have, on several occasions, put out advisories urging consumers to exercise extreme caution when investing in them. For NFTs, in particular, their perceived uniqueness, combined with speculative demand, has served to inflate prices. This, potentially, puts investors at risk of outsized losses should speculative fervour abate. Further, there are significant legal complexities and risks involved in NFTs. For example, a holder of an NFT with an underlying asset of a digital image should clarify his right of ownership and the legal framework that governs his rights.
MAS continues to monitor developments in the digital token space, including NFTs.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : This approach is in line with the guidance provided in “A Guide to Digital Token Offerings” (updated 26 May 2020). The guidance also includes case studies of various digital token offerings which illustrate how the relevant laws administered by MAS may apply."],"footNoteQuestions":["5"],"questionNo":"5"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Breakdown of Applications Received for Schemes under Financial Sector Development Fund Annually in Last Five Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"6 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Prime Minister (a) in the last five years, how many applications have been received annually from individuals for all the various schemes under the Financial Sector Development Fund (FSDF); (b) how many of these applications are successful; (c) of the successful applications, how many are (i) Singapore citizens and (ii) permanent residents respectively; and (d) what is the total amount paid out under these schemes.
Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam (for the Prime Minister): The Financial Sector Development Fund (FSDF) provides grants to both financial institutions (FIs) and individuals. Some of the FSDF grants to FIs are aimed specifically at supporting the career development of individuals in the financial sector, as described below.
With respect to individuals, FSDF provides course fee subsidies to Singapore Citizens and Permanent Residents, under training schemes administered by the Institute of Banking and Finance (IBF). These training programmes help to equip them with skills required to keep pace with the dynamic nature of the financial sector, especially in areas, such as digitalisation, sustainable finance and cybersecurity.
Since 2017, FSDF has disbursed S$188 million of course fee subsidies to about 176,000 individuals, of whom 153,000 (or 87%) were Singapore Citizens. Grant funding for individuals increased significantly in the past two years1, as more individuals enrolled themselves in IBF-accredited training programmes, notably in areas like cloud computing, data interpretation and compliance. The annual statistics relating to schemes providing course fee subsidies are provided in Table 1 below. All claims received were approved.
With respect to FIs, FSDF provides grants to help develop Singapore Citizens in the financial sector at different stages of their careers.
At the pre-entry level, the Work-Study Support Programme provides funding support to FIs which offer internships to Singaporean students to acquire work experience and work-relevant skills.
At the entry level, the Finance Associate Management Scheme supports the hiring and training of fresh Singaporean graduates and early career convertees from other sectors through structured talent development programmes.
At the mid-career level, the International Postings Programme encourages FIs to send promising Singaporeans on overseas postings so that they are better positioned to take on future global or regional leadership roles.
At the senior level, the Asian Financial Leaders Scheme funds the participation of Singaporeans in management positions in curated leadership programmes to better enable them to navigate the diverse business, regulatory and legal environment in the region and globally.
For deep specialist roles, the Financial Specialist Scholarship helps to develop a pipeline of specialist Singaporean leaders in key growth areas in the financial services sector, including sustainable finance and data science.
Over the past five years, FSDF has supported almost 600 applications from FIs, amounting to S$86 million under the various talent development schemes. This has benefited close to 2,200 Singapore Citizens. The annual statistics relating to these schemes are provided in Table 2 below. On average, almost all applications received were approved, save for the Financial Specialist Scholarship where the approval rate is about 50%2.
7 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Prime Minister since Public Service employees started working from home (a) whether there are any cases of data lapses or an increased risk of it and, if so, how are they dealt with; and (b) how are cybersecurity practices and audits being revised to adapt to the new hybrid work format.
Mrs Josephine Teo (for the Prime Minister): The Government remains committed to upholding high standards of cyber and data security, regardless of the mode of working. Due to COVID-19, hybrid work arrangements have been adopted extensively by Public Service officers since 2020. Despite this, there have been no reported data lapses arising from work-from-home arrangements from January 2020 to December 2021.
Hybrid work arrangements are not without cybersecurity risk. The Government has progressively enhanced our cyber and data security measures to ensure that the new work arrangements do not lead to increased risks.
The first measure is ensuring secure remote access to the Government’s InfoComm Technology (ICT) systems. With more ICT systems needing to be accessed remotely by officers working from home, the risk of cyber attacks initiated over the public Internet increases. To mitigate this, remote access to systems with classified data is allowed only via a secure Government-issued laptop with a Virtual Private Network (VPN) connection to the Government network. Higher-risk activities, such as creating new accounts and changing access rights, continue to be done in-person to reduce the risks of unauthorised changes.
Another measure implemented to enhance security is the remote updating of software on officers’ laptops. Prior to the shift towards hybrid work arrangements, the majority of officers’ laptops were updated in the office. To mitigate the risk from software vulnerability due to outdated software on officers’ laptops, the Government enhanced its network infrastructure to enable remote updating.
Beyond the specific risks arising from a hybrid working environment, it is important that the Public Service maintains a strong culture of cyber and data security.
The Government conducts annual phishing exercises and the annual Cyber and Data Security Quiz to ensure that officers remain vigilant against evolving threats. Officers are also regularly reminded on the best practices for remote work, such as securing their home network and the appropriate use of video-conferencing tools.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Fires in Condominiums Caused by Discarded Cigarette Butts in Past Three Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"8 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) in the past three years, what is the number of fires in condominiums caused by discarded cigarette butts; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider working with NEA and the condominiums’ MCSTs to install surveillance cameras to catch offenders.
Mr K Shanmugam: The number of fires in condominiums caused by discarded cigarette butts has remained low in the past three years. There were five, four and four such fires in 2019, 2020 and 2021 respectively.
The National Environment Agency takes enforcement action against littering in public places. Many condominiums have also put in place by-laws to prohibit littering within their estate. The Management Corporation Strata Title (MCSTs) may also take steps to pass a special resolution to install surveillance cameras in the common areas of their estate.
The Penal Code was amended in 2020 such that should a fire occur within 60 minutes in the vicinity of a place where a person had illegally disposed of a cigarette butt, the person would be presumed to have caused or substantially contributed to the risk of a dangerous fire. Depending on the damage or hurt caused by such a fire, the penalties for this offence include imprisonment of up to seven years, a fine, or both.
The Singapore Civil Defence Force also works with Neighbourhood Committees and condominiums’ MCSTs to raise fire safety awareness among the residents.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Steps to Ensure Anti-Scam Division of Commercial Affairs Department Sufficiently Resourced against Scam Scourge","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"9 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Home Affairs what steps are taken to ensure that the Anti-Scam Division of the Commercial Affairs Department is sufficiently resourced to deal with the scourge of scams.
Mr K Shanmugam: This question has been addressed as part of the three Ministerial Statements to be delivered by Minister for Finance and Deputy Chairman of MAS, Lawrence Wong, Minister for Communications and Information and Minister-in-charge of Smart Nation & Cybersecurity, Josephine Teo; and the Minister of State for Home Affairs Desmond Tan, at today’s Sitting.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Individuals Involved in Financial Crimes and Deemed Credit Risk and Needing Ministry's Intervention to Open Bank Accounts from 2012 to 2021","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"10 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Home Affairs in each year from 2012 to 2021 (a) how many individuals have approached the Ministry, Singapore Prisons Service or Yellow Ribbon Singapore for assistance because they were involved with financial crimes and were deemed a credit risk and, therefore, unable to open bank accounts; and (b) how many accounts were successfully opened following the Ministry’s intervention.
Mr K Shanmugam: Banks may have concerns with account opening requests, if the applicants have been implicated in serious crimes, such as those related to money laundering, loansharking, scams and other financial crimes, and where the banks have difficulty confirming the source of the applicants’ funds.
When we receive appeals from ex-offenders who are unable to open bank accounts, the Singapore Prison Service (SPS) and Yellow Ribbon Singapore (YRSG) will refer the cases to the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) for assistance.
MAS has been working with the larger retail banks to enhance financial inclusion by opening limited-purpose bank accounts for individuals whom the banks assess pose a higher risk of being implicated in financial crimes. Such limited-purpose accounts allow the individuals to carry out banking transactions for daily needs.
We would like to clarify that while credit risk is a consideration for banks in granting credit facilities, such as credit cards, it is, typically, not a consideration for the opening of bank accounts.
Based on available records, from 2019 to 2021, YRSG received six requests for assistance from ex-offenders who were unable to open bank accounts. Of these six requests, four were eventually successful.
Most ex-offenders have no problems opening bank accounts. SPS has been collaborating with POSB since 2015 to assist ex-offenders in opening and maintaining bank accounts. All local ex-offenders are given a discharge letter issued by SPS, which lists selected POSB branches that they can visit to open a bank account. The service charge that would usually be incurred for not meeting the minimum account balance will be waived for up to a year. To support the application for opening of the account, the applicant would simply need to present the discharge letter and an employment referral letter from YRSG or a letter of employment.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Cases of Road Rage and Aggressive Behaviour Involving Motor Vehicles in Past Three Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"11 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether there has been an increase in the number of reports and enforcement actions against road rage and aggressive behaviour involving motor vehicles in the past three years, given the proliferation of dashboard evidence published online by the public; and (b) whether the Government is considering stronger measures to combat dangerous and anti-social driving behaviour.
Mr K Shanmugam: The number of reports on incidents of road rage and aggressive behaviour involving motor vehicles has decreased from 48 reports in 2019 to 36 reports in 2021. This decrease could be due to multiple reasons, including lower traffic volumes during the pandemic. The number of enforcement actions has decreased as well. In 2019, the Police took action against 21 road rage incidents involving the offence of voluntarily causing harm; while in 2021, the Police took action against 11 such incidents.
We are of the view that the current regime sufficiently deters dangerous and anti-social driving behaviour. In 2019, we amended the Road Traffic Act and introduced stiffer penalties to strengthen deterrence against irresponsible driving behaviour. With the changes, those found guilty of Dangerous Driving now face a fine of up to $5,000 or to an imprisonment term of up to 12 months, or both, for a first offence. These penalties are doubled for repeat offenders. Offenders also face stiffer penalties if their driving results in hurt, grievous hurt or death. In 2021, we further amended the Road Traffic Act such that motorists found guilty of any offence under written law in the context of road rage may also be disqualified from driving for life or any period that the Courts think fit.
We will monitor the situation and make further adjustments where necessary.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Litigants-in-person in Family Law Cases Annually from 2019 to 2021","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"12 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for Law from 2019 to 2021 annually (a) how many family law cases involved litigants-in-person (LIPs), broken down by gender and education level; (b) what proportion of these LIPs had previously attempted to seek legal aid; (c) what reasons have been ascertained for these individuals appearing as LIPs; and (d) whether the Ministry studies such cases to ensure that justice continues to be accessible regardless of an individual's personal circumstances.
Mr K Shanmugam: We do not track the information that the Member has requested.
Individuals may have a variety of reasons for choosing to self-represent in family proceedings.
My Ministry works closely with the Judiciary and MSF to regularly review family law matters and proceedings and to ensure access to justice, regardless of individual personal circumstances.
Over the years, we have implemented several measures to simplify proceedings, minimise protracted and costly disputes, and increase availability and accessibility of information surrounding the legal processes. These efforts have made it easier for litigants to represent themselves in family proceedings, if they wish to do so. Some of the initiatives include:
(a) Information on how to conduct family proceedings have been made widely available online. These include: (i) the Singapore Courts’ website which provides information about various Court applications, step-by-step instructions on some Court procedures and other useful preparatory resources to help litigants; and (ii) the Legal Aid Bureau’s Intelligent Legal Assistance Bot (iLAB) chatbot which provides basic legal information on family law issues and can generate simple legal documents.
(b) The simplified divorce track: Parties who agree on the divorce and ancillary matters prior to the filing of the action can obtain a divorce on a simplified case management track, saving time and cost for parties. Parties can navigate this process on their own, without the need to engage lawyers. The majority of the divorce cases are filed on the simplified track.
(c) Simple and cost-effective online filing system: The Integrated Family Application Management System (iFAMS) is an online case application and management system, developed by the Family Justice Courts (FJC) with LIPs in mind. iFAMS supports individuals in preparing maintenance, family violence and simplified deputyship Court applications using template forms, without having to engage a lawyer.
We will continue to explore, together with our stakeholders, further efforts to ensure that justice continues to be accessible for all.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Breakdown of Annual Principal Statistics of Manufacturing by Capital Ownership Structure in Last Five Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"13 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Trade and Industry in the last five years, what is the annual breakdown of the annual principal statistics of manufacturing by capital structure, particularly (i) wholly local ownership, (ii) more than half local ownership, (iii) less than half local ownership and (iv) wholly foreign ownership.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The Economic Development Board releases yearly data on the principal statistics of the manufacturing sector by capital structure on its website: https://www.edb.gov.sg/en/about-edb/media-releases-publications.html?tab=manufacturing-statistics. Historical data from 2016 to 20201 are provided in the tables below.
14 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Transport (a) what is the impact of the carbon tax on pump prices for petrol and diesel; (b) whether the Ministry has studied the impact of increasing petrol duties on miles driven and traffic by each type of vehicle in Singapore; and (c) if so, what are the results of these studies.
Mr S Iswaran: To encourage users to manage the use of petrol and diesel, the Government levies excise duties on these fuels. Carbon tax is levied on large direct emitters like petrochemical and power generation companies.
The Ministry has not conducted a detailed study on the impact of increasing petrol excise duty on vehicle usage, since LTA does not track individual driving behaviour. That said, a higher petrol excise duty, which tends to be structural, sends a price signal and aims to discourage the use of petrol vehicles, given the negative environmental externalities.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Displacement of Workers from Implementation of Regulation on Self-clearing of Plates and Utensils in Hawker Centres and Food Courts","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"15 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment with the implementation of the new regulation on self-clearing of plates and utensils in hawker centres and food courts (a) whether there is an estimate on potentially displaced workers as a result; and (b) whether there are plans for assisting the transition of such workers.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: The Clean Tables Campaign was launched in February 2021 to raise public hygiene standards at public dining places and encourage tray and crockery return.
Even as diners clear their used trays and crockery, cleaners remain essential in maintaining the general cleanliness and hygiene of dining places. The National Environment Agency (NEA) and the Singapore Food Agency (SFA) have been working with stakeholders, such as the Environmental Management Association of Singapore, cleaning companies, coffeeshop and food court operators, to revise their table-cleaning workflow by having split cleaners to sort and clear used crockery at tray and crockery return points, as well as to wipe and sanitise tables. The COVID-19 pandemic has, in fact, increased the demands on cleaners, with the heightened requirements to ensure higher levels of public hygiene.
NEA and SFA have been reminding cleaning contractors and operators that cleaners play an important role in the revised cleaning workflow. The Clean Tables Campaign is not a valid reason to lay off cleaners.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Annual Percentage of Recyclable Waste Processed at Materials Recovery Facilities in Past Three Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"16 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment in the past three years what is the annual percentage of (i) recyclable waste processed at materials recovery facilities but not exported that are ultimately treated as general waste and (ii) recyclable waste reused as materials for new products.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: The National Environment Agency (NEA) monitors the contamination rate of recyclables collected in the blue bins and recycling chutes. Based on data collected in 2018 and 2020, about 40% of the items collected cannot be recycled. These are treated as general waste after being sorted at the Material Recovery Facilities and disposed of at waste-to-energy plants for energy recovery. The remaining 60% is sent to recyclers, who will process the recyclables and use the materials for new products or send them to other recycling facilities for further processing and recycling.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Raising of Standards of Accountancy Sector by Singapore Accountancy Commission Since Inception in 2013","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"17 Mr Don Wee asked the Minister for Finance how has the Singapore Accountancy Commission driven and raised the standards of the accountancy sector since its inception in 2013.
Mr Lawrence Wong: The Singapore Accountancy Commission (SAC) has implemented several initiatives over the years to raise the standards and drive the development of the accountancy sector in Singapore. These initiatives, which are also part of SAC’s Accountancy Roadmap, aim to grow Singapore into a leading global accountancy hub for high value-adding accounting services.
First, to ensure that accountants have the right skillsets and knowledge, SAC developed the Singapore Chartered Accountant Qualification (SCAQ) in 2013. The SCAQ is Singapore’s national professional accountancy qualification and is internationally recognised. Over the years, the number of SCAQ candidates has been steadily increasing, from 1,554 candidates in FY2017/2018 to 2,252 candidates in FY2020/20211. As demand for business valuation services rises, SAC also developed a first-in-Asia Chartered Valuer and Appraiser (CVA) programme to raise the standards of ethics and professionalism in business valuation. To position Singapore as a thought leader in the field of professional development, SAC also organised the Institute of Valuers and Appraisers Singapore – International Valuation Standards Council Business Valuation Conference annually.
Second, to develop the accountancy talent pool, SAC partnered Workforce Singapore (WSG) to upskill and reskill workers to prepare them for new or expanded roles, especially in growth areas. For example, SAC and WSG collaborated with the Institute of Internal Auditors Singapore to launch the Career Conversion Programme to train and support mid-career individuals to take on Internal Audit roles. In addition, SAC recently launched the Jobs Transformation Maps for the accountancy sector which laid out pathways to transform jobs and the skills required by workers as job roles evolve.
Third, to help accounting firms to transform and improve productivity, SAC rolled out the Digital Transformation for Accountancy (DTACT) programme to help Small and Medium Practices (SMPs) defray the costs of adopting technology solutions. The programme supported about 140 SMPs from October 2018 to December 2020. SAC has organised annual accounting-related hackathons to ideate new solutions to transform the sector.
SAC’s efforts have yielded good outcomes and contributed to the steady growth of the sector and the creation of good jobs. From 2015 to 2019, prior to COVID-19, the revenue of accounting entities grew by an average of 5.8% per annum and more than 3,000 jobs were created2 in the sector.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Data based on SAC’s Annual Integrated Report.","2 : Data based on the National Census for Accounting Entities published by SAC, 2016-2020."],"footNoteQuestions":["17"],"questionNo":"17"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Staff Shortfalls Faced by Social Service Agencies in Past Two Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"18 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Social and Family Development for the past two years (a) how many and what percentage of Social Service Agencies (SSA) faced shortfalls in staff members; and (b) what were the average and median number of staff members in the shortfall faced by each SSA.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Based on the Manpower and Salary Survey (MPSS)1 conducted by MSF in 2019 across 187 Social Service Agencies (SSAs), about two-thirds of SSAs, or 125, reported having vacancies for permanent positions, both part-time and full-time, in their organisations at the time.
Among the SSAs reporting vacancies, the average vacancy rate was about 8%, the average number of vacancies per SSA was 15, and the median number was four.
As SSAs may have programmes spanning different sub-sectors, these vacancies would include those in programmes outside the social service sector.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : The MPSS captured the majority of MSF/National Council of Social Service (NCSS)-funded agencies and a portion of unfunded agencies in the social service sector."],"footNoteQuestions":["18"],"questionNo":"18"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Take-up Rate of Government-paid Paternity Leave vis-a-vis Government-paid Maternity Leave from 2019 to 2021 and Additional Steps to Encourage Co-parenting","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"19 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) from 2019 to 2021, how does the take-up rate of Government-Paid Paternity Leave compare with the take-up rate of Government-Paid Maternity Leave; (b) what are the causes for the difference in the take-up rates, if any; and (c) whether the Government is considering taking additional steps to encourage co-parenting.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The Government introduced Government-Paid Maternity Leave (GPML) in 2004 and Government-Paid Paternity Leave (GPPL) in 2013 for parents of Singaporean children. Eligible working mothers and fathers can enjoy up to 16 weeks and two weeks of paid GPML and GPPL respectively.
The take-up rates of GPML and GPPL1 in 2019 were 79% and 55% respectively. Data for 2020 and 2021 are not available as parents have up to one year after their Singaporean child’s birth to consume the leave and employers have three months after that to submit the claims.
One possible reason for the lower take-up rate of GPPL compared to GPML is that it was introduced later. The GPPL take-up rate has more than doubled from 25% in 2013 to 55% in 2019 and, over time, the gap between GPML and GPPL could close.
Going forward, stronger workplace support and a stronger societal culture of fathers being actively involved in raising children could lead to higher GPPL take-up rates.
To strengthen workplace support, MOM encourages employers to adopt the Tripartite Standards on Flexible Work Arrangements, Unpaid Leave for Unexpected Care Needs, and the recently introduced Standard on Work-Life Harmony. Adopters are publicly recognised as progressive employers, including on the MyCareersFuture website, which can contribute towards their talent attraction and retention strategy. MOM also guides employers to put in place practices to foster family-friendly environments. The Centre for Fathering, which runs the Dads for Life Movement, launched its biennial “Great Companies for Dads Awards” in March 2021. It aims to recognise outstanding organisations that empower fathers to achieve work-life harmony and inspire other employers to follow suit. In 2021, five organisations received this award.
To encourage fathers to be actively involved in raising their children, alongside the mothers, MSF has launched the Alliance for Action (AfA) to Strengthen Marriages and Family Relationships. One of its priorities is to work with Families for Life (FFL) and Dads for Life. AfA will also galvanise the community and corporates to promote active parenting by both fathers and mothers.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : The take-up rates do not fully reflect the utilisation of parental leave. They exclude mothers who take up to only eight weeks of GPML for their first and second child as employers pay for such leave but are not required to report their utilisation. Secondly, the GPPL and GPML take-up rates exclude parents whose claims were not submitted."],"footNoteQuestions":["19"],"questionNo":"19"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures to Prevent Illegal Purchase of e-cigarettes and e-liquids and Studies on Youths' Views on Vaping and Awareness of Its Harmful Side Effects","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"20 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Health whether he can provide an update on what has been done to monitor and prevent the illegal purchase of e-cigarettes and e-liquids, especially through messaging apps and social media.
21 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Health whether there have been any studies done among the youths on their views on vaping and their awareness of the harmful side effects of vaping, such as lung injury, respiratory issues, nicotine addiction and second-hand e-cigarette vapour, such that the survey could also have the added benefit of deterring vaping among the youths.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The Health Sciences Authority (HSA) has been monitoring and gathering intelligence on illicit sales of e-cigarettes via social media and messaging platforms, and from 1 January 2018 to 31 December 2021, has carried out 201 operations targeting sales of e-cigarettes on online platforms. HSA also collaborates with platforms, such as Instagram, Facebook and Carousell, to remove postings on the illegal sales of such products. In 2021, 4,210 such postings were removed. Concurrently, the illegal importation of e-cigarettes is monitored at Singapore’s borders and intercepted as necessary to prevent entry of these e-cigarettes into the local market. These enforcement activities need to be complemented by public education efforts to deter the public, particularly youths, from vaping.
The Health Promotion Board (HPB) had previously conducted a survey in 2019 which found that almost seven in 10 young people were not aware that e-cigarettes contained harmful chemicals.
To further increase awareness of the harms and effects of e-cigarettes, HPB works closely with MOE and the Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs) to incorporate more information on the harms of vaping in the virtual assembly skits and talks organised for the students. Training is also conducted to equip educators to discuss the harms of vaping with their students.
When students are caught using or possessing e-cigarettes and other types of vaporisers, school-based disciplinary action is also taken. They are reported to HSA, which may fine recalcitrant offenders, and they are required to attend cessation programmes run by HPB. Students are guided by counsellors through their cessation journey to make long-term behavioural changes.
MOH, HSA and HPB will continue working together to enhance and expand the suite of existing measures to curb the supply and demand of e-cigarettes to protect the health of the population.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Most Common Congenital Birth Issues and Annual Proportion of Expectant Mothers Taking up Maternity Insurance Policies","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"22 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Health (a) in the past 10 years, what are the most common congenital birth issues; (b) what is the average amount that parents spend on medical fees for their children in cases without maternity insurance; and (c) whether the Ministry has considered mandating insurers to extend maternity insurance to parents who have pre-existing health conditions that will ordinarily disqualify them from such coverage.
23 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Health in the past five years (a) what is the annual proportion of expectant mothers who took up maternity insurance policies; (b) what is the average number of claims made; and (c) what is the average percentage of women who have had their maternity insurance policies rejected due to pre-existing conditions.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Based on latest available data, the most common congenital illnesses for newborns are of the circulatory system and the urinary system.
All Singapore Citizens, including those with congenital illnesses or pre-existing conditions, are automatically covered from birth by MediShield Life. Parents can also tap on their MediSave or their child’s MediSave Grant for Newborns to defray expenses incurred for the treatment of congenital illnesses of their children. Over 2018 to 2020, Singaporeans paid less than $200 in cash, on average, for subsidised hospitalisation and day surgery bills for their newborns, beyond delivery.
MediShield Life and MediSave also cover serious pregnancy complications. For those who prefer additional coverage, Integrated Shield Plans (IPs) do so as well, though coverage varies between insurers. Around four-fifths of women aged 18 to 45 have an IP that covers serious pregnancy and delivery-related complications.
Alternatively, expectant mothers may choose to purchase maternity insurance policies to have added coverage over pregnancy complications and congenital illnesses. As these are optional products offered by private insurers, MOH does not have data relating to the take-up, claims or rejections of maternity insurance policies.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Rationale for Two COVID-19 Positive Individuals with Different Travel Histories and Discharge Dates to be Roomed Together","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"24 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Health what is the rationale behind the policy that two COVID-19-positive individuals, with different travel histories and discharge dates, can be roomed together.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Confirmed COVID-19 cases may be isolated together in the same room as there is no risk from reinfection during the course of their infection and immediately after an infection. This is no different from other infectious diseases, such as measles or chicken pox, where patients with the same infectious disease can stay together.
Such arrangements ensure that we have sufficient overall capacity to handle a surge in cases.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Progress of Efforts to Encourage Eligible Singaporeans to Take Up CareShield Life","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"25 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Health (a) what is the progress of efforts to encourage eligible Singaporeans born in 1979 or earlier to take up CareShield Life since the start of the enrolment on 6 November 2021; (b) what steps have and will be taken to encourage eligible Singaporeans to apply for CareShield Life; and (c) what is the average processing time for ElderShield 400 policyholders born between 1970 and 1979 who have been auto-enrolled for CareShield Life as at 1 December 2021 and who are still awaiting formal induction into CareShield Life.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: This question has been addressed by the reply to Question No 41 for written answer on the Order Paper for 14 February 2022. [Please refer to “Voluntary Enrolment of Persons Born Before 1980 into CareShield Life Scheme to-Date and Their Profile and Premium Payable“, Official Report, 14 February 2022, Vol 95, Issue 47, Written Answers to Questions section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Statistics on Doctors under Structured Traineeship Programmes Consuming Maternity or Paternity Leave","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"26 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for Health from 2018 to 2021 annually, broken down by gender (a) how many doctors were on structured traineeship programmes, such as (i) Residency and (ii) Senior Residency; (b) how many became parents to a newborn child during traineeship; (c) what proportion of these doctors consumed their full entitlement of maternity leave or paternity leave respectively; and (d) of these doctors, how many (i) had traineeship extended by a year or more and (ii) resigned from traineeship before completion.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Between 2018 and 2021, there was an average of 2,100 doctors in residency training every year, with approximately equal proportion of males and females. Around 13% of the residents currently in training had at least one newborn child during training over the past four years. Most of them were able to consume their full entitlement of maternity or paternity leave.
For residents with at least one newborn child between 2018 and 2021, 2% had their training extended for more than a year due to maternity leave and no-pay-leave-related absences and less than 5% resigned from training due to family commitments.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Harness Artificial Intelligence and Technology to Combat Cybercrimes in Light of Increasing Number of Phishing Scam","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"27 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Communications and Information how can artificial intelligence and technology be harnessed to combat cybercrimes in light of an increasing number of phishing scams.
Mrs Josephine Teo: This question has been addressed as part of the three Ministerial Statements to be delivered by Minister for Finance and Deputy Chairman of MAS, Lawrence Wong; Minister for Communications and Information and Minister-in-charge of Smart Nation and Cybersecurity, Josephine Teo; and Minister of State for Ministry of Home Affairs Desmond Tan at today’s Sitting.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proposal to Make Database of Objectionable Publications under Undesirable Publications Act Available for Reference Publicly","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"28 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Communications and Information whether the Ministry can consider making the database of objectionable publications under the Undesirable Publications Act publicly available for reference.
Mrs Josephine Teo: IMDA’s database enables registered importers and distributors to check if a publication has been disallowed, before they proceed with purchases and distribution of the publication. Importers, publishers and retailers, essentially, self-regulate based on the Undesirable Publications Act (UPA) and IMDA’s content guidelines, which are available on IMDA’s website. IMDA steps in when there is public feedback or complaints, or when importers refer publications to IMDA for advice. The database, therefore, only contains titles that IMDA has reviewed. As it is not exhaustive, making it available for public reference might lead the public to wrongly rely on it. Nevertheless, anyone who is in doubt whether a publication they intend to distribute may be considered objectionable, can approach IMDA for advice.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Build More Green Access Points to Make Green Rail Corridor and Clementi Forest in Ulu Pandan More Accessible for Residents","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"29 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for National Development whether more green access points can be built to make the Green Rail Corridor and Clementi Forest in Ulu Pandan more accessible for residents.
Mr Desmond Lee: As part of our City in Nature efforts, we work closely with the community to enhance our green spaces and provide Singaporeans with greater access to and a more immersive experience with nature.
In July 2021, we announced a new 18-kilometre recreational green network at the Clementi Nature Corridor, comprising two new nature trails. The Old Jurong Line Nature Trail will run through Clementi Forest and connect the Rail Corridor to Jurong Lake Gardens. The Clementi Nature Trail will start at an existing stream within the Clementi Forest and connect the Rail Corridor to Ulu Pandan. When progressively completed from 2023, these nature trails will provide more green access points for residents in nearby estates to experience nature.
We will also continue to carry out trail improvement works at the Rail Corridor. For example, new access points near the Queensway Flyover and Jalan Kilang Barat were recently completed in January 2022. In addition, we will commence works this year to include new access points to the Rail Corridor for residents at nearby estates, including in the Ulu Pandan area.
As we implement our plans for the Rail Corridor and other green spaces, we take into consideration how such spaces can inject vibrancy into the surrounding area for the community, while safeguarding our natural heritage. We will continue to engage our stakeholders to shape the future of our green spaces as inclusive and accessible community spaces.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proposal to Review Sentencing Framework for Animal Cruelty and Abuse and Wildlife Trafficking and Possession Cases","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"30 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether the Ministry will conduct a review of the sentencing framework for (i) animal cruelty and abuse and (ii) wildlife trafficking and possession cases; (b) if so, what is the timeline for such review; and (c) if not, why not.
Mr Desmond Lee: MND and NParks are reviewing the penalties for trafficking and illegal possession of wildlife under the Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act (ESA). The intent is to ensure that there is effective deterrence against the illegal trade of wildlife species protected under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). We have consulted the public and plan to introduce a Bill in Parliament to amend the ESA in the first half of 2022.
We are also reviewing the penalties under the Animals and Birds Act to ensure that they remain effective in deterring acts of animal cruelty and abuse. We will consult relevant stakeholders and the public as part of this review when ready.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proposal to Allow Illiterate Owners, Sellers and Tenants to be Accompanied by Literate Family Member to Perform HDB Transactions","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"31 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for National Development in light of the social distancing measures implemented at HDB Hub and HDB Branch Offices, whether the Ministry will consider allowing owners, sellers and tenants who are not literate to be accompanied by a literate family member to perform their HDB transactions.
Mr Desmond Lee: As part of COVID-19 safe management measures, transactions at the HDB Hub and HDB Branches are carried out on an appointment basis and limited to the parties directly involved in the transaction.
However, we understand that some individuals, like the elderly or those who are not literate, may require assistance to execute their transactions. In such cases, HDB will accede to requests for one other person to accompany them to their appointments. Such requests can be made through the MyRequest@HDB portal or by calling HDB’s customer service hotline.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Outcome of Review of Community Dispute Management Framework","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"32 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth whether he can provide an update on (i) the review of the Community Dispute Management Framework by the inter-agency committee and (ii) mediation being made compulsory prior to filing of Community Disputes Resolution Tribunal (CDRT) cases to manage and resolve disputes between neighbours.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: An inter-agency committee regularly reviews the Community Dispute Management Framework to (a) strengthen neighbourliness to minimise disputes upstream; (b) promote community mediation as the primary way to resolve disputes between neighbours; and (c) provide an effective avenue for legal recourse, as a last resort, for intransigent cases.
In the current round of review, one persistent issue that the Committee identified is that many residents involved in disputes are unwilling to attend mediation, even though the Community Mediation Centre (CMC) has a high settlement rate. This could be due to a lack of awareness of the benefits of mediation. So, efforts to increase public education around mediation is one area the Committee is working on.
The Committee is also aware that some residents face practical difficulties with regard to the Community Dispute Resolution Tribunal (CDRT). CDRT, currently, takes a judge-led approach and is not bound strictly by the rules of evidence. This flexible approach, generally, works well, but some residents face difficulties in resolving cases where the facts are disputed, especially where the unreasonable interference is intermittent or transient in nature, or where it is challenging to pinpoint the exact source of such interference.
The Committee is studying a range of proposals to address these issues.
Upstream, the Committee is considering how we can collaborate with residents to strengthen neighbourliness, as part of our ongoing efforts to promote gracious living. These efforts can help reduce the likelihood of disputes arising in the first instance.
Downstream, the Committee is considering how to strengthen our response to protracted neighbour dispute cases and see them through to resolution in a more expeditious manner. Given the low take-up rate of mediation, the Committee is looking to mandate mediation in certain circumstances, such as for protracted disputes where voluntary mediation has not been conducted. The Committee is also looking into requiring claimants to attempt mediation before they can seek recourse at CDRT. The Committee is also considering giving officers managing the cases stronger powers on issuing orders for mediation and medical assessment, warnings, and to furnish formal evidence or reports to CDRT which may help residents pursue claims at CDRT. We are also looking at making various procedural improvements to CDRT to enable affected parties to obtain quick, interim relief in egregious cases.
We will provide more details of the review in due course.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Guidelines and Protocols on Protecting Personal Data of Individuals Collected, Used and Disclosed by Public Agencies and Safeguards in Place in Event of Data Breach","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"33 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) what are the guidelines and protocols on protecting the personal data of individuals that are collected, used and disclosed by public agencies, in particular, the People's Association, to grassroots advisers (GRAs) and their associated volunteers; (b) what safeguards are in place when the personal data involved relates to children; and (c) in the event of a data breach, what recourse and resources are available to assist affected GRAs and volunteers in rectifying the breach.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Data management in the People’s Association (PA), as with other public agencies, is governed by the Public Sector (Governance) Act (PSGA) 2018 and the Government Instruction Manual (IM) on ICT and Smart Systems Management: Data. The IM sets out, amongst other things, the data protection requirements that apply in respect of the management of personal data.
There is a framework in place to manage any Government data incidents. Standard operating procedures and workflows are included to guide and ensure that the relevant personnel comply with applicable policies and procedures. In the event of any data breach, PA would have regard to the specific circumstances and context in which the breach had occurred, in assessing the appropriate remedial actions to be taken.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Breakdown of Investments made by CPF Members under CPF Investment Scheme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"34 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Manpower for investments made by CPF members under the CPF Investment Scheme (CPFIS) (a) what is the current breakdown of invested amounts by investment products; and (b) what is the current cumulative investment performance for CPFIS-OA investors by investment products.
Dr Tan See Leng: CPF members enjoy risk-free interest of up to 6% per annum on their CPF balances. Those who are prepared to take some risk to earn potentially higher returns may do so through the CPF Investment Scheme or CPFIS. Members can participate in CPFIS using their Ordinary Account (CPFIS-OA) and Special Account monies.
Under the CPFIS-OA, CPF members have access to a range of investment products of varying risk profiles. These include bonds, fixed deposits, insurance policies, unit trusts, shares, gold products and exchange-traded funds or ETFs.
Based on the latest CPFIS-OA Profit and Loss Statement published on the CPF website, about 75% of 645,000 CPFIS-OA members made profits or broke even in the reporting period of FY2020. The remaining 162,000 members (25%) made cumulative total losses1.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Based on the CPFIS-OA Profit and Loss Statement for the period ended September 2020. Figures based on cumulative total returns since 1 October 2014."],"footNoteQuestions":["34"],"questionNo":"34"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Clarification by Minister, Prime Minister’s Office and Leader of the House","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WS","content":"(a) Statement in opening speech
[(proc text) The following statement was made in the opening speech made by the Minister, Prime Minister’s Office and Leader of the House during the simultaneous debate on the Motions on “Committee of Privileges Report (Recommendations in respect of Ms Raeesah Khan)” and “Committee of Privileges Report (Recommendations in respect of Mr Pritam Singh, Mr Faisal Manap and Ms Sylvia Lim)” (the “Two Motions”) at the Sitting of 15 February 2022: (proc text)]
The Leader of the House (Ms Indranee Rajah): Ms Lim admitted, in the context of whether it would have been possible on 4 October to have Ms Lim clarify the truth the next day on 5 October, that this was not possible because time was needed to carefully structure Ms Khan’s clarification and to make the necessary preparations. [Please refer to \"Committee of Privileges Report (Recommendations in respect of Ms Raeesah Khan) and Committee of Privileges Report (Recommendations in respect of Mr Pritam Singh, Mr Faisal Manap and Ms Sylvia Lim)\", Official Report, 15 February 2022, Vol 95, Issue No 48, Motions section.]
[(proc text) Written statement by Ms Indranee Rajah circulated with leave of the Speaker in accordance with Standing Order No 29(5): (proc text)]
In my opening speech on the Two Motions, I referred to a context of whether it would have been possible on 4 October to have Ms Lim clarify the truth the next day on 5 October. I wish to make a factual correction, as I was referring to the context of whether it would have been possible on 4 October to have Ms Khan clarify the truth the next day on 5 October. My speech should, therefore, read as follows:
The Leader of the House (Ms Indranee Rajah): Ms Lim admitted, in the context of whether it would have been possible on 4 October to have Ms Khan clarify the truth the next day on 5 October, that this was not possible because time was needed to carefully structure Ms Khan’s clarification and to make the necessary preparations.
(b) Statement in reply speech
[(proc text) The following statements were made in the reply speech given by the Minister, Prime Minister’s Office and Leader of the House during the simultaneous debate for the Two Motions at the Sitting of 15 February 2022: (proc text)]
The Leader of the House (Ms Indranee Rajah): That was dealt with at paragraph 55 of the Report. The way the Committee dealt with it was, they said that those questions were quite telling. If Mr Singh had been very clear on 3 October, then Mr Singh would be saying, \"I told you to tell the truth and you did not. You went against my instructions in telling the truth to Parliament. That was a serious breach of party discipline.\" He would not be saying, as he did, \"I have told you that it was your call. Why it did not occur to you to tell the truth\" and \"can't lie, right?\" [Please refer to \"Committee of Privileges Report (Recommendations in respect of Ms Raeesah Khan) and Committee of Privileges Report (Recommendations in respect of Mr Pritam Singh, Mr Faisal Manap and Ms Sylvia Lim)\", Official Report, 15 February 2022, Vol 95, Issue No 48, Motions section.]
[(proc text) Written statement by Ms Indranee Rajah circulated with leave of the Speaker in accordance with Standing Order No 29(5): (proc text)]
In my reply speech on the Two Motions, I said that, at paragraph 55 of the Report, the Committee had stated that the questions posed by Mr Singh to Ms Khan were quite telling, because if Mr Singh had been very clear on 3 October, then Mr Singh would be saying \"I told you to tell the truth and you did not. You went against my instructions in telling the truth to Parliament. ...\" I wish to make a factual clarification, that the Committee dealt with this issue at paragraphs 85-86 of the Schedule to the Report, and that Mr Singh would be saying “… You went against my instructions on telling the truth to Parliament”. My speech should, therefore, read as follows:
The Leader of the House (Ms Indranee Rajah): That was dealt with at paragraphs 85 to 86 of the Schedule to the Report. The way the Committee dealt with it was, they said that those questions were quite telling. If Mr Singh had been very clear on 3 October, then Mr Singh would be saying, \"I told you to tell the truth and you did not. You went against my instructions on telling the truth to Parliament. That was a serious breach of party discipline.\" He would not be saying, as he did, \"I have told you that it was your call. Why it did not occur to you to tell the truth\" and \"can't lie, right?\"
(c) Statement in reply speech
[(proc text) The following statement was made in the reply speech given by the Minister, Prime Minister’s Office and Leader of the House during the simultaneous debate for the Two Motions at the Sitting of 15 February 2022: (proc text)]
The Leader of the House (Ms Indranee Rajah): So, for the more egregious, serious transgressions – in this case, the findings that Mr Singh had lied and that Mr Faisal Manap had prevaricated, refused to give documents, refused to answer questions – the recommendation is that those be referred to the Public Prosecutor. [Please refer to \"Committee of Privileges Report (Recommendations in respect of Ms Raeesah Khan) and Committee of Privileges Report (Recommendations in respect of Mr Pritam Singh, Mr Faisal Manap and Ms Sylvia Lim)\", Official Report, 15 February 2022, Vol 95, Issue No 48, Motions section.]
[(proc text) Written statement by Ms Indranee Rajah circulated with leave of the Speaker in accordance with Standing Order No 29(5): (proc text)]
In my reply speech on the Two Motions, I said that arising from the finding that Mr Faisal Manap had (inter alia) refused to give documents, the Committee’s recommendation was for that to be referred to the Public Prosecutor. I wish to make a factual correction, that the relevant finding was that Mr Faisal Manap had (inter alia) refused to identify documents. My speech should, therefore, read as follows:
The Leader of the House (Ms Indranee Rajah): So, for the more egregious, serious transgressions – in this case, the findings that Mr Singh had lied and that Mr Faisal Manap had prevaricated, refused to identify documents, refused to answer questions – the recommendation is that those be referred to the Public Prosecutor.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null}],"writtenAnswersVOList":[],"writtenAnsNAVOList":[],"annexureList":[],"vernacularList":[{"vernacularID":4781,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mrs Josephine Teo","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20220215/vernacular-Josephine Teo MS 15Feb2022 -Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Josephine Teo MS 15Feb2022 -Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":4782,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Don Wee","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20220215/vernacular-Don Wee MS 15Feb2022-Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Don Wee MS 15Feb2022-Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":4783,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Desmond Tan","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20220215/vernacular-Desmond Tan MS 15Feb2022-Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Desmond Tan MS 15Feb2022-Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":4784,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20220215/vernacular-15 Feb 2022 - Mr Faisal Manap - Motion on CoP Report.pdf","fileName":"15 Feb 2022 - Mr Faisal Manap - Motion on CoP Report.pdf"},{"vernacularID":4786,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20220215/vernacular-15 Feb 2022 - Mr Zhul Rahim - Motion on CoP Report.pdf","fileName":"15 Feb 2022 - Mr Zhul Rahim - Motion on CoP Report.pdf"},{"vernacularID":4787,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Ms Sim Ann","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20220215/vernacular-Sim Ann CoP 15Feb2022-Chinese(sim).pdf","fileName":"Sim Ann CoP 15Feb2022-Chinese(sim).pdf"}],"onlinePDFFileName":""}