Mr Speaker: Questions for oral answer.
Mr Leong Mun Wai (Non-Constituency Member): Point of Order, Sir.
Mr Speaker: Yes, Mr Leong.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Speaker, Sir, can I know the reasons why the eight Questions on our sovereign fund was put almost towards the end of the question queue today? Which means, the questions will not be answered orally today, probably.
Mr Speaker: Mr Leong, I believe the Leader has spoken to the Leader of the Opposition. Members of Parliament (MPs) have filed questions about the FTX situation: some are for oral answer today, while some are up for oral answer tomorrow. I have discussed this with the Leader of the House. Given the volume of business for this Sitting, we will be sitting until Wednesday, 30 November 2022. I think it is best that all the FTX questions be answered holistically by the Government on Wednesday. This will allow other Parliamentary Questions (PQs) to be cleared and I will allocate sufficient time on Wednesday for the FTX PQs and supplementary questions to be answered fully.
I suggest that Members who do not receive an oral answer to the FTX questions today or tomorrow postpone the questions to Wednesday.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Thank you, Speaker.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"One-time Wage Adjustment for Civil Servants to Offset Anticipated High Core Inflation Rate in 2022","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"1 Mr Ang Wei Neng asked the Prime Minister whether the Public Service Division will be considering a one-time wage adjustment for all civil servants to offset the anticipated high core inflation rate in 2022.
\tThe Minister for Education (Mr Chan Chun Sing) (for the Prime Minister): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Civil Service periodically reviews salaries and adjusts them when necessary to keep pace with, but not lead, the market. The recent salary adjustments for various groups of civil servants were determined based on salary gaps with market benchmarks. Beyond these adjustments, eligible officers also receive Annual Variable Component (AVC) payments and annual salary increments that take into consideration their performance, prevailing economic and labour market conditions and the National Wages Council’s recommendations on progressive wage growth.
In total, the salary increases arising from the recent salary reviews and annual salary increments, coupled with annual AVC payments, will more than exceed the inflation rate seen this year for all the civil servants who meet the criteria.
The Government has also rolled out a series of support measures this year, such as the recently announced Cost-of-Living Special Payment and additional CDC Vouchers. These support measures together will help to cushion the impact of sharp inflation changes and provide further relief for Singaporean households, with more support for lower- to middle-income groups.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Ang.
\tMr Ang Wei Neng (West Coast): Thank you, Speaker. I thank the Minister for the comprehensive reply. Can I just clarify one point? Minister was saying that with the recent adjustments in the civil service pay, every civil servant will get at least more than 5.1% of the salary increment because the core inflation rate in October is 5.1%? At the same time, we notice that there is a report in The Straits Times to say that about 68% of the employees were thinking of changing jobs if their pay is not increased more than the inflation rate.
The second supplementary question is: if that is so, that the Government is keeping the increment to more than 5.1% or inflation rate, would it encourage the rest of the Singapore companies to do the same as far as possible?
\tMr Chan Chun Sing: Mr Speaker, Sir, to answer to the first supplementary question, as I have said, the salary increases arising from the recent salary reviews, plus annual salary increments, plus the AVC payments will more than exceed the inflation rate this year, for all the civil servants who meet the criteria. There might be a very, very small number of people who do not meet the performance criteria and they might be short of that 5% that the Member mentioned. But that is a very, very small number of people who do not meet the performance criteria. On top of that, the Government has all the other packages for all the Singaporean households, which we think will be able to meet the requirement to help those who are most in need.
On the second supplementary question, MOM together with the National Wages Council (NWC) has laid out its own recommendations for the rest of the economy to do what we can and especially do more, if possible, for those households and individuals who need more help.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Regulation of Ownership of Personal Mobility Aids to Prevent Their Misuse and Abuse","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"2 Ms Carrie Tan asked the Minister for Transport (a) how is the ownership of personal mobility aids (PMAs) being regulated; (b) whether the Ministry will consider tightening the ownership requirements for PMAs to prevent their proliferation from misuse and abuse; (c) how does the Ministry monitor whether the PMAs in use are in compliance with safety standards; (d) how can members of the public report PMAs being misused; and (e) what are the enforcement actions that will be taken following reports of non-compliant PMAs to the Ministry.
\tThe Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Transport (Mr Baey Yam Keng) (for the Minister for Transport): Mr Speaker, Sir, we want to make personal mobility aids, or PMAs, accessible for the many Singaporeans who rely on them for diverse daily commuting needs.
Rather than regulate ownership, LTA has regulations to ensure that PMAs are safe for use on public paths. All PMAs, which include mobility scooters and motorised wheelchairs, have a maximum speed of 10 kilometres per hour (km/h) and mobility scooters must only have a single seat, among other requirements. LTA conducts regular enforcement efforts islandwide and users found to be using non-compliant devices may face a fine of up to $10,000 and imprisonment of up to six months, and also have their devices impounded. Members of the public may report incidents of errant device users on public paths to LTA through the MyTransport.SG mobile application, or at feedback@lta.gov.sg.
Nonetheless, we acknowledge that there are cases of misuse or abuse of these devices, which we want to prevent as it affects public safety as well as safety for the riders. As part of the workplan of the Active Mobility Advisory Panel, which started its new term in January 2022, there will be a review of the rules and restrictions applicable to PMAs, such as setting pre-conditions for a person to use PMAs.
\tMr Speaker: Ms Carrie Tan.
\tMs Carrie Tan (Nee Soon): Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the answer. I would like to understand in terms of the public reporting misuse of PMAs, it is not uncommon for us to see people on the streets ferrying grandchildren or ferrying a boyfriend or a girlfriend on PMAs. So, if a member of the public sees this, can you explain how exactly can they report this on the OneMotoring app? Do they take a picture and submit the picture? What would be the enforcement actions that will follow?
\tMr Baey Yam Keng: When members of the public report such cases, it could be through a video, a photograph or just information about the incident via the MyTransport.SG app. LTA will collate the information based on the locations where these errant users are or non-compliant devices are used. LTA will identify these hotspot areas where they will step up enforcement actions on the ground. I hope for Members and public's understanding that LTA will not be able to deploy and enforce immediately because, by the time they reach the spots, the riders would already not be there. But the information is very useful for us to know which are the hotspot areas so that more enforcement could be deployed there.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of Layoffs by Big Tech Companies and Support Available for Affected Employees","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"3 Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling asked the Minister for Manpower with the recent big tech companies’ layoff announcements (a) what is the total estimated number of workers impacted in Singapore; and (b) whether this will have a knock-on effect on salary adjustment of workers in the tech industry.
4 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Manpower in view of the recent rounds of layoffs by technology firms (a) whether employers have been prompt in submitting notices of retrenchment to the Ministry; and (b) whether the Ministry can require such employers to work closely with tripartite partners to provide employment support for affected employees, including outplacement assistance programmes.
5 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for Manpower in light of the reported ground-up initiatives by the IT community to help retrenched tech employees (a) in the last five years, how many employees have been annually laid off in the tech industry; (b) how successful has the Ministry’s job placement initiatives been in helping tech employees secure suitable replacement jobs; and (c) whether the Ministry will engage industry actors to centralise information to ensure fairer and more equitable re-employment processes.
6 Ms Mariam Jaafar asked the Minister for Manpower in the recent layoffs by large tech companies (a) what is the number of employees retrenched; (b) what is the number of Singaporeans retrenched; and (c) what are the roles that have been impacted.
\tThe Minister for Manpower (Dr Tan See Leng): Mr Speaker, Sir, may I have your permission to take Question Nos 3 to 6 together?
\tMr Speaker: Yes, please.
\tDr Tan See Leng: Members have filed several Parliamentary Questions (PQs) regarding the recent spate of layoffs worldwide by tech firms. News sources have reported global retrenchment numbers at more than 21,000 employees across close to 50 tech companies worldwide in November 2022 alone, more than any other month this year. Members’ questions touch on two related issues. First, the impact of recent global tech layoffs on our local workforce. Second, the employment support measures for affected workers. I am taking these questions together to provide a more holistic response.
I will begin with an overview of employment trends in the tech sector, as well as the impact of recent global tech layoffs on our local workforce. While there are no clearly defined boundaries, the tech sector generally refers to the Information and Communications (I&C) sector. As of June 2022, the I&C sector employs 136,100 residents. This number has increased steadily over the past five years, growing by an average of 8,100 resident workers per year from June 2017 to June 2022. In comparison, retrenchment numbers over the past five years have been relatively low, at an average of 790 resident workers per year.
Mr Shawn Huang, Mr Melvin Yong and Ms He Ting Ru have also filed written questions asking about retrenchment in the sector in 2022. Based on the available labour market data, 260 residents were retrenched in the first half of this year, as compared to an increase of 7,000 residents employed in the sector.
Nonetheless, recent retrenchment notices received by MOM indicate an uptick in retrenchment of residents in the sector. In response to Miss Cheryl Chan, Ms Mariam Jaafar, Dr Lim Wee Kiak and Dr Shahira Abdullah’s questions on the number and profile of workers affected by recent layoffs, MOM has received notices of retrenchment for 1,270 resident workers from tech companies from July to mid-November 2022. Around eight in 10 of these affected workers were in non-tech roles – they worked for tech companies but they were in non-tech roles – such as sales, marketing and corporate functions, and around seven in 10 were aged 35 and below. This is consistent with the low median age of employed residents in the I&C sector.
Next, on employment support measures for affected workers. Most workers from the I&C sector have been able to secure a job soon after retrenchment. In the second quarter of 2022, the rate of re-entry into employment within six months post-retrenchment for residents in the sector was higher than for the overall economy, for both tech and non-tech workers. This suggests that retrenched non-tech workers had also found employment opportunities across the I&C sector and the larger economy.
To Dr Shahira Abdullah’s question on whether demand for tech talent has started to fall this year, job vacancies in the I&C sector have in fact continued to rise in the first half of this year, from 11,100 in December 2021 to 12,100 in June 2022. This latest figure is more than triple the 3,800 vacancies in June 2020. In addition, other sectors like financial services, including local banks, are also hiring for tech roles. Taken together, this reflects that there is strong absorptive capacity across the larger economy and opportunities for affected workers to fill in-demand roles.
Furthermore, half of the retrenching tech firms between July and mid-November 2022 have engaged outplacement partners or tapped on their industry networks to provide career transition services for their affected workers. In addition, the Taskforce for Responsible Retrenchment and Employment Facilitation (RTF), comprising representatives from Workforce Singapore (WSG) and NTUC’s Employment and Employability Institute (e2i), is reaching out to all affected local employees, including the youths which Dr Shahira Abdullah has asked about, to offer employment support. This includes information kits on job fairs, career advisory and coaching services.
For retrenched non-tech workers, we will also encourage them to consider Career Conversion Programmes (CCPs) as well as skills upgrading to improve their chances of returning to the workforce. The RTF provides relevant information on CCPs during their engagements with retrenching firms.
NTUC’s e2i also collaborated with Tech Talent Assembly, Accenture and Amazon Web Services to organise an Infocomm Jobs and Skills Fair in November 2022 providing some 400 jobs on offer. Hence, to Ms Joan Pereira’s question regarding tripartite partnership to support affected employees, it is already happening.
Responding to Mr Saktiandi Supaat’s question on the effectiveness of these job placement initiatives, seven in 10 resident workers from the I&C sector who took up the RTF’s assistance in 2021 found a new job within six months.
To ensure that affected workers receive timely and effective support, it is important that retrenching firms adhere to the requirement to submit notices of retrenchment to MOM within five working days of notifying affected employees.
\t
To answer Ms Joan Pereira's question on whether tech firms have been prompt in submitting notices of retrenchment to MOM, the majority of retrenchment notifications from the I&C sector since July 2022 were submitted on time. Employers who do not submit on time are issued with caution letters.
Looking ahead, Dr Lim Wee Kiak has asked if the Government expects more layoffs of tech employees in the next six months. MOM is mindful that hiring demand may moderate in some parts of the I&C sector given macro-economic uncertainties and risks. We will continue to monitor closely retrenchment trends and we will render assistance to affected workers in both tech and non-tech roles through the RTF. We will also continue to work on expanding opportunities in the digital domain and invest in our workers to equip them with the skills and also with the experience to seize opportunities.
\tMr Speaker: Ms Joan Pereira.
\tMs Joan Pereira (Tanjong Pagar): Thank you, Speaker. I thank the Minister for his reply. I have one supplementary question. Employees who have been dismissed or retrenched may need assistance, but may feel that the HR of their company are not on their side due to various circumstances. Would MOM be able to provide a channel or dedicated hotline for such employees to seek some advice as to what they can do and what options they have?
\tDr Tan See Leng: I thank the Member for her question. Today, there is a Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices (TAFEP) hotline that these employees can call, although it is not purely dedicated to retrenchments alone. We would not hesitate to consider other means should the retrenchment numbers continue to rise. But, today, the numbers are still manageable.
As I have also mentioned in my reply earlier on, besides the hotline, there are significant efforts done by the RTF to reach out to employees who are being retrenched. On top of providing resources in the form of information kits on job fairs, career advisory and coaching services, the RTF also encourages retrenched non-tech workers to consider upgrading themselves through career conversion programmes (CCPs) and skills upgrading to improve their chances of returning to the workforce.
As I have shared earlier on, that while the retrenchments are happening in tech firms, there is a proportionate difference in tech roles and non-tech roles within these tech companies as well. Generally, the employees who are being retrenched in the tech roles have been able to find jobs much faster post-retrenchment compared to those in the non-tech roles, which takes a bit longer. Hence, the RTF is also focusing on helping retrenched employees in these non-tech roles to upgrade, to convert the skills, to pivot and to allow them a much better chance of getting employment. Thus far, we have been reasonably successful.
\tMr Speaker: Miss Cheryl Chan.
\tMiss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling (East Coast): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister for his reply. I think he had not responded to the second part of my Parliamentary Question (PQ), which is whether this layoff will have a knock-on effect on the salary adjustment of workers in the tech industry. The Minister pointed out just now, that a large majority who were laid off were actually in the non-tech domain. The fact that they had been coming from the big tech firms, the salary adjustments would be quite significant for some of them, if they have to do career conversion or if they have to go to other companies that are not in this big tech space. Would the Minister clarify this?
\tDr Tan See Leng: I thank the Member for her supplementary question. Thus far, from the statistics that we have, the median income of workers in the I&C sector, has been on an upward trajectory, with the median gross monthly income, which includes employer's CPF, for full-time employed residents increasing from $5,700 in 2017 to $6,100 in 2021. As for the median salary of non-tech employees who have been retrenched, we do not have that data because retrenching firms are not required to include the salary data of retrenched employees when submitting Mandatory Retrenchment Notifications (MRNs) to the Ministry. Hence, I am unable to comment on the breakdown of the non-tech roles of these employees who are being retrenched and whether they will experience knock-on effects on salary adjustment later on.
In November 2022 alone, we monitored the four big tech firms which the media had reported on. About a third of the employees that were retrenched from those firms were in tech roles, and if you compare that with the second quarter of 2022, the number of tech vacancies that were available in the financial services sector outnumbered those being retrenched in the tech roles by 10 is to one.
If I use that as a proxy, it is a bit early for us to comment on whether there will be knock-on effects for those in tech roles in the immediate term, given the huge number of vacancies vis-à-vis those looking for a job. For the non-tech roles, as I have shared earlier on, we are supporting them through the RTF and TAFEP, we are going through e2i and WSG to encourage this group to upgrade, reskill and also attend some career conversion programmes. For the companies that have the ability to use NTUC's Company Training Committees, that is an added avenue for them to train and reskill their workers as well. I hope that answers part of your question.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Saktiandi Supaat.
\tMr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister for his detailed answers to my PQ. I have two supplementary questions. One is, I am mindful of the uncertain outlook that the IT sector is facing globally but may I ask the Minister about potential job opportunities in the future? I think Minister mentioned that the positions for tech is still abundant, but may I ask him about the private versus public tech opportunities? Because with the uncertain outlook, the private sector opportunities would probably be uncertain. Can Minister mention what type of skillsets and outlook would be needed for the young ones? Because we have been pushing for young people to go into the tech sector with the promotion of science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) and all that. That is my first question.
The second question is in relation to my PQ. I think Minister has not answered the last part of my PQ, which is whether the Ministry will engage industry actors to centralise information to ensure fairer and more equitable re-employment processes.
\tDr Tan See Leng: I thank the Member for his supplementary questions. As I have shared earlier on, based on the data that we have available today and without sounding repetitive, the proportion of impacted workers in tech and non-tech roles from the four big tech firms mentioned earlier is about one-third to about two-thirds. The ones in tech roles are about one-third of the total proportion being retrenched. I also shared earlier on in my response to Miss Cheryl Chan's supplementary question that this group of people will find employment quite quickly. In terms of working to help those in non-tech roles, we are also stepping up efforts to help them.
The next few months are going to be quite critical, given the continued geopolitical uncertainties and also depending on whether the global supply chain disruptions continue. But we see that many of the areas that we have pivoted into and significantly invested in through our Industry Transformation Maps (ITMs) as well as the Job Transformation Maps that run alongside them, such as the financial services sector, seem to be still moving ahead as growth sectors. So, we will do whatever we can to pivot those that would want to be pivoted, that would want to be transformed, into these sectors.
At the same time, for the business-to-consumer (B2C) tech firms, we are watching developments very closely. Perhaps, I could request for Mr Saktiandi Supaat to file another PQ in the first quarter of 2023 to see how successful our follow-up action has been.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Melvin Yong. Sorry, Ms Mariam Jaafar.
\tMs Mariam Jaafar (Sembawang): I thank the Minister for the response. I wanted to follow up on my PQ. I think I did not hear the answer to the first part of my PQ, which is the portion on those impacted; how many of those are Singaporeans versus foreigners.
My second supplementary question would be, I understand that there are still a lot of jobs available. But, in the current climate where businesses are also relocating or looking at their location strategies, is the Minister concerned at this point, given the rise in tech sector salaries in the recent past, whether our competitiveness as a tech sector – in terms of cost and availability of manpower and the ability to fill these roles quickly – is in any way compromised?
\tDr Tan See Leng: I thank Ms Mariam Jaafar for her supplementary question. The reason why we did not provide the level of granularity that she has asked for is that we typically do not break down resident data further into Singaporeans and Permanent Residents (PRs). We follow a practice that is aligned with the official statistics set out by the International Labour Organization (ILO), as statistical agencies worldwide typically cover the population residing in their country when presenting statistical releases, without a breakdown by nationality.
However, if I may provide an indication, citizens make up a large majority of our resident labour force, at about 85%. The PR population has also remained stable over time. So, if you take it together, this means that the resident data mirrors citizen data. And if we were to break it down, it provides little additional information.
To her separate point on the cost issue, we have taken a very curated and differentiated approach to upskill, to upgrade the skillsets of our entire workforce with a focus on the Singaporean Core as our principle. There will obviously be some parts in the entire value chain, for which companies will want to take advantage of offshoring some services to capture some arbitrage opportunities. But I do not think this is always possible or easy for companies.
I would humbly request that she files a separate PQ if she wants some level of granularity on offshoring, so that we can provide better statistics.
\tMr Speaker: Dr Lim Wee Kiak.
\tDr Lim Wee Kiak (Sembawang): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Sir, I would like to know, for those who are retrenched, it was mentioned that seven out of 10 can find jobs in quite a short period of time. I think the big question is, of course, when they find jobs, are they equivalent jobs or are they of the same salary?
If MOM does not track at the point of time of the retrenchment, the salary, then I would like to ask MOM, why not? Would MOM start tracking now, so we will roughly know what is the gap that they are facing? And then, at least the Government can provide some assistance in this way, so that they can lessen or cushion the impact of retrenchment.
\tDr Tan See Leng: I thank Dr Lim for his supplementary question. I have earlier on shared that, thus far in the I&C sector, the median income has been on an upward trajectory.
Just to repeat, the median gross monthly income, including employer CPF for full-time employed residents increased from $5,700 in 2017 to $6,100 in 2021.
To go into the granularity for each type of non-tech role, I think would be very granular. If this is what you are suggesting for us to track, it is something that we could look into, but we need to understand why. Of course, we are not downplaying the issue and we have never taken our eyes off this at any time. But today, we do not see the switch into a lower-paying job for the people in non-tech roles as a fundamental issue that needs particular attention.
But we are very careful, in terms of making sure that our Singapore Core and our residents who are working here, continue to possess the skills and to keep ahead. In fact, this is the focus of what MOM will be looking at in the months ahead. I hope that that gives you some reassurance, that this is one aspect that we are singularly focused on.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Rule Requiring Drivers of Public Service Vehicles to Ensure No Property Left Behind by Passengers Before or After Trip","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"7 Mr Don Wee asked the Minister for Transport regarding rule 39(1) of the Road Traffic (Public Service Vehicles) (Vocational Licences and Conduct of Drivers, Conductors, Trishaw Riders and Passengers) Rules which requires drivers to ensure that no property is left inside their vehicle immediately before or at the end of a journey (a) whether the rule is practicable considering simultaneous boarding and alighting of passengers and where items are small or left at blind spots; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider amending this rule.
8 Ms Yeo Wan Ling asked the Minister for Transport (a) what are the factors taken into account by LTA in its determination on whether to issue a taxi or private hire driver with a warning letter for failing to check for a passenger's belongings left behind in their car after a trip has ended; and (b) what appeal avenues are available to drivers who receive such a letter.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Transport (Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan) (for the Minister for Transport): Mr Speaker, Sir, with your permission, may I take Question Nos 7 and 8 together?
Mr Speaker: Yes, please.
\tDr Amy Khor Lean Suan: The current requirement for point-to-point transport, or P2P, drivers to check for items left behind by passengers at the end of every trip is a longstanding one under Rule 39(1) of the Road Traffic (Public Service Vehicles) (Vocational Licences and Conduct of Drivers, Conductors, Trishaw Riders and Passengers) Rules. It is meant to serve the interests of drivers, as it aims to avoid disputes when passengers leave belongings in their vehicles.
However, recognising operational constraints, drivers are not expected to stop their vehicles and get out of their seats to check for items left behind by passengers. Instead, a quick visual scan from the driver's seat will be sufficient. P2P drivers are taught this practice during their Vocational Licence training course. Passengers are also reminded to be responsible for their belongings when taking P2P trips. For example, some operators provide reminders to passengers at the end of the trips through app notifications.
I would like to assure Members that the current rule is not meant to be punitive, but instead to encourage a good practice. LTA has only issued warnings in a few instances and has not imposed any financial penalties or demerit points on drivers for non-compliance. The warning recently issued to a driver for breaching this rule has been withdrawn, following appeals to LTA through the driver's Member of Parliament and the National Taxi Association.
LTA will take this opportunity to not only review how this best practice should be encouraged to protect the interests of both drivers and their passengers, but also conduct a broader review of best practices for P2P drivers. LTA is, thus, working with our tripartite partners, our P2P operators and the driver associations to undertake this review, taking into consideration recent public feedback and will share the outcome of the review when ready.
Mr Speaker: Mr Don Wee.
\tMr Don Wee (Chua Chu Kang): Thank you, Mr Speaker. In Mandarin, please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I have a question. First, I would like to declare that my father, uncle and cousin are taxi drivers. Can the Minister consider to completely remove this regulation? In reality, during peak period at taxi stands, it is impossible for the taxi driver to reject a passenger from coming into the taxi after the earlier passenger had alighted, because the driver needs to get out to check the rear row, which includes lifting up the carpets if they follow the spirit of the regulation. This is not practical. In addition, some taxis do broadcast reminders to remind the passengers to check their belongings before alighting.
\tDr Amy Khor Lean Suan: I thank the Member for his clarification and suggestion. First, let me say that as I have explained in my reply earlier, the intent of this rule is to encourage drivers to adopt this good practice to check for belongings that might have been left behind by passengers. This really serves not just the interest of the drivers, but also of the passengers. For the drivers, it is especially to avoid any potential disputes if the left behind items cannot be found later on.
And for the passengers, if the drivers do that and discover the left behind item quickly, that will reduce the stress on the passengers.
But having said that, the rule does recognise that there are operational constraints. So, in fact, if you read the rule, it says \"as far as practicable\", which means that when we implement this, we are not requiring the drivers to get out of their cars, as the Member has said, to check for left items. Really, it is doing a quick visual scan from the driver's seat and I think that will suffice. Indeed, many drivers do find left behind items just by visual scanning.
Having said that, as I have said, we have actually not imposed any financial penalties or demerit points on drivers; just written warnings in a few instances and that is really to encourage adoption of the good practice.
As I have said, we hear the feedback from the drivers' community, the association as well as Members. We will take this opportunity to conduct a broader review, not just of this rule, but how we can encourage this practice without making it seem too onerous, as well as review broader best practices for P2P drivers. And we are doing it with P2P operators as well as the drivers associations and we will share it when we are ready with the outcome.
Mr Speaker: Ms Yeo Wan Ling.
\tMs Yeo Wan Ling (Pasir Ris-Punggol): I thank the Senior Minister of State for her reply. Our driving community at the National Taxi Association and the National Private Hire Vehicles Association had expressed their concerns over the practical realities of being able to check, with absolute certainty, whether a passenger had left their belongings in the cars when they alight. And I am very glad that LTA will consider relooking at this rule on punitive actions against our drivers if they have not done so.
However, given this and the feedback that the drivers have given, will LTA also look at joint public education campaigns, letting our drivers and passengers know that it is a joint effort on belongings that are left behind and also to work with more of the taxi and private hire platforms on ensuring that there are reminders, whether it is on the app or in the taxis via stickers and all that, on reminding people not to leave their items behind?
\tDr Amy Khor Lean Suan: I thank the Member for her suggestion. Certainly, we will work together with our P2P operators as well as the associations to look at how we can remind drivers as well as passengers to take some responsibility, in terms of stewardship of the vehicles as well as responsibility for their personal belongings through notices or apps and so on.
And just to share with Members too – besides teaching the drivers this practice during their Vocational Licence training course, they are also reminded of this practice when they undergo their refresher course.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures to Prevent and Manage Risks from Crowd Surges during Festive Periods and Public Events","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"9 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for Home Affairs what regulatory requirements and policy measures are in place to prevent risks arising from crowd surges during festive periods and at public events.
10 Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether there are adequate crowd control measures whenever there are large-scale events involving large numbers of members of the public so as to avoid crowd crushes or stampedes.
11 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) what lessons are learnt from the recent stampede incidents in several countries; (b) whether further enhancements to our crowd control measures by the relevant agencies will be needed; and (c) if needed, what are these.
12 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Home Affairs what strategies are put in place to proactively manage crowds at large scale public and private events and ensure that they do not develop into crowd pushing, crushing and collapses.
13 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether the Ministry has identified a list of locations or events in Singapore at risk of crowd surge and stampede situations; (b) what are some of these locations or events; and (c) what are the enhanced safety steps that organisers at these locations or events are required to put in place.
14 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether SPF proactively informs the public of crowd surge risks and ways to stay safe when participating in large public events; and (b) whether tear gas will ever be used in crowded, confined spaces for the purpose of crowd control.
15 Miss Rachel Ong asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether Singapore has an occupant load limit for large assembly points; and (b) how is this limit monitored during events with large crowds.
\tThe Minister of State for Home Affairs (Ms Sun Xueling) (for the Minister for Home Affairs): Mr Speaker, Sir, may I have your permission to answer together Question Nos 9 to 15 in today's Order Paper?
Mr Speaker: Yes, please.
\tMs Sun Xueling: The Singapore Police Force (SPF) works with the relevant stakeholders to put in place measures to mitigate the risks associated with large crowds. Under the Public Order Act, event organisers, otherwise known as EOs, are required to notify the Police of public events expected to attract crowds of 5,000 persons or more, or private events expected to attract crowds of 10,000 persons or more. The Police will, then, engage these EOs on the appropriate measures to be deployed for public safety.
The Police also works closely with the EOs and other stakeholders on crowd management plans for major events, such as the National Day Parade, Christmas festivities at Orchard Road, New Year countdowns and the Formula One Night Race. These plans may include measures such as the monitoring of crowd size, the deployment of security personnel and the regulation of crowd flow at congregation areas and potential chokepoints. They may also include cordoning off areas with public safety risks, such as narrow pathways and bridges and signages to guide the public on diversions and closures of thoroughfares.
The Police are deployed on-the-ground at these major events to ensure law and order, as well as to provide swift responses to incidents. Contingency plans are also put in place. These may involve catering for emergency lanes to facilitate emergency responses within crowded areas and closing off high-risk areas pre-emptively before they become overcrowded.
As for indoor venues, occupant limits are regulated by the Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) under the Fire Code and Fire Safety Manager (FSM) Regulations. Under the Fire Code, functional spaces within a building are assigned an occupant load factor which determines the maximum number of people allowed at any point of time and there must also be sufficient egress capacity. In general, the Fire Code requires every storey of a building to have at least two independent exit staircases to ensure timely evacuation. Higher risk premises, such as those with an occupant load of 1,000 persons or more; floor area of 5,000 square metres (sqm) or more; or nine storeys or more, including basement levels, require an FSM to be appointed.
The Police conduct frequent patrols when there are large crowds at locations like Little India and Chinatown, and also deploy various sensors, such as CCTVs and drones to monitor the ground situation. They may be augmented by Auxiliary Police Officers. Members of the public may call 999 to alert the Police if there are safety concerns related to overcrowding.
If the Police assesses that there are disturbances to the mood of a crowd, the Police may seek to remove the source of the agitation. The Police may also provide adequate space for crowd dispersal or provide clear instructions on how the crowd may exit the congested area. To do so, the Police may use voice amplification devices, such as loudhailers, to gain the attention of the crowd.
To increase public awareness, the Police publicise safety measures pre-, during and post-event. The Police may also pre-empt the public on potential crowding and alert the public to avoid areas or events which are already crowded. For example, at National Day Parade 2022, the Crowd@MarinaBay website provided live updates of the crowd situation at hotspots for fireworks viewing in the Marina Bay area. Members of the public can help keep each other safe by informing one another of ground developments.
The Police regularly analyse major incidents, which occur around the world to improve their crowd management measures. They also regularly review their regulatory and policy levers, as well as operational plans. It is equally important that organisers and stakeholders act responsibly, including to adopt sufficient safety measures and to work with the authorities to keep events and the public safe.
Mr Speaker: Mr Gerald Giam.
\tMr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): I thank the Minister of State for her reply. I just have two supplementary questions. What lessons has MHA learnt or drawn from the recent tragedies in South Korea and Indonesia, to ensure that such incidents do not occur in Singapore. I understand as the Minister of State said that MHA does read and understand what happens in other parts of the world. So, will the Ministry be obtaining and studying the detailed investigation reports from the respective governments?
\tMs Sun Xueling: I thank the Member for his question. Definitely, the Police and the SCDF do regularly analyse incidents that happen in other parts of the world to see what lessons we can learn through these unfortunate incidents.
First and foremost, many of the questions filed were about the number of persons or the size of the crowd. But I think what is also important to understand and acknowledge is that it is not just about the absolute size of the crowd. You can have a situation whereby the absolute size is not very large, but actually, they are in a very concentrated, very congested area; and that there might not be entry and exit points that are regularly available.
So, I just wanted to clarify and elaborate that it is not just about the absolute size of the crowd, but about the specific terrain that we are looking at. So, before any incident happens, when the Police is aware that there is an event that is about to happen, when they receive notification of the application for the event, the Police actually works with the EOs to understand the lay of the land, to get a sense of what are the entry and exit points, to see whether or not, at least, from what we can understand pre-event, that this is an area whereby pre-emptively, we can ensure that we can have good crowd flow to prevent such incidents from happening.
Secondly, I think the Member had filed a question about the use of tear gas. I would be quite specific about this – that the Police will only use riot control agents, which include tear gas, in very specific situations where there is a serious threat of harm to persons and property or the risk of significant public disorder. Just based on recent memory, I do not think there have been recent incidents whereby we use tear gas because we acknowledge that it can cause public chaos. So, another lesson that we have learnt from looking at incidents that happen overseas is that the actions that we take have to be proportionate and we have to be very careful in the way we handle such incidents.
\tMr Speaker: Dr Tan Wu Meng.
\tDr Tan Wu Meng (Jurong): I thank the Minister of State for her answer. I have Clementi residents who saw what happened at these tragedies elsewhere in the world and were concerned as well. I have two supplementary questions. The first question is, do our agencies look for situations where there may be multiple events, multiple gatherings that individually do not cross the threshold for notification but which may actually lead to a substantial crowd, either by coincidence or by just the organic growth of the crowd around these events and gatherings?
Secondly, does our MHA Home Team also look at how the flow of the crowd may go after a major event is completed and dispersed? I say this because I have had Clementi residents who were able to attend F1 this year and they felt that the crowds were quite substantial after the race ended and when people were heading home, heading off in multiple different directions through different thoroughfares.
\tMr Speaker: Dr Tan, do keep your supplementary questions shorter, please.
\tDr Tan Wu Meng: That is all. Thank you, Mr Speaker.
\tMs Sun Xueling: I thank the Member for his supplementary questions. First and foremost, even where there are instances where the individual event itself does not cross thresholds, I think we recognise that typically when crowds gather, they tend to happen around two specificities.
One is that it typically happens around specific festivals. So, where there are specific festivals, whether or not it is New Year or Christmas, I think our Police are on quite high alert and they know that there are, historically, venues that crowds will gather. So, it is not like if, let us say, for example, in a place like Orchard Road, you can have different groups of crowds gathering, each does not cross the threshold of 5,000, but it does not mean that the Police are not doing anything. Because the Police would already be quite well aware that this particular venue is a place where crowds typically can gather and they will gather around specific times of the year; and they would be on standby, there would be Police patrols to ensure that there is law and order and to disperse crowds if necessary.
On the second point, indeed, I had mentioned in my earlier reply, about both entries and exits, and is not just about physical doors. It is also about how people move in and out of an event. Many of us would have attended National Day Parades and all sorts of other large-scale events before. You would have noticed that we have road diversions and we have had crowd marshals. That will take place both before and after an event.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Murali Pillai.
\tMr Murali Pillai (Bukit Batok): Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. I have two supplementary questions for the hon Minister of State. First, I wonder whether the Police is minded to develop bespoke regulations to deal with different types of crowds. For example, a crowd at a rock concert would behave differently from a crowd at a place of worship. And this is something that is found in scientific literature and the practical considerations are different. So, I wonder whether the Police could consider this suggestion.
Second, on the point about voice amplification made by the hon Minister of State, I wonder whether the Police is minded to leverage on technology. For example, issuing SMS text messages at a particular area so that all the people in the crowd would get the right message and act in accordance with the Police advice.
\tMs Sun Xueling: I thank the Member for his two suggestions. It always allows us to further think about how we can improve our processes.
On the first point that he mentioned about bespoke regulations, I just wanted to add that when the Police assess an event or potential risk, it is not just about physical attributes such as the terrain or numbers of people. Indeed, we also do pay attention to the dynamics of the crowd – what kind of people are likely to attend, what kind of fervour or enthusiasm or emotions they will likely display. So, these are already taken into account. When the Police work with the EOs in the first instance to think about how to best manage the crowd.
On the second point, definitely, we are always on the lookout for better use of technology. We do have an SGSecure app. I would have to check internally whether or not we use it to send out SMS notifications, but that is one possibility. So, thank you very much.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Gan Thiam Poh.
\tMr Gan Thiam Poh (Ang Mo Kio): I thank the Minister of State for the clarifications. I just want to ask whether MHA has identified some areas where it would advise the public not to hold events that could lead to these possible consequences.
\tMs Sun Xueling: Yes, like I mentioned earlier, we work very actively with EOs in the first instance. So, when we are aware that EOs want to specifically organise an event, and at that point in time, when they submit their application, they would already mention the venue, the likely crowd size and what their crowd control measures are. At that point in time, if the venue is not something that is suitable, the Police would already inform them.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Lim Biow Chuan.
\tMr Lim Biow Chuan (Mountbatten): Thank you, Speaker. May I ask the Minister of State, what if there is no one single organiser? For example, at Clarke Quay and Boat Quay, where many pubs organise New Year Countdown events. Who would the Police typically liaise with, in trying to manage the crowd, where there are large crowds of people in those areas? So, Clarke Quay and Boat Quay, where there are New Year Countdowns.
\tMs Sun Xueling: I thank the Member for his question. Like my earlier response, I believe it was to Dr Tan Wu Meng, we are aware that there are certain venues that typically over festivities, there would be crowds. Whether or not there is a specific EO organising the entire event, does not change the fact that there would be Police, security, crowd control, crowd marshals on standby and Police patrolling the venue and the entire event space.
Where there are separate applications by individual EOs, even though it might not be one combined EO for the whole space, the Police would have already made their individual assessment and they would know that, for example, there is going to be a large-scale event because this is the New Year or something. And after considering what is the likely size of the overall crowd, regardless of whether or not the individual EOs have specified what their individual crowd sizes are, the Police would assess it as a whole.
So, it is not so much as like they definitely have to have one counterparty to discuss with. They will look at law and order and public control as a whole and they will deploy the necessary trained personnel and crowd marshals. Sometimes, they may also activate volunteers – some of the EOs may have volunteers – to take into account what the overall crowd management situation should be like.
\t
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures to Prevent Examination Paper Leaks at Institutes of Higher Learning","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"16 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Minister for Education with regard to the recent exam paper leak at an Institute of Higher Learning (IHL) (a) whether all IHLs have sufficient measures in place to prevent similar incidents from occurring; and (b) if so, what are these measures.
17 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Education in view of the recent exam paper leak at an Institute of Higher Learning (IHL) (a) what measures are put in place by the IHLs to ensure that papers do not get leaked and are protected with secure confidentiality when students take the papers at multiple locations; and (b) what assistance is provided by the IHLs to students affected mentally with having to retake the exams in cases where papers are leaked.
\tThe Minister of State for Education (Ms Gan Siow Huang) (for the Minister for Education): Mr Speaker, may I take Question No 16 by Dr Wan Rizal, Question No 17 by Ms Joan Pereira in today's Order Paper, as well as Parliamentary Question by Dr Tan Wu Meng1 for tomorrow's Sitting, which are all on the same subject?
\tMr Speaker: Please do.
\tMs Gan Siow Huang: Members have asked about the recent premature online release of a NTU test paper, what the root causes were and also whether all our Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs) have sufficient measures to prevent similar incidents from occurring.
IHLs have protocols to prevent unauthorised access or premature release of examination papers. These include password-protecting digital copies of the examination papers and only releasing the password to students just before the scheduled examination time, hosting e-assessments on internal platforms with controlled access and storing printed copies in secure locations with restricted access.
NTU is conducting an internal investigation into the leakage of a test paper that occurred earlier this month. NTU's preliminary assessment is that the premature online release of the test paper was due to human error on the part of an administrative staff. The individual had failed to password-protect the electronic version of the test paper which was meant for students taking the test online. As a result, the students were inadvertently given access to the questions before the test started.
NTU undertook remedial action to ensure a fair assessment process for all students by having a retest with reduced examinable topics and extended counselling support to affected students. NTU takes this matter seriously and is reviewing its internal protocol and staff training to prevent recurrence of a similar incident.
Dr Tan had filed a Parliamentary Question for the 29 November Sitting and asked whether there had been similar occurrences over the past three years. There were five isolated incidents within this period where examination papers were leaked ahead of time, affecting a small minority of the undergraduate student population for the more serious cases.
The IHLs acknowledge the additional stress on students when there is a need to retake examinations. Sufficient time is provided for students to prepare for the re-examination. In addition, lecturers and mentors avail themselves to support affected students. Students who require more assistance can also turn to para-counsellors or professional counsellors in the IHLs.
\tMr Speaker: Dr Wan Rizal.
\tDr Wan Rizal (Jalan Besar): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to thank the Minister of State for her reply. I declare that I am an academic staff at an IHL and clearly my concerns are for the students. I share the Minister of State's concerns that this is an added stress for our students.
She mentioned about allowing sufficient time, but I would like to ask the Ministry if it could prepare a standard set of guidelines for all our IHLs to adhere to, just in case this incident happens again. This means the students has a standard time to prepare for the next make-up exam.
My second supplementary question is for the lecturers themselves. I think one of the fears for us is when the exam papers leak, we need to prepare alternative papers. In this case, there could be instances where we need to prepare more. Can the Ministry provide assurance that we do not have to prepare too many alternatives in such incidents in the future?
\tMs Gan Siow Huang: Can I request Dr Wan Rizal to repeat the second supplementary question, please? The Member mentioned that in some instances, the lecturers may have to prepare for several papers?
\tDr Wan Rizal: One of the concerns that some of the lecturers shared with me is that we do already have to prepare make-up exam papers. But with this incident occurring, there might be an occurrence where we need to prepare more and this is something that we are concerned about.
\t
\tMs Gan Siow Huang: Ultimately, we have to understand the purpose of having examinations, assessments and tests. These are mainly to gauge the students' understanding of the topics that they have been taught and the ability to apply the knowledge that they have gained during the course of their lessons.
On guidelines for IHLs to adhere to and standardising the time for students to retake exams, I think we need to understand that there are different types of tests, exams and assessments for different disciplines as well as subjects. Some may be covering many topics, some may be very few topics; for some tests, the students may need a lot of time to prepare, for some maybe modular in nature. So, it may not always be practical to prescribe a standard time for students to prepare for re-examination.
On the second point about the lecturers and the staff having to prepare for more make-up examination papers, I believe that our IHLs do work as a team, at the team level and not at the individual level. And indeed, it is useful for each IHL to have its own system and also have some flexibility to prepare for not just the main exam, but also for contingencies.
\tMr Speaker: Dr Tan Wu Meng.
\tDr Tan Wu Meng (Jurong): I thank the Minister of State for her answer. I have Clementi residents who are following the news of this. I have got one supplementary question.
The Minister of State mentioned that the IHL ascertained the cause of the mistake as human error. Can I ask whether there has been a deeper dive into whether there were measures to intercept human errors before it led to an impact for many exam candidates? For example, did the web portal have safeguards so that an online exam needed to be uploaded in an encrypted or password-protected format? And likewise, whether there were other processes to reduce the risk of one human error affecting an entire cohort of exam candidates?
\tMs Gan Siow Huang: For this case which occurred quite recently, NTU is still in the process of conducting its investigation and is also looking at further safeguards that it could consider to prevent such human errors from affecting future examinations.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : To ask the Minister for Education (a) what are the reasons and root causes for the unscheduled premature online release of NTU's HP2200 Biological Psychology course final test exam paper which was scheduled for 7 November 2022; (b) whether there have been other unauthorised releases of exam papers ahead of the specified exam time in our educational institutions over the past three years; and (c) if so, how many students have been affected."],"footNoteQuestions":["16","17"],"questionNo":"16-17"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Designating More Marine Spaces as Marine Parks and Protecting Marine Wildlife and Coastal Habitats","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"18 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether the Ministry is considering the designation of more marine spaces as marine parks; (b) what are the factors that the Ministry takes into account in determining such designations; and (c) whether the Ministry will consider designating St John’s Island as a marine park.
19 Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin asked the Minister for National Development whether the Government can consider further research and gazetting special designated zones in sea spaces to protect marine wildlife and coastal habitats balanced against development, in particular given the sightings of dugongs around Changi Beach, Pulau Tekong and Pulau Ubin.
\t
\t
\tThe Senior Minister of State for National Development (Mr Tan Kiat How) (for the Minister for\tNational Development): Mr Speaker, Sir, may I take the next two questions, Question Nos 18 and 19, together please?
\tMr Speaker: Please do.
\tMr Tan Kiat How: Members have asked whether the Government is considering designating additional protected marine spaces.
In 2014, we established the Sisters’ Islands Marine Park, which includes the western reefs of St John’s Island and Pulau Tekukor, to promote conservation, research, outreach and sustainable nature-based recreation in this area. In designating the Sisters’ Islands Marine Park, we considered the area’s marine biodiversity, its wide range of marine habitats and its ecological functions. We also considered other factors, such as the area’s accessibility and its existing use.
NParks will continue to research the ecological status and functions of our marine areas and study how best to protect them, including considering additional marine parks. For instance, through the Marine Climate Change Science programme, we are collaborating with research institutes and industry partners to study the impact of climate change on marine ecosystems and to develop relevant solutions. We will continue to work closely with the marine community on these matters.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Thank you, Sir. I thank the Senior Minister of State for the reply. Could I just ask which areas we are considering to designate as marine parks? Because it really has been eight years since we had our first marine park designated at Sisters' Islands. Two, could I just ask when was the last consultation with the marine groups and what are the areas that they are suggesting that we designate as marine parks?
\tMr Tan Kiat How: Firstly, let me thank the Member for his questions. Let me reply in two parts. The first part is the role of the community. The Member has asked how we are engaging them and involving them in the various activities or consultation. The second part is about the other areas that we are considering designating as marine parks.
Let me talk about the role of the community first. The community plays an important role in NParks' marine conservation efforts. For example, in order to help NParks manage the Sisters' Islands Marine Park as a place for all, we set up the Friends of Marine Park (FoMP) community in 2016. It comprises boaters, divers, dive operators, scientists, fishers, kayakers and education providers – a whole range of community partners from academia, industry and people who use the area for recreation and enjoy the space there.
The FoMP provides a platform for various stakeholders to come together to play a more active role in marine conservation efforts at the marine park through ground-up initiatives and programmes. So, it is not just about consultation on issues, but also activities that we do together with the community partners, including talks, seminars, workshops, guided nature tours as well as various citizen science activities.
In January 2020, just a couple of years ago, just before COVID-19, NParks initiated a Southern Islands Biodiversity Survey in partnership with the academic community, nature interest groups and citizen scientists. The survey will help NParks to better understand the distribution of plants and animals in the Southern Islands and guide its conservation strategies for marine habitats in Singapore. NParks expects the survey to be completed by the end of 2023.
The conversations with the marine groups and the community partners are ongoing. In fact, we just started a major exercise in January 2020 and the survey results will inform us on some of the areas that we can look at for other marine conservation efforts. So, that is the reply to the second part of your question.
\tMr Speaker: Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin.
\tMs Nadia Ahmad Samdin (Ang Mo Kio): Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir, and to the Senior Minister of State for his replies. I have two follow-up supplementary questions. I understand that designating an area as a marine park may be seen as a large step, but there is also various interim measures which have been suggested, for example, in the 2018 Blue Plan. For example, more coordinated and integrated efforts between agencies, designating certain zones as protected, as well as more formal management systems for marine environments like seabeds and foreshores. Is the Ministry considering any of these suggestions, and if so, what is the progress of that?
My second supplementary question is that given this is an emerging area where various expertise from maybe outside of Government may be helpful as well, and we see very diverse marine issues, for example, abandoned and lost fishing nets, marine pollution and so on, will the Ministry consider setting up a blue group to more formally work together on these specific issues, comprising researchers, civil society and so on?
\tMr Tan Kiat How: Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Member for the two supplementary questions. On the first point about whether there are inter-governmental groups or existing platforms to bring some of these efforts together, even as we think about looking at the survey results, the answer is yes.
I talked about the Friends of Marine Park in my earlier reply to Mr Louis Ng's question, but I would also like to bring the Member's attention to what we are doing under the Integrated Urban Coastal Management framework which we initiated in 2009. Efforts between Government agencies are ongoing and progressing as we talk about many of these issues.
Allow me to give some context to the answer. NParks adopts a science-based approach to strengthen the conservation of our native marine biodiversity and these efforts are already guided by our Nature Conservation Masterplan which we released earlier. To complement this, we have strict laws governing the management of both land- and sea-based sources of pollution, which answers Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin's question.
Furthermore, under the Integrated Urban Coastal Management framework, we take a whole-of-Government approach to ensure that our marine environments are protected, even within one of the world's busiest port areas.
To address Mr Louis Ng and Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin's questions, and the underlying points they are making, it is actually a testament to the effective management of pollution within our waters that we see such a thriving marine biodiversity. I think some Members would have read The Straits Times article about the sighting of endangered dugongs in Singapore's waters, despite our shipping traffic. And perhaps I will just quote one of the points that was made in The Straits Times article by the authors of the study, \"The most surprising aspect of our findings is that the Johor and Singapore Straits remain viable habitats for dugongs, despite being among the busiest shipping channels globally.\"
I think that is really a testament to our partnership, not just across Government agencies, but also the support and commitment of so many community partners and groups that work on this area. So, I would like to thank them as well and appreciate their efforts.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Studies on Annual Mortality and Cost Associated with Air Pollution from Human Activities","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"20 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) whether the Ministry has done studies on the annual mortality associated with air pollution from human activities in Singapore; (b) if so, what is the number of annual deaths in the last five years; (c) whether the Government has an estimate on the annual monetary cost to public health and social care services associated with air pollution; and (d) if so, what is the annual cost in the last five years.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Sustainability and the Environment (Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan) (for the Minister for\tSustainability and the Environment): My Ministry takes into account the World Health Organization’s (WHO) air quality guidelines, as well as studies on the health costs of air pollution, to formulate air pollution mitigation policies to safeguard public health. As the studies differ in their methodologies and assumptions, we are unable to provide specific information on the annual mortality or health costs associated with air pollution in Singapore. Nonetheless, it is clear that reducing emissions of air pollutants benefit Singaporeans.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Leon Perera.
\tMr Leon Perera (Aljunied): I thank the Senior Minister of State for her reply. Just a few supplementary questions. Firstly, no doubt, there are differences in the methodologies used in these studies. Would the Government consider developing a particular yardstick based on the methodological best practices out there, in order to derive an estimate for what is the health impact, the mortality impact of air pollution?
My second supplementary question is what policy levers are available to the Government and what policy levers does it use to induce facilities that have made air pollution to scale back and reduce that air pollution? And this is important given the effects on human health which can be particularly bad for industrial pollutants.
Thirdly, what is the progress of the Government towards achieving the WHO guideline for PM2.5 pollution, in the air, which I believe the Government has stated as a goal?
And lastly, when does the Government estimate we would be able to hit this WHO-preferred guideline for PM2.5 air pollution?
\tDr Amy Khor Lean Suan: I thank the Member for his four supplementary questions.
Firstly, about developing guidelines or basic parameters and to undertake a study to measure the impact of healthcare costs, as I have said and which the Member has also noted, there are many studies available locally as well as overseas and most of them have very different methodologies as well as assumptions. In fact, it also varies according to the context. Indeed, for a parameter, for instance, value of statistical life that is used to estimate health costs in terms of mortality, there is quite a bit of debate on this itself and in fact misunderstanding, even among the academics.
Given this, as well as the fact that such studies are multidisciplinary, so you would need experts in epidemiology, economics and so on, and you will spend many years. These studies are therefore specific to each different context. Hence, we continue to look at these studies and consider the findings. At the end of the day, if there are some methodologies which we think would be useful, we could consider that. But at the current moment, we think that what is important is the fact that there is global scientific consensus, as articulated by WHO, that there is significant impact of air pollution on healthcare and health itself, and the costs. Therefore, we undertake very robust measures and policies to safeguard our air quality. We have done that for years.
\t
The Member also asked about policy levers. We do have many policy levers. For domestic sources of air pollution, the key sources will be industries as well as vehicles. And we have been tightening industrial emission standards as well as for vehicles. For vehicles, we now have a policy of no more internal combustible engine (ICE) cars by 2040, for instance. That will help to improve air quality, in particular, particulate matter. So, we will continue to tighten measures and regulations as much as we can.
One thing we also need to understand is that for a small island city-state like Singapore, our sources of pollution are not just domestic – which is, generally, something that we can better control – but also transboundary. In any measure that we implement, we also have to consider that.
On progress to achieve the full air quality standards as in our Sustainable Singapore Blueprint 2015 – we have not quite reached the standard for PM2.5. We have achieved the standards for some of the other pollutants but not PM2.5 or PM10. But as I have said, we are working on looking at how we can continue to improve. As we implement and encourage the adoption of, say, cleaner vehicles, that will also help us with the index for PM2.5.
I think that is about it. As for the Member's fourth supplementary question on WHO, I have answered that, too.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Shawn Huang.
\tMr Shawn Huang Wei Zhong (Jurong): Question No 21, Sir.
The Senior Minister of State for Sustainability and the Environment (Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan): The Government is committed to supporting energy-conservation efforts and has recently introduced new measures such as the Energy Efficiency Grant — I am sorry.
Mr Speaker: Mr Shawn Huang's question?
\tMr Shawn Huang Wei Zhong: Question No 21.
\tMr Speaker: Minister for Transport. Not here. Mr Liang Eng Hwa.
Mr Liang Eng Hwa (Bukit Panjang): Question No 22, Sir.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Additional Plans to Improve Energy Conservation and Manage Energy Demand by Businesses and Households","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"22 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) whether the Ministry has new or additional plans to improve energy conservation and manage energy demand by businesses and households; and (b) if so, what are these plans.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Sustainability and the Environment (Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan) (for the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment): Speaker, Question No 22. The Government is committed to supporting energy conservation efforts and has recently introduced new measures, such as the Energy Efficiency Grant, which supports SMEs in the food services, food manufacturing and retail sectors to invest in energy-efficient equipment.
The Energy Market Authority has also introduced Demand Response and Interruptible Load programmes that companies can participate in to optimise their energy consumption. Under these programmes, participating companies receive incentive payments in exchange for reducing electricity consumption during periods of high electricity prices or tight supply.
The Government also regularly reviews the support measures for businesses and households to become more energy efficient. For example, the grant support cap for NEA’s Energy Efficiency Fund (E2F) for the adoption of energy-efficient technologies in manufacturing was raised this year from 50% to 70% of qualifying costs. We have also simplified the application process for standard lighting and air-conditioning energy efficiency retrofit projects to encourage take-up. We will also continue to monitor and review the Climate-Friendly Households Programme, which encourages 1-, 2- and 3-room HDB households to switch to resource-efficient and climate-friendly refrigerators, LED lamps and shower fittings.
In addition to support measures, the Government also regularly reviews the Minimum Energy Performance Standards (MEPS) and Mandatory Energy Labelling Scheme (MELS) to continually shift the market towards more energy-efficient equipment and appliances.
We will continue to consult closely with industry partners and the community to identify new technologies and ways to help businesses and households improve their energy efficiency.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Liang Eng Hwa.
\tMr Liang Eng Hwa (Bukit Panjang): Sir, I thank the Senior Minister of State for sharing the various energy conservation efforts and initiatives. I have this sense that the public and businesses may not all be familiar with these schemes. So, given the rising energy costs and our push to decarbonise, can I ask the Senior Minister of State if we should step up on public communications and to build this consciousness about energy conservation and to have visibility in some of these efforts as well, so as to get more buy-in?
My second question is whether, based on our current way of consumption, the Senior Minister of State sees further significant scope to conserve energy and whether it can really move the needle in terms of managing demand.
\tDr Amy Khor Lean Suan: I thank the Member for the two supplementary questions.
Firstly, with regard to promotion and raising awareness, indeed, we agree that we need to continue to raise awareness amongst the businesses and households of the various schemes that we have that will have the potential to help them improve their energy efficiency and reduce energy consumption.
The various lead agencies – NEA, EDB, BCA, EMA and Enterprise Singapore – do reach out to the businesses through the trade associations and chambers, for instance. NEA also undertakes industry consultations as well as briefings to raise awareness among the industries and the businesses about the various schemes that we have to improve energy efficiency. For instance, we have been promoting and supporting energy conservation efforts, such as NEA's E2F fund.
As I have said, the Energy Efficiency Technology Centre, which is a collaboration between NEA and Singapore Institute of Technology, has been providing low-cost energy audits to some of the manufacturing SMEs. In fact, E2F has supported 34 companies since 2019, whilst EETC has completed low-cost energy assessments of over 100 energy consuming systems covering over 20 manufacturing SMEs. For Enterprise Singapore, too, they have their Enterprise Sustainability Programme (ESP) which they promote as well as the Resource Efficiency Grant for Energy in terms of emissions which EDB also promotes.
For households, as I have shared, we have the climate-friendly households programme for the 1-, 2- and 3-roomers. When we first started the programme, we sent out mailers to all the eligible households. What we are doing to encourage take-up is to work with the CDCs as well as with the community organisations on the ground to publicise this scheme and to do house-to-house visits. We are also sending SMSes to the eligible households who have not utilised the vouchers. But we will continue to see how we can promote the scheme.
As far as improving energy consumption is concerned, it is possible. In fact, for the climate-friendly households, if everybody utilises the vouchers and get more energy-efficient refrigerators, shower fittings, LED lights, clearly, there will be a significant reduction in energy consumption. It is also with the other schemes for the businesses. I do have the numbers, but I think I can share that with the Member later.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Annual Cases of Abuse and Assaults against Bus Captains","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"The following question stood in the name of Mr Desmond Choo –
23 To ask the Minister for Transport (a) how many substantiated cases of abuse committed against bus captains were there in each of the last three years; and (b) what further steps have been taken to improve the protection of bus captains in the course of their work.
24 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Transport (a) how many cases of assault against bus captains are reported annually in the past five years; (b) what are the penalties taken against the assailants; and (c) whether protective shields will be installed in our public buses to enhance protection.
\t
\tMr Melvin Yong Yik Chye (Radin Mas): Question No 23.
The Senior Minister of State for Transport (Mr Chee Hong Tat) (for the Minister for Transport): Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to take Question Nos 23 and 24 together?
\tMr Speaker: Yes, please.
\tMr Chee Hong Tat: Thank you, Sir. We have shared previously in this House that the Government, our public transport operators, or PTOs, and the National Transport Workers’ Union, or NTWU, take a united and firm position against physical and verbal abuse of bus captains by a small minority of errant commuters. Let me be clear that there is zero tolerance for such behaviours and commuters who abuse our bus captains will face serious consequences, including jail time.
There were 26 bus captain abuse cases by passengers reported by our PTOs in 2018, 52 in 2019, 50 in 2020, 35 in 2021, and 27 in 2022 thus far.
Perpetrators may be prosecuted for offences under the Protection from Harassment Act and be liable on conviction for an imprisonment term of up to 12 months, a fine of up to $5,000, or both. They could also be charged for voluntarily causing hurt under the Penal Code, which carries an imprisonment term of up to three years, a fine of up to $5,000, or both. Members may have read from recent media reports on offenders who were jailed and fined for abusing our bus captains.
The installation of protective barriers in buses was trialled in 2018 and again in 2020. However, these were discontinued as bus captains had provided feedback that the glare from the barriers posed a safety risk when driving.
Sir, the large majority of commuters are law abiding and some go the extra mile to show their appreciation to our bus captains and public transport workers. I thank these commuters for their kind words and encouragement. These acts of kindness are very much appreciated by our public transport workers and they form part of the efforts to build a more gracious and considerate commuting culture.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Melvin Yong.
\tMr Melvin Yong Yik Chye: Thank you, Sir. I thank the Senior Minister of State for his reply and also the assurance given. I declare my interest. I am the Executive Secretary of the National Transport Workers' Union.
I could see that the numbers have gradually come down. But I think the recent cases of abuse are quite a concern. I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State whether there are any plans to review the penalties, given that the last time the penalties were updated was quite a number of years ago.
\tMr Chee Hong Tat: Sir, I would support Mr Melvin Yong's proposal that we need to regularly review the deterrents that we have against such behaviours. As I have said, our policy position – and this is not just that of the Government but also that of the PTOs and the unions – the tripartite position is clear. We have zero tolerance for such abusive behaviours towards our public transport workers and if the existing measures are not adequate, we are prepared to look at reviewing them.
But as it stands now, as Mr Melvin Yong pointed out, the trend is in the right direction. So, we will continue this approach of working closely together with our tripartite partners and also to promote a more gracious, considerate commuting culture. That, I think, is going to be key.
\t
Mr Speaker: Order. End of Question Time. Introduction of Government Bills.
[Pursuant to Standing Order No 22(3), Written Answers to Question Nos 21, 25-35, 37-40, 44-48, 51, 54-59, 62, 69-71, 73-75, 81, 83, 86-90 and 92 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":"SkillsFuture Singapore Agency (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"to amend the SkillsFuture Singapore Agency Act 2016\", (proc text)]
[(proc text) presented by the Minister of State for Education (Ms Gan Siow Huang) on behalf of the Minister for Education, read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Skills Development Levy (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"to amend the Skills Development Levy Act 1979\", (proc text)]
[(proc text) presented by the Minister of State for Education (Ms Gan Siow Huang) on behalf of the Minister for Education, read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"to amend the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018\", (proc text)]
[(proc text) presented by the Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Law (Ms Rahayu Mahzam) on behalf of the Minister for Law, read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"to amend the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018\", (proc text)]
[(proc text) presented by the Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Law (Ms Rahayu Mahzam) on behalf of the Minister for Law; read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Suspension of Standing Orders","subTitle":"Removal of Time Limit for Speeches and Allowing Minister to Speak More Than Once","sectionType":"OS","content":"The Leader of the House (Ms Indranee Rajah): Mr Speaker, I wish to move a Business Motion. May I seek your consent and the general assent of Members present to move that the proceedings under discussion be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order Nos 48(8) and (3) to remove the time limits in respect of the speeches of Minister Masagos and Minister Shanmugam, and to enable Minister Shanmugam to speak more than once?
Mr Speaker, the Minister for Social and Family Development will be moving the Second Reading of the Constitution (Amendment No 3) Bill. The Minister for Home Affairs will also be moving the Penal Code (Amendment) Bill after the Constitution (Amendment No 3) Bill.
However, the intent is to hold a joint debate on both Bills. As such, it is envisaged that there will be queries and clarifications on the Penal Code (Amendment) Bill or related issues which necessitate a response by the Minister for Home Affairs.
As such, I am moving to enable the Minister for Home Affairs to speak more than once during the debate to allow matters raised by Members to be answered fully. I seek your consent, Sir.
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 under discussion be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order Nos 48(8) and (3) to remove the time limits in respect of the speeches of Minister Masagos and Minister Shanmugam and to enable Minister Shanmugam to speak more than once.\" – [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":"Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment No 3) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Minister for Social and Family Development (Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M): Mr Speaker, this Bill is linked to the next Bill on the Order Paper, the Penal Code (Amendment) Bill.
With your permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to propose that the substantive debate on both Bills take place together. This will allow a holistic debate and enable Members to raise questions or express their views on both Bills during the debate. We will still have the formal Second Reading of the Penal Code (Amendment) Bill to ensure that procedural requirements are dealt with.
Mr Speaker: Yes, please.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: This Bill gives effect to what Prime Minister announced at this year’s National Day Rally, that is, the Government will protect the definition of marriage from being challenged in the Courts on constitutional grounds. Prime Minister had also announced that the Government will repeal section 377A of the Penal Code.
In introducing the constitutional (amendment) Bill, my speech will cover the Government's long-standing position on marriage and family, what the Bill is and why we are taking this approach, and our unique approach to manage diversity in Singapore.
The PAP Government has been consistent in its strong support for the institution of marriage and the family, through its policies and legislation.
One of the first laws enacted by the PAP Government when it came to power was the Women's Charter 1961, which defined and regulated civil marriages. This was a landmark piece of legislation that protected the rights of women by legalising only monogamous marriages between a man and a woman.
Similarly, the Administration of Muslim Law Act (AMLA) enacted soon after Independence in 1966 provided for the practice of Muslim law to regulate marriages between Muslims. Under AMLA, marriages must meet the requirements of Muslim law, including being between man and woman.
There is strong consensus in society that marriage is between a man and a woman; and children should be born and raised within such families.
This is the view taken by many Singaporeans, whether religious or not. It is also the view that the Government believes in. It undergirds the shared values that we adopted in 1991.
The family is the foundation on which our society is built and sustained, with each generation raising the next to take its place. Without strong families, Singapore cannot thrive and society cannot perpetuate itself.
In his book from \"Third World to First\", Mr Lee Kuan Yew wrote, \"Singapore depends on the strength and influence of the family to keep society orderly\". The family is the source of values not only for its members but for society. A 2015 Washington Post article aptly suggests that family values are what makes Singapore strong. It captures Mr Lee's view that when we break away from tested norms, such as the family unit, there is grave disquiet. The family is the building block of society. Indeed, this is wisdom and precisely why we need to be extremely careful to change the construct of the family.
To further quote Mr Lee's words in a 1994 interview, \"The family is the basic concept of our civilisation. Governments will come, governments will go, but this endures.\"
Hence, our policies also reflect and reinforce this basic idea about marriage and family. We encourage parenthood within marriage. We do not support same-sex family formation and we maintain our policy against planned and deliberate single parenthood, including using assisted reproduction techniques (ART) or surrogacy.
We have made these clear in Parliament on multiple occasions. We have also taken steps to defend our pro-family policies when they are challenged.
For example, in the adoption case of UKM vs AG, the Court did not agree with the Government that an adoption order should not be made if it resulted in the formation of a same-sex family unit. Thereafter, the Government made clear its policy position, that it does not support same-sex family formation, surrogacy and planned and deliberate single parenthood, including through ART and/or surrogacy.
More recently, Parliament re-enacted the Adoption of Children Act 2022 to make clear that joint adoption applications can only be made by couples whose marriage is recognised in Singapore. Only a man and a woman who are married to each other can apply together. Adoption should not be used as a process to support the formation of same-sex families.
I reiterate today: Singapore's public policy is and has always been to uphold heterosexual marriage and promote the formation of families within such marriages. Among other things, this public policy has long been embodied in section 12(1) of the Women's Charter, which invalidates same-sex marriages. Consistent with this policy, an overseas same-sex marriage will, generally, not be accorded legal recognition in Singapore.
Our policies clearly reflect the value society places on family formation through marriage. However, we also recognise that there are single unwed parents. We empathise with the challenges they face. Our focus is on their child's well-being and on supporting them in their caregiving responsibilities. Hence, we extend Government benefits that support the growth and development of their children. These include subsidies for education, healthcare, childcare and infant care, the foreign domestic worker levy concession and the Child Development Account. HDB also assesses their requests for housing holistically, based on their individual circumstances.
We make a distinction between support and incentive. Thus, we do not provide the Baby Bonus Cash Grant to single unwed parents because this is an incentive for married couples to have children.
Our policies support individuals to get married and have children within marriage. Examples of these policies and measures that rely on the definition of marriage are: housing, where public housing subsidies and access are prioritised for married couples; financial benefits that favour married couples, such as the Baby Bonus Cash Gift; ART, where access to IVF and use of frozen gametes for procreation are only allowed for married persons; adoption, where only married couples can apply jointly; education, where what is taught in preschools and MOE schools would be based on marriage as between a man and a woman and such a family as the basic unit of society; and media, where higher age ratings apply for media content which depicts non-traditional family units, such as same-sex families. Our public libraries also do not carry books which depict such family units for very young children.
Beyond laws and policies, MSF has also been actively promoting, educating and emphasising the importance of families, through our public education programmes. These programmes inculcate family values, such as love, care and concern, respect and commitment to each other in the family. To support parents, the Families for Life Council has rolled out parenting programmes in preschools, schools and the community. We also dedicated 2022 as the Year of Celebrating SG Families, in which the Prime Minister announced an annual National Family Week. Most recently, we had launched the Singapore Made for Families 2025. This plan will create a Singapore where families are valued and supported across different chapters of their lives.
These efforts reflect the Government's deep and abiding commitment to the institution of marriage as a union between a man and a woman, and to the formation of families within marriage.
Now I turn to this Bill, which will make it possible to continue with these pro-family policies and the approach embedded in the Bill.
The Constitution is the supreme law of the land and our other laws must not conflict with it. Overall, the Constitution is like the \"operating system\" for Singapore. The four key functions of the Singapore Constitution are: it establishes the key Organs of State like the President, the Parliament, the Government, the Judiciary, the Public Service and regulates their powers with a system of checks and balances; it protects the sovereignty of Singapore; it provides for citizenship; and it protects the fundamental liberties of individuals.
Specific to the fundamental liberties, they are found in Part 4 of the Constitution. They are Articles 9 to 16 and include, among others, liberty of the person and freedom of speech, assembly and association. Many of these rights are not absolute rights. They are subject to exceptions such as the maintenance of public order, morality and national security.
If an individual considers that their constitutional rights have been infringed by a law or by the actions of a public body, he or she may bring a legal challenge in Court. Hence, it is possible for individuals to argue that our existing laws and policies on marriage are unconstitutional and seek a ruling from the Court to that effect. Just as there have been challenges on the constitutionality of section 377A, there can also be challenges to laws and policies related to marriage.
The experiences of other jurisdictions show the perils of court-led change. Most recently, in August 2022, the Indian Supreme Court observed that the definition of a family unit should be expanded to include homosexual relationships as well as unmarried partnerships or same-sex relationships. This did not even arise from a challenge of definition of family per se. It arose from a case where an employer denied a nurse her application for maternity leave because she had already taken leave to care for her husband's children from a previous marriage.
Before this, in 2018, the Indian Supreme Court also struck down section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, which similarly criminalised male homosexual acts.
We also see the same trend in other jurisdictions. In the US for instance, controversial issues such as abortion are litigated and relitigated in the courts. When the courts decide, things change overnight, with drastic social repercussions that polarise society.
Hence, we are proactively safeguarding the institution of marriage and related laws and policies from being challenged in Court. This will allow the Government to continue to make laws and policies, which depend on heterosexual marriage as its foundation.
There have been questions on why the Government is intervening now. Why repeal? Why even amend the Constitution? Perhaps we should leave things as they are, let the Courts decide when there is a challenge. Why do this now, when there are other issues of concern, such as the cost of living? That might be politically expedient.
We acknowledge that there are indeed other issues of concern to Singaporeans, such as cost of living. To use that as a reason for inaction might be politically expedient but it would not be the right or responsible thing to do.
We have assessed that there is a significant risk to our laws being struck down. We cannot just ignore the legal risks. This amendment is necessary and it is the right thing to deal with it now and not delay.
We have the mandate and the responsibility to govern, and we must put forward what we think is best for Singapore and Singaporeans. This includes making changes in a calibrated and careful manner that may not please everyone.
We appreciate our Courts for exercising wisdom and restraint on this matter. But a responsible government should not leave the courts to grapple with controversial social issues. The role of the Courts is to interpret and apply the law. It is not their constitutional function to settle political questions or rule on social norms and values. It is not their function to engage with the political, social, ethical and other dimensions of the issues.
Nor do the Courts wish to do so. Litigation is a zero-sum, adversarial process with win-lose outcomes. It is unlike a political process, where the interests of stakeholders can be considered, accommodation can be sought to reach consensus. The Courts also recognise that controversial social issues are best dealt with within the sphere of Parliament.
This Bill is what a responsible government carrying out its duty to the people of Singapore would introduce. It allows the political process to balance different interests and perspectives and does not pass the buck to the Court to rule on social issues which are best dealt with via Parliament.
Let me now elaborate on the provisions of the Bill. There will be a new Article 156, under the General Provisions of the Constitution.
Clause 1 of the Article makes clear that Parliament can act to define, regulate, protect, safeguard, support, foster and promote marriage. For example, today, the Women’s Charter and AMLA define civil and Muslim marriages respectively and make clear that same-sex marriages are not valid. This clause empowers Parliament to continue to make and amend laws for these purposes. The interpretation of other constitutional provisions must recognise this. For example, in applying the reasonable classification test under Article 12(1), the Courts must recognise that the promotion and safeguarding of heterosexual marriage are legitimate and permissible legislative objects.
Clause 2 of the Article applies to the Government and any public authority. It allows them to exercise their functions to protect, safeguard, support, foster and promote marriage. This includes, but is not limited to, the following situations:
(a) HDB can implement public housing policies that give preference to married couples to support, foster and promote marriage;
(b) MSF, when they evaluate adoption applications, can recognise and take into account the public policy goal to foster and promote the formation of families within the context of marriage as defined in the Women’s Charter and AMLA;
(c) Curricula for preschools and MOE schools centre on the values that reflect Singapore’s mainstream society. That is, marriage as being a union between a man and a woman; and children being born within marriage and raised within such a family construct;
(d) In the context of sexuality education, content will be age-appropriate. This means, for example, in preschools and Primary schools, our curriculum will not feature same-sex parents or same-sex romantic relationships. At older ages, if introduced, we will focus on educating our young to treat everyone with respect and empathy but will not promote same-sex relationships; and
(e) IMDA, in regulating media content, is guided by principles that include prevailing social norms and values that are generally acceptable to members of the public and protecting younger audiences from age-inappropriate content.
Clause 3(a) provides that nothing in Part 4 of the Constitution, which sets out the eight fundamental liberties, will invalidate any legislative definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Clause 3(b) and clause 4 respectively provides that laws and executive actions cannot be invalidated by Part 4 just because they are based on a heterosexual definition of marriage.
Some may ask why specify all the other fundamental liberties in Part 4, and not just Article 12. Minister Desmond Lee will explain but broadly, we need Article 156 to cover all of Part 4 so that it can apply to other radical legal arguments that may be brought in the future, and based on other articles in Part 4, Article 156 will provide a “strong shield”. However, the shield is also precise, where it only protects the heterosexual definition of marriage and the laws and policies that rely on this definition.
In effect, Article 156 is an exception to the fundamental liberties. There are already such exceptions.
For example, Article 39A empowers the Legislature to create Group Representation Constituencies (GRCs) to ensure minority representation in Parliament. Article 39A(3) of the Constitution exempts any law regarding GRCs from being invalidated on the ground of inconsistency with Article 12.
Article 149(1) prevents the Internal Security Act from being invalidated by Articles 9, 11, 12, 13 or 14.
Article 9(6) creates exceptions from Article 9 for the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act and for rehabilitative detention for drug addicts.
Article 14(2) also has limits on Article 14, where one’s rights to freedom of speech, assembly and association is subject to public order, morality or security of Singapore.
Article 12(3) makes clear that the right to equal protection does not apply to laws that regulate personal law, or to laws and practices that restrict office or employment connected with affairs of any religion.
Each case involves a balance between the fundamental liberties and countervailing interests. In the case of Article 156(3) and (4), we have struck the balance in favour of having the strongest protection for the heterosexual definition of marriage adopted by Parliament, and the ability of Parliament and the Government to make laws and policies on the basis of this definition. This reflects the importance of heterosexual marriage in our society.
Some have commented that this is an \"ouster clause\" and could be subject to legal challenges. To be clear, the nature of Article 156 is not an “ouster clause”. Instead, it provides exceptions or limits to the fundamental liberties. As mentioned, such exceptions already exist today.
Let me now turn to another aspect that have come up in our engagements. They have been wide ranging, and we have heard from Singaporeans across various walks of life. I first want to take the opportunity to appreciate the different groups of Singaporeans who have written in and whom we have engaged before and after the Prime Minister's announcement.
These engagements include those with religious leaders, grassroot leaders, union leaders, LGBT groups, social sector professionals, youth groups and members of the public. Many have written to share their views on this matter. Singaporeans have generally understood the need to respect, graciously and mutually accommodate each other’s views and support the Government’s approach.
Gay people appreciate the repeal of section 377A but express some apprehension of the implications of the constitutional amendments. Those in favour of the status quo have constructively shared their views and emphasised the need to safeguard the institution of marriage. Others whom we have engaged, such as leaders from the community, also support the proposed approach to keep the heterosexual definition of marriage, while repealing section 377A.
Many are concerned about cancel culture, religious freedom, discrimination faced by those with differing views on this issue and the narrowing public space to speak openly about it. These are important feedback and concerns that Minister Desmond Lee will also address when he speaks.
Some expressed the wish to go further than what we are proposing, protecting the definition of marriage in our current laws. They want the definition of marriage to be enshrined in the Constitution.
We understand that these calls come from a sincere belief in the sanctity of marriage and reflect a genuine worry that the institution of marriage might be changed in the future to include same-sex marriages. I thank those who have spoken up, for taking a stand on what they think is best for Singapore.
But the Government has to govern with principle. Our view is that elevating marriage to the same level as fundamental rights in the Constitution would not be appropriate. As explained earlier, the Constitution should be for functions such as sovereignty and our system of governance. The institution of marriage and family is the bedrock of society, but to elevate it to the same level as fundamental rights would fundamentally change the whole complexion and schema of the Constitution. There are many important laws and principles that are not in the Constitution but are in Acts of Parliament. For example, National Service is in the Enlistment Act; Corruption is in the Prevention of Corruption Act; zero-tolerance to drugs is in the Misuse of Drugs Act; and home ownership is in the HDB Act.
The definition of marriage is and will remain in the Women’s Charter, Interpretation Act and AMLA.
Importantly, this Government will not use our current super-majority in Parliament to tie the hands of the future generations. Hence, the constitutional amendment will not prevent future Governments, elected by the people, from amending the legal definition of marriage by a simple majority in Parliament, should they choose to do so. This is how democracy works.
But what we want to be clear about is that the definition of marriage and related policies should not be determined by the Courts. In fact, this constitutional amendment provides greater protection than today, not just for the definition of marriage, but also related policies.
The Prime Minister has said that this Government has no intention of changing the definition of marriage, nor the policies that rely on this definition. Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong, as the 4G leader, has also said that the Government will not change them under his watch if the PAP were to win the next General Election. I reiterate these assurances in this House.
Ultimately, whether marriage in Singapore will remain as a union between a man and a woman depends on the consensus in society, shaped by the values we all hold.
So long as society strongly supports the current definition of marriage, no Government will change the definition. If society's support erodes, no amount of legislation or constitutional entrenchment will prevent change.
On our part, the Government is doing all it can to promote social norms and values aligned to the current definition of marriage. But it is not something the Government can accomplish on its own. The transmission of social values to the next generation is something Singaporeans practise within their own families and with their loved ones.
Sir, the approach in this Bill reflects Singapore's unique approach. Singapore is a secular state, but a multi-religious and a multiracial society. We are one of the most diverse societies in the world. There are different ethnic and religious groups, each with their own practices, customs, norms, convictions and beliefs. This diversity and harmony make Singapore unique and is a key part of our Singaporean identity.
It is not easy to hold such a diverse society together. We are a young nation and all of us have taken great care and effort to preserve the harmony and peace that we have. We have been able to live together peacefully because we learn to understand, go beyond our own perspectives and graciously accommodate one another. This has been the Singapore way because we recognise what is best for our society.
Some may wish to maximise their own positions. But when this happens, it unsettles others and causes resistance which would lead to further pushback and split our society apart. Singapore will not come out well in the end. It is therefore important that certain groups do not push beyond what is acceptable to our society.
In most cases, society needs time to adjust to change, especially on issues that can polarise us. We may have different ideals and perspectives, but we are all Singaporeans and I hope this is an identity we continue to be proud of.
We forge a majority based on what we share in common and what unites us. This is why the Government has consistently emphasised the importance of preserving our common space, fostering good citizens and upholding the principle of equality, regardless of race, language or religion. Only then can we be united as Singaporeans to achieve progress as a nation.
We are fortunate that our religious leaders understand the context of our diverse society and their communities trust the Government to treat all faiths completely impartially. While they are honest and constructive in providing their views on matters of concern in their religious communities, they trust that laws and policies are in the national interest and not to favour one religion over another.
This approach works because the Government on its part is fair and considers all perspectives, including those who are religious as well as those who are not religious. No one can act only for the interests of a few segments of the society without regard for the rest. Maintaining this approach requires wisdom and courage from everyone.
As we see in other societies, it is very easy to yield to sectarian or tribalist views. Even if you do not win, you will be popular with them. But we need to guard against this.
We also continue to protect all from scorn or harm. This includes homosexuals who are members of our society, our kith and our kin. Homosexuals have a place in our society and space to live their lives in Singapore. In our families, we should not exclude our loved ones who are homosexuals. In our communities, they, like other Singaporeans, have access to education and employment, to healthcare and social services, to protection from violence and harassment. Workplace discrimination against homosexuals for reasons unrelated to their ability to do the job is a breach of the principle of fair and merit-based employment outlined in the Tripartite Guidelines on Fair Employment Practices.
But on marriage and family, most Singaporeans wish to retain current norms. As I have mentioned before, it is the Government's view as well.
As a society, regardless of your views on marriage, family or homosexuality, no one should feel unsafe expressing your views or fear being cancelled, bullied or discriminated against. It is dangerous for our society if we do not learn to respect others who hold differing views from us. This threatens the common space and Singapore will not be able to progress as a cohesive society. Sir, in Malay.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] In sharing the Government's intention to repeal section 377A, we have engaged the Malay/Muslim community extensively throughout this year. This includes religious leaders, asatizah as well as community leaders and Malay/Muslim organisations.
Many were initially worried that it would result in sudden changes to other policies such as the definition of marriage, adoption, regulation of media content and educational curriculum as well as the overall approach on the issue. It is clear that as a society, we want the institution of family to remain the central pillar of our community.
I have explained that the repeal of section 377A will be accompanied by a constitutional amendment that will be done simultaneously, so that Parliament continues to have the right to determine marriage and family laws. This will enable the Government to continue upholding the definition of marriage and the policies that depend on it. The amendments protect these laws and policies from new challenges based on Part 4 of the Constitution such as the frequent challenges to section 377A.
This also means that other benefits that takes reference from our definition of marriage, including public housing subsidies and priority access for married couples as well as financial incentives for married couples to have children such as the Baby Bonus Cash Gift, will remain.
In all the discussions, I am pleased with the attitude of our community leaders who were able to discuss these issues in a calm and rational manner. The guidance from our Mufti and established scholars has clarified the religious position on homosexuality in a judicious manner – that in Islam, only sexual relations between man and woman in marriage are permitted. At the same time, the Mufti also explained that the homosexual lifestyle does not remove a person from his faith. They must still be treated with kindness and compassion, particularly by their own families.
The openness of community leaders and the wisdom of our religious scholars have prevented a situation where emotions of the community on this matter can be intentionally inflamed. We are grateful to all of them.
(In English): Sir, I believe that many of us appreciate this secular approach that has provided Singaporeans security and safety living together and the freedom to practise our religion.
Religious groups can continue to preach about homosexuality according to their religious beliefs. However, for all the diverse groups that may be for or against homosexuality, no one can violate the laws of the land or instigate violence or intimidation towards others or a particular group.
We are protected by the constitutional right to be free to profess, practise and propagate our religion. But this right is not absolute. It is subject to considerations of public order, public health or morality. As Singaporeans, we must also have respect for each other as fellow citizens in exercising this right.
I want to make clear that our pro-family values and position are not a result of a majoritarian or a religious approach. It is one that we share in common as Singaporeans and what this Government believes in and stands for. It is how we have come so far and will enable our society to perpetuate and flourish in the future. It is in the public interest and not the narrow interest of a specific religious group.
Our community leaders, many of whom we have engaged on this issue, also support our pro-family approach and have helped families over the years. They will continue to have a critical role in maintaining social cohesion and rallying support for our family values.
Such is the system that ensures the safety, survival and success of Singapore. No one group can have everything they want all the time. The preferences of other Singaporeans matter too. As the Prime Minister has said, we are seeking a political accommodation that balances different legitimate views and aspirations among Singaporeans.
Sir, we are taking a calibrated approach through this constitutional amendment, which seeks to address the concerns that people may have on whether a repeal will cause a sudden shift. However, it is also done in a way to not tie the hands of a future Parliament. Above all, we want to ensure that the Parliament should be the main platform to discuss sensitive issues and not the Courts.
We must also redouble our efforts to sustain this system that has brought about peace and harmony in our multi-religious and multi-ethnic society. As we advocate for what we believe in, let us also do it respectfully and in the knowledge that we are united by our Singaporean identity. Sir, I beg to move. [Applause.]
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Minister Shanmugam.
The Minister for Law (Mr K Shanmugam): Minister Masagos has explained the reasons for the constitutional amendments. I will now speak on the repeal of section 377A of the Penal Code.
We thought very carefully before moving on the repeal of this section. Over the past year, we have engaged extensively with various groups, some, several times. Those we spoke with include religious leaders, LGBT groups, community leaders, people who want heterosexual marriage as a social norm, youth groups, members of the public who had written to us and many others.
For many who did not believe that section 377A should be repealed, their main concerns were about the consequences of the repeal of section 377A, what will happen after the section is repealed and not because they thought gay sex between men should in itself be criminalised.
In considering whether we should repeal section 377A, I will cover three areas. First, the historical context of section 377A. Second, the political compromise that has been struck in Singapore. And third, the reasons for now moving on the repeal.
First, the historical context. Why do we have to look at the history? We need to understand why and how section 377A became part of the law, whether it was a deliberate, considered decision or perhaps more of happenstance. That provides the context for the discussion. As Members will know, section 377A makes it an offence for a male person, whether in public or private, to commit any act of gross indecency with another male. The term \"gross indecency\" can include both non-penetrative and penetrative sex acts.
The section was introduced in 1938 when Singapore was a British colony. Attorney General Howell moved the Bill in 1938. He said that section 377A was being introduced to bring our law in line with the UK criminal law. Thus, to understand the genesis of section 377A, we would need to look at the original UK law passed 137 years ago, which is section 11 of the UK Criminal Law Amendment Act (UKCL).
Section 377A is an almost a word-for-word copy of section 11 of the UKCL. Section 11 of the UKCL was passed in 1885. Its origin is quite obscure and we have not been able to find any background, which explains why this section was introduced and made into law. What we did find, was that it was introduced in the UK House of Commons at 2.30 am in the morning with very few members of parliament who were present, as a last-minute amendment to an entirely unrelated bill.
The unrelated bill was meant to protect women and girls and for the suppression of brothels. At that point, that unrelated bill on protection of women and girls had already been through a four-year long process, it had endured a long debate in parliament and it had passed the House of Lords without the amendment.
The unrelated amendment on male homosexuality was introduced by a member of parliament, Mr Henry Labouchere. His motives for introducing section 11 into the bill on protection of women and girls are unclear. One school of thought is that Mr Labouchere had intended it to be a \"wrecking amendment\", to derail and discredit the entire bill on protection of women and girls. He had that reputation. In fact, he had introduced another amendment to the same bill. Another member of parliament said that Mr Labouchere \"couldn't have been serious in introducing that other amendment.\" Academics who have studied the matter have pointed to Mr Labouchere's habitual parliamentary obstructionist technique. He would make spoiling amendments to discredit bills that have been introduced.
Another school of thought is that Mr Labouchere was fiercely homophobic and so he introduced the amendment. Mr Labouchere himself gave an explanation in parliament for why he introduced section 11 and his explanation raises more questions than it answered. He said that his amendment was to protect any person from an assault of \"the kind dealt with\" under section 11, whether the person was above, or under, the age of 13 years.
After that short explanation, he said that he did not think it was necessary to discuss the proposal at any length because the government was willing to accept it. If we take at face value what Mr Labouchere said in parliament in 1885, then the purpose of section 11 was to prevent an indecent assault by one male against another male. The provision here introduced, which was passed into law, was however much wider than that, including those where the sex acts were done between consenting male adults.
Thus, the amendment that was introduced was quite different from the explanation that was given. Indeed, the explanation he gave is somewhat contrary. The amendment was dealt with in parliament for less than four minutes. There was no discussion about the fact that the provision criminalises consenting male homosexual behaviour even though the stated purpose was to criminalise sexual assaults.
People have spent time trying to work out the motives of Mr Labouchere and the reasons that the UK parliament passed the amendment. Some have suggested that the members were fatigued by the late hour – it was 2.30 am – and that the members had been worn out by the long debate on the bill to protect women and girls which, as I said earlier, had taken four years and that the members had just wanted to get on with it, to let the amendment through.
This is the genesis, the background to the law passed in 1885 which has gone on to impact the lives of tens of thousands of people and has caused much controversy and intense debate in many countries.
Mr Speaker, Sir, with your permission, may I ask for the distribution of a folder which contains Annexes 1 to 7 that I am going to refer to?
Mr Speaker: Yes, please. [Handouts were distributed to hon Members.]
Mr K Shanmugam: Members may also access the Annexes through the SG Parl Mobile App.
In addition to section 11 of the UKCL, the UK also had three other offences which were also used sometimes to prosecute homosexual conduct. The first was Sodomy. Sodomy was first criminalised under the Buggery Act 1533 during the reign of King Henry VIII. The reason this law was passed is linked to a specific, important, historical event in British history and not because there was any specific intention to make sodomy a crime.
I have in Annex 1, set out the background and context to how and why the Buggery Act was passed into law. [Please refer to Annex 1.] Prior to 1533, sodomy was considered an offence punished by the church. It was only tried in the Ecclesiastical Courts. In other words, not a crime as defined by the state; it was an offence in a religious context to be dealt with by the church. Members would know that Henry VIII broke with the church in Rome, started the Church of England, with him as the head of the church. He wanted to reduce the power of the church and one of the ways he did that was to reduce the power of the Ecclesiastical Courts. He did that by converting many of the church's canon laws into secular laws. The Buggery Act was one such law that was brought over from the canon laws and made into secular criminal law. That way, the King's courts would deal with the matter and the churches' jurisdiction was removed.
What happened thereafter is also useful to note. His daughter, Mary, was an ardent Catholic. When she became Queen in 1553, she abolished the Buggery Act and moved it back to the Ecclesiastical Courts. Queen Elizabeth, another of Henry's daughter, succeeded Queen Mary five years later in 1558. There were questions on her legitimacy and her claims to the throne. She took several steps to establish her legitimacy. And one of the steps she took was to reduce the role of the church by moving the laws out of canon laws and making them secular laws to show that she was following in her father's footsteps. So, the Buggery Act became secular criminal law again.
When you go through this history into the origins of the offence of sodomy, we see that it was introduced as part of a power struggle between Henry and the Catholic church, and not because of any view that sodomy per se ought to be criminalised.
I am setting out the historical context factually, not suggesting that sodomy ought or ought not to have been criminalised.
The second Act that was used to prosecute homosexual conduct was the offence of solicitating or importuning in public places for immoral purposes. This was first introduced under the Vagrancy Act 1898. It was initially intended to target pimps, men who lived off the earnings of female prostitutes. In practice, however, the legislation was used almost exclusively to prosecute men who engaged in homosexual conduct in public, though male homosexuality was not discussed in parliament when the bill was first introduced.
The third offence was the offence of indecent assault against males. This was first introduced in under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. The offence criminalised homosexual acts committed against males without consent. It was introduced as a part of a wider omnibus bill consolidating all offences against the person and was included in the same provision as an offence of attempting to commit sodomy.
Unfortunately, the provision and its overlap with existing homosexual offences and even male homosexuality were not discussed at all during the parliamentary debates. What we see is that these provisions, when they were first introduced, there was no substantive deliberation on whether there was indeed a need to criminalise homosexual behaviour and it looks more like happenstance than a deliberate decision.
Regardless, the criminal provisions were retained as part of the UK's criminal law until the 1960s. The UK government appointed a committee known as the Wolfenden Committee in August 1954 to review laws relating to homosexual offences. That committee published a report in 1957. The committee stated that it was not charged to enter into matters of private moral conduct except insofar as they directly affect the public good. The committee was only concerned with whether homosexual behaviour should be dealt with under the criminal law.
The committee concluded that the function of criminal law was three-fold: one, to preserve public order and decency; two, to protect the citizen from what is offensive and injurious; and three, to provide sufficient safeguards against the exploitation and corruption of others. In their view, it was not the function of criminal law to intervene in the private lives of citizens or to seek to enforce any particular pattern of behaviour, further than it was necessary to carry out these three functions. The committee took the view that homosexual activities in private should not be criminalised.
The committee stated that: \"Unless a deliberate attempt be made by society through the agency of the law to equate the sphere of crime with that of sin, there must remain a realm of private morality and immorality which is not the law's business. To say this, is not to condone or encourage private immorality. Moral conviction or instinctive feeling, however strong, is not a valid basis for over-riding the individual's privacy and for bringing within the ambit of the criminal law private sexual behaviour of this kind.\"
The committee accepted that homosexual behaviour between males could have a damaging effect on family life. Let me pause there. I think many Singaporeans believe this as well and we must acknowledge these feelings and beliefs. The committee, however, emphasised that this damage was no greater than many other activities which were sins and may be considered immoral but were not otherwise criminal offences.
The debate continued through the late 1950s and early 1960s. Law students may recall the well-known debate between Lord Devlin and Professor Hart on the Wolfenden report. For Members' reference, I have summarised the points they made in Annex 7. [Please refer to Annex 7.] Eventually, Lord Devlin, who had argued for the criminalisation of shared morality, also said that private consensual homosexual sex between adults should be decriminalised.
In 1967, the UK parliament voted to decriminalise private consensual homosexual sex between two adults. By that time, religious groups such as the Church of England and the Methodist Conference, and members of both houses had publicly expressed support for a change. The members of the House of Lords who spoke in support of decriminalisation included the Lord Chancellor. He was the Speaker of the House of Lords and the Head of the Judiciary, as well as the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, who was the leader of the Church of England and the head of the global Anglican Union as well as various other bishops.
I would like to briefly cite the speech made by the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury. He stated upfront that he believed that homosexual acts were wrong, he went on to say that the case for amending the law rested on reason and justice, and on considerations of the good of the community. He said, to amend the law was not to condone the \"wrongness\" of the act. It, however, put such acts in the realm of private moral responsibility. He believed that the law, as it stood, gave a sense of injustice and bitterness, which helped morality no more than would a law which made fornication a crime.
He further agreed with his predecessor that having such a law created fear, secretiveness and despair in gay persons who did not dare to seek help, lest they expose themselves and their friends to criminal proceedings.
I would add that not all religious groups were in favour of the change. Some, such as the Church of Scotland and the Church of Ireland and the Baptist Church, objected to the reform.
In 2003, all of the UK’s laws that specifically criminalised male homosexual behaviour, including the offence of gross indecency, were fully repealed.
Before I move on from the UK, I would like to highlight the context of Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland was and is part of the UK. However, the partial decriminalisation of homosexual conduct in the UK in 1967 only applied to the mainland and did not apply to Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland’s path to decriminalisation started instead from the courts.
After 14 years, in 1981, the European Court of Human Rights found that criminalising private homosexual conduct between men was “an unjustified interference with [a person’s] right to respect for his private life” and was a breach of the European Convention on Human Rights. The UK was bound by that decision and the UK parliament decriminalised private, consensual homosexual conduct between adults in Northern Ireland in 1982.
However, at that time, Northern Ireland’s society was deeply religious, largely conservative and the majority of the population on Northern Ireland opposed the decriminalisation, including most of the Protestant Churches as well as the Roman Catholic Church. The Bill was opposed by all 12 of the Northern Ireland members of parliament in the UK parliament. But, nonetheless, it passed through both Houses by majority vote.
Northern Ireland’s experience shows how a court decision can force a change even though a society is not ready for such a change. I will come back to this later.
Today, homosexuality remains a deeply divisive issue around the world. This is true even within more religiously homogenous communities, such as the Church of England and the Global Anglican Church.
If we look at the Anglican Communion, it comprises 42 member churches. It is the third largest Christian communion after the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches. For decades, there has been a strong difference of views within the Anglican Communion on whether same-sex unions can be legitimised and blessed and whether persons living in same-sex relationships can be ordained.
Some Anglican churches in the Global North, such as in the US and Canada, are increasingly supportive of homosexuality. They allow same-sex marriages and ordain persons in same-sex relationships. However, several Anglican Churches from the Global South do not agree with this approach. This has resulted in the creation of the Global Anglican Future Conference, or GAFCON, in 2008, led by the more conservative Anglican bishops and leaders.
In the Church of England, LGBT issues have also been the subject of intense debate for decades.
I mentioned earlier that the Church of England had supported the partial decriminalisation of homosexual conduct in the UK in 1967. But actually, within the Church of England, there was no consensus. The Church was more or less equally split on the issue when it was put to a vote. Of its 735 members, 155 voted in favour, 138 voted against, and the rest either absented themselves or abstained.
So, there continues to be strong differences in viewpoints on this issue, as Members may have seen from recent media reports.
What does all of this show? First, that even within a single religious community, it is difficult to agree on the “right” answer, assuming there is one, on the issue of homosexuality. Second, that homosexuality is a topic that continues to raise strong viewpoints. Third, that if we do not handle this carefully, homosexuality can be a deeply divisive issue even among those who share a common belief.
Some of the international media outlets that report on these issues often gloss over these differences. They gloss over the problems their societies face, and do not understand the need to deal with these issues sensitively, with understanding. They present views as if they are settled and that anyone who has a negative view of male homosexuality is a bigot and is wrong.
If you look at the US, it is considered more accepting of LGBT rights than many other countries. But the country is internally split over this issue. For example, in the Republican states of Florida and Texas, there remain strong objections to LGBT rights.
The Republican Party of Texas recently adopted anti-LGBT positions into their party platform. They state, and I quote: “Homosexuality is an abnormal lifestyle choice. We believe there should be no granting of special legal entitlements or creation of special status for homosexual behaviour, regardless of state of origin, and we oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction or belief in traditional values. No one should be granted special legal status based on their LGBTQ+ identification.”
But other Republicans have different views on homosexuality. A survey of more than 22,000 people by the Public Religion Research Institute in March of this year found that 48% supported same-sex marriage and 50% opposed it. These were persons who identified themselves as Republicans.
If you look at, say, Italy – I will not go through in detail. I have in set out what has been happening in Italy in Annex 2. [Please refer to Annex 2.] You will see the divisions.
I have laid out examples of how, within the same religion, the same denomination, the same churches within the denomination and in wider society, within some Western countries, even those who are often described as \"liberal\", the issues remain deeply divisive.
To be clear, it is not the exact same issue in all these communities. In some, the division is about homosexuality in itself. In some, it is about the roles of LGBT people, for example, in church ordination. In others, it is other related issues like same-sex unions that are divisive.
Let me now say something about global trends. Around the world, in several countries, as well as in jurisdictions and territories which are not quite countries, several have decriminalised their version of section 377A, including Commonwealth and Southeast Asian countries.
Some have decriminalised it through the parliamentary process. Some have had their section 377A equivalent struck down by the courts. But there are also some countries which continue to keep the criminal laws.
Mr Speaker, with your permission, I would like to display some slides on the screen. Slides 1 and 2 of Annex 3 show the countries, territories and jurisdictions that have decriminalised homosexuality and those which have not done so, because not all the places in these two slides are countries. [Please refer to Annex 3.]
Slide 3 shows the same for Asian states, places and jurisdictions.
We can see that across the world there are different approaches, even though there is a trend towards decriminalisation.
In Singapore, we look carefully at international trends, but we do not simply follow such trends. We chart our own path based on what we believe is in our own best interests. And we are very clear to foreign governments and companies that these are political, social and moral choices for Singaporeans to decide and that they should not interfere.
For example, in 2021, the US embassy co-hosted a webinar on LGBT rights with a Singaporean LGBT organisation. MFA spoke to the embassy to remind them not to interfere in our domestic politics.
More recently, in August this year, US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi issued a statement when she was in Singapore asking business groups to support the LGBT community in Singapore. MHA issued a statement reminding foreign businesses to be careful about advocating on socially divisive issues in Singapore.
We would also say to US politicians who feel very strongly about these issues that perhaps they should first try and persuade the people in Texas and other such places before they issue statements in Singapore.
In Singapore, section 377A was substantively debated in Parliament 15 years ago in 2007, during the Second Reading of the Penal Code (Amendment) Bill. Over the course of two days, 16 Members of Parliament and Nominated Members of Parliament rose to speak on section 377A, to argue for, and against, its retention.
It was a long debate. I have summarised the different positions taken by the Members of Parliament and Nominated Members of Parliament in Annex 4. [Please refer to Annex 4.]
The Prime Minister spoke and stated the Government's position. He said that Singaporeans as a whole remained largely conservative. The majority wanted to keep Singapore a conservative society with heterosexual stable families. But at the same time, there was growing science-based evidence that sexual orientation was substantially inborn. Gay people must have a place in society and they are entitled to their private lives. But there were still very different views among Singaporeans on whether homosexuality was acceptable or morally right. Thus, LGBT advocacy should not set the tone for the rest of Singapore society.
We will try and maintain a balance, said the Prime Minister, to uphold a stable society with traditional, heterosexual family values, but with space for homosexuals to live their lives and contribute to society. He added that we would continue to retain section 377A but not proactively enforce it.
It was a very Singaporean way of dealing with the situation, which best fitted with the way our society was.
The Prime Minister also reminded Members that section 377A was inherited from the British and that Asian societies which were similar to ours did not have such laws – not in Japan, not in China and not in Taiwan. But if we forced the issue, it would divide and polarise our society. It would lead to even less space for the gay community in Singapore. Therefore, it was better to let the situation evolve gradually.
It was a compromise. It was better and it has worked for Singapore in the past 15 years. We managed to maintain some harmony while many other societies have become deeply divided on these issues over the same period.
Let me now move on to explain why we propose to repeal section 377A at this point. There are two main reasons. First, it is the right thing to do and society is more ready now for the repeal. Second, there is a significant legal risk that the Courts will strike down section 377A if we left it alone and did nothing.
Let me deal with the first reason. In some religions, homosexuality is considered a sin. As Members heard earlier, some sins are crimes, but not every sin is a crime.
Our position in Singapore is, for a conduct to be a crime, there should, generally, be a public order or public interest issue. It is broadly similar to the position set out by the Wolfenden Committee, which I referred to earlier.
The basic function of criminal law is to preserve public order and decency, to protect citizens from what is offensive and injurious, and to provide sufficient safeguards against exploitation and corruption of others.
In Singapore, like in many other places, it is, generally, not the function of criminal law to intervene in the private lives of citizens.
As we consider this question, it is also important to understand what will remain criminalised, even if section 377A is repealed.
First, non-consensual sexual assault by males against other males will obviously be an offence, and it is a serious offence. Two, sexual acts committed by males against young persons, again, a serious offence regardless of consent. Three, sexual acts between two males committed in public that offend public decency will remain an offence.
The maximum penalty for the first two offences is, in fact, more severe than the maximum penalty under section 377A and rightly so. This Government takes an extremely stern view against all non-consensual sexual offences and in respect of sexual offences against minors.
The only thing that will no longer be an offence after the repeal is consensual, male adult homosexual conduct conducted in private. Such conduct does not raise law-and-order concerns.
The time has come for us to remove section 377A. It humiliates and hurts gay people. Most gay people do not cause harm to others. They just want to live peacefully and quietly and be accepted as part of society – the same as any other Singaporean.
They are our family, our friends, our colleagues. They deserve dignity, respect, acceptance. They do not deserve to be stigmatised because of their sexual orientation. To a gay person, even if section 377A is not enforced, it is there, memorialised in the law, a sword hanging over his head, a daily reminder that every time he engages in private sexual activity, behind closed doors, in the sanctity of his bedroom, he is, nevertheless, a criminal.
We have to ask, is it fair that gays have to live in this way? This is not something we should accept, even if we personally disagree with homosexuality. So, I will say – let us start to deal with these divides, heal these divides, remove their pain. Section 377A should no longer be in our books. Repealing section 377A makes it clear that gay people are not criminals.
Compared to 2007, we are now at a stage where our society can accept the repeal of section 377A. From our engagements, we see that most Singaporeans accept that sex between men should not be a crime. Even those who want to retain section 377A, do not want to see it actively enforced.
But as has been stated, in and out of Parliament, we must, and we will take steps at the same time to deal with the possible consequences of the repeal. The constitutional amendment is one big step. There are others. Because some consequences would be unacceptable to a significant section of our society.
The Government has explained its position about dealing with consequences, Members can refer to Annex 5 for a summary of what the Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong, various Ministries, as well as I, have said on the matter. [Please refer to Annex 5.]
Let me move on to the second reason for the repeal and that is that leaving section 377A alone in the books carries a significant legal risk. The Courts may strike down section 377A in the future and if the Courts strike down section 377A, it will be a binary process. The Courts cannot deal with all the legitimate concerns about the consequential effects of the repeal, which many are concerned about.
Why do we say there is a significant legal risk of section 377A being struck down? Let me take Members through two Court of Appeal decisions.
The Courts of Appeal has dealt with section 377A twice in the last 10 years. First, in Lim Meng Suang vs Attorney-General, decided in 2014; and second, in Tan Seng Kee vs Attorney-General, decided earlier this year in 2022. Both decisions took quite different approaches on two issues. First, a procedural issue; and second, a substantive issue.
In Lim Meng Suang, the Court made a procedural decision in 2012 and the substantive decision in 2014. The procedural decision was on standing – whether the applicants had locus standi, or standing, whether they were entitled to make the application. The Court of Appeal said that the applicants did have locus standi because there was a real and credible threat of future prosecution. The Court of Appeal further added that even if no prosecution was contemplated, the applicants could bring their action, they had standing, because of the very existence of a law which is unconstitutional. Members should note the Court of Appeal in 2012 said the very existence of 377A gave locus standi, for an applicant to make an application.
On the substantive issue, the Court of Appeal said that section 377A did not contravene either Article 9 or Article 12 of the Constitution. On Article 12, the Court of Appeal applied a legal test, known as a \"reasonable classification\" test, to come to that conclusion. It said that section 377A satisfied that test and did not violate Article 12. The Court of Appeal, therefore, dismissed the application in Lim Meng Suang, on the substantive basis that section 377A was not unconstitutional, even though the applicants had locus standi to bring the challenge.
Section 377A was then challenged again in the Courts in Tan Seng Kee. It was again argued that section 377A contravened Articles 9 and 12. In addition, section 377A was also challenged, on the grounds that it contravened Article 14 of the Constitution, which guaranteed the right of freedom of speech and expression. The Court of Appeal dismissed the challenge. How and why the Court of Appeal came to that decision and what it said is important.
This time in Tan Seng Kee, the appeal was dismissed on procedural grounds, on the basis that the applicants lacked locus standi to challenge section 377A. And the Court deliberately did not rule on one of the substantive grounds.
First, on the procedural issue, the Court of Appeal reversed itself on the locus standi point and took a different view from its earlier decision in Lim Meng Suang. The Court of Appeal said that there was no locus standi because the Attorney-General had said that, absent other factors, there would generally be no prosecution under section 377A, where the conduct was between two consenting adults in a private place. On this basis, the Court of Appeal said that section 377A was unenforceable until the Attorney-General gave clear notice that he intended to enforce section 377A.
Thus, according to the Court of Appeal, the applicants did not face any real or credible threat of prosecution under 377A and so, they did not have standing to bring the case. In Lim Meng Suang, the Court of Appeal had said that the very existence of 377A was enough to give locus standi. In Tan Seng Kee, the Court took a diametrically opposite view.
Members will note one Court of Appeal can disagree with another Court of Appeal. I will come back to this.
It is also significant to see what the Court of Appeal had to say in Tan Seng Kee on the substantive issue, as to whether section 377A was unconstitutional. The Court of Appeal actually did not need to give any view on the substantive merits of the challenge because it had already said that the applicants could not bring the case. But it, nevertheless, went on to give its views. Sir, with your permission, we can show in a slide, some basic points that they made.
Mr Speaker: Yes.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Court of Appeal first considered the arguments in relation to Article 9 of the Constitution, on life and personal liberty, and said, quite clearly, that section 377A did not violate Article 9.
The Court, then, considered whether section 377A contravened Article 14 on freedom of speech and expression, and it said no, there was no contravention. Then, it considered Article 12, the equal protection clause, on this, the Court of Appeal took a different view from its previous decision in Lim Meng Suang. The Court of Appeal said that there were two ways to apply the \"reasonable classification\" test: one is the approach adopted in Lim Meng Suang in 2014; and the second was the approach adopted in a 2021 case in Syed Suhail.
The Court of Appeal went into a detailed comparison between the two approaches. The Court said that if the Syed Suhail approach is taken, then section 377A might fall afoul of the \"reasonable classification\" test. If you see what the Court of Appeal has said: \"One could then conclude that the differentia embodied in section 377A (namely, male-male sex acts) lacks a rational relation to legislative object of reflecting societal disapproval of homosexual conduct in general or safeguarding public morality generally.\"
In plain language, what this means is section 377A is probably unconstitutional, if the Syed Suhail test is to be applied. Even though the Court of Appeal was careful to say section 377A might be unconstitutional if the test in Syed Suhail was applied, lawyers would know – at least some lawyers would know – that the Court of Appeal has, in fact, in subsequent cases applied the Syed Suhail test.
After the decision in Tan Seng Kee, the Court of Appeal has applied the Syed Suhail test and approach in two other cases, in May and August of this year. In May 2022, in Datchinamurthy a/l Kataiah vs Attorney-General; and in August 2022, in Terry Xu's case.
What does all of this mean, in plain language? It means that if another constitutional challenge against section 377A is brought before the Court, the Syed Suhail test is likely to be applied. And if that test is applied, section 377A is likely to be struck down on the grounds that it breaches Article 12 of the Constitution.
Some Members could say, \"Well, we accept what the Court of Appeal has said\". But the Court of Appeal in Tan Seng Kee this year also said there is no locus standi to bring the challenge. So, as long as the Attorney-General maintains the current position and does not re-assert the right to prosecute cases under section 377A, then there should be no risk that section 377A would be found unconstitutional because no one would have standing to challenge it in the first place.
Taking such a view, I can give an analogy; it is like letting a small boat sail in choppy waters surrounded by rocks and hoping that the boat would not crash into the rocks. There are two major risks in taking this view.
First, just because the applicants in Tan Seng Kee did not have standing, does not mean that no one else will have standing in a future case. For example, persons who had been convicted in the past under section 377A, they may well have a case for standing – I do not want my speech to be read as giving a right to people; it is my personal view. But such persons may well have a case for standing by arguing that their rights had been violated and, therefore, that they have sufficient interest to challenge the constitutionality of section 377A.
They will not be able to directly reopen their convictions, but they can ask for section 377A to be struck down on the basis that this will give them vindication. And the very fact that they have been convicted under an unconstitutional legislation gives them the standing and to allow them to redress the hurt of their conviction.
If you look at Tan Seng Kee, the Court of Appeal was very careful to circumscribe what it said about who had locus standi. It expressly stated that its decision on locus standi will not, for example, prevent the Police from investigating conduct under section 377A. In reality, there is a broad universe of cases where the Police may have to investigate, because before investigating, they might not know exactly what the facts are. So, you cannot rule out the possibility that in some situations, a person involved in the investigations brings a challenge. And you cannot rule out there a future Court could find this to be sufficient grounds for a person to have locus standi to challenge section 377A.
And, of course, there is the other risk. The Court of Appeal can always change its mind on locus standi, just as it did between Lim Meng Suang and Tan Seng Kee. It changed its mind precisely on this point of locus standi. So, we cannot proceed in the belief that the Court of Appeal will certainly not change its views in the future.
In September this year, I took part in a law forum organised by the Singapore Academy of Law and the Law Society, which discussed the implications of Tan Seng Kee and the legal risks surrounding section 377A. There was a panel discussion moderated by the Dean of the SMU law school. The panel and audience included the Dean of SUSS law school, legal scholars from our law faculties, past and present presidents of the Law Society, Senior Counsel and distinguished senior legal experts. The panel and the audience were pretty unanimous on the legal risks surrounding section 377A, in light of Tan Seng Kee. Members can refer to Annex 6 for key points and views that were shared at the law forum. [Please refer to Annex 6.]
As the Attorney-General and I looked carefully at the Tan Seng Kee judgment and as the Prime Minister said during the National Day Rally, the Attorney-General and I have advised the Government that in a future Court challenge, there is a significant risk of section 377A being struck down.
So, let us be clear: one, after the Tan Seng Kee judgment, section 377A is at significant risk of being struck down in a future challenge; and two, we cannot simply hope that the point on locus standi is enough for the Government and Parliament to do nothing. That will be just wishful thinking, and wishful thinking is no substitute for careful legal analysis or proper policy.
If we engage in wishful thinking and if section 377A is struck down in the Courts, that could lead to a whole series of consequences, which would be very damaging to our Singaporean society. I will come back to this. But before I do that, it is useful to look at what happened in India, as an illustration.
In India, their section 377 was challenged on grounds broadly similar to those used to challenge our section 377A in Singapore. In 2009, the Delhi high court ruled that their section 377 was unconstitutional. The court then said that its decision would apply only until parliament repealed section 377 as per the recommendations made by a law commission in 2000, nine years before the decision of the court.
After the judgment, however, the Indian parliament did not do anything about the law. The government also did not appeal the high court judgment. Instead, an appeal was brought by some organisations and individuals.
On appeal in 2013, the Indian supreme court overturned the high court decision, saying there was no \"constitutional infirmity\". So, section 377 was held to be constitutional.
Nonetheless, the court emphasised that parliament was still free to consider the desirability and propriety of deleting section 377 from the Indian Penal Code or amending it to exclude private acts between consenting adults. Parliament, however, did nothing after this decision.
In 2016, a fresh application was filed in the Indian supreme court to again challenge the constitutionality of section 377. In 2018, the Indian supreme court ruled section 377 to be unconstitutional with regard to consensual acts between adults. It reversed its 2013 decision on the grounds that section 377 violated the right to life and liberty, which is Article 9 of our Constitution, that it violated the right to equal protection, which is Article 12 of our Constitution, and that it violated the right to freedom of expression, which is Article 14 of our Constitution. And the court found that section 377 did punish homosexuals arbitrarily.
The court said that a subjective notion of public or societal morality which discriminated against LGBT persons and subjected them to criminal sanctions, simply on the basis of an innate characteristic ran counter to the Indian constitution and could not form the basis of legitimate state interest. The court held that parliament's failure to delete section 377 was not, in any way, a good reason for the court not to strike down section 377. When a provision violated the constitution, the courts must strike it down.
Fast forward to this year, 2022, as Minister Masagos had mentioned in his speech, the Indian supreme court has expanded the definition of family to include same-sex relationships. The court held that such atypical manifestations of the family unit are equally deserving of protection.
What is the lesson here? When Parliament does not act when it should act, then we may leave the courts with no choice. If fundamental constitutional rights have been violated and, yet, Parliament abdicates its duties, then the Courts may have no choice but to act. And what can happen if the Courts strike down section 377A? Then, our laws defining marriage as being between a man and a woman, and our laws and policies based on that definition, could also be at risk sometime in the future.
For example, the heterosexual definition of marriage could be challenged on the basis that it is against Article 12 of the Constitution. It could be argued that equal protection means we cannot discriminate against same-sex couples, in the same way that section 377A can be said to discriminate against gay persons. It could be asked: why should a marriage only be between a man and a woman? Why can a marriage between two men or between two women not be considered a marriage?
Some places, jurisdictions like Taiwan and some countries like the US, have ended up legalising same-sex marriage through court challenges.
As mentioned earlier, India's supreme court also recently said that \"family\" will include same-sex relationships.
In Singapore, so far, the Courts have recognised that Parliament, as the elected branch of Government, is better suited to resolve such difficult societal issues. In Parliament, there can be consultation, discussion and debate. Considerations going well beyond the law can be taken into account, whereas Courts can only consider the legal issues. Consensus can be forged in Parliament to bridge divergent viewpoints. Open-ended resolutions are possible, instead of binary, win-lose outcomes.
There are some who have said, since our Courts have recognised what belongs to the political process and what belongs to the judicial process, it is unlikely that the Courts will ever strike down section 377A. In other words, we can just take the easy way. We do not need to decide. We just let things be.
But such an approach would be irresponsible and wrong.
Members may know, the Court of Appeal has also said that although the 2007 compromise was inherently political, legal standards do still exist and may be applied to judge the legality or constitutionality of section 377A. So, we should not assume that the Courts will never strike down section 377A just because the Government chooses to retain it.
Our system has only worked well all these years because all three branches of the state – Parliament, the Executive and the Judiciary – work within their respective boundaries and have fulfilled their respective roles. But if Parliament does not do its duty, if Parliament does not deal with the law which is likely unconstitutional, then, you may leave the Courts with no choice. If Parliament does not do what it has to do, then the Courts will have to do what they do not want to do.
So, I emphasise: Parliament has a duty to deal squarely with laws which are unconstitutional. If Parliament abdicates its duty and does not do what it has to do, then the Courts may have to do what they do not want to do.
It would be much easier for us, as Members of Parliament, to leave this to the Courts – \"leave the question to the wisdom of the honourable Court\", as the Indian government did. If we left it to the Courts, the Government would bear no blame. It is the path of least resistance. If we approached this purely as politicians, concerned only with votes, and not making anyone unhappy or making as few people unhappy as possible, then, that road of leaving it to the Court would have been easier. Pretend that these issues do not exist, need not have been talked about after the Court of Appeal's decision in Tan Seng Kee, leave it to the Courts.
But this Government will not take that approach. As elected representatives of the people, we cannot do that. If we see a risk that a law may be found unconstitutional, it is our duty to act and deal with it in Parliament, both because it is our duty to do so and because taking the easy way out would have serious negative consequences for our society. It will be very bad for Singapore.
As I said earlier, the Court processes are adversarial by nature. Their decisions are binary, zero-sum. You either win or you lose. There is no middle ground, no balancing of competing interests. The Courts cannot consider competing social norms and social consequences of their decisions. If they strike down section 377A, they will do so without being able to consider the consequential effects of that decision on the definition of marriage, for example.
Whereas, in Parliament, we are now proposing amendments to the Constitution to further protect heterosexual marriage.
Going further, if the definition of marriage is changed through a Court challenge, there can be a cascading effect. It could impact questions relating to same-sex marriage, media content, housing policies and various other policies.
Housing policies can be challenged. It could be asked: why should we only give housing benefits to heterosexual married couples? It could be argued that that is unequal under Article 12.
Media content rules could be challenged. Why should we impose higher ratings for content on movies and Netflix that depict same-sex family units? It could be argued that this curtails some producers' freedom of expression under Article 9.
Such changes through the Court are not in our interests. If we want to act in the best interests of Singapore, then, we have to move on this, given the legal analysis.
We can look at the United States to see how Court decisions on such issues can seriously affect the fabric of society, divide the society, unleash partisan views on both sides of the divide.
If we have that in Singapore, our social fabric will fray. If the Government and Parliament do not take responsibility and, instead, stand by and do nothing, then, litigation could change our societal norms very quickly.
I want to emphasise this. I have given two reasons for proposing the repeal of section 377A.
One, we should do so because there are no public order issues that are raised from such conduct. So, it should not remain criminal. But I accept that Members of Parliament (MPs) and others may disagree with that, that even though there are no public order issues, they may feel that there are other reasons for keeping the law. And I accept that people can and do legitimately have such views and it is reasonable to hold such views.
But the second reason I have given, the legal consequences, that is not a matter of conscience. It is a policy question. It requires each of us to think carefully and apply our minds.
The second question is a matter of considering the consequences for Singapore, given that there is a clear legal risk that section 377A could be struck down and given that, having heard me, you know what the consequential legal risks are. In fact, this has been talked about in public – what the consequential legal risks are to the heterosexual family, housing, education, other policies, that they could all be at risk. Knowing all these risks and refusing to take a position or be clear in how we will deal with it, is avoiding our responsibilities as MPs, basically, passing it on to the Courts.
It is easier politically, but it is also worse for Singapore and Singaporeans. And, to put it bluntly, that will be an abdication of duty and it will be cynical if we, as MPs, did that, because we would be putting, if we take this as a deliberate decision, political capital over doing what is good for Singaporeans.
So, Mr Speaker, I believe that, in this House, if we proceed in good faith, there are matters of conscience. But ultimately, there is also the question of what is in Singapore's interest and what is in the interest of Singaporeans. And the law here and the legal consequences here, go beyond matters of conscience. This is like a train approaching. The question is: are we prepared to take the appropriate steps to save and safeguard what is important for our society, whether we have the courage of our conviction, which should be to do what is good for Singapore?
So, Mr Speaker, I say to all Members, let us do what is right, do our duty, what is expected of us in Parliament and take a path forward on this difficult issue. [Applause.]
Mr Speaker: Leader of the Opposition.
Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, beyond the bread-and-butter matters of economics and material well-being, Singaporeans must occasionally confront issues that concern our collective values – how we see each other as a citizen community and what kind of place we want Singapore to be.
Section 377A of the Penal Code\t– which I will henceforth refer to as 377A – that criminalises homosexual conduct in private, is such an issue. For some Singaporeans, it is a very difficult subject. For others, especially younger Singaporeans, they wonder why it has to be a difficult subject and why people of a different sexual orientation cannot be treated as equal Singaporeans.
In recent years, the issue has caused growing tensions between groups who identify themselves for and against the repeal of section 377A. Singaporeans have formed organisations and groups on the issue. At the personal level, the conversations can be uncomfortable and discussing the subject without measure and consideration can quickly pull people apart.
Speaking in their individual capacities, the Workers' Party Members of Parliament (MPs) have different views on the repeal of section 377A. In normal circumstances, I would not lift the whip for Parliamentary debates, given the party political structure that overlays elected MPs in this House. However, 377A is unique in that it is conceived through a religious lens by many in Singapore, in addition to being a matter of conscience for a no less significant number.
The People's Action Party has announced that it is not lifting the whip for this debate. Given the very public opinion on the impending repeal of 377A, there is a risk that the democratic value of the Parliament could be diluted if the views of Singaporeans on this subject are not adequately ventilated in the House.
Not lifting the whip would deny Workers' Party MPs not in favour of a repeal of 377A the opportunity to vote freely and in doing so, to also represent Singaporeans who see this issue as a matter of deep religious belief and conscience.
So, I have decided to lift the whip for the Workers' Party MPs. In doing so, I have also asked all who will speak to carefully reflect on the position they take and to envision a set of principles or perspectives from which society as a whole, with its different views, can move forward. That is the challenge. We know society is divided on 377A. How can we mitigate this and contribute to lowering temperatures and ensuring Singapore is a home for everyone?
For the record, Mr Speaker, both MPs Muhamad Faisal bin Abdul Manap and Chua Kheng Wee Louis are not present for this debate as they are COVID-19 positive. Mr Faisal disagrees with the repeal of 377A as a matter of religion and conscience while Mr Chua agrees to the repeal. The other Workers' Party MPs will state their positions on the matter in the course of their speeches.
Mr Speaker, since 2007, the Government has settled on what was called an uneasy compromise – that 377A would be kept on the books but not enforced. In 2019, in my first term as Secretary-General of the Workers' Party, I stated the Workers' Party's position on 377A in a speech to the National University of Singapore Political Association. The party position I advanced was similar to that of Singapore as a whole – it was varied and diverse, with no consensus as to whether 377A should be repealed.
The depth of the impasse in Singapore society at that time was stark and encapsulated somewhat in a panel discussion between Senior Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam and Prof Tommy Koh on the Institute of Policy Studies' 30th anniversary in late 2018. Prof Koh said, \"A mutual friend of ours was recently invited by one of our religious organisations to speak at a conference on a secular topic. He accepted, prepared the paper and then he was disinvited. Why was he disinvited? Because he signed the petition to repeal 377A.\" Such has been the divisiveness over 377A.
In my 2019 speech, I said that the LGBTQ+ community should not be exploited for political points. At that time, I believe there was more to consider than deciding which was the right side in this matter, particularly in a society which generally eschews from posting open and frank conversations on difficult matters in the public realm. Against this political culture and background, the Workers' Party neither took up the cause of LGBTQ+ rights, nor stood against it.
I still believe that had the Workers' Party openly supported a repeal of 377A, it would not have been good for Singapore politics. More crucially, it would have not served the interest of the LGBTQ+ community. On issues of great social division and contending values, we do not need politicians to be seen as siding with particular groups.
From my vantage point as the Leader of the Opposition, my personal belief is that the repeal of 377A does not in any way signal the state's hostility towards the family unit or religious freedom. Rest assured, the family remains and, I dare say, will always be at the core of our social norms.
I would also like to reiterate that defending the Singaporean family also means doing more to protect its different forms, including families with single, widowed and divorced mothers and fathers. We must do more to help caregivers who perform the labour of caring for aged parents and those with special needs.
What the repeal of 377A certainly does not signal is Singapore becoming a more liberal or permissive society. What it does is make room in our shared public space for members of our common Singaporean family to not be discriminated against due to their sexual orientation.
Religious Singaporeans are free to maintain their beliefs about homosexuality, but this should not interfere with what is legal in our public sphere. Likewise, supporters of the repeal have no business interfering with the private beliefs of religious Singaporeans.
In any secular society, sin and crime are separate categories. They may sometimes align. For example, we have laws prohibiting crimes such as murder that are also considered wrong in many belief systems. But we also do not outlaw many activities considered sinful in some religious communities. Consuming alcohol and pork are legal but not permissible to Muslims. There are also no laws against eating meat, though this is not an option for Jains and some Hindus and Buddhists.
One may argue that 377A is much more complex, that not regulating sexual practices has greater social consequences. But let us remember that when section 377A of the Penal Code was amended in 2007, it decriminalised other sex acts that some still find unorthodox. In singling homosexuality between men in particular, the decision to keep 377A appears to the LGBTQ+ community and not a small number of Singaporeans, to be unjust and unequal.
An important reality is that the political compromise in place since 2007 undermined the sense of belonging of Singapore's LGBTQ+ community. Though unenforced, one should not underestimate its symbolic message that they are outsiders. Additionally, this so-called compromise is not binding on future governments who could choose to enforce the law.
Yet, repealing 377A will no doubt cause anxiety, if not outrage, amongst Singaporeans who believe that our laws must also reflect cultural or religious attitudes towards homosexuality. There are Singaporeans who see this as an erosion of the family as a basic unit of Singapore society. The reality of our political culture, which leans towards conservatism on social issues, is that such concerns cannot be summarily ignored or dismissed.
In the main, the Court of Appeal judgment in Tan Seng Kee vs Attorney-General appears to have precipitated the Government's decision to repeal 377A. But the stark reality before this House and Singaporeans today is that there were never any good options before the Government that could please everybody with regard to managing the tensions of 377A.
Keeping to the status quo indefinitely would only shine an ever brighter spotlight on the issue, particularly as social mores regionally and locally continue a steady shift towards greater acceptance and accommodation of LGBTQ+ individuals.
Like many Singaporeans, I could understand why the uneasy compromise set out by the Prime Minister in 2007 was deemed to be a midpoint that would keep any excessive social cleavage in check. Likewise, I see the decision to protect marriage from constitutional challenge as an institution between man and woman only, through a very narrow lens. It also represents a balancing exercise to ensure that society does not fray over the decision to repeal 377A.
I hope Singaporeans who are against the repeal of 377A approach this issue – in spite of their personal beliefs and religious convictions, which I and my colleagues respect, and I suggest everyone in this House respects – through this lens of compromise and accommodation. In repealing 377A, religious Singaporeans are not asked to endorse homosexuality but instead honour the equality of all Singaporeans in the eyes of the law – that no consenting adult should be regarded as criminals because of what they do in private.
Equality and justice, both stars in our flag, are plenty and bountiful. Unlike finite resources, we do not have less of either by extending it to our fellow citizens. We all gain from a more just and equal society.
We can also look to some of the timeless principles shared amongst all great faiths. The blessed irony here is that religion plays a huge part in inspiring our best qualities as human beings – to be generous, to love our neighbour and to be merciful. These qualities do not weaken but strengthen our faith.
Wherever you stand on this decision, I hope Singaporeans approach our LGBTQ+ community, who are a small minority of the population, like they are anywhere in the world, with these qualities in mind. More than ever, with the impending repeal of 377A, Singaporeans on all sides must come together in good faith and mutual trust to not let this issue further tear our social fabric.
I am certain the decision of this House is not a panacea that repairs the tension between camps. We should anticipate that new battle lines will be drawn. For the LGBTQ+ community, the march towards greater equality has not ended. Some conservatives are likely to mobilise to try and stop any further expansion of LGBTQ+ rights.
In view of the socially divisive nature of 377A, I would suggest three points that could help in keeping things from boiling over. I hope Singaporeans can consider these as guideposts should they deem them useful.
First, any conversation must recognise that there is a distinction between public and private perspectives. Just because one group has a position on an issue does not mean it can impose that position as a public expectation on everyone else.
Why? Because in Singapore, there must be a place for everyone. The public space is for all to share and where we encourage a \"live and let live\", \"give and take\" attitude towards our fellow Singaporeans. The public space is where we create conditions for all Singaporeans to succeed and certainly, not to feel marginalised. The public space is where we are tolerant of Singaporeans who are different, insofar as the law allows.
Second, the fact that we are a secular society does not stop religious Singaporeans from holding views that are reflective of their religious norms and values. It is fully understandable that the faithful wish to propagate their religious convictions. There is no basis for us to feel cancelled, provided our views are not set as an expectation for all society. There must be a secular approach to politics and governance, even as we celebrate and protect the freedom of religion in Singapore. The Workers' Party cannot conceive of any other way for different groups and religious communities to live harmoniously with each other in Singapore.
Finally, and perhaps most pertinently, as we are free to share our views and propagate our beliefs, let us be thoughtful and put ourselves in the other person's shoes as we welcome conversation and even vigorous debate. But as with most difficult conversations in search of a landing point, it will be crucial to adopt a gentler tone and enlightened perspective that extends and considers the impact on broader community and society, and most fundamentally, a spirit of empathy. Mr Speaker, I support both the Penal Code and Constitution amendment Bills.
Mr Speaker: Mr Murali Pillai.
Mr Murali Pillai (Bukit Batok): Mr Speaker, Sir, one might be tempted to say that this issue is one of the most polarising and contentious socio-political issues that this House has ever dealt with. The heavy correspondence that I received and numerous meetings that I had with my constituents on this matter reflect that. I am sure I am not alone in this.
Let us be clear though. Should these Bills be passed, it does not mean that the underlying issues will simply go away. It will not. At the same time, the fact that we are considering these Bills, does signify a potential for this House to express its collective will and I heard the hon Opposition Leader say \"collective values\" as well, across party lines, and decide on the basis of what is in the greater good of our country. This is what representative politics means. Members of Parliament deciding on matters based on national interest and public good, not their personal interests.
The well-known politician and philosopher, Sir Edmund Burke, said that parliament is not a congress of ambassadors. Members of parliament will have to decide based on national interests and not just based on the opinions of their constituents. This is where our involvement here becomes all the more important, because we cannot decide just on the basis of our personal views. We have to decide on the basis of what is the national interest, how best can we take Singapore forward and ensure that the future of Singaporeans will always remain bright. That is the issue.
What is my view with respect to this issue? I understand from the Leader of the Opposition that he has decided to lift the whip. I just want to clarify that while the whip is not lifted for the People's Action Party, it does not prevent any Member of Parliament from my party to speak his views and I will shortly speak my views too. The whip is basically a system to deal with voting and that is separate and distinct from clearly and honestly expressing our views.
On my view, I can be relatively brief. This is because I had already articulated my views on this matter in 2018 when I was interviewed by CNA. Then, I stated my support for the repeal of section 377A. I said that anyone, regardless of his sexual orientation, is deserving of equal treatment, dignity and respect. No one should be treated as social outcasts. I also advocated a holistic review of the matter, before any legislative decision is made, to address the legitimate concerns that the repeal of section 377A may have an impact on important institutions such as marriage and family.
I therefore have no hesitation in supporting the carefully calibrated provisions in these Bills today. Repealing section 377A is the right thing to do. Homosexual males in consenting relationships will no longer be viewed as criminals and we would have taken a decisive step in removing the stigma that they previously faced. This is the main principle underlying the repeal. I am indebted to the hon Minister Shanmugam for painstakingly reviewing the provision based on materials stretching back to the 16th century. Listening to him, it seems to me that the legislative objective behind the equivalents of section 377A is also rather obscure.
At the same time, the amendments to the Constitution in this House makes it clear that the repeal of section 377A will not affect the important institution of marriage, as between a man and a woman, and the Government policies promoting traditional families. This is in accord with the views of a significant majority of Singaporeans.
There are important lessons that can be drawn from the Government's approach in this House to deal with this issue. I wish to highlight three.
First, it is about ensuring that our nation for now and I hope, for at least the next 20 years, will continue to be united and stable and not fail to hold because of this divisive issue. So much of what we do as a country depends on our unity and stability. We cannot afford to lose that. We do this by making the political accommodation that these Bills collectively represent, something that the hon Prime Minister spoke about at some length during his National Day Rally 2022.
What we need to guard against is the spectre of identity politics with the emphasis on a \"all or nothing mindset\". If that happens in Singapore, I fear that it may be the beginning of the end of Singapore's cohesive social compact.
Second, it is about acknowledging that our laws reflect the changing realities of our times. This includes respecting the voices of all sections of society, including those of our youths – their voices on their vision and aspirations for Singapore.
Our youths shape the future of our country. Based on the TODAY Youth Survey 2022 published in TODAY on 15 November 2022, about two-thirds of our young adults agreed that the repeal of a law criminalising gay sex represents a step towards a more inclusive society. These are our millenials and Gen Z-ers. This is a sizeable majority. We need to forge an inter-generational understanding to keep us together as a society.
Our founding Prime Minister, the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew, pithily put this across in a speech he delivered way back in 1966, about the importance of working with our youths to create an enduring future in the context of multiracial harmony. He said: \"The young are so important. We are old. Our values, our attitudes are fixed but the minds of the young are flexible. They come out with innocent minds…And we must give them the values of tolerance, understanding, togetherness and a society which gives everybody a meaningful life. And in that way, we will secure an enduring future for ourselves\".
Here, we have an opportunity as, currently, based on the same TODAY Youth Survey, three out of five youths support the importance of upholding the definition of marriage as between one man and a woman. This was reportedly attributed to our youths internalising the traditional definition of marriage as a norm.
Third, it is about upholding the legitimacy of the democratic system of Government that we have in Singapore. Both the hon Ministers spoke about this. In our Westminster-styled Government, our judiciary is an independent Organ of State that is vested with the judicial power to decide on legal issues without interference from this House or the Executive.
Being an unelected body, it is not directly accountable to our people. We have seen examples in other countries where judges are accused of playing politics when deciding on legal issues that have major socio-political ramifications. In the US, we saw the swinging of the pendulum from one end to the other just about five months ago when the federal right of choice to abort, established in a 1973 case, was overturned by a majority in the US supreme court in favour of restoring the states' power to outlaw abortion. This has caused a furore.
Based on a September 2022 Pew Research Centre survey, Americans' ratings of the supreme court are now as negative as – and more politically polarised than – at any point in time, during the three decades of polling on the nation's highest court.
Such sentiments, undermine the confidence in and the legitimacy of the judiciary. This in turn, this can affect the rule of law. We must avoid it in Singapore. And the way to do it is to ensure that the policy issues that have socio-political ramifications are dealt with firmly in this House.
We, in this House, have a much better ability to deal with such thorny issues, as compared to the Courts. As elected representatives, we have a much better pulse on what our people think and what is needed to ensure our nation's cohesiveness. We also have a unique ability to accommodate divergent views and reach a consensus that allows our society to march on and make progress.
This is not a fanciful argument. In 2018, the Singapore High Court decided to allow a Singaporean gay man to adopt a son he fathered through a surrogate mother by paying her US$200,000, because amongst others, the Singapore Government had not promulgated then a policy against surrogacy.
In discussing this case in this House in January 2019, the hon Minister Mr Desmond Lee in a carefully worded statement, acknowledged that the decision has \"evoked a diverse range of emotions and reactions amongst Singaporeans, and raised questions about its implications\". So, it is best that we, in this House, continue to take the lead to set policies that have socio-political ramifications to preserve the legitimacy of our system of Government, particularly our judiciary.
I have a query in relation to the proposed Article 156(3) and (4) of the Constitution. Part 4 of the Constitution lists the fundamental liberties. These are described in the 1957 Report of the Federation of Malaya Constitutional Commission, from which our Singapore Constitution was modelled on, as \"fundamental individual rights which are generally regarded as essential conditions for a free and democratic way of life\".
There are eight rights enumerated in Part 4. They include safeguards against liberty of a person, slavery, forced labour, protection against retrospective criminal laws, equal protection of all persons before the law, prohibition of banishment and freedom of movement, freedom of speech, religion and education.
The basic idea in this Constitution is to protect individuals' rights by vesting in the Courts the power to strike down legislation passed by this House or Government action should they offend the fundamental liberties stated in this Constitution. It is proposed that the entire Part 4 be excluded from application in relation to both a law that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman, and an exercise of executive authority based on such a definition of marriage.
In contrast, when it comes to laws against subversion and emergency powers, Article 149(1) of the Constitution specifically identifies five provisions that are to be excluded from Part 4. I hope we see the difference in approach here – on matters of national security, we are careful enough to pick out specific exclusions because there are at least three individual rights that are so important so as to be able to stand up against issues pertaining to national security.
Why then, is there a need to adopt a blunderbuss approach in preserving legislation or Government action dealing with the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman? Would it not be possible for the Government to identify specific provisions just as what was done for Article 149, and as the hon Minister said, Article 39(a), which deals with GRCs.
Personally, I prefer such an approach. I heard the hon Minister as saying that, the reason why he wants to have such a shield is because we may not know of an argument that can be raised in the future. But we are dealing with fundamental liberties and one of the reasons for having fundamental liberties is to curb excess of power, or have a situation whereby there will be an irrational use of power. As a matter of principle, we should be careful in providing for derogations to fundamental liberties of an individual as it would ordinarily be inimical to the concept of democracy and rule of law.
Also, may I ask whether it is intended that the Court's powers of judicial review of Government action on the traditional grounds of illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety be ousted? As I heard the hon Minister, he mentioned that that is not the intent. But then, maybe to articulate my point, let me give an illustration.
Say, for example, a government in the future decides to banish a citizen, that is a fundamental liberty under Article 13, on the basis that he does not subscribe to a marriage between a man and a woman, or he enters into a marriage, which falls outside the definition in the Women's Charter. How can we then protect such a person from being banished? Can the Courts exercise its judicial powers to provide a solution for such a person? I would welcome the hon Minister's views on this matter.
Sir, my point is a simple one, that we should put sufficient weight on this, but not be too heavy handed so as to allow it to trump all fundamental rights, as even on matters of national security, we have been careful not to take such a sweeping approach.
Sir, the repeal is the correct thing to do. It reflects Singapore's collective will towards equality as well as the values and realities of our times. We have also, at the same time, captured the wide agreement that marriage is a union between a man and a woman. It is an elegant accommodation and a uniquely Singapore way, using hon Minister Masagos' words, of expressing the will of our people through this House.
Mr Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim.
Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, at the outset, I wish to state that I am in support of the Penal Code (Amendment) Bill. This is due to the likely unconstitutionality of section 377A for violating Article 12, especially in the light of recent legal developments.
I wish now to focus on the Constitution (Amendment) Bill now before the House.
Sir, the Bill proposes to add a new Article 156 to the Constitution. I believe it is important to study the various parts of Article 156 in detail.
The first half of Article 156, namely sub-articles (1) and (2), state that laws and policies concerning the promotion of the institution of marriage lie within the province of Parliament and the Government. The second half of Article 156, namely sub-articles (3) and (4), declare that laws and policies based on a definition of marriage as between a man and a woman cannot be invalidated on the grounds that they violate Part 4 of the Constitution on Fundamental Liberties. It is further stated in these two sub-articles that the apparent prohibition of a Constitutional challenge will apply to laws and policies that are in force whether before, on or after the commencement of this Bill, that is, for all past, current and future laws and policies.
Sir, from what I understand, the amendments to the Constitution are an attempt at a quid pro quo for the repeal of section 377A of the Penal Code. The repeal of section 377A is concerning to many Singaporeans who are not supportive of the repeal and who fear that the removal of the offence would mainstream gay lifestyles in further spheres of life.
I see Article 156 as the Government's way of signalling that the definition of marriage in Singapore would not be changed in the near future. However, as pointed out by the Law Minister in August, this does not amount to an entrenchment of the definition of marriage as between a man and woman. He and Mr Masagos also made clear earlier that it was open to Parliament to change the definition of marriage by amending the law by a simple majority in Parliament.
It is therefore appropriate to consider what the actual effect of Article 156 is. I intend to look at each of the four sub-articles in turn.
First, Article 156(1). It is stated that Parliament may pass laws which define, regulate, safeguard, support, foster and promote the institution of marriage. On the one hand, that sounds like a clear statement of what Parliament can do. However, with due respect, I am not sure what this sub-article actually achieves, apart from stating the obvious. It is indisputable that under Article 38 of the Constitution, legislative power has already been vested in the Legislature consisting of the President and Parliament. Parliament can pass laws on any subject. In what way then is Article 156(1) meaningful?
Similarly, for Article 156(2), it states that the Government and any public authority may exercise their executive authority to protect, safeguard, support, foster and promote the institution of marriage. Again, is there a need to state that the Government and any public authority may exercise their executive authority? It already is the position that under Article 23 of the Constitution, executive authority is vested in the President and exercisable by Cabinet Ministers and other bodies as authorised by law.
It is arguable then, that Article 156(1) and (2) do not add anything new to the current position.
I next move to the second half of the proposed Article 156. The latter two sub-articles seek to prohibit challenges under Part 4 of the Constitution to laws and policies based on the current definition of marriage as between a man and a woman. I wish to record my concern about the implications of sub-articles (3) and (4) on judicial oversight of the actions of Parliament and the Government.
It bears stating here that Part 4 is the part of the Constitution entitled \"fundamental liberties\". It is Part 4 that grants individuals critical protections against abuse of state power, such as ensuring freedom from arbitrary arrest and freedom of religion, and the right to equal protection under the law. These are enshrined in the Constitution for a reason. No doubt, these fundamental liberties may not all be absolute, and some of them have been qualified in the Constitution itself. But if one looks at the existing qualifications, they tend to be scoped tightly and justified on the grounds of national emergencies, security, public order and public health. This was a point that Member Mr Murali touched on earlier as well.
Sir, to now include the definition of marriage as something that the Courts cannot assess for constitutionality does not appear to me to be justified. To clarify, I am not advocating for gay marriages here. My concern is purely about whether it is justified to exclude judicial scrutiny on this topic. From a governance standpoint, I find this position very difficult to accept.
Under Article 93 of the Constitution, judicial power has been vested in our Courts. Article 4 provides that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, a point recognised by Minister Masagos earlier. Article 4 provides that laws passed by Parliament that are inconsistent with the Constitution shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void. The Constitution is the fundamental legal safeguard of citizens, to protect them against illegal laws and policies that violate the Constitution. And it is the job of the Courts to assess whether any law is constitutional or not. Earlier, I heard Minister Masagos in his Second Reading speech, and I would humbly submit that it is not the same thing to say that when the Courts is assessing a law for constitutionality, it is intervening in a political space. It is the Court's job to ensure that laws and policies conform with the Constitution.
Sir, this Bill today seeks to exclude the Courts from reviewing the constitutionality of laws and policies concerning marriage. Quite apart from the decision being taken today, I am concerned about what this carve out means for the future. Will the Government, present or future, come up with other areas of life, where the Courts are to be excluded from reviewing laws and policies for constitutionality? Will Parliament in the future be looking at Article 157, 158 or 159?
Sir, it goes without saying that Parliament and the Government should, instead, be ever mindful of what the Constitution requires and act within those parameters. To that end, I am very concerned about the implications of this new carve-out and what Parliament is asked to do today.
Sir, to summarise, I understand the purpose of Article 156 as a quid pro quo for the repeal of section 377A. However, as far as sub-articles (1) and (2) are concerned, it does not seem to me that these provisions add anything to the current position. As for Articles 156(3) and (4), I am concerned about the Courts being further curtailed in their constitutional duty to check Parliament and the Government. I am also concerned about whether the carve-out of judicial oversight on the institution of marriage will set a precedent for future carve-outs, even if this is not the intention today. This is potentially detrimental to Singaporeans.
That said, Sir, I appreciate the difficulties the Government has in navigating this issue of section 377A. It is not easy to arrive at a solution that addresses the concerns of society which is divided on the matter. To that end, I understand the signal the Government wishes to send through the proposed Article 156. So, I will not oppose the Bill.
Nevertheless, my concerns about safeguarding the Courts in doing their constitutional duty remain. For the reasons I have stated, I have decided to cast a vote of abstention on the Constitution (Amendment) Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Christopher de Souza.
Mr Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to speak. Many Members in this House have known my long-standing support for the institutions of marriage and family. These institutions deserve continuing protection.
I must discharge a duty today. Two questions follow. One, what is that duty? And two, how can I ensure that the carrying out of that duty works to the best for Singapore? My speech today will answer both those questions.
For this, my starting point is to go back to 1962 and quote Mr Lee Kuan Yew. In 1962, Mr Lee Kuan Yew gave a speech to an audience from the University of Singapore. The speech was about \"Law and Order\". Mr Lee said that the phrase should be modified – it should read \"Order and Law\". Why? Because Mr Lee's view – and I think it is a correct view – is that without order, then laws become useless.
Allow me to quote Mr Lee: \"Those of you who are just embarking on the study of the law will learn the phrase 'law and order'\". In a settled and established society, law appears to be a precursor of order. Good laws lead to good order, that is the form that you will learn. But the hard realities of keeping the peace between man and man and between authority and the individual can be more accurately described if the phrase were inverted to 'order and law', for without order the operation of law is impossible.\"
Minister Mentor inverted the phrase \"law and order\" to become \"order and law\". By inverting the phrase, he showed how one must establish order first before laws can work.
Why is this a good starting point? Because what we are debating today is the order of things and the order from which all relevant laws and policies should be construed. Some use the phrase societal norms, some use the phrase social mores. I would use the term \"the order of things\".
Mr Speaker, we are deciding the order of things today. Even as we are debating removing a law, we are also debating strengthening the order of things by virtue of an amendment to the Constitution. That is a very significant move. Let us pause to think about this.
We are not just removing a law. We are coupling the removal of a law with an amendment to the Constitution to protect the order of things. And, what more, the Constitution is not just another law. It is the beacon from which all laws take their bearing. It sets the tone – it is the backbone of the order of things.
Do I believe that there is a significant risk that section 377A will be struck down by the Courts in a future legal challenge? The Attorney-General (AG) had said so. The Minister for Law has said so. These are views that must be taken seriously. So, I have thought long and hard about this matter, and agree that there is a significant risk that section 377A will be struck down by the Courts in a future legal challenge.
So, the question to ask next is: do we wait or do we move first by shouldering the legislative responsibility of making hard decisions and deciding on what needs to be protected? It is clear in my mind that we must do the latter.
So, Parliament has to act now. We must analyse, deliberate, look into our own selves and make the hard legislative decisions. As Members of this House, we have a duty to decide on and reinforce what we desire to protect given the significant risk that section 377A may be struck down. For this, I now turn to the amendments of the Constitution before the House today.
What does the constitutional amendment do? The Bill states, \"the legislature may, by law, define, regulate, protect, safeguard, support, foster and promote the institution of marriage\". And then clause 3 states, \"nothing in Part 4 invalidates a law enacted before, on or after the date of commencement of this Bill by reason that the law defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman\".
The amendment to the Constitution is clear as to what it seeks to protect. I support it. Why? Mr Speaker, I believe that the institution of marriage, as defined as the union between one man and one woman, is the basis upon which our society is built. It is something we must protect. It must not be diluted.
Marriage is the union of a man and a woman. For centuries, this union has been the foundation of societies. Children and society, as a whole, flourish when marriages are supported and the resulting family unit is strong. The Prime Minister has said in 2007, 2013 and 2016 that the traditional family unit should form the \"basic building block of our society\". The Prime Minister stated as recently as three months ago, \"we have upheld and reinforced the importance of families through many national policies and we will continue to do so.\"
Mr Speaker, the amendment to the Constitution strengthens this foundation. It states clearly that marriage is between a man and a woman; and it follows that this is the basis on which family is built. By constitutionalising this, we are entrenching our values on what is the core, the base, the order of things from which all other relevant laws and policies in our society take bearing. It is the beacon – the guiding light.
As a legislator, I see this inclusion and amendment to the Constitution as a deliberate and positive step. By making this amendment to the Constitution, it means that we are also protecting all our social policies that flow from this definition. As the Prime Minister has said in the National Day Rally, this includes policies on public housing, education, adoption regulations, advertising standards and film classification. Such a position has been echoed by various Ministries in press statements or by Ministers in response to press questions since the National Day Rally.
What does this mean? One, the only form of marriage that is recognised in Singapore is the union between one man and one woman. No other form of marriage is recognised in Singapore. A religious teacher – an ustaz, imam, priest, pastor, bishop, rabbi or men and women of any religion – cannot be prevented from teaching what their faith teaches about marriage and about homosexuality. If practising homosexuality is not condoned in a particular faith, the religious leader can state so.
Two, spousal rights can only be granted within the context of a heterosexual marriage.
Three, education in school, particularly sex education, should affirm heterosexual marriage as the norm and the bedrock of family. There is no room to argue that because section 377A is being repealed that this somehow provides a gateway or a licence to teachers to promote or normalise homosexuality in schools in Singapore. The repeal does not provide such a licence.
Four, high age ratings will apply to all media that contains homosexual content. Advertising content should not affirm homosexual unions in any way.
Five, housing policies will prioritise allocation and grants for married couples; and here, marriage means a union of a man and a woman.
Six, library books for children, both physical and digital, should not have content depicting or affirming homosexual unions.
Seven, as for adoption, there cannot be a case where a civil union recognised overseas gives a couple in the civil union the ability to adopt under our laws.
Eight and for the complete avoidance of doubt, civil unions and civil partnerships are not recognised in Singapore.
Sir, this is not an easy speech for me to deliver. I have spoken with people who want section 377A to be retained at all costs. They have a right to their view. I have spoken with people who want to do away with section 377A and open the gates to changes for all institutions – marriage, adoption, the works. They too have the right to hold those views. But in the final analysis, I have to make my own decision on this difficult issue. Believe me, it is difficult. I, too, have close friends who have same-sex attraction.
To take a public position on such a difficult issue is not easy. But I cannot shy away from facing difficult issues – and what I have shared in this speech is my position for Singapore. Is this decision-making a struggle? Yes. But, in this struggle is where I belong. We, all of us here, have to make a deep effort to make the right choices in Singapore and for Singapore.
Sir, with your permission, I move to my second last point. What we are debating today in this House, on Singapore soil, is squarely a domestic issue. Other countries can choose how they want to shape their societies, but other countries should not impose their choices on us, no matter how well-meaning they perceive themselves to be. Speaking plainly, let us guard against covert and overt foreign influence in our domestic affairs.
Allow me, Sir, to end with the need for unity. Unity has been a powerful force in modern Singapore's unprecedented history. It must remain a part of our future. Why, in my view, is the aspect of unity so important today? I offer three reasons.
One, there are people in our society who hold strong views on these issues. Therefore, there is a potential here for Singapore to be torn apart by discord. Two, my hope is that Singaporeans can discuss our views on these issues peacefully. Where we disagree, let us express such disagreement respectfully and politely. What we are doing today, in this House, is to entrench what we seek to protect and remove a law that has a significant risk of being struck down. Three, by choosing to deal with this in Parliament, we are taking a deliberate and considered approach. Parliament, being made up of elected Members, has the requisite mandate to deal with these issues. And Parliament can do so with dexterity. No other institution can carry through such a legislative manoeuvre. It is hoped that the choice of deploying Parliament to deal with this issue is the best path for unity for our society. Unity – it is very important.
Sir, in conclusion, while there is no perfect solution, I think the formula we are putting forward today both protects what is of vital importance to our nation and gives Singapore the best chance at unity.
So, let the decorum, tone and respect that we display during this debate in this House set a good example to all Singaporeans of how to deal with such difficult and sensitive issues in future. My prayer is that we will not be torn apart by discord but, instead, stay united as one nation.
In all our deliberations – present and future,
In all our debates – present and future,
In all our decisions – present and future,
Let not the unity of our nation be lost. [Applause].
Mr Speaker: Ms Hazel Poa.
Ms Hazel Poa (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, the issue of whether 377A should be repealed has been a difficult one for Singapore.
When I last spoke in Parliament on this issue at the query of Minister Shanmugam, I said that there were two different views within PSP and we had no consensus at that time, similar to the situation in our society at large. Whilst there is a big group that does not feel very strongly about this issue, there is also a significant group that holds very strong and opposing views, and they are not easily persuaded. We were of the view that any attempts to forcefully reach a single position at that point would be divisive.
PSP believes that while we strive to establish common ground in core areas for unity, we also need to leave room for diverse viewpoints in other areas. Therefore, we believe that this is one issue where we should allow Members to hold on to their personal beliefs. Societal values evolve with time and laws evolve accordingly. Let society at large determine when is the right time to change this law.
Since then, we have held more rounds of lengthy discussions in yet another attempt to seek common ground. We recognise the unfairness of 377A on the gay community, but we also recognise the fears of many on the subsequent effect on families and the difficulties they face in reconciling with their religious beliefs. Our concern is again whether this issue would damage social harmony in Singapore, which is something that we value.
Eventually, recognising that 377A is unenforceable, some members were prepared to put aside their personal opinions and not pursue their objection to the repeal of 377A. With their compromise, PSP is now able to come to a party position of supporting the repeal of 377A.
In any society, contentious issues will always arise. Recognising that no one single person can have his way all the time and that taking turns to compromise is part and parcel of democracy, it is a sign of maturity. The willingness to compromise is not a sign of weakness, but instead one of maturity, resilience and community spirit.
Many Singaporeans are concerned about the effect such a repeal will have on the institution of marriage. PSP's position is that the definition of marriage should be decided via a national referendum rather than by Parliament. This will allow the many Singaporeans who have expressed concerns to have a say in this matter.
The path towards political maturity is filled with gives-and-takes from all sides. PSP is confident that Singaporeans can do it and we will strive towards that direction.
Mr Speaker: Minister of State Sun Xueling.
The Minister of State for Home Affairs and Social and Family Development (Ms Sun Xueling): Mr Speaker, Sir, I have spoken to groups who have the whole spectrum of views on this subject, often strongly held with regard to section 377A, given my roles at MSF, MHA and previously MOE. I would like to share on the engagements and the feedback from all these various groups and individuals.
First, I have met with groups such as Young Out Here, Greenhouse, Oogachaga, Sayoni, T Project and others who run support groups to help LGBTQ+ individuals. These ground-up initiatives provide a safe space for their community to come together and support one another, where they can be seen and heard, where they are not treated as invisible and where they will not be judged.
I understand that to the gay community, section 377A, while not actively enforced, is seen as society’s judgement of them – a rejection of their right to exist, criminalises their right to love and be loved in return, and makes them feel like a lesser citizen. It also hangs like the Sword of Damocles over them, since the law exists and reminds them that they are criminals even when what they are engaging in is a private, consensual act between two adults.
LGBTQ+ individuals may also suffer from stigma, discrimination and be disproportionately impacted by mental health concerns. At T Project’s shelter for their community, I saw how a small shelter for six persons was stacked with suitcases and personal items of about another 10 individuals. The owners of these items have no permanent abode and move from place to place as their life is often complicated by mental stress, poverty and unemployment. In conversations with Greenhouse, which runs a support group for 200-plus gay individuals, some shared that they have struggled since young to find acceptance from their family but love and acceptance were not forthcoming. This has consequences on their physical and mental health, ability to find and hold a job and increases their risk of committing offences and suffering from substance addiction. They shared that substance addiction becomes a coping mechanism for them when they are unable to find acceptance in society.
We understand their concerns and are working with social service agencies to be open and sensitive to the diverse needs of clients and to provide social support, regardless of their backgrounds and sexual orientations.
At the same time, I have also spoken to many individuals who are worried about where our society is headed should section 377A be repealed. In an engagement with over 100 members of the public who had written to their Members of Parliament, some youths recounted how they had experienced being ostracised or “cancelled” in schools and Universities because they were seen to be “conservative” and not advocating gay rights. Others spoke about how they were singled out at their workplaces because they are religious and, by default, seen to be homophobic and, therefore, at odds with the company’s diversity and inclusion policies. I saw a grandmother’s hand trembling, as she spoke about her grave concerns should Singapore go down the slippery slope as some other countries have after decriminalising gay sex.
I would like to clarify that employees are protected against discrimination under the Tripartite Guidelines for Fair Employment Practices (TGFEP), and these guidelines require employers to make employment decisions based on merit and factors relevant to the job. MOM is also looking at enacting workplace fairness legislation.
On being “cancelled” for one’s beliefs, the Government is looking into policy solutions to preserve space for persons of different views to share what they think, safely. But ultimately, what is important is that we maintain mutual respect when we engage with one another and not tear each other down.
I also met with leaders of religious groups, some of them four to five times. They have been steadfast partners in our nation-building. They have worked tirelessly to bring Singaporeans from different races and religions together to build common spaces and common values. The religious leaders shared views from their communities on section 377A – views anchored on hopes for Singapore to continue to be strong and stable and a place for families. Many of their congregants have a great sense of gratitude and pride in how far our nation has come and wish for nothing more than for our children and future generations to thrive and prosper and they see the heterosexual family unit as the bedrock of our society.
Mr Speaker, Sir, all these individuals, gay or straight, from different walks of life, have stepped forward to share their views because they want to make Singapore a better place – a better place for future generations, to safeguard Singapore society, and safeguard a community. And I want to thank them for being considered in their approach and for sharing the views of their communities in a constructive manner. We have heard their views and will continue to work with them to navigate a way forward.
The two Bills that stand before us today allow us to repeal section 377A in a careful and considered way. The issue that stands before us is one of public policy, as to whether gay sex in the context of private sexual behaviour between consenting adults, should remain a crime under Singapore laws.
Having heard the views from various parties, the two Bills have been drafted with great care, and aim to address their concerns: (a) that the majority of Singaporeans still want the heterosexual family structure as norm; (b) most accept that private consensual sex between men should not be criminalised; and (c) for those who are against the repeal, the main concern is about what the repeal would mean for social norms, and not that they want to criminalise sex between men.
Though the Bills are voted on separately, they should be seen holistically because this is not a zero-sum game, where one side wins and the other side loses. And in the spirit of how the two Bills are drafted, we hope that Singaporeans, with all their varied views on the issue, can be united in our desire to find common ground so that we can move forward together. Let us be united in wanting Singapore to be a home for all, a tolerant and inclusive society, where all Singaporeans feel a sense of dignity and have collective confidence in our future. Mr Speaker, Sir, in Chinese, please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said in Parliament in 2007 that the Government had decided to retain section 377A but would not actively enforce the law. The decision was made on the basis of feedback from society at that time and was a temporary compromise. However, without repealing section 377A, legislation and law enforcement will not be fully consistent. Repealing section 377A can bring about consistency in law and practice, and make legislation and law enforcement more consistent.
Related to this, just as section 377A may be deemed unconstitutional in Court, Singapore's definition of marriage may face similar challenges, resulting in laws and policies related to marriage being threatened. That is why we are proposing to amend the Constitution while repealing section 377A, to clarify that the Government has the power to enact laws to define and protect the institution of marriage, and to prevent the laws and policies related to the institution of marriage on the basis of one man and one woman from being constitutionally challenged.
Over the past few months, the Government and people from all walks of life have held many exchanges on the section 377A issue. Judging from the feedback from various quarters, most people support the repeal of section 377A.
Of course, there are also some polarised views in the exchanges. For example, some see homosexuality as immoral, while others want more rights for the gay community.
It is not necessarily a bad thing that there are opposing views in society. Singapore is a multi-racial, multi-religious and multi-cultural society, but we are proud of our harmonious co-existence. Each of us has a different family background, culture and education and there may be different views on a particular issue.
Some people are worried that homosexuals will cause social problems. But we can also see that some of them are in need of understanding and assistance from society. I have visited a mutual aid society that provides assistance to homosexuals, and some of them were not accepted by their families since young. Later, they encountered various problems in life, such as bullying, mental health problems, financial problems, and some felt that they had no way out when facing a crisis in life. These people are also fellow Singaporeans. We do not have to live in the same way as others, but we do not have to force others to live in the same way as us. Do not do unto others what we do not what for ourselves.
Inclusiveness is the solution to resolving differences. On the sensitive issue of homosexuality, we hope that groups with opposing views will be tolerant, understanding of each other, put aside their differences and seek a consensus.
In the process of interacting with the Chinese community, I understand that many people attach great importance to the traditional family-centric values and do not want to change the family values of Singaporeans just because section 377A is repealed. I agree with this view. The family is the cornerstone of society. Only when families are stable can our society be stable.
One of the first laws enacted by the PAP Government since it took office was the Women's Charter in 1961. It is a landmark piece of legislation that protects women's rights, allowing only monogamous marriages between men and women to be legalised.
Since then, the Government has been supporting families in Singapore through various policies. For example, married households have always had priority in access to public housing and related subsidies. The Baby Bonus is also meant to encourage marriage and parenthood. MSF has also been actively promoting, educating and stressing the importance of the family through public education programmes. We also understand the challenges faced by different types of families, such as single parent families and divorced families. MSF will do our best to help them.
As far as the institution of marriage is concerned, we have to uphold it, not subvert it. Only then will we be able to ensure the continuity of policies and stability of society. Otherwise, current policies and laws relating to marriage, including policies such as the Baby Bonus and HDB flats, may face Court challenges in the future, which will complicate the issue.
Some people may ask, people are more concerned about bread-and-butter issues such as rising prices and housing, so why are we discussing the issue of section 377A now?
I would like to clarify that the Government is very concerned about bread-and-butter issues and is doing its best to address them. For example, 2.9 million Singaporeans will receive the Assurance Package next month to reduce the pressures of cost of living. The Government has also just announced an additional $1.5 billion assistance package last month to mitigate the pressures of global inflation.
Even as the Government solves these important bread-and-butter issues, it must also solve other problems. Repealing section 377A and safeguarding the marriage system also affect the lives of Singaporeans, who also need our attention. We have to solve not only macro problems, but also micro problems. Letting every Singaporean live with dignity and hope.
One important reason for the global inflation is because the current international situation is unstable. Sino-US relations continue to be tense, and the Russian-Ukraine war has continued for more than half a year, causing the prices of oil and other raw materials to soar. At a time when the international environment is unstable, Singapore must maintain its internal stability.
Today, we are moving two Bills at the same time, and I hope people can see the good intentions of the Government. The two Bills are one legislative package and cannot be separated, so as to preserve the balance and stability of the society.
On the one hand, repealing section 377A will better protect the freedom and rights of individuals and reduce social pressure on homosexuals. On the other hand, upholding the institution of marriage will help to maintain the stability of the relevant laws and policies and reduce the worries of various ethnic groups. Therefore, I hope that everyone will adopt an inclusive and balanced attitude towards the two Bills and move forward together as one united people.
In addition, I would like to thank the Chinese community for their understanding towards many social problems and for always emphasising mutual respect and compromise, seeking common ground and harmony, when facing different social issues.
Some parents may have concerns about repealing section 377A, such as whether it will affect social mores.
With regard to social mores, it is inappropriate to be overly intimate in public, whether between men and women or between people of the same sex. Social mores also are not dependent solely based on the law. They require the concerted efforts of society, families and education. Each of us need to play a part.
I also know that parents love their children very much from the bottom of their hearts, hoping that they will grow up in a healthy and harmonious environment, find an ideal partner and have a sense of security in their old age and enjoy family life.
I would like to say that inclusiveness is not the same as advocacy. We tolerate homosexuality and propose to repeal section 377A and decriminalise homosexuality, but we are not advocating a certain lifestyle or a certain social ethos.
It has not been easy to come up with these two proposals today.
Singapore is a multi-religious, multi-racial and multi-cultural society. Every racial and religious group has its own practices, customs, norms and beliefs. It is not easy to bring together such a diverse society. Hence, the Government has always stressed the importance of safeguarding the common space, nurturing good citizens and upholding the principle of equality, regardless of race, language or religion. Only then can we unite and work for the progress of our country.
Repealing section 377A is a difficult decision. Even if we do our best to find a solution that will bring about a more balanced and harmonious society as a whole, there will still be people who are not satisfied with the outcome. But we must make the right decision for Singapore, a decision that is responsible to Singaporeans.
We propose to repeal section 377A to bring it in line with the law. At the same time, the institution of marriage should be preserved, not subverted. The two Bills strike a balance between freedom and stability, just like the two ends of the scale, which cannot be separated from each other, so as to achieve a balance and harmony in society as a whole.
I hope you will see that the Government has put in a lot of effort into this issue. I also urge everyone to continue to respect one another, put aside their differences, seek consensus and be inclusive of one another. We will continue to work hand in hand with Singaporeans to stay united and maintain our social harmony and prosperity.
Mr Speaker: Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim.
Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim (Chua Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, Sir, I will focus my speech on two main areas: the legal context behind the necessity for the repeal of 377A, which I will deliver in Malay; and the need to support families and, especially, parents and educators in navigating the post-repeal of section 377A. In Malay, please.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I will touch on the need for the repeal of section 377A in the Penal Code, given the recent development of our Court of Appeal decisions.
By way of explanation, our Constitution is the supreme law of the land. If there is any Bill that contradicts the Constitution, then it is invalid and will expire.
In recent years, there have been many Court challenges and appeals about the constitutional status of section 377A. The argument is that this section violates the country's Constitution.
Following the latest ruling this year, the Minister for Law and Home Affairs, Mr Shanmugam, and our Attorney-General have advised that there is a high possibility that section 377A will be struck down if it continues to be challenged in future Court cases.
The Court of Appeal in the case of Tan Seng Kee held that the section may not be consistent with Article 12 of the Constitution, which is the right to guarantee equal protection of the law for all Singaporeans. This is because section 377A only criminalises homosexual conduct between men and not in general. This may breach the Reasonable Classification Test in the interpretation of Article 12 in our Constitution in the case of Syed Suhail.
However, based on the assurance given by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong in 2007 and the Attorney-General in 2018 that this section will not be enforced, the Court of Appeal is of the opinion that it does not need to make a decision on the constitutionality of section 377A this time and the appellant has no locus standi or right to bring it to Court. This is due to the doctrine of legitimate expectations. However, the Court of Appeal recognises that the Attorney-General presently, or in the future, is able to change the policy at any time. This means that the Court's opinion on the issue of locus standi or the doctrine of legitimate expectations can also change at any time. Hence, it is not a question of \"if\" but \"when\" section 377A will be struck down by the Courts when other cases are brought to Court.
Hence, I agree with the Government's approach to debate this issue in Parliament and not allow the Court to make a decision in the future.
Although our Singaporean society remains conservative when it comes to marriage and family, most of us do not want a person to be jailed simply because of his conduct under the section. Although we still differ in terms of religion, race, values or way of life, we are all human beings. And each of us has the same right to be protected under the auspices of fair and equitable laws for all citizens.
The amendment to the Constitution proposed today is important because it aims to protect the laws and policies of the Government based on the definition of family and marriage between men and women.
With this protection, no case can be brought to Court to challenge the constitutionality of the law that defines marriage between a man and a woman as well as Government policies that are based on the definition of marriage, including public housing, education and media policies.
(In English): Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill sends a signal that everyone must be equally protected under the law.
At the same time, the amendment to the Constitution clarifies the Parliament's role to protect, safeguard, support, foster and promote the institution of marriage. The new Article 156(3) protects from a constitutional challenge the laws defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman and also laws and policies based on a heterosexual definition of marriage.
Notwithstanding this, I have met many residents in Keat Hong and Chua Chu Kang and members from various organisations and charities, including Malay/Muslim organisations, who are uncertain as to what future changes these amendments will bring.
I think it is important to actively engage families and parents on this issue and provide them with various avenues of counselling or parenting support. The same goes for our teachers and educators too. For the Muslim community, the common feedback from mosque or organisation leaders is that there is a need for clearer guidelines or capability training.
The new Article 156(2) states that the Government and public authorities may, in the exercise of their executive authority, promote the institution of marriage through public housing, education and media policies that promote and safeguard the institution of marriage.
In this regard, may I ask what are the plans of the Government to achieve this stated objective to \"promote and safeguard the institution of marriage\" and in particular, whether there are any plans to provide families, especially parents, with counselling or parenting support? In this regard, such parenting support or counselling should also provide for a faith- or value-based support, if such is available, so that the individuals would choose what suits them best.
Also, it is important to preserve the freedom of conscience in our schools, businesses and religious institutions so that our fellow Singaporeans are free to practise their belief, their faith or otherwise, without any fear of cancellation or reprisals against them.
I welcome the announcement by Minister Shanmugam and also by Minister of State Sun Xueling just now that the Ministries and agencies are looking into this. May I ask whether there is an update on this and whether a consultation feedback process will be undertaken?
In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, we need to continue to stand united together as fellow Singaporeans despite our differences in faith, values or belief. Let us not let this issue divide us but instead unite us.
Mr Speaker: Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong.
Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Hougang): Mr Speaker, today, the House is debating the Government's amendment Bill to repeal section 377A of the Penal Code and a proposed amendment on the Constitution to insert a new Article 156 relating to the institution of marriage.
In 2007, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said that the Government will not proactively enforce section 377A and that has been the position since then. For the record, I still agree with the previous position of the Government in not enforcing section 377A.
Since the Government announced that it will be repealing section 377A of the Penal Code and after the subsequent announcement of the proposed constitutional law amendments, I have received feedback and spoken to many residents and Singaporeans of different races, religions and ages.
I have heard and read the views of members of the LGBTQ+ community, particularly, their unhappiness with perceived discrimination and different rights as compared to heterosexual couples in the areas of marriage, owning BTOs, rights of child adoption and so on.
I also heard much feedback from residents and Singaporeans of their concerns on the repeal. Many were concerned that we would be removing a symbolic social marker with such a repeal. People are also concerned with the societal changes they have seen in many countries in the areas of gender identity, sex education, marriage laws and public policy.
With the repeal, some will press for more changes in law and policy after the repeal, like what is seen in other countries, for example, in Australia and the US. They wonder to what extent the proposed amendments to the Constitution can prevent such changes.
Many express concern that the removal of such a marker may make it difficult for parents in setting down their family and social values at home. Many are also concerned they will be stopped from expressing their contrary views on sexuality after the repeal, including the fear of being cancelled.
Some are concerned that there will be name calling because of the view they take on sexuality in their workplace or for young people and children in their schools. People are also concerned that more changes will make society more divided.
Mr Speaker, some who are concerned with the repeal are of the view that the present position in law would represent the best balance. The Singaporeans I have spoken to or who have written to me with their reservations include those whose views may not be influenced by any religious views and also those of a wide age range.
Mr Speaker, I have considered different views and positions, many of which we have heard and we will hear in the House today. The proposed repeal presents a number of difficult issues for different groups of Singaporeans. The symbolism of section 337A is different to different groups, their differing views and even the experiences of individuals.
As a Member of Parliament (MP), in considering all issues, I am also guided by my own conscience in arriving at a position that I feel is right for our society and our people, even if some may disagree. Even as I do my best to analyse the issues for different segments of our population and my constituents, for reasons of my own conscience as guided by my own faith and beliefs, I find it difficult to support the repeal of 377A. I am personally troubled by the removal of the marker that it represents.
Mr Speaker, this has not been an easy decision for me because as an MP, I would like to represent all constituents as best as I can. I thank my party whip and party Secretary-General and the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Pritam Singh, for lifting the whip. I do not take this lightly. In fact, I made this decision with a heavy heart. This is both a most difficult decision and is the most difficult speech I have to make to date, given the divided issues at play for different segments of my constituents and for Singaporeans; being very careful not to cause hurt or offence and yet, having to be principled with my own beliefs. It is also not made easier because, like many fellow MPs and Singaporeans, I also have many friends and good friends who are from the LGBTQ community. Some have over time shared with me some of their difficult circumstances and experiences in life which makes my decision today even more difficult and humbling. I humbly seek their understanding.
Mr Speaker, a conscience vote is a very heavy responsibility an MP is required to discharge because it is a responsibility that each of us carries alone, guided by our own conscience.
Mr Speaker, next on the issue of the constitutional amendment. My colleague and my hon friend, Ms Sylvia Lim, has raised some concerns regarding the implications of the proposed carve-outs in the proposed Article 153 to exclude the Courts' role in ensuring conformity with the Constitution. While I agree that her concerns have some merits – and I look forward to the Government's assurances on these issues – I would still support the amendments for the reason that, as the Government is minded to push through the repeal of section 377A, if the repeal were to proceed without the proposed constitutional amendments, those who have reservations about the repeal may be even more concerned that there will be no other enhancement in law to address their concerns.
Mr Speaker, before I close, I would like to thank many of my constituents and many Singaporeans who wrote and spoke to me about the proposed repeal of section 377A, including both the groups who support the repeal and those who object to the repeal. I would also like to seek the understanding of my constituents and Singaporeans who may not agree with my decision. The position I take today does not change how I treat all my constituents and all Singaporeans. I will continue to serve all my constituents to the best of my ability.
Moving forward, I hope for greater understanding between those who share different views on LGBTQ and greater tolerance of different views. We may not always agree with each other on every issue, but we can, and should, agree to disagree. We should still love and respect each other no less as fellow human beings. And I hope that there will be more dialogue between those who share different views, so that there may be a better understanding and less polarisation.
Mr Speaker, I oppose the Penal Code (Amendment) Bill, but will support the Constitutional (Amendment) Bill.
Mr Speaker: Prof Hoon Hian Teck.
Prof Hoon Hian Teck (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir. Each individual functions within a society, so there is a place for public debate about the laws and institutions which we would want to have in order to regulate life within that society.
At one level, I believe that this debate is about whether the family, defined as a marriage between a heterosexual couple, and their parenthood is the unit that forms the basic structure of a well-ordered society. Children are born into families and develop their complete lives, with the investment of their parents, who gave birth to them.
If we view the family, as just defined, as part of the basic structure of society, then we would want to have laws and institutions that support that family. We would want to strengthen this social norm and support the public commitment made by a man and a woman to be married to each other and to raise their children within the safety of their wedding vows.
Playing their complementary roles, fathers and mothers raise their children, who contribute to the orderly formation and further reproduction of society, over many generations. Research shows that the cognitive and the socio-emotional skills that are acquired in early childhood and their development is very much shaped by the family environment.
While it has to be acknowledged that there are major challenges that couples will have got to tackle, in order to keep their marriages healthy and to provide the best environment to raise their children, our laws and institutions must help to strengthen the culture, where husbands and wives give priority to building strong families, even when couples are economically disadvantaged, public policy, through early interventions in their children's lives can help to improve social mobility.
Society can, then, uplift the quality of life for future generations of citizens by supporting the husband and wife in their child-rearing activities. Singapore has made a transition from an economy built around factories that produce standard labour-intensive goods for sale into the world market, to one that is more service-oriented and where the fourth industrial revolution will require workers to exercise a wide range of both cognitive and non-cognitive skills.
In such an economy, I believe the family remains the bedrock of society, where children learn complementary lessons from their fathers and their mothers, so that they develop the skills needed to become well-functioning future workers. We take for granted that as our parents have invested in our lives, it is our responsibility to provide care for them when they become old.
That responsibility is shared among siblings. Even when there are failures in particular cases, we hold as examples those who inspire us with their devotion to duty, to the care of their ageing parents. While the Government, through its public programmes provides assistance in various forms, much of the glue that holds a society together, comes from the constituent members within the family.
We should, in instituting our laws, convey through all means possible, the gratitude we feel for the complementary roles that our fathers and mothers play in raising us to become well-functioning adults. Departing from this norm, or what constitutes a family, I believe, leaves us in uncharted waters.
Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government has reiterated that it has no intention to change the tone of society. It also affirms: \"the family as the cornerstone of our social fabric, and marriage between a man and a woman.\" A strategy to redefine what constitutes a family from what the Government has reaffirmed as marriage between a man and woman and their parenthood, involves taking sequential steps to progressively bring about change.
In many historical cases around the world, where the structure of the family has been changed from the norm that the Government has reaffirmed, legislative changes have indeed taken place sequentially. Beginning with the decriminalisation, similar to the repeal of the law we are discussing today, to subsequently defining the family in a very different way from the basic structure of the family just mentioned.
These legislative changes make the definition of the institution of marriage, both contingent and subject to change. I believe that not repealing the law acts to bolster the achieving of the aims of the Government to keep the family form out of a marriage between a man and a woman, as a cornerstone of our social fabric for as long as possible, in the face of the many challenges to such an understanding of the family as the unit that forms the basic structure of society.
I believe that keeping the current law serves to provide an important marker to preserve the present structure of the family and its supporting institution. I believe that it is best not to repeal the law.
Mr Speaker: Mr Mohd Fahmi Aliman.
Mr Mohd Fahmi Aliman (Marine Parade): Mr Speaker, Sir, I will be speaking in Malay, please.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Having engaged with residents within my constituency and the Malay/Muslim community and organisations, as well as being part of the NTUC and the Labour Movement in Singapore who regularly engages fellow leaders and workers, I appreciate their constructive feedback and concerns.
As such, I would like to raise three concerns relating to the repeal of section 377A, which I hope would be addressed henceforth. These three concerns relate to workplaces, family and education, specifically madrasah education in Singapore.
One the key tenets of good working experience for any workers is to have good workplace harmony.
Employers should ensure that their policies and practices provide an inclusive workspace that respects and is sensitive to different personal beliefs and values of all employees. They should not promote activities that may potentially give rise to bullying or discrimination.
NTUC believes that all employees should be treated fairly based on merit and should not be discriminated based on any non-job-related characteristics, which may include faith or identity.
NTUC calls on companies organising programmes or events for employees in support of diversity and inclusion causes to ensure that employees who choose not to attend such activities for non-job-related requirements are not forced to join or made to feel discriminated for not participating. Non-participation must not affect the career progression of employees.
To better support both employers and workers in navigating workplaces in the future, I call upon the Government to consider setting guidelines or advisories that will provide clear guidance towards such activities at the workplace.
In Singapore, the family unit has been a critical pillar of society. Many policies, such as housing, are centred around the family unit or nucleus. I am heartened that the Government will continue to uphold the traditional family in its policies and in the law, as it works with stakeholders to chart a way forward.
At the same time, there is a pressing need to create a safe space for families to openly discuss matters pertaining to sexuality. In particular, parents and children ought to be able to freely discuss matters pertaining to sexuality without fearing stigmatization.
Parents who do not concur with the gay and homosexual community’s view of sexuality should not be publicly shamed. They should be free to share their beliefs with their children, underpinned by religious teachings or their worldview. Parents should be given the space to protect their children from any content they deem inappropriate, including matters pertaining to the gay and homosexual community. Therefore, I call upon the Government to further fortify the traditional family unit to ensure that it remains a safe space for families to discuss matters pertaining to sexuality.
Finally, the question of whether azatisah in madrasahs are equipped with the necessary knowledge to address matters pertaining to sexuality in the classroom.
Last year, in response to a Parliamentary Question raised by Ms Mariam Jaafar, Mr Masagos Zulkifli, Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs and Minister for Social and Family Development, mentioned, “Our madrasahs incorporate sexuality education in their existing curriculum for both male and female students. While this is not a standalone subject, it is covered substantially within the syllabus through topics like boy-girl relationships, gender, sexuality, and managing issues relating to self-image, puberty and adolescence, as well as managing peer pressure. These topics are targeted at students aged 13 to 16.”
With the passing of this Bill, there is a concern over how it will affect sexuality education taught in madrasahs. Furthermore, it is unknown if additional training will be provided to equip asatizah with the skills required to address sensitive matters pertaining to sexuality and how such issues should be brought across to students. Therefore, the extent to which this Bill would influence sexuality education in madrasahs ought to be studied further.
Having listed my concerns earlier, I support the Bill in view of inclusivity in a diverse community.
Singapore is a diverse nation and would continue to be more diverse. Despite our differences, we are able to come together and build consensus on national issues. This is no different.
Therefore, I am in favour of this Bill as we are one big family and the beliefs of every worker matters.
Mr Speaker: Mr Leon Perera.
Mr Leon Perera (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to start by asking a simple question. What if you were born into a world where your actions marked you out as being in minority because most people do not want to do what you do? An unpopular minority. What if you were able to live your life in the society you were born into, but at the back of your mind, you could never get over this niggling fear, this fear that one day, the majority might turn against you, might bully you, might discriminate against you or worse? Each of us can close our eyes and imagine that we live in such a world.
And then imagine a different world, a different situation imagine that you hold dearly to a viewpoint as a matter of conscience, a viewpoint that others believe is deeply offensive and hurtful, even though to you it is a view that does not call for hurt towards any other human being. Rather, it is a view about what sorts of behaviours should be held up as moral markers in our society. Imagine that you cannot speak about that point of view that you hold, on pain of being cancelled, abused, or attacked on social media or worse. Each of us can close our eyes and imagine that we live in such a world too.
Sir, proponents of either side in the 377A debate may identify with either one or the other scenario, or perhaps some may identify with both scenarios at once. That is what is at stake in this debate. Are we to be divided between people who cherish the freedom to act in a certain way versus those who cherish the freedom to espouse views that are deep matters of conscience and never the twain shall meet? Will this be an unbridgeable chasm in our Singapore?
We have seen what such divisions about values can do in other countries. We can look at the culture wars in the USA, for example, an oft-quoted example, where differences in values, often with the religious dimension have become political and polarising. Another example, possibly is Turkey, where differences in values with the religious dimension have had huge political ramifications in the past and still do.
Politics is and should be about the contest of ideas, robust respectful debate about what is best for the country is a good thing, as most Singaporeans would probably agree these days. The truth, what is best for our country in our time emerges from such disagreement. Other things are needed for political progress, but there can be no progress without respectful, robust political debate.
But major political divides around values or on matters of conscience and religion are a different matter, to some extent. Such debates are often impossible to settle with reference to an agreed set of facts.
So, as we chart a path forward on these issues before the House today, before the country today, it is worth recalling a few truths that almost no one would disagree with on either side of the questions before us. Let us recall a few things that unite us.
Firstly, Singaporeans will have to decide these debates ourselves. The touchstone in our hearts should be what is best for and what is possible in this country we love, not some other country we know about. Secondly, I believe that no one in this debate is calling for the active enforcement of 377A. I know that this is the case for my colleagues in the Workers' Party, who have a different view from mine on 377A and with whom I have had many lively and meaningful discussions from which I have learned a great deal. I suspect that this would be the case for all other Members of this House, who can be taken to represent the political mainstream. Let us stop and reflect on that for a second.
That is hugely important. No one is saying discrimination is okay; no one is saying bullying is okay; no one is saying violence is okay. That is what unites the vast majority. Some on the fringe on either side may not agree but no one in the mainstream disagrees. Despite our worst fears, in my humble opinion, Sir, the middle ground on this issue is strong.
And Mr Speaker, Sir, given that no one is calling for the active enforcement of 377A in this debate, as we move on to unpack the issues, we must hold fast in our hearts to that realisation, because it is the truth that unifies and heals and strengthens.
So, what then is at stake, if it is not practical enforcement? What is at stake is the existence of 377A on our statute books as a moral marker, as a symbolic marker. And as I said in my recent speech on national symbols, the debate is not less important for that reason. It is far from trivial. It is important because symbols matter.
Mr Speaker, what divides us in this debate is whether to keep or throw out 377A in our body of law. I would like to argue that there is another issue that divides us, which is a subtext to the debate, a subliminal factor if you like. And that is the concern that if 377A is repealed and that moral marker is no longer, will those who do not view LGBTQ+ relationships as being consonant with their own personal values, will such people be cancelled from expressing their view, will the expression of their views, say religious views for example, be considered to be acts of hatred and discrimination?
In explaining my own vote today, I would like to address both these issues in turn. Before I do so, I would like to record my thanks to the Leader of the Opposition for lifting the whip in this debate and thus allowing Workers' Party Members of Parliament (MPs) to speak and vote according to their conscience and deeply held values. Workers' Party MPs do have a majority view but I support the right of each MP to vote according to their conscience on retaining or repealing 377A as a moral marker.
Sir, you do not get an issue that is more entwined with conscience than this. Yet, as I said earlier, no one in the Workers' Party is calling for 377A to be actively enforced.
Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to move on to my own view on repealing 377A. I support the repeal. First, I would like to talk about the rightful place of the law in policing private acts between consenting adults.
My own view is that there is a public sphere where the law has the right to intervene in private behaviour that has public consequences, even when that private behaviour is consensual on the part of all participants. For example, we have the offence of statutory rape where sex with the minor is criminalised. The minor may have consented, but the law recognises that the minor does not have the maturity to meaningfully consent. And I agree with this. Most of us would. But my own view is that the law has no place to intervene in private behaviour among truly consenting adults, provided there is no other public consequence thrown up.
Sir, I have received feedback from a number of Singaporeans, including my own constituents, who believe that consenting LGBTQ+ relationships do have such public implications. For example, some have made points about public health, some about our ability to reproduce as a nation, some about the undesirability of importing liberal values from the west and so on.
However, let us recall, this is a debate about keeping or throwing out 377A as a symbolic marker, not about actively enforcing it, where there is no disagreement. If we retain 377A as a symbolic marker, should we also introduce other laws into the statute books as symbolic markers without enforcement such as, for example, for illustrative purposes, laws encouraging healthier sexual behaviour, or laws encouraging Singaporeans to have enough children to lift our total fertility rate? Or laws to oppose liberal cultural ideas?
I do not think we should and I do not believe anyone is calling for this. Therefore, by the same token, there is a case to repeal 377A as unnecessary because symbolic markers are not inserted into our body of laws for other issues of importance. And also, because free and respectful conversation about symbolic markers can and should continue completely independently of the law and criminal penalties. Such respectful conversations have a place. I shall return to this in the later part of my speech.
There are other better ways to register our views on matters of conscience, ways that are pursued outside of the realm of laws and criminal penalties.
Sir, my next argument for supporting a repeal of 377A is that retaining a law that is not actively enforced, based on the word of the government of the day, is unsatisfactory and dangerous. No doubt, the current Government has declared that it will not proactively enforce 377A and the Attorney General has said that the Public Prosecutor will hew to this. But this leaves the door open to a future government and Attorney-General's Chamber (AGC) to reverse this stance.
More importantly, such an approach to the law, in my mind, places too much power in the hands of the Government and the AGC to decide what laws should be enforced and what laws should absolutely not be enforced. It leaves too much to prosecutorial discretion and too little to the rightful province of Parliament in making these laws and the Courts to interpret them.
To keep a law that has a serious impact on the lives of many Singaporeans on the basis that it is a marker that will not be enforced by the current Government is not in my opinion, how we should go about making good laws. Markers can be created and conveyed respectfully in other ways without incorporating them into our laws.
Which brings me to the last part of my speech on 377A, the part that addresses the subtext. Will removing 377A mean that in the wider society, those of a religious persuasion or who are otherwise persuaded, cannot express their views freely about LGBTQ+ relationships, which may be prescribed in religious faith?
Sir, the freedom of religion is protected under our Constitution. Article 15 protects the right of each Singaporean to profess, practise and propagate their religion. Freedom of speech is also protected by Article 14(1) of our Constitution.
Making these arguments about 377A – I also want to make another argument – those who question LGBTQ relationships on the grounds of religion or other considerations rooted in personal conviction should be free to express their views respectfully. As I said earlier, the mainstream of opinion among Singaporeans who want to retain 377A is not to call for its active enforcement and not to condone bullying and discrimination against LGBTQ individuals of any kind. This is a huge point in favour of the common ground, the strong middle in this debate.
And I would argue that as the mirror image of that, those who questioned LGBTQ relationships on the grounds of religious faith or deep personal conviction should have the freedom to espouse their views respectfully, making clear that they regard everyone equally as a citizen, but they hew to their deep personal convictions on this matter. They should not be cancelled. They should not be demonised. To criticise a choice someone makes in their personal life is not tantamount to criticising, denigrating or disenfranchising that person. But this depends, of course, on how that criticism is made. I recognise that.
Already, as it stands, some religious teachings do constitute criticisms of certain acts not deemed illegal. Likewise, those of a different persuasion, those who believe in LGBTQ equality have the right to respectfully criticise opposing views.
Is such respectful speech where we agree to disagree even possible? I will return to this topic in the last part of my speech today. Before I leave the subject of repealing 377A, Mr Speaker, Sir, I must say that it is my personal conviction that every individual should be treated equally regardless of sexual orientation.
Why? I personally believe that the principles of equality and fairness demand this. I say that as those are rational principles, but I also say that as a human being with the emotional make-up that that entails. As a human being, I close my eyes and imagine if I lived in a world, where what I deeply feel and who I love are held to be fundamentally wrong by many or most of my fellow human beings, are at odds with the social mores I see everywhere around me, reflected in the media, culture, education, religion. I imagine being in that place. The pain that comes from that sharp disconnect between the inner life and the outer reality cannot be described in words easily. That inequality needs to be addressed.
Sir, I would like to move on now to the amendment to the Constitution. Sir, this amendment to the Constitution which has been tabled today, holds that Parliament has the right to decide on the definition of marriage. I see no reason to disagree with this. On a matter such as the definition of marriage, which is deeply cultural, the law should be made democratically by the people of Singapore, whose voice Parliament reflects. Such laws should be made by the legislature, which is accountable to the people directly, and not by the Courts, which have no such direct accountability.
Sir, the Workers' Party Chair, Ms Sylvia Lim, has made some important arguments about why this amendment is unsatisfactory, in a sense redundant and sets a bad precedent. I agree with the points she has made, which come from a good lawyer's understanding of constitutional law; and I say this as a non-lawyer.
Nevertheless, as a legislator, I believe that the amendment does signify a correct principle, one I agree with. And I believe that it is a useful signifier to establish, however imperfect the mechanism and wording of it may be on grounds of legal scholarship. So, I support it on that basis.
Mr Speaker, Sir, in conclusion, where do we go from here? How can we move forward as one united people, as a democratic society?
Surely, the answer to that question is to cultivate the ability for Singaporeans to talk to each other respectfully and rationally, to decide on important matters that way, to decide our politics that way, to decide our laws that way, to agree to disagree that way, when perfect consensus cannot be forged – as it cannot on a range of issues, not only on section 377A.
For example, in this House we debated the issue of hiking GST versus alternative revenue-raising mechanisms that the Workers' Party put forward. We did not find consensus but there were points of agreement. But in that GST debate, the debate turned on rational argument and ultimately philosophic considerations of a secular nature.
Here, the debate comes down to matters of deep personal conviction that is less easily resolved with reference to agreed facts.
Will we succeed in cultivating the ability to respectfully disagree on such matters where much of the rest of the world has failed? Will we succeed in preserving our unity and not allowing these disagreements, that are so hard to resolve by debate, to become political rifts?
Sir, we will not, not completely and not by making straight line progress. These views are very deeply rooted and passionate on both sides. But can we succeed in moving the needle towards this ideal, so that more and more and more of our national discourse gradually becomes like this, not in a straight line, maybe a zig-zag, messy line, but moving more and more towards a dominant paradigm that says that we can respectfully agree to disagree and tomorrow we will still be fellow Singaporeans, still be brothers and sisters, still defend the political centre and push those spewing hatred, bigotry and violence to the fringes?
Can we hold different views that may never be reconciled and have those views respectfully played out in civil discourse, bearing in mind the place of our laws and the place of freedom of speech and religion in a healthy balance, bearing in mind that we are all citizens, equal before the law?
Can we move forward by respectfully agreeing to disagree without demonising the one we disagree with but embracing him and her as our fellow citizen, our colleague, our brother and our sister?
Can we do this, Sir? I think we must. I do not know for a fact that we can or will. But I do know this. From my discussions I have had with my Workers' Party colleagues who have expressed or will express different views from mine in Parliament today on 377A, I would like to say that I am optimistic that Singapore can do it. Why? Because my colleagues and I strive together for a democratic society. We work alongside each other. And on this issue, we debated, discussed, learnt from one another, agreed to disagree with respect and humility and affection, and we decided democratically.
Mr Speaker: Mr Lim Biow Chuan.
Mr Lim Biow Chuan (Mountbatten): Sir, in 2007, when Nominated Member of Parliament (NMP) Mr Siew Kum Hong petitioned to repeal section 377A of the Penal Code, I spoke to support the Government's position of retaining section 377A. I argued that Parliament should make laws to reflect the public morality of our times. The messaging by the Government is important – that Singapore is a society whereby the family unit is still seen as the basic structure of society. Further, the Government had indicated that there will not be proactive enforcement of those who are gays.
At that time, Prime Minister Lee had said that the Government had decided to keep the status quo despite the legal untidiness and the ambiguity. Prime Minister Lee said, \"It works, do not disturb it. It works, do not disturb it.\"
Thus, 15 years later, when Prime Minister Lee made his announcement during the National Day Rally in August that the Government intends to repeal section 377A of the Penal Code, I was taken aback. What is the intended signal by the Government when it announced its intention to repeal this law? How do we explain to the many Singaporeans who are still pro-family and worried about the decline in family values?
I spoke to many Singaporeans who had expressed their concern about the repeal. Many of them said that they do not wish to see homosexuals being prosecuted as criminals. But yet, they are concerned whether the repeal would lead to an erosion of family values and an increased number of gay people. And I believe that many Members of Parliament (MPs) in this House have received letters from concerned residents who expressed similar concerns.
To keep an open mind about this issue, I also spoke to different groups of citizens who felt that we should allow those who are homosexuals to live the lifestyle that they wish. They opine that is not the Government's business to tell our citizens, especially those who are gays, how to lead their lives. While some expressed concern about the open expression of homosexual relationship like hands holding and public kissing, they felt that there is no need to make this behaviour a criminal offence. Hence, it appears that the advocacy by the homosexual community over the years has made our citizens more accepting of gay people. There are also a number of citizens who felt very neutral about the matter. They have no views on the issue at all. In other words, it is not their concern.
Sir, in 2007, I had said, \"the majority of Singaporeans do not condemn a homosexual or a gay simply because of his lifestyle. Nor do they wish to criminalise a homosexual.\" Minister Indranee Rajah, when she was a backbencher, had also, in her speech said, \"I think we do not want to have a situation where we demonise homosexuals. We certainly do not want to regard them as anything less than Singaporeans.\"
The Government's stand at that time was articulated by Prime Minister Lee when he said, \"There are gay bars and clubs. They exist. We know where they are. Everybody knows where they are. They do not have to go underground. We do not harass gays. The Government does not act as moral policemen. And we do not proactively enforce section 377A on them.\"
Since the Government does not actively enforce section 377A on homosexuals, the question is whether is it time for Singapore to repeal section 377A today? Is the Singapore society more accepting of homosexuals in our midst? Will the repeal of section 377A mean that the family is no longer the basic building block of society?
Sir, the introduction of Article 156 relating to the institution of marriage has given me great comfort. It reinforces the Government's stand that the definition of marriage and laws to protect, safeguard, support, foster and promote the institution of marriage should be for Parliament to decide. And that Parliament's power to make such laws on marriage cannot be challenged under Part 4 of the Constitution to be discriminatory. It gives assurance to many Singaporeans that the repeal of section 377A will not lead to a drastic shift in societal norms.
Sir, I am also heartened by the commitment made by Prime Minister Lee and Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong that there will not be any change in the definition of marriage during their watch.
Sir, after speaking to many Singaporeans across a wide spectrum, I have concluded that it is time to repeal section 377A. Many Singaporeans have accepted that homosexuals are fellow Singaporeans living in our midst and doing their part to contribute to Singapore. Societal norms have changed over the years. In particular, many of the younger generation are accepting of the homosexual people. And similar to the position of many Singaporeans, which I alluded to 15 years ago, we do not wish to see homosexuals being criminalised.
But the message that I heard from many Singaporeans is that we need to protect marriage as a union between man and woman, that we need to support values that promote the role of the family as the basic building block of society, that we need to protect Singaporeans from being intimidated or harassed simply because they disagree with the lifestyle of the gay community. Many within the religious community are also concerned whether the repeal of section 377A would lead to a situation whereby the religious leaders cannot tell their congregation that they do not agree with the practice of homosexuality. The religious leaders are concerned that they cannot pray for someone who is homosexual to reflect on God's command. In other words, the religious leaders lose their freedom to preach on what is acceptable or wrong based on their faith. And that is their concern.
There are many who expressed concern about the intolerant views of some gays who attack anyone who disagree with their homosexual views. There are fears about the activism of some of the LGBT community who push their ideology that their world view should be seen as the norm and acceptable. Therefore, anyone who disagrees with their world view should be condemned and ostracised.
In Australia, when the Government held a postal ballot on same-sex marriage, it resulted in vitriolic abuse against people holding views in opposition to the legalisation of same-sex marriage. An Australian politician said, \"A culture has developed whereby it is acceptable to vilify, mock, abuse and shame anyone who stands in the way, or even raises questions, about whether we should legalise same-sex marriage. I have been called a homophobe, a bigot and been told that my views are disgusting.\" So, said the Australian politician. And when such strong and intimidating language is used, it is impossible to hold a civil debate or respectful discussion about any topic regarding the gay community.
Sir, I met with the organisers of the Protect Singapore Townhall. They told me that their townhall meeting was almost cancelled because of complaints and threats by the gay community. They complain that the minority in the gay movement are refusing to allow anyone to have a conversation about their concerns regarding homosexuality. Sir, I think this is sad because many homosexuals that I know are very decent people. And I have deep respect for such people because their sexual preference is really not an issue to me. But because of this small minority of militant homosexuals, they give the others a bad name by being bullies and by being difficult in their conduct.
Sir, I have also received feedback that employees in international organisations or MNCs located within Singapore, they are harassed in their workplace if they do not support the gay beliefs or if they refuse to attend a pride event. Thus, it seems like there is a reversal of role. It is not the gays who are being discriminated in Singapore. On the contrary, if you do not agree with the pro-gay movement, you may be penalised at work or face discrimination. And likewise, for students studying in international schools, they are asked to take part in gay-themed projects as if it was part and parcel of the school curriculum.
I urge the Government to look into this and ensure that no organisation, company or school in Singapore can compel their staff or students to participate in gay community projects if they do not subscribe to the same values. I submit that every organisation, company or school must have the scope to allow their employees or students to subscribe to different views on sexuality without being discriminated or having to receive hate mail.
I also urge the Government to consider legislation to make it an offence for anyone to put out hate messages or derogatory comments just purely to intimidate others into keeping silent. And this law should apply equally to those who are anti-gay and those gays who seek to bully others into silent submission. Sir, there should be no space for people to propagate hate messages within Singapore. Let me say that again. There should be no space for people to propagate hate messages within Singapore.
Even as we move to repeal section 377A, I hope that the Government will also make clear its stand that our policies on sexuality education in schools, our content guidelines for publications, for video games and various type of media will remain pro-family, that we will not see a proliferation of materials, video games or media advertisements promoting the gay lifestyle, that we will not have laws that allow individuals to remove their gender in their NRIC or passport and that the Government will remind all organisations, companies and even embassies operating in Singapore that we are still a society that values family as the basic building block of society.
Sir, I support the repeal of section 377A of the Penal Code and the amendment to the Constitution to insert Article 156 to the Constitution.
Mr Speaker: Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 4.55 pm.
Sitting accordingly suspended
at 4.30 pm until 4.55 pm.
Sitting resumed at 4.55 pm.
[Deputy Speaker (Mr Christopher de Souza) in the Chair]
[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song.
Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): Mr Deputy Speaker, the Government has decided to repeal section 377A of the Penal Code. Since this plan was first revealed, many Aljunied GRC residents have reached out to me to express their views about this issue. Residents spoke to me during my house visits, came to my Meet-the-People Sessions, sent me WhatsApp messages, emails and petitions, and wrote detailed letters explaining their arguments. Several invited me to their homes, where they gathered their friends and family to passionately express their concerns and urge me to raise them in Parliament.
This included representation from members of the LGBT community who see section 377A as a law that discriminates against them and victimises them and who support its repeal. I acknowledge these sentiments as they cut to the core of how members of the LGBT community see themselves. My constituents' feedback can be grouped into several, sometimes, overlapping, categories.
First, there are concerns that the repeal of section 377A will remove an important societal marker and open the door to an erosion of traditional values in our society.
Second, some are worried that after this law is repealed, there will be a domino effect on other regulations and policies, leading towards a normalisation of homosexuality in our society – from changes to sexuality education in schools to more liberal media portrayals and eventually, the legalisation of same-sex marriage.
Third, many, especially those from the younger age groups, are concerned that as the societal narrative shifts, they will find it harder to freely express their own beliefs without being labelled as homophobic. They worried about getting cancelled or suffering discrimination in school or at the workplace because of their beliefs.
Fourth, some have expressed concerns that the higher health risks of some types of sexual practices are not being adequately communicated to young people for fear of sounding discriminatory.
Fifth, others are worried that the disruption to the current equilibrium will lead to an increase in advocacy by groups on both sides and spark the type of culture wars seen in other nations, which will present challenges to Singapore's national cohesion.
Sixth, some have argued that the LGBT community is already disadvantaged by the laws that support the heteronormative family and that repealing section 377A does not confer any tangible disadvantages on those who oppose the change. These residents are of the view that section 377A should be repealed.
Seventh, residents on both sides of the debate have cited the need to live and let live and call for greater tolerance of different views.
These are diverse and often opposing positions on what is clearly a very controversial issue. Those at one end of the spectrum rue the day that this marker is removed while those on the other see it as one of the many social changes they wish to see in our country.
I have also noticed a large middle ground which does not have strong opinions on this issue and is more concerned about bread and butter issues.
There is in fact some agreement on both sides of the divide. Both agree that section 377A bears significant symbolic weight in our society. They both also anticipate that the repeal of section 377A will open the door to many more challenges to the prevailing norms in our society.
These are all valid concerns and sincere feedback expressed by Singaporeans, all of whom have the interest of our nation at heart. They included young, middle-aged and older Singaporeans.
Listening to constituents on both sides of this contentious debate presented challenges for me on how to raise them both in this House. I see it as my responsibility as a Member of Parliament to reflect the feedback and concerns of my constituents in this House. However, as an elected representative, I will also need to take a stand and vote on these Bills.
My vote will be based, first and foremost, on what I believe is in the best long-term interests of our nation. This will take into consideration the viewpoints of my constituents and my own conscience.
Mr Deputy Speaker, it is my sincere belief that retaining section 377A without enforcing it provides the best balance of the conflicting interests in our society. I have come to agree with what the Prime Minister said in Parliament on 23 October 2007 when he explained that the Government was retaining section 377A but not proactively enforcing it. This was, to quote the Court of Appeal, a \"political compromise\" that was \"conceived with the express intention of accommodating divergent interests, avoiding polarisation and facilitating incremental change\".
Attorney-General Lucien Wong took further steps in 2018 by noting that the Police will not proactively enforce section 377A, for instance, by conducting enforcement raids. He added that the Public Prosecutor has taken the position that prosecution of two consenting adults in a private place under section 377A, absent other factors, would not be in the public interest. This assurance was strengthened when the Court of Appeal wrote in February 2022 that section 377A is \"unenforceable in its entirety\" unless and until the Public Prosecutor of the day provides clear notice that he intends to reassert his right to enforce section 377A proactively by way of prosecution and will no longer abide by the representations made by Attorney-General Lucien Wong in 2018.
Section 377A is, therefore, no longer a Sword of Damocles hanging over men in same-sex relationships. They will not be prosecuted or convicted under section 377A for consensual sexual acts done in private. Furthermore, section 377A has never criminalised same-sex attraction between men or same-sex relations between women.
The final reason for the vote I am about to cast is that my conscience does not allow me to vote in favour of a repeal of section 377A. I am grateful to the Leader of the Opposition for lifting the whip on Workers' Party Members of Parliament for a vote on both these Bills. This permits Workers' Party Members of Parliament to cast \"conscience votes\" on these Bills.
Sir, I entered politics almost 14 years ago because I wanted to contribute to the democratic development of our country and propose policies that will improve the welfare of our people. It is important to me and the example that I have set for my children that I hold fast to the values that I have established to be true, without wavering because of political headwinds. Whilst some, especially those in the LGBT community and many of my friends, residents, party members and volunteers, may strongly disagree with my position, I hope that they will accept that these are my sincerely held values which I am trying my best to uphold. My vote is not an attack on their values nor a diminishing of their humanity in any way.
Some have criticised me for allowing my faith to inform my vote in Parliament, arguing that the two should be kept separate. However, what one member, informed by their faith and conscience, believes to be in the best interests of the country in some issues may differ from what another member believes. This issue is, certainly, one of them.
I have been told in my face by a constituent that he will not vote for me in the future because of my stand on this issue. I accept the importance that many Singaporeans place on their elected Members of Parliament's positions on these Bills to the extent that it will be a factor in their decisions at the polls. However, I hope Singaporeans will consider the broader issues at hand. There are too many important issues that affect the lives of Singaporeans for one's vote to be decided based on this single issue.
Mr Deputy Speaker, this has been one of the most difficult speeches to prepare. I was worried I might come across as prejudiced against members of the LGBT community. Hand on heart, I am not. LGBT persons are human beings worthy of the same amount of love and respect that we accord to any other person. Many are our family members, friends, colleagues and fellow Singaporeans. Disagreeing with LGBT positions is not an attack on LGBT persons. In fact, I hope that my speech will open up a platform for more difficult but respectful conversations on this issue.
However, we must recognise that LGBT issues are sensitive issues, just like race and religion. People who subscribe to one faith do not force their belief on others. Religious beliefs are also not taught as facts in our school curriculum that students are expected to accept without question. Similarly, we should treat LGBT issues as sensitive topics, just like religion. We should not force people to accept one view or another, with the risk of being labelled as bigoted or immoral. This is not to say that the issue should not be discussed at all. On the contrary, discussion should be encouraged, but as a balanced discussion on different viewpoints, not as a lesson on facts.
It is inherent in a society as diverse as Singapore's that there will be fundamental differences in values and world views among our people. This need not be a source of conflict. While we may disagree on some issues, there are so many other issues that we agree on and can work together to advance. We do not need to descend into labelling, name-calling or questioning the worth of our fellow human beings. Instead, we need to open up spaces for our people to hold different views at work, in schools and even within families. By looking beyond our differences and working together on what we have in common, we will build that better society we all aspire towards. Mr Deputy Speaker, I will vote against the Penal Code (Amendment) Bill and vote for the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment No 3) Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Baey Yam Keng.
The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Sustainability and Environment and Minister for Transport (Mr Baey Yam Keng): Mr Deputy Speaker, Prime Minister Xavier Bettel of Luxembourg, Deputy Prime Minister Grant Murray Robertson of New Zealand, father of theoretical computer science and artificial intelligence Alan Turing, Apple CEO Tim Cook, Olympian swimmer Ian Thorpe and diver Tom Daley, poet and playwright Oscar Wilde, actor Sir Ian McKellen, local theatre director and actor Ivan Heng, singers Sir Elton John, Ricky Martin, George Michael and Freddie Mercury – these individuals are some notable men in the fields of government and politics, science and technology, business, sports, arts and entertainment who are openly gay.
These examples do not mean any direct correlation between their sexual orientation and their talent or achievements. There are many people, who just happened to be gay, who have made contributions to society in their own way, whether in their profession or just as individuals. These are people who walk among us every day. They are our friends, our family members, our colleagues and our peers. They should not be treated any lesser for what they would like to do in private. We need to be inclusive of different lifestyles, just as we like to have the choice and freedom to lead our private lives in peace.
The repeal of section 377A is the right thing to do if we are to ensure that Singapore is an inclusive and diverse place to live in and for everyone to be a part of.
I spoke in 2007 in support of a repeal. That was 23 years after the last review of the Penal Code. I said then that I hope we would not take another 23 years to address this again. I am glad that our Government made that decision today.
Over the last 15 years, public sentiment has evolved. There is a shift away from our previous views, especially more evident among the young, who feel that there is injustice that there are penalties targeted specifically at sexual acts between men.
On the reinforcement of the institution of marriage by the amendment in the Constitution, I welcome it. It signals the pro-family stance of the current Government and population. It is also the right thing to allow the definition of marriage to continue be covered by the Women’s Charter. If and when the majority of our population or Parliament feels that the current definition needs to change, that should be for our future generation to decide. It is important that the provisions and any amendments to the Constitution are carefully considered, otherwise it loses its value through capriciousness and constant changes. Mr Deputy Speaker, in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Older Singaporeans should have seen or heard of the movie \"Cousin Wan Jun\". It is a 1965 movie adapted from the novel \"Chasing” in Qiong Yao's “Six Streams\" series. The movie tells the love stories of Wan Jun and her three cousins as they grew up.
This reflects the olden days when people like to strengthen family ties by marrying relatives, whether through matchmakers or even arranged marriages before birth. Now, people have better knowledge of genetic science and understand that marriage between relatives will significantly increase the incidence of genetic disorders and children born with deformity.
Bai Ju Yi said in his poem, “With 3,000 concubines in the palace, their love is only concentrated on one person”. In ancient times when polygamy was the norm, the emperor had multiple wives. In fact, we do not have to go back to the imperial era. Although my grandfather and maternal grandfather were neither officials nor come from rich families, both of them had two wives. Of course, this is an offence now.
These two examples remind us that many customs and even laws change with the progress of society and science. The process can take hundreds and thousands of years, decades or just a few years. This constitutional amendment will protect the current definition of marriage while other national policies relating to marriage and family will remain unchanged. However, the current definition of marriage between men and women will continue to be covered by the Women's Charter. In other words, if, one day, more than half of the Members of Parliament or population agree to amend the Women's Charter and expand the definition of marriage, it would be a new law and need not garner two-thirds of votes as required for an amendment to the Constitution.
This is how democracy works. Our generation should not and does not have the right to set a higher bar on the issue involving someone's lifetime happiness, depriving the next generation of the chance to make a decision for themselves. Several of my friends are gay. I have never looked at them differently. They include professionals from all walks of life. Some have been living with the same-sex partner for decades and are faithful. Some are also public-spirited, contributing to society and the community.
Some Singaporeans may not have known or come into contact with homosexuals directly. But I think you would have heard of these names: Taiwanese writer Pai Hsien-yung, Golden Horse award-winning director Tsai Ming-liang, Hong Kong director Stanley Kwan, founder of Cloud Gate Dance Theatre Lin Hwai-min, Hong Kong singers Anthony Wong and Leslie Cheung, lyric writer Lin Xi, and Cantonese Opera singer Ren Jian-hui. These are household names in the Chinese arts, culture and entertainment scene. Their talent has provided us with much spiritual food and entertainment. They have countless loyal readers, audience and fans. They openly admitted that they were homosexuals.
They live in a more conservative and traditional oriental society and have probably gone through a lot of struggles, from knowing their sexuality and accepting that they like same-sex relationships, to coming out of closet and accepting public scrutiny, or even criticism. This takes great courage.
If we enjoy their novels, lyrics and songs they have written and like their movies and stage productions, but on the other hand, we want to control their private lives by law and not allow them to be intimate with their loved ones, are we not too selfish and overboard?
Hence, I support the repeal of section 377A of the Penal Code to decriminalise gay sex.
(In English): People's views and social norms do change over time. In the past, it was unusual for men to wear earrings, remove body hair, or perm their hair. For women to wear skirts that do not extend below their knees, or for anyone besides gangsters to have tattoos. Now we see these expressions of individuality frequently in our everyday lives. We should not tie our future generations to be restricted by today's traditions and norms. Instead, we should advocate for more freedom for them to decide how they want to live their lives.
It is difficult to predict how society will change in the future and how our children and grandchildren decide to govern themselves then. It is important that the members of Singapore's LGBTQ+ community are not discriminated against for choosing how they want to live their lives and for who they love. Nevertheless, changes in public perception will take time and we will act accordingly if and when these sentiments are ripe.
Today, we are addressing an act of intimacy, in this case for men with men. Just like every other kind of relationship, let us continue to maintain discretion in the public display of affections. Therefore, the advocacy of specific rights before our society is ready may do more harm than good. We aim to be more progressive, but we must ensure that our direction and steps are carefully considered.
Today, we are taking a step towards a more tolerant and inclusive Singapore. We are debating on the issue of the freedom to love. Let us continue to keep the love for everyone in Singapore's society.
I support the repeal of section 377A and the amendment of the Constitution to protect the prevailing definition of marriage.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Alex Yam.
Mr Alex Yam (Marsiling-Yew Tee): Mr Speaker, Sir, this is a debate that I have thought long and hard about. It is an issue close to my heart and also to many conservative Singaporeans at large.
Section 377A has been a key flash point of debate on societal norms, traditional values, freedom, equality any many other topics. This very House has also seen many a fiery and passionate debate over the last two decades on this issue. In our Courts, it has witnessed a share of constitutional challenges as no other law, perhaps, has seen. And it is with the most recent challenge in the Courts that has brought us here today.
For many, 377A represents a bulwark against a perceived counter-cultural tide that may engulf society should the law be done away. This has held true for many years, in particular the last 15, following the political compromise of 2007. But it was an uneasy compromise as each constitutional challenge risked it being struck down by the Courts rather than legislated by Parliament. By not proactively enforcing 377A also in essence made it redundant as a law.
At this point it is worth noting that for most conservatives, opposition to the repeal of 377A is premised not on the act nor the actors itself, but what the repeal may lead to – what I alluded to earlier, of that tide, or slippery slope of what they view as same-sex unions, adoptions and surrogacy by same-sex couples becoming the norm.
Recent interviews with apex religious leaders in the media show that it remains a complex issue. However, they do acknowledge that the prerogative of repeal lies with Parliament, as long as the rights of the religious are protected, what they believe in and what they can preach.
As a parliamentarian, my public duty is to make laws that are for all Singaporeans. But I am not just a legislator. As other Members have mentioned, we are guided by our culture, our faith and the environment that we grow up in. I am a Catholic by faith, guided by the teachings of my faith to discern with justice decisions that are moral. I am also a father and a husband, whose moral duty it is to ensure stability and well-being for my children and family.
So, I arrive at today’s debate having wrestled with all my roles and responsibilities. I also arrive having had the opportunity over the last few months to have robust, intense and passionate discussions with fellow legislators on this topic, and many constituents and Singaporeans who have corresponded with me and feel passionately about this issue – on both sides. I am deeply appreciative of the willingness of all sides of the debate to have listened rationally and respectfully to each other to arrive at a common ground.
Mr Deputy Speaker, let me first speak on the constitutional amendment. I will state what I believe marriage to be.
Marriage is a bond that draws a man and woman together. It is a natural relationship framed not just by love but promises of commitment and responsibility. Marriage aligns with the way in which men and women live interdependently and bring out the best of each other. Marriage is a faithful, exclusive, lifelong union of a man and a woman, joined in an intimate community. It is the bedrock of families and conversely, society as well.
A man and a woman commit themselves to each other, for better or for worst, to the wondrous responsibility of bringing children into the world and caring for them. The call to marriage is also woven deeply into how society works, into the human spirit itself. Man and woman of course, are equal, however, are created differently but made for each other. This sexual difference draws them together in a mutually loving union that should be always open to family.
Therefore, erasing the connection between gender and marriage changes the fundamental nature of a marital union, which is to nurture society’s next generation. Unlike other relationships, marriage has the potential to create and nurture new lives, making it a unique institution.
For these reasons, states recognise the marriage of a man and woman as a public institution in its laws. Marriage is protected and honoured because it makes an exclusive and indispensable influence over the common good of society. The real problem today is a view that marriage as simply a formality or a fad with no social obligations, that it is just a private and personal decision between two persons with nothing to do with wider society.
But marriage is not just a religious or cultural institution. It is a legal institution as well. In a heterosexual marriage, by bringing children into the society, the state has an obligation towards the couple and their children. For this reason, marriage requires the state to intervene and regulate it because of the social implications. If it is just a relationship between two ordinary people, we do not regulate ordinary friendship or even platonic friendships.
Mr Deputy Speaker, in preparing for this debate, I was cautioned by quite a number of people that to speak against redefinition of marriage signifies perhaps, a failure to keep up with the times. That those of us who hold on to the traditional definition of marriage are conservative and old-fashioned – out of touch with reality.
Yet, earlier this year, a poll did find that a majority of Singaporeans oppose same-sex marriage. Some 66% also agree with a proposal to perhaps consider enshrining marriage as “only between a man and a woman\". Those who share these sentiments are called out online and accused of blind prejudice, of being bigots. In fact, I accept, as many Members have alluded to, that in taking a stand about this, I and other Members open ourselves to disagreement by others; strong disagreement at times. I appreciate, therefore, this opportunity for a respectful debate in this House. Because in a democracy, it is important that the viewpoints of all citizens can be heard and taken into consideration.
I do support the constitutional amendment, but as some would be aware, I would have preferred to push for heterosexual marriage to be enshrined or codified as a fundamental liberty in our Constitution. Yet, I acknowledge that that same high bar for a constitutional amendment in the future would apply to defining marriage in the Constitution right now.
In as much as the current amendment would not be considered equivalent to enshrining marriage, it offers a clear definition of marriage as it currently stands, as a union between a man and a woman. I hold the Government to its word that under its watch that no redefinition of marriage will take place. And even if a future government does so, it will perhaps require a repeal of Article 156 that we are introducing, as it would be made redundant.
I therefore seek the Government’s continued affirmation that this remains its commitment. This being the year of the celebrating family, perhaps all the more apt that we collectively pass this amendment and affirm marriage and the family and their place in our society.
With the passing of the constitutional amendment, the task is not complete. There is added impetus on multiple fronts. The task ahead will require a whole of society effort to emphasise the importance of marriage and the family – not just on the part of Government but for every individual and group that believes in the importance of marriage and family, and to champion it collectively.
Our laws that uphold the family and marriage, especially on spousal rights, must be re-emphasised. Education, the key leveller for society, that is widely available for all in Singapore, must continue to ensure that our curricula continue to uphold the definition of marriage and family. And in the media space, print and in broadcast, must also help to shape the norms as currently established.
Mr Deputy Speaker, let me now touch on the operational aspect of the amendment. The amendment as it stands in Article 156, spells out that the Government cannot be challenged in Court over the definition of marriage. What I hope the Government will help to clarify is the protection of non-government entities from legal challenges over the issue of marriage in the public sphere.
Rightfully, our Government is secular and must remain so. It does not base its laws or policies on religion or faith. But Singapore is also a multi-religious and multiracial society. We built this city on our Asian values, cultures and traditions.
Many citizens’ beliefs and way of life are shaped in line with their religious and cultural beliefs. Singaporeans must feel free and safe to practise their beliefs without fear of backlash, as long as their own actions do not cause harm or danger to others.
So, what protections are there to ensure that businesses and other institutions, such as religious organisations, are freed from legal challenges regarding teachings and beliefs on marriage? For example, if a religious institution declines to conduct a ceremony for a transgender or same-sex couple, will they be subject to a lawsuit? There are many other implications and I hope that the Government would be able to clarify this.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I now move onto the repeal of section 377A of the Penal Code. This is a decision that I struggled deeply over the last few months, personally and professionally. I made the point earlier on the role that section 377A as a bulwark. If we do pass Article 156, and pass it we must, I am of the belief that a new gate, perhaps not as robust as what many perceive 377A itself to be, but a gate nonetheless, will now be in place.
As I have made clear earlier, the non-enforcement of 377A had made the law itself redundant. Parliament alone should be responsible for the passing, amendment and repeal of all laws, and she states this right clearly today rather than wait for the Courts to strike it down. As such, I am prepared to support the repeal of 377A with the passage of the constitutional amendment.
I must also emphasise that I am not unsympathetic to the experiences of rejection, violence and vilification that the LGBTQ+ community faces. I know many of them and I am honoured to enjoy the friendship of many as well. I am also aware of the targeting of religious and social conservatives online by trolls and those opposed to their views on traditional marriage and family.
We must therefore come down hard on discrimination in all its form in the workplace, in schools, in the public sphere. We should treat bullying and harassment seriously, be they in physical or virtual spaces, for all parties in this debate. We must endeavour to build a more equal society for all, not just for one, because whatever the label applied to each of us, we must first acknowledge the wholeness and dignity of each person as an individual being.
I acknowledge as well the passion and drive that the LGBTQ+ community has displayed over the years in their effort to repeal section 377A. Many members of the community and their allies are measured, responsible and aware of the complexity of the issue in our society.
While we break down this barrier for what is in the private sphere, I continue to believe strongly that this must not lead to the breakdown of the institution of marriage in the public sphere.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I welcome the constitutional amendment as an affirmation of the role and importance of traditional marriage and family in shaping our society. I fully acknowledge as well that the view may evolve in the distant future, but for now, we have an opportunity in this House to ensure that the institution of marriage endures and is championed and celebrated.
On the basis of the passage of Article 156, I also give my support for the repeal of 377A.
After the conclusion of all our debates, we must return to working together. Unity is not the absence of disagreement but a consensus to agree to work together in spite of those disagreements. Mr Deputy Speaker, I support both Bills.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Dr Vivian Balakrishnan.
The Minister for Foreign Affairs (Dr Vivian Balakrishnan): Mr Deputy Speaker, this is clearly not a matter of foreign policy, but my wife and I celebrate our 35th anniversary today. [Applause.] Thank you. I am the proud parent of four children and four grandchildren, so this was a debate which I saw the opportunity to share some personal perspectives and that of my residents.
I start with three propositions.
Traditional marriage has been venerated in all societies, all civilisations since time immemorial – first point.
Second, a marriage is far more than a legally binding contract between two consenting adults.
Third, the rights of children, in fact, are paramount and, in fact, triumph even the mutual happiness of parents.
So, I start off with these three propositions for your consideration.
My life was transformed the first moment I held my daughter in my arms. For the first time in my life, I held a precious, new, unique human being – utterly dependent on my wife and me. She may have been delivered by my wife but my daughter and now, her children – my grandchildren – have a future that goes, hopefully, far beyond me.
That moment was also the time when I realised just how much my parents love me and, with some guilt, I realised that actually all of us cannot possibly love our parents as much as our parents love us. Every single one of you here who has been a parent, I think, has had that experience.
What it shows is that love flows down the generations. It is actually mainly one way. So, parental love is about paying it forward. It is this focus on forward and the future that drives us – drives all parents – to give the best possible start to their children. This is what makes us so focused on leaving the world in a better state for our children to inherit.
You see, it is this focus on the future, on protecting, nurturing, saving, investing, building; it is this future-oriented focus that affects the tone of our society. Frankly, even in Parliament, it is why, for me, there is no such thing as saving too much for the future – because it is for them and not for us. Even as we do that, we are simply, in fact, replicating what our parents and grandparents did for us.
This is why I believe all societies, all religions, have always conferred a sacred status on the institution of marriage.
This is why this is a key pillar, a key prescription, for human progress in societies everywhere since time immemorial.
The second point is that a marriage is far more than a legally binding contract between two consenting adults for the sake of their mutual happiness.
My wife has often reminded me of an aphorism – the best gift you can give your children is to love their mother.
Initially, I found this advice bemusing, but the more I thought about it, actually, this advice makes perfect sense. Because, you see, children – in fact, think back to your own childhood – children need that reassurance, that sense of stability of knowing that both parents are in a committed, loving relationship for the long term and that both parents, will always be there for them.
In fact, the way we approach our marriage is not and should not be about just optimising the happiness of two adults but really for the sake of our children and their future. Because if we are successful and if we are blessed, then, we are good role models for our children. But our mistakes or, sometimes, our wrong choices, have profound impact and implications on our children.
So, my wife is right. Love the mother of your children.
My third point is that every child has a biological father and mother. It is not just a matter of biology and genes and chromosomes, but think back to your own childhood – our mothers and our fathers played essential, complementary but not identical roles. Complementary but not identical roles.
When I served as the Minister in the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports, I studied the problem of children in juvenile homes or with dysfunctional social circumstances. The single, most important factor I often found recurring was an absent father. That is why one of the things which I am proudest about was to have been one of the people behind the founding of Dads for Life.
So, yes, I do believe, absolutely, with no apology and with no reservations, in the traditional family form as an ideal – one man, one woman, committed to each other to bring up their children in the context of a stable marriage.
Having said that, we also need to acknowledge that not everyone will be so blessed and enjoy such a simple, straightforward life, that sometimes life does not go according to plan, and that all children, regardless of family circumstances, deserve our fullest support. In fact, some children, especially those in less ideal circumstances, deserve and need additional support, which this House agrees with, I am sure.
Some of my friends whom I have known for the longest time are gay. My generation came of age in the early 1980s. The AIDS epidemic had not yet been named or discovered but it had started. Many of us were not quite aware of the threat. The veil of ignorance, the fear of embarrassment, in fact, contributed tragically to the cutting short of lives of some of my friends.
But beyond that, in fact, I am sure if you all speak to every single one of your gay friends, every single one of them has suffered the pain of rejection, of discrimination, sometimes, of violence. They have suffered that at home, in schools and in the workplace. They crave our understanding, our empathy, our support and our protection.
Yet, I think, if many of us think back to our school days, I think we all fell short. I will confess to having fallen short and for that, I apologise to my gay friends.
Unfortunately, this debate on section 377A of the Penal Code – section 377A has come to symbolise simultaneously two paradoxical imperatives. First, to protect the traditional family, which frankly is under considerable stress in modern days. But equally important, there is also a duty to protect our gay brothers from victimisation and the fear and the pain, the dejection and the rejection.
There are no simple answers to such apparently contradictory social imperatives.
Senior Minister of State Sim Ann, Deputy Speaker Christopher de Souza, Mr Edward Chia and I represent the GRC of Holland-Bukit Timah. To be frank with all of you, the majority of the feedback that we have received online and face-to-face, the majority has expressed great anxiety about families, anxiety about the repeal and a deeper anxiety about the future of families.
Minister Shanmugam has explained – and I accept his explanation – that section 377A is at significant legal risk of being struck down. The amendments proposed today to repeal 377A, I believe, helps us avoid that abrupt and potentially disruptive confrontation in a Court of law with a binary outcome and perhaps unpredictable and sometimes uncontrollable social and political consequences.
So, I agree with him and I support the repeal of 377A in that context.
But I also support the amendment to the Constitution that makes it clear that the question of marriage will be decided here in this House. It may not be all of us in the future; it will be a different House, but it will be decided through the political process, with all the engagement, discussion, debate, negotiation and compromises which are needed. That is the way we need to move forward.
Similarly, to my residents who have asked for it to be entrenched, two-third majority and lock it up. I have to tell them that actually, these are issues which no amount of legal and constitutional lock-ups will decide for the future. The values, the mores, the attitudes of our children and grandchildren – we can all do our best to instil values in them, but we have got to trust them. We trust them and entrust them with the power and the authority to make decisions in the future. So, I also accept this amendment which makes it clear that the current definition and if there is going to be any future amendment, will be decided in this House and not in a court of law.
We do all these in full appreciation of the fact that difficult issues that go to the heart of identity, deeply held values and lived experience are best settled through careful, respectful, sincere discussions – without polemics, without win-lose outcomes. And so, it is in this spirit that I support the amendments moved today.
We have to find ways to continue to protect this precious and fragile institution of the traditional family and marriage and we have to remember that the welfare and the rights of our children are paramount. In practice, what that means is policies and programmes that will unambitiously support the traditional family and parenthood, including adoption rights, housing priority, Baby Bonuses and reproductive therapy. It also means our public messaging, our education, in schools, the mass media must continue to uphold these traditional family ideals.
Having said that, in my earlier versions of the speech I tried to say we can do all these without discrimination. But actually, in life, if you uplift one form, if you prioritise one type of social arrangements, inevitably it means you have to choose and it cannot be completely equal.
Having said that, I believe a spirit of mutual respect and perhaps more important than anything else, compassion, can allow us to find that hopefully safe landing zone where we can protect our families and protect our gay brothers.
On that note, Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the amendments standing before the House today. [Applause.]
Mr Deputy Speaker: Senior Parliamentary Secretary Rahayu Mahzam.
The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Minister for Law (Ms Rahayu Mahzam): Mr Deputy Speaker, in Malay, please.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The decision to repeal section 377A of the Penal Code and amend the Constitution to protect the definition of marriage and the laws and policies that are based on it from legal challenges was not made overnight. It is the result of extensive engagements with stakeholders and careful consideration of the feedback received both before Prime Minister's announcement at this year's National Day Rally and in the ensuing months.
Singaporeans have diverse views on this issue. Each group has its own unique perspective. Most prefer to preserve the existing social norms on marriage and family that have served us well as a stable and prosperous society. However, there is a small yet increasingly expanding segment, that feels differently.
Many of them are youths, who had a different kind of exposure and experience. They have their own views on this matter. Ever since this issue was last debated in Parliament in 2007, society's mindset and attitudes have evolved, and we can expect it to continue evolving in the coming decades.
On the part of the Government, we have sought to take a calibrated position and try to balance various aspects in this sensitive and difficult issue. It is a position that most in society can accept, even if it does not fulfil all their wishes. So, it is important for us to hear different voices from all segments of Singaporeans, including the Malay/Muslim community.
I have been involved in several dialogue sessions involving the Malay/Muslim organisations on this issue. I understand their concerns and worries. Personally, I have also engaged a wide range of groups and many individuals from the Malay/Muslim community on this issue in small and informal discussions.
I would like to thank them for their candour and courage to join these dialogues. I would like to share some of the views conveyed for the benefit of Members of the House.
Some from the gay community shared with me their stories of being discriminated, ostracised and even threatened by those closest to them, including family and friends. No one should be treated this way, especially in a society such as ours, where family and community play such pivotal roles in our daily lives. That is why some individuals, even though they do not practice the homosexual lifestyle, feel that we should not ostracise this group of people. They feel that we need to be open, despite having different views, so that the gay community can lead their own lives in a safe manner.
At the same time, there are others who do not accept the homosexual lifestyle but want to have a discussion on the basis of compassion for their fellow Muslims who are struggling with difficulties. Yet often, they find it difficult to speak up, because they are concerned about the repercussions. They worry about the criticisms and negative and extreme responses that could arise. They are worried that they will be accused of being too conservative if they were to share their views or too liberal for wanting to engage the gay community. They also fear being shunned or threatened. We have seen for ourselves some of the online reactions that are very harsh and unpleasant.
I have also spoken to our youths on this issue. Many are sympathetic of the difficulties that their gay friends and family members face. They care deeply about their mental well-being and their access to social support. Yet, there are still differences of opinion among these youths regarding the repeal to section 377A and the constitutional amendment.
Some see the repeal as an overdue issue and question the need to amend the Constitution. Others, whether religious or non-religious, worry about the impact of this repeal on our cherished social norms and traditional family structure.
This is not a black-and-white issue. There is no single narrative or perspective that can fully reflect the reality that we live in. And only by acknowledging these complexities, we can finally begin to move forward together as a community. We want a community that shows kindness and compassion to all, regardless of their background or circumstance. This includes even those who do not adhere to religious teachings on homosexuality. Because that is what Islam teaches us. To quote the Mufti in his religious guidance that provided wise counsel to us on this matter, “There are many factors that define a person as a human being, not just sexual orientation alone. There are individual Muslims that face struggles as they seek to reconcile their sexuality with religious guidance and obligations. As long as one proclaims and practices the basic tenets of the religion, that person is still a member of the Muslim community. Every Muslim deserve to have their dignity and respect preserved. We must ensure that every Muslim does not feel that they are turned away from their faith due to our attitude towards them.”
We must be prepared to face future challenges together as one people: difficult economic conditions; societal norms that continue to evolve; new issues that will challenge our traditional values; and many more. The nature and integrity of our society will be tested. This is our chance to set the norms for our society. We may have differing views, but we must find a way to resolve the differences and find the best way forward for our country. The approach taken by the Government combines religious beliefs, family values and traditional communities with the needs of Singapore’s multi-religious and multicultural society. I am confident that if we can learn to navigate sensitive and crucial issues constructively, we can form a clearer vision for ourselves and future generations.
May this lead us to a brighter future for all of us as a nation.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Cheng Hsing Yao.
Mr Cheng Hsing Yao (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the repeal of section 377A of the Penal Code.
As the Prime Minister had said in the 2022 National Day Rally, social attitudes towards gay people have \"shifted appreciably\" and the repeal of the provision will \"bring the law into line with current social mores\". This is an important step towards respecting and acknowledging gay Singaporeans as an integral part of the Singapore society.
The colonial origin law is outdated and it ignores the objective reality that Singapore is home to many gay citizens and residents who are also contributing members of the Singapore society. To retain a law that criminalises a legitimate community of fellow Singaporeans in order to preserve traditional values is at best a stretched logic. There are other better ways to promote traditional values.
While the repeal of section 377A is a major step in the right direction, we should also ensure that public policies that affect gay Singaporeans in their everyday lives do not result in any form of stigmatisation and discrimination on a practical level.
I recognise that a significant segment of the Singapore society is still very conservative. Some fear the repeal will lead to a flood of changes to the complexion of our society. I also recognise that there is an appropriate time and place for all things.
However, amending some public policies to fairly include gay Singaporeans does not equate to an erosion of the family as society's building block. Like all Singaporeans, gay citizens have everyday concerns about life and livelihoods that public policies can address without threatening the current definition of marriage.
We also should be mindful that social norms change and evolve. It may not be prudent to adopt an immutable stance towards any public policies, as we may find ourselves out of sync with the realities on the ground in time to come. Thus, it may be pragmatic for the Government to always adopt an adaptive stance towards public policies, including policies affecting gay Singaporeans.
More importantly, we must not forget that gay Singaporeans contribute economically and socially to Singapore. They are also members of Singaporean families. They should be treated as full members of our society and be accorded the respect and support like any Singapore Citizen. As such, we should be careful to ensure that our public polices do not marginalise or pervade stigmatisation or discrimination against them.
In the public discourse on the repeal of section 377A so far, I am heartened to see a lot more restraint exhibited, in comparison to what we saw back in 2007 when the repeal was first debated. This is a positive sign that our society has evolved and we are able to discuss difficult issues without being inflammatory. I hope the forward discourse will continue to be balanced, considered and secular.
In a diverse and multi-faceted society like ours, fault lines exist everywhere. Some are deep and old, others are new and emergent. We only need to look around the world to see many examples of how once inclusive and tolerant societies could suddenly become severely polarised and fractured.
As Singaporeans, we must remember to always demonstrate a high level of respect and willingness to engage with fellow citizens who hold different views.
To promote social harmony and cohesion, our national values should promote mutual accommodation and compassion among the different segments of the Singapore society. Even if we cannot agree, we must always uphold mutual respect and be prepared to listen and to try to understand each other.
In conclusion, I hope we can continue to work to eliminate all forms of discrimination and learn to embrace all fellow citizens as equal members of our society, while always maintaining mutual respect and being accommodating towards each other. With that, I support the repeal of section 377A of the Penal Code.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Jessica Tan.
Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo (East Coast): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am speaking today on both the Penal Code (Amendment) Bill and the Bill on the amendment to the Constitution as many of my residents have reached out or written to me since the Prime Minister's National Day Rally speech on the repeal of section 377A. They had asked that I share their concerns and seek clarification to address their apprehensions. This is a difficult topic with differing views but an important one for all Singaporeans.
At this point, I should share my personal views on this. And I will say that it took me quite a long time to write the speech. My speech is not long, do not worry, but it took me a long time to write it. Because I had to ask myself where I stood on this. As a parent and also being a Member of Parliament for the last 16 years and seeing my residents when they come to me with issues, I have a very firm belief that the family is the cornerstone of society. I really believe it is the source of strength and it is also the source of weakness. Therefore, I do cherish the traditional definition of family. Being a parent for more than 30 years now, and being married for over 32 years, I will say to you, as much as I think I am a good mother, I have realised that my husband and myself play a very important role for our three children. I do want to preserve and protect the definition of a family.
So, let me now summarise the apprehensions expressed by my residents and what they centre around.
One, the safeguarding and the definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman and pro-family policies, such as, public housing, education, adoption rules and media standards.
Two, that the repeal of section 377A will encourage gay activists to push the agenda much further and this may cause reactions and divisions in Singapore as we see happening in many countries in the world. The concern of my residents is the divisions and what it may cause.
Three, protecting people from being pressured, bullied or discriminated against when they do not support the same ideas and beliefs whether to retain or repeal section 377A.
Many have shared that they feel that section 377A is a unique Singapore compromise. Its non-enforcement means our colleagues, friends, neighbours and family members who identify themselves as homosexuals are able to live out their private lives while protecting gay values from becoming mainstream. It has worked for Singapore, so, the question is, why the need to make the change now?
Minister Shanmugam has explained the circumstances and that there are real risks that section 377A can be stuck down. Section 377A has been challenged as unconstitutional and continues to be challenged. The Courts have judged that such matters are sensitive societal issues and that it is for Parliament to decide.
But the point is that if Parliament does nothing, the Courts will have to do what it has to do, when it has to do it. And when that happens, the apprehensions that have been expressed will become real. It is precisely that the Government, hearing the views of the majority, is acting. It is easier for the Government to do nothing – and in fact, politically actually, much easier, especially given how controversial this issue is. However, that would be extremely irresponsible, as there is real risk that the very definition of marriage and the pro-family policies that the majority want to protect will be challenged as we are already seeing in several countries.
On the point of why we keep section 377A, I think it is also important that I also share feedback that I have received from residents, that I have friends, colleagues, neighbours and family members, as I have shared, who are gay members. They, and even those who have asked for the repeal of 377A, do not view it as a crime that what consenting adult gay men have and do in private. But what it stems more from the fact that of the fear of what it means after that.
What the repeal of 377A really does is it removes the stigma and the hurt that the gay people in our community have been feeling. And I want to say that gay males are fellow Singaporeans as they are and they can be your neighbour, your co-worker, your friend or even your family member. They contribute to and are part of our society and they too, deserve dignity and respect.
Let me touch on the proposed amendment to the Constitution and the insertion of the new Article 156 and whether they will be sufficient to safeguard the definition of the institution of marriage and the associated pro-family policies.
The new Article 156 subsection (3) and subsection (4), seek to protect the definition of marriage in such laws like the Women's Charter, the Administration of Muslim Law Act and laws that confer rights and benefits on or in relation to persons married under those enactment, from constitutional challenges. Pro-family policies of the Government, for example, in regard to housing, education and media standards will therefore also be protected.
But the anxiety is if this would make it easy for change as it will only require a simple majority to amend the definition of marriage. I have received feedback from some asking that the definition of marriage be directly in the Constitution so as to require a two-thirds majority and not just a simple majority to affect such a radical redefinition.
The proposed amendment, I feel, is a balanced one, as it protects the traditional definition of marriage and pro-family policies while allowing our future generations to decide on societal norms.
To give further reassurance, Deputy Prime Minister Wong has given PAP's commitment that the definition of marriage as that of the union between a man and a woman, will not change under the watch of the current leadership of Prime Minister Lee and if the PAP Government were to win the next General Election, it will not change under his watch. That is the reassurance that has been given. I think that that is a balanced approach and one that does seek to protect, the definition that the majority want to hold.
Finally, I would like to talk about the cancel culture and bullying. We are hearing strong sentiments and differing views with the debate around the repeal of section 377A. From the reactions and feedback shared, an area that is of concern and we must address is that of bullying and a cancel culture. Youths and working professionals have approached me and expressed fears and anxieties with gay activism. Some have shared that while they accept their friends and family who identify as gays, they find it difficult to voice their opinions when they do not share their values and ideas, for fear of being labelled, bullied or cancelled in school or at the workplace. The fear, real or perceived, is that the repeal of 377A will amplify this activism.
But, similarly, I would like to caution us that with the debate on this repeal, we are also seeing a heightened attention on those that identify as gay. I also have residents expressing concerns of possible discrimination against those who identify themselves as gay.
What is clear is that this is a subject that matters to many, regardless of whether we support the repeal or the retention of section 377A. What we cannot allow is for any persons, regardless of which side they stand on, to be labelled, discriminated or bullied.
Minister Shanmugam and Minister of State Sun Xueling have shared that the agencies are looking at ways to ensure that discrimination is not tolerated. I would ask for more to be shared as to what the details of these are and to reassure individuals and groups that there are clear protections from discriminatory pressures, a cancel culture and bullying in society, in schools, and/or at the workplace.
The societal values and definition of marriage, family and policies affecting our children are important for Singapore and Singaporeans. As we have done before, I do appeal to all, regardless of where we stand on this matter, we must work together and not allow this to divide us.
I do believe that while the amendments strive to provide the legislation to preserve and protect our social norms, how we act will determine the Singapore we have today and in the future. I support the Penal Code amendment as well as the amendment to the Constitution.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Miss Cheryl Chan.
Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling (East Coast): Mr Deputy Speaker, in our 57 years of Independence, Singapore has pride ourselves on being a multiracial, multi-religious country. While diversity exists, we have learnt to respect and allow different individuals to practise their faith, believes, traditions and religions. All these are possible because first, we have intentional policies in place to enhance behaviours which are widely acceptable or discourage certain behaviours which are less accepted. Second, we learn to respect one another from the values we are taught in school and at home. Third, we define over time the country we wish to live in and the societal behaviours that most consider as norms. This is the basis I believe have bonded us together and enabled us to live in harmony thus far.
But beneath this social model, there still lies frictions and differing views in our country. Some of these frictions or differences are not easily solved or appreciated by different groups as it is not simply an assessment of right or wrong, nor is it about the louder voice triumphs. Especially not so when it comes to one's preferences, liberty of choices and how one can make others understand their views and accept it without having broader societal impact.
If only things were as straightforward, there would be hope of reduced conflicts and more peace today.
As it is with any evolving society, when the exposure to different facets of life become wider for most individuals, the reality is we are faced with a gradation of expectations and perceptions from the family, friends, co-workers and society.
For us to move forward as a country, there needs to be more ability in us to actively hear different viewpoints, be less biased beginning with a lesser extent of pre-judging people and for activists not to plainly impress one's agenda on others to accept regardless of the other's preferences and values. How then can we achieve a calibrated balance between one's beliefs and practices without imposing on others?
I believe this boils down to the values that define each of us and what we are prepared to accept and adopt in our lives. There are values which are key tenets of a society's mainstream, those which most can accept and acknowledge as norms. These values are those where people freely express and are naturally accepted without being judged.
However, we must also recognise that there are other values which serve some unique groups or serve some purposes or being adopted by some but are not commonly observed amongst our daily lives. This is where management of social expectations and perceptions play a role.
Personally, I was raised on the values where family centricity is key. One where marriage is defined as between one man and one woman. This is what I also wish to see remain as the beliefs, teachings and practices in our education system. While I think many may share this view, we should not be oblivious that our next generation will not have access to information that influences them about homosexuality or sensitive topics; just because it is not taught or spoke about in mainstream schools. By not having it as mainstream, we can at best defer the exposure of the young ones to a later stage when they are more mature to differentiate or make sound decisions independently.
Thus, I firmly believe that to repeal 377A, it must be done on the grounds where the recognised legal union between a man and woman is also strongly protected by definition within the Constitution.
While we can now take reference of this in the form of Article 156 if it is passed, we must ensure that the Government stands by this firmly as we consider any future amendments to the legislation or even the repeals. Particularly so for ours, as many pieces of today’s legislation are designed with the family unit being the fundamental social fabric.
Take the housing policy as an example. Today, HDB public housing can be purchased or rented by those who have a family nucleus. But housing demands come from many groups besides those with a family nucleus. These groups include the unmarried singles, single parents with or without children, lone seniors and more. They, too, have a need for basic housing. But their applications are currently either limited by conditions or considered on a case-by-case basis. Hence, this brings about the question of fairness if the definition of family nucleus for a married couple changes. For a need as basic as housing, this becomes a tricky situation. Whom then should be given access to public housing and in a timely manner?
Sir, what may not be a social norm today that is publicly expressed and accepted does not imply that it cannot be privately practised by various groups who adopt it as their way of living. Similarly, this also does not indicate that those who do not believe or adopt it should ostracise individuals who are different from themselves. Every family, every community, every individual has the right to choose what is comfortable for their lives. But as individuals, regardless of our beliefs and inclination, we should not impress upon others that they must embrace our way of living. With time and ability of individuals to perceive different norms, the values of what define us as a society will naturally surface.
Thus, Sir, let us not allow divisive voices to break us apart but rather for us to consider when and how we want to be inclusive while maintaining our own beliefs and values.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Darryl David.
Mr Darryl David (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Deputy Speaker, even before this debate started in the House, we had already had widespread debate and exchanges of views regarding this matter across various platforms and in the community. The responses and emotions were mixed – from disappointment that the repeal was not enough, to concern that societal norms and values would be challenged and even, eventually, possibly changed.
Indeed, in the run up to this Parliamentary Sitting, I have often been asked what my views are on the matter, and one particular question that I was asked, which stuck with me, was if I was “pro-repeal” or “pro-family.” These were terms that made me realise how polarising the issue was for many people who took a binary view of the matter. For them, it was either one or the other.
My reply was, to that person who asked me, and is, that I am “pro-people” and “pro-Singapore”. These are two principles that I have always strongly believed in and it is why I am speaking today in support of this Bill and the subsequent repeal of 377A.
I would like to address the issue of why 377A should be repealed.
First, Mr Deputy Speaker, when we use terms like “community” and “society”, we have to acknowledge that these are larger entities that are made up of individuals, they are made up of people. And no one is exactly alike – we look different, we think different, we have different beliefs, we have different cultures, we have different values, we have different lifestyles, and, yes, we have different sexual preferences and practices.
A truly inclusive community and society consists of people who are willing to not just tolerate, but actually accept those who are different from them, and those who are different should not be discriminated against in any way.
As such, while I understand the legal arguments for the repeal of 377A, I would like to say that it is even more important for us to recognise the need to repeal 377A from the perspective of moral integrity. You might ask how you would define moral integrity. I think, simply put, moral integrity is doing the right thing because it is the right thing to do. Two men having sex in private is precisely that, a private and, in my opinion, a personal matter, and it should not be something that is regarded as criminal.
In this regard, I believe that repealing 377A is, thus, the right thing to do because it is the right thing to do. Repealing this law sends a strong signal that we do recognise and respect individual differences, and that different groups are welcome in our community, which brings me to my next point about people, community and conversations. Because we now have to look at the issue from the different perspective of how, while a community and society is made up of people, as I mentioned earlier, these people do not live in isolated silos but have to live and function within the larger entity of a community.
In this regard, the changes that the Government is affirming with the definition of marriage, of what constitutes a family and related social policies are done in the context of what it feels would work for our Singaporean community, having taken into account the various opinions and views on the matter.
Differences in opinion, such as those arising from a topic, such as the repeal of section 377A, can lead different groups to clashing head-on over issues. It may lead to our society fracturing over fault lines because of the different hectoring voices that shout others down.
However – and this is my sincere hope – such differences, if looked at rationally, can also be an opportunity for frank and open dialogue to look at the debate and embrace different perspectives and viewpoints.
These conversations, based on mutual respect, can help us evolve into a more inclusive society, one that is richer through plurality and diversity. Enshrining anything in law is important but, equally important, is the value of open discussion and mutual respect.
It is also important not to embrace a \"cancel\" culture or to automatically rule out someone who holds different views or even someone who decides to look at the topic conservatively. Worse still, we should not go back to labelling and stereotyping, even though I know I just used the term \"conservatively\". What does \"liberal\" mean? What does \"conservative\" mean? My view is that it would be good to allow others their views, even if it may seem more traditional and less progressive – there go the labels again – when viewed through certain lenses. So, I know. It is not easy, it is not possible, but it is really my view that we are able to allow others with a different opinion from us to speak, to have their voices heard, for us to have this dialogue.
I would now like to move into education and schools, Mr Deputy Speaker. I believe it would be good to consider education and consider how the schools can play a part in nurturing open conversations so that this topic is handled sensitively.
Our schools must be safe places for students to engage in respectful conversations or debates with others who may hold contrary opinions. Through the careful management of discussions on controversial issues, schools can help to promote freedom of expression, as well as inclusion and tolerance. In doing so, I believe they would encourage mutual understanding and acceptance. In many ways, sensitive handling of these challenging issues would be a form of modelling of open discussion.
There could also be instances when students themselves are exploring their own identity and having trained educators who could help them in this journey of discovery would be important. So, I feel it would be good if the Government could consider how educators could be trained to handle these issues and other related topics that might emerge from this debate.
Mr Deputy Speaker, in one of my previous speeches, I had referred to the Singaporean identity as a quilt – a patchwork of many cultures and multiple identities that we have stitched together and that has stayed together over the past 55 years. I then made the point that, like any quilt, in time, we do have occasional tears in the fabric and some parts of our quilt are fraying at the edges. Perhaps these parts are parts of our community that we have not always heard, engaged or connected with, and who are somehow feeling that they are like a discarded scrap of cloth, rather than part of a beautiful and wonderful quilt.
But I believe that what continues to connect us, what will help mend the tears and strengthen the fabric in our quilt, will be the strong threads that start with conversation, dialogue and understanding, and all done with respect.
So, while this debate might be settled in the House over the next couple of days, I hope that the different groups in our society will continue to have important and relevant conversations and treat one another with dignity and respect, so that we can, indeed, work towards a Singapore that emerges stronger.
With that, I conclude my speech in support of the Bill and the repeal of 377A.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Minister Masagos, would you like to move the Motion for Exempted Business?
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Exempted Business","subTitle":"Business Motion","sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Resolved, \"That the proceedings on the business set down on the Order Paper for today be exempted at this day's Sitting from the provisions of Standing Order No 2.\" – [Mr Masagos Zulkifli] (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment No 3) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]
Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Joan Pereira.
Ms Joan Pereira (Tanjong Pagar): Sir, the Government’s rationale for the repeal of section 377A has been laid out quite clearly over the past few months. However, I would like to express my worry that fault lines are being drawn in our society as a result of the views of various groups in our society occupying the centrestage on this issue.
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]
The concerns and aspirations of every Singaporean should be heard and should be valued, especially on such issues that matter to all of us. For most of the voices that are speaking up, they have come from a place of love – a love for the future of this country, a love for the future of our people and our society, and a love for this world.
There are members of our community who have difficulty accepting the implications that they feared would come with the repeal of section 377A. The fear is about losing the fundamental values that we have built our society on and the fabric that holds us together. To me, this fear comes from a position of love, not of hate, as they love the country and community that we have built and are worried about it being damaged.
There are also members of our community who feel that the repeal of section 377A has been long overdue, and some of them are also hoping that our societal norms can further evolve and become more liberal towards different types of marriages and families. This set of views also stems from a place of love, where they would like to embrace differences and allow everyone to pursue whatever lifestyle they so desire.
Unfortunately, we have also come across voices who do not come from a place of love but would rather stir hatred and misunderstanding within our society, and these are the ones who are drawing and then exploiting fault lines within our social fabric. Such views can come from any quarter of society and may even be disguised as supporters of any of the positions that I had mentioned above, but their ultimate aim is to push Singapore to an extreme corner of the spectrum, without consideration as to whether this would be good for us. Some of these could also be driven or initiated by foreign elements with an insidious agenda, given the borderless nature of social media and the Internet.
We are a small and closely-knit nation. Our society cannot afford to be polarised by this issue. We have already so many challenges facing us, as families, as communities and as a nation. We need to unite and fight as one to overcome the many difficulties which lie ahead. The COVID-19 pandemic is not yet over. We have to deal with the rising costs of living amid increasing global tensions and geopolitical conflicts. We need to combat social and income inequality and strive to make sure that no Singaporean is left behind.
I hope that cool heads will prevail and we can all take a step back and understand one another's positions and work together as a society to bridge any differences. Let us all be more understanding of and respectful towards one another, so that no one will feel discriminated against. This is one aspect where we individuals have choice.
Mr Speaker: Mr Sharael Taha.
Mr Sharael Taha (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. At the National Day Rally, Prime Minister Lee's announcement that Singapore will repeal section 377A of the Penal Code and amend the Constitution to protect the definition of marriage reflects the common agreement that many believe our gay citizens have a place in society and should not be treated as criminals. And in Singapore, marriage between a man and woman remains the fundamental building blocks of a family.
Mr Speaker, I would like to touch on a few points: one, section 377A as a Penal Code issue; two, protection of current social and family norms; and three, preventing increasingly aggressive and divisive activism.
Mr Speaker, there remains some concern that the repeal of section 377A would lead to a drastic change in social norms, such as how marriages would be defined in the future, sexuality education in schools and what can or cannot be screened on television and in the cinema. However, we have to consider how, since 2007, when section 377A was last debated, social acceptance for homosexuality has \"shifted appreciably\" as mentioned by Prime Minister Lee.
Back then, it was decided not to actively enforce section 377A. In addition to shifting societal values, we have to also consider the \"significant risk\" of section 377A being struck down in a Court of law on the grounds that it breaches the provisions of \"equal protection\" in our Constitution, as discussed extensively by Minister Shanmugam earlier. It has been unsuccessfully challenged in the past before, but it will be reckless of us to not consider this and the ramifications if it was struck down without any protection on the definition of marriage as how our society values it.
Mr Speaker, while I appreciate that there are some reservations and concerns from certain segments of society, most of us agree that two males committing a sexual act or \"acts of gross indecency\", as the law puts it, in private, should not be punished by imprisonment of up to two years. Hence, it is only right that we consider to repeal section 377A in our Penal Code. We acknowledge that we are still a largely conservative society, but our gay citizens have a place in society and should not be treated as criminals.
While, in general, more are accepting of homosexuality now, we are also very concerned about protecting the current social and family norms. With the repeal of section 377A, how can we effectively safeguard our social norms and values and, in particular, the institution of marriage which is currently defined as being that between man and woman? We must also understand how this definition underpins various national policies, such as housing and education. Hence, it is even more necessary for us to ensure that the current social and family norms are protected.
Undoubtedly, there are strong views for and against the repeal of section 377A and the amendment to the Constitution. There are concerns that there would be increased activism on both ends of the spectrum, which can potentially be aggressive and, more importantly, divisive to our society. I think it is necessary for us to accept this as a consensus – the best possible outcome, given the various viewpoints and deliberations with regard to all the various groups of people, religious, non-religious organisations and the gay community, which has been ongoing since 2007 and before.
While we should not curtail or suppress social activism for causes that our citizens believe in, we must also caution against extreme views and actions that may prove to be divisive to our society. In time to come, should values and norms here in Singapore \"appreciably shift\" again, then we should be able to come together, sharing our views and reaching a consensus on how we best move forward.
Activists in both camps need not think that they should resort to drastic measures to highlight their cause, nor should any of us be influenced by foreign developments, including pushing values from multinational corporations which are not aligned with our Singaporean values. Singapore's laws are its own and we need not follow the lead of other countries if it does not suit the values and dispositions of our citizens. Mr Speaker, in Malay, please.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] We can see how the whole world changes with the passage of time. Society's views have also changed.
Section 377A is a piece of legislation that we inherited from the British and has been used as a symbol to define marriage as between a man and a woman. Earlier this year, in the case of Tan Seng Kee vs Attorney-General, the Attorney-General's Chambers found that there is a significant risk that section 377A could be rejected in Court, because it violates the provision for equality in our Constitution. Although previous cases have not succeeded in rejecting section 377A, we cannot take that risk, especially since such a key decision will leave a huge impact on other legislations.
For our Muslim community, we have AMLA, which defines marriage.
Earlier this year, I was pleased that Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong gave his assurance that PAP will continue to uphold policies that puts the family first and will continue to ensure that marriage will be defined as between a man and a woman.
Although this ensures that policies in Singapore will continue to prioritise the family and the definition of marriage will not change, we cannot deny that the rest of the world has and will continue to evolve, including the values within their own communities. We cannot be influenced by foreign elements, including multinational corporations that support values which are not aligned with our society. The laws in Singapore are our laws and we should not follow in the footsteps of other countries if these are not appropriate for our country. Therefore, it is important for us to define the kind of values we want in Singapore's society.
Like a Malay proverb which exalts that children should be nurtured from young, it is important for us to build a family based on these values, so that we can instil them in our children.
Regarding homosexuality, we must admit that there are a few in our society who face personal challenges and sometimes, they are ridiculed, condemned and marginalised, or left behind without the support of their families from a young age. In cultivating family values, we should also cultivate and portray our religious values, such as mercy, compassion and love for each other, so that these individuals do not feel left out and ostracised from our society. As each of us provides family support, I urge our community to refer to asatizah and MUIS for help and guidance, if needed.
(In English): Admittedly, however, this is not the end of our conversation on this topic, just like all the other issues that we face in society. Society is dynamic and ever-changing. Hence, we must continue to keep future dialogues civil, rational and, most importantly, beneficial for Singapore as a whole.
We only have to look around us to see how issues can be made very divisive, if everyone insists on their entrenched views and not hear one another out and come to a compromise. While we would like to repeal section 377A, we would also like to protect the prevailing definition of marriage while still allowing recourse in the future.
How, then, do we protect the definition of marriage, something which we all value as a society?
By ensuring that the definition of marriage is dependent on Parliament, and Parliament will define marriage based on the prevailing values and views of the Singaporean society at any given point of time. At this juncture, I wish to thank Prime Minister Lee and Deputy Minister Lawrence Wong for the clear assurance that \"the PAP Government will continue to uphold our family-centred policies and is fully committed to them and will continue to uphold marriage as defined between man and woman.\"
In this way, even if one does not agree with the repeal of section 377A, at least the definition of marriage is preserved, for the time being, in our Constitution. On the other hand, for those who welcome the repeal and look beyond decriminalisation, there is room for the definitions to change when public opinion, values and norms differ. I think this is a viable compromise for our society to move forward for now. With the points considered earlier, Mr Speaker, Sir, I do support the repeal in the Penal Code and the amendments to the Constitution.
Mr Speaker: Mr Mark Chay.
Mr Mark Chay (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, section 377A of the Penal Code is a complex topic, one that has been passionately debated in and out of this House. I am glad that the Singapore Government has decided to finally repeal section 377A. I believe section 377A is no longer relevant in contemporary Singaporean society and I agree with its repeal.
I would also like to state my support for the inclusion of Article 156 of the Constitution, which clarifies that the power to make laws to do with the institution of marriage rightly rests with this very Parliament and for Parliament to protect the prevailing definition of marriage.
This could potentially be a divisive issue, but it may not be. I see it instead as an opportunity to open meaningful conversations about equality and inclusivity within our society. Equality being one of our nation's ideals, we need to ensure that policies implemented to uphold the equal protection of rights for Singaporeans who do not fit squarely into the definition of a traditional family unit. So, for instance, single-parent households and LGBTQ+ Singaporeans, amongst others – after all, these people and many others not mentioned, contribute to the diverse, vibrant, welcoming society that is so admired around the world. Do our policies recognise this and are we doing enough for them? In this regard, I would like to put forward the following suggestions.
First, can PMO consider coordinating a policy review across the whole-of-Government and ensure that those who are not married are actively considered as part of the policy-making process? Other jurisdictions, such as the European Union, have undertaken similar reviews in ensuring that all citizens, regardless of their background, are not unfairly discriminated against. This also ties into the ongoing Forward Singapore exercise, as we refresh our social compact to pursue a more equal and inclusive society.
Second, would be on education for our children. Are we doing enough to ensure that our children understand that even though their peers may not fit into the definition of a traditional family unit, either because of their home situation or their personal realities, that these peers should not be treated differently or, worse, derisively?
I would like to encourage MOE to have meaningful conversations with students, not for the purposes of problem solving, but to seek understanding. I would like to see more education content on handling relationships, not just in the heterosexual sense, but all definitions of relationships. I agree with my Parliamentary colleague here, the hon Member Darryl David, that schools should be a safe space to explore, debate and educate about respect and inclusivity, and we should train our teachers to have productive conversations with students about these.
So, in conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, regardless of where all in this House stand, I think we all agree that we want the best for our country and our people for a prosperous and inclusive and forward-looking Singapore. During his speech to announce Singapore's Independence from Malaysia on 9 August 1965, our founding father Lee Kuan Yew said: \"Everyone will have his place: equal; language, culture, religion.\" We are, thus, compelled to move in this direction and ensure that every Singaporean can live a joyful, happy and peaceful life and contribute meaningfully to this great nation.
It is based on these ideals for a better Singapore that were first articulated more than five decades ago that we have built this inclusive global city which we are all proud to call home today. Singapore has, indeed, become a beacon for many and, while conservative in our nature, we are a tolerant, peaceful and harmonious society, where everyone can live in community without fear.
I hope that one day, we will not have to rely on the Constitution to safeguard, respect and celebrate our differences where there is a lot more binding us together as Singaporeans – a love for food, being \"kiasu\", being \"champion grumblers\" – than what differentiates us. We have built a society based on interracial and inter-religious harmony. I am certain we can establish a similarly harmonious relationship among one another regardless of our differences. In fact, we can learn to welcome, protect and even celebrate those differences, as one diverse, inclusive harmonious nation of Singaporeans.
Mr Speaker: Mr Henry Kwek.
Mr Kwek Hian Chuan Henry (Kebun Baru): Mr Speaker, Sir, I stand in support of the amendments proposed today.
Our society's view on section 377A has evolved over time. Part of it can be attributed to our youths today. Therefore, I believe I can best contribute to our debate by highlighting their views.
Most of our youths want section 377A gone, because it suggests that some Singaporeans are less than others. The views of our youths are not solely attributed to the influx of \"woke\" culture from the West. There is a more fundamental reason.
And that is, for the past few decades, we have been building a kinder Singapore. Our schools have taught our children and youths the value of justice, empathy and kindness. Naturally, our youths believe the dignity of every Singaporean matters. Therefore, we should not be surprised if our youths think that the provisions of section 377A are innately discriminatory, even if they are not enforced by the Government.
So, should we be surprised that our youths can empathise with the lived experience of the gay community, some of whom have experienced real or perceived discrimination? No, we should not.
At the same time, while our Singapore youths respect diversity, they also continue to uphold the sensibility of a traditional society. They are pro-family and most believe marriage is best defined as between a man and a woman. Therefore, with regards to family, their views are not that different from the generations of Singaporeans before them.
Most of them have grown up with loving parents, grandparents and under the nurturing shade of our family centric policies. They, therefore, intuitively understand the importance of families, not just for themselves, but also for society.
At the same time, many youths also wonder why it took society so long to repeal section 377A.
However, they have now observed the painstaking consensus building effort needed to move Singapore along. And because our youths can empathise with differing viewpoints, our youths now have a deeper sense of understanding of how our more traditional Singaporeans feel. Therefore, I believe that most of our youths will support the amendments proposed today.
To sum up, our youths do not see the repeal of section 377A, or their belief that all Singaporeans matter, as contradictory to their pro-family stance. Their views are reasonable and we should listen to them.
Next, I would like to talk about how we can best support our youths on this issue, especially, on the one hand, our youths who are gay and worried that they will be ostracised and, on the other hand, our youths who are worried about being \"cancelled\" for voicing, in a respectful manner, their traditional family values.
Indeed, we must take pains to ensure that our schools remain neutral on this issue and support both types of youths in an effective and low-key manner.
I have observed that for a minority of youths, there is a certain fluidity in gender self-identification. A youth might identify himself as gay at a certain age but have a different take years later. And the reverse can also be true too.
Therefore, our schools should neither celebrate nor ostracise our youths for being gay. Our schools should not let gender become the defining attribute of who a person is, because if this issue gets polarised, we will be robbing them of the opportunity to do an authentic self-evaluation, in their formative years, of who they truly are.
We must also remember that for a small country, if our children and youths are fiercely divided along any issue, and then they grow up within the confines of those fault lines, the divide is not just ideological. It can get deeply personal. Remember, we are a small country. Frequently, the divide will have a human face attached to that divide.
And in my discussions with many teachers and school leaders, I believe our Primary, Secondary schools and Junior College (JC) leaders have done a good job in keeping our schools neutral. They have taken a child-centric approach to providing quiet and effective support to our youths. Compared to other countries, they have been quite successful in preventing educators from injecting their personal agendas into the classrooms.
But it has been a while since we have last debated on this issue. So, it is best if MOE can remind our school leaders and teachers on this. And Singaporeans will also appreciate if MOE can reiterate their firm stance on this matter.
The situation in our tertiary institutes is more complex. At that age, our youths are at the discovery stage in their lives and our educators have a lot less influence over their students. Therefore, I hope we can consider legislations, moving forward, to prevent the \"cancel culture\" from taking root in Singapore.
Let me now conclude, Mr Speaker. I stand in support of the proposed amendments because they are the result of a painstaking consensus building effort, thereby cementing our common ground into law, and also because they refresh our social compact on gender and marriage for the years ahead, thereby addressing the very reasonable concerns of more traditional Singaporeans, and because it helps us move Singapore forward.
Mr Speaker: Leader.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Adjournment of Debate","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"The Leader of the House (Ms Indranee Rajah): Mr Speaker, I beg to move that, \"That the debate be now adjourned.\"
[(proc text) Resolved, \"That the debate be now adjourned.\" – [Ms Indranee Rajah]. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Resumption of debate, what day?
Ms Indranee Rajah: Tomorrow, Sir.
Mr Speaker: So be it.
","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 12.00 noon tomorrow.\" – [Ms Indranee Rajah]. (proc text)]
The Leader of the House (Ms Indranee Rajah): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, \"That Parliament do now adjourn.\"
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Leon Perera (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, Sir, my Adjournment Motion speech today will address the issue of ensuring a culture of accountability to students and staff at our Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs). I was moved to give the speech by having met many young people over the years, be it at my Meet-the-People Sessions or during my constituency walkabouts, house visits and other events in the Serangoon ward of Aljunied GRC.
Current students, teachers as well as the alumni have also reached out to my volunteer team and I to share their ideas and suggestions which they often feel are not being reflected or heard at the decision-making level in IHLs. I am proud of them for standing up and speaking up for the welfare and rights of their colleagues, their fellow students and juniors. In this speech, Sir, I hope to share some thoughts and proposals that have been inspired by what they shared.
Sir, accountability is something we speak about in politics, but its dynamics at IHLs – which I will focus on for my speech – is quite different because of the power structures and rules in place. Which is why my speech will focus on IHL boards and management being more accountable, specifically to students and staff.
Against this, it could be urged that IHLs are not democracies any more than companies are. Why is there need for some degree of accountability and transparency about decision-making? The reasons for why this is important may be self-evident to some, but I will spell those out.
For one, IHL management, as with the management of any organisation may have blind spots to what students and staff need. An example is how mental health challenges faced by students are very different from those staff faced and different too from those faced by older adults. And unlike employees in a company, students cannot easily change courses or change IHLs, because doing so will have repercussions on their career progression.
Secondly, giving students a say in their own education helps them fulfil their purpose for learning, which I believe, for most people, is broader than solely what their future employers want. We must recognise that IHLs are not merely factories to churn out economically useful graduates. The part of their lives that students spend at IHLs is often among the most memorable, precious informative of their lives. These experiences can help ground students and enable them to contribute to their communities in multiple ways later on in life, not all of which can easily be captured in dollars and cents.
Ensuring that the environment in the IHLs is conducive to these journeys, in character formation, is vital to help ensure that those who pass through their portals become self-aware, self-actualised and socially engaged citizens.
Thirdly, being accountable means students and staff have greater ownership over their institution and have a better student experience. In economic terms, this could mean strong alumni engagement which may translate into better fundraising capacity downstream.
To cite one example of a concrete benefit, a good environment in a strong culture of accountability could also translate into the IHLs being more attractive to students and faculty. In other words, it could be part of that IHL's competitive advantage and collectively contribute to our national competitive advantage. As all IHLs seek to go beyond rankings and this is a goal that the Minister for Education has said he seeks, they should also build a reputation for being great places for students and this includes being more open, responsive and consultative. And perhaps, most importantly, enhance the accountability culture at IHLs help set the tone for creating such a culture across society.
Sir, let me go on to highlight some incidents that suggest where the gaps may lie. I do not think these incidents I am going to talk about are necessarily representative of the institutions they took place in, and it is definitely not my wish to single out any particular IHL for criticism. But these incidents serve of to give us a sense of what students and staff in IHLs feel could be some of the areas where the accountability culture can be improved.
To start, there was widespread dismay amongst students at NTU regarding the hall allocation for the 2021/2022 academic year. The release of hall allocation results on the 1 July 2021 left many international students who had been staying on campus throughout due to COVID-19 suddenly homeless and scrambling for alternative lodging before the 15 July deadline.
Local students were similarly affected, especially Year One and Year Two students who were supposed to have been guaranteed on-campus housing, according to NTU's guidelines. A petition signed by 5,500 people were set up to urge the management to reconsider their decision. A day later, a statement was put out that more hall spaces were opened up – the space for students on a guaranteed two-year stay guideline as well as international students who were already staying on campus then.
Student discontent with infrastructure can be found elsewhere. For example, out of the 30 halal options at NTU, I understand that many are vending machines. There are also only a limited number of canteens out of the many at the residential halls that have halal stalls.
A media outlet interviewed students who said that they had highlighted this issue to the administration for some time. Buses at NTU are perceived by some to arrive irregularly. Anecdotally, wait times range from five minutes to 30 minutes. It is my understanding that the NTU Students Union has highlighted bus-related issues to the administration in the past.
Another example which speaks of the staff experience during the pandemic, NTU initially made the decision to not allow students and faculty members stuck overseas due to border closures to attend lessons online. Students were asked to miss the semester and faculty members were asked to take no-pay leave should they be unable to make it back to Singapore physically. This affected students' learning, the teaching of faculty members, as many staff members have to cover for those absent.
NUS experienced similar issues of a perceived lack of accountability and transparency with the merger of Yale-NUS College (YNC) and the University Scholars Programme (USP). The timeline for the implementation was short, with the announcement made in August last year. There was an early claim that the replacement NUS college would provide a liberal arts education. Then, a later announcement said that liberal arts subjects would likely not be included in the core curriculum, to the surprise of many.
The new NUS College has already admitted Its first students as of August this year. There is feedback from some students and staff that there was no transparency in the end game for the merger of YNC and USP at NUS. The decision-making process was seen by many as opaque and with limitations in the autonomy for working group student representatives.
Sir, this was a decision that would affect student education and their on-campus residence, given that both YNC and USP offer programmes that include residential components. Some staff had similar feedback, lamenting that they were given little opportunity to participate in the process. For example, the then-President of Yale-NUS College commented that the decision was only shared with the governing board in advance of the announcement for information.
Mr Speaker, Sir, when reflecting on this and other feedback, I think the underlying perceptions by some students and staff can be distilled into two broad baskets. Firstly, some students feel that they are treated as economic digits, with IHL decisions made based on a return on their investment. For example, some feel that the reason why infrastructural issues are sometimes not fully addressed is because there is no incentive to improve it. Students are not going to leave in the short run and will be forced to put up with this if they want to finish their education and receive their degrees.
The second broad issue is the perception of top-down decision-making. Many students and faculty perceive insufficient transparency, consultation and co-creation in decision-making. For example, IHL governing boards often have absolute discretion over student union regulations and all decisions made by the IHL. Many students believe that the unions have little ability to seek structural or policy changes, and decisions are often made without consultation. This was shown clearly in the case of the merger of YNC and USP. And when consultations are held, these are often non-binding, with the consequent decision-making being somewhat opaque.
The same transparency deficit may apply to disciplinary action, say, for sexual offences. The case of Miss Monica Baey is instructive and well known. NUS had initially prescribed what was seen by Miss Baey and many as a relatively light punishment for the perpetrator of a sexual offence, even after Miss Baey had made a Police report. The reasons and the process behind why NUS meted out that punishment were not made wholly transparent to Miss Baey in the first instance.
Another individual university student has very recently gone public about a case where she was the victim of a sexual offence and she has publicly suggested reforms such as, for example, the university providing reasons for the disciplinary action taken and to offer the right of appeal to the victim.
The dismissal of Dr Jeremy Fernando of NUS' Tembusu College has also been seen in some quarters as not having been handled well. None other than Prof Tomy Koh, then Rector of Tembusu College, commented that the university had \"fallen short \", as the process was opaque and there was a \"considerable gap\" between the time NUS dismissed Dr Fernando and when the rest of Tembusu College was informed.
One last insight that comes through when reviewing this feedback and all these incidents is the perception that academics are insufficiently represented on boards of trustees, boards of directors or councils. Or in other words, the governing board.
The view here is that the weightage of trustees who come from the education sphere can be increased vis-à-vis that of business leaders and civil servants. So, the more well-informed views about educational quality, the faculty experience and student life quality could be brought to bear on deliberations.
I reviewed the lists of the boards of Singapore IHLs and in most cases, I confess that I have some sympathy with this view. I think the weightage of educators and non-educators on these boards is an issue that deserves more study and thought on the part of MOE, perhaps drawing on international reference points.
Sir, let me conclude this discussion of some of the perceived issues with a few suggestions to address these issues of perceived accountability and transparency deficits. I hope MOE can review these suggestions and work with our IHLs to encourage them to adopt policies along these lines. Doing so would be in the interest of the IHLs themselves, as it would enable them to enhance their competitiveness and attractiveness to students and faculty.
In my first proposal, I would like to talk about empowering rank-and-file faculty in university senates or oversight bodies. Typically, senates or president councils have strong representation from senior university administrators and less representation from the faculty rank-and-file. This could be seen as there being little separation between the president or provost and faculty members who can provide oversight. To illustrate this point with a question, do we know how many times other senate members succeeded in making the president or provost reconsider certain decisions in the various incidents I referred to earlier? What roles did university senates play and what roles were they able to play?
In many universities across the world, it is not always or perhaps often that university administrators lead senates which are supposed to provide oversight over executive decisions. Restructuring and opening up senates to more rank-and-file faculty could improve oversight. One area where this may be helpful is on the issue of academic freedom. I filed a Parliamentary Question on this earlier this year, referring to the results of a survey undertaken among academics, which suggested that there may be a significant proportion of academics in our IHLs who feel concerned about the state of academic freedom here. The survey which, by the way, should be looked into and where further research to validate it should be done in the best interests of cultivating a strong academia here.
Sir, my second proposal is to grant a student union representative and a representative of rank-and-file faculty a seat on the governing board as a voting member, or at least non-voting observer. This ensures that the voices of students and staff can be directly represented in the decision-making process, which in turn promotes inclusive decision-making that actively considers the views of all stakeholders.
Even if student and staff representatives on the board are not given veto power, such a move creates greater transparency.
The practice of granting student unions and staff a seat on the governing board is not by any means novel. Already, at least 13 of the top 50 universities in the latest QS World university rankings from Hong Kong, North America, Europe and Australia have adopted this practice. Singapore's IHLs can and should do this too. In some universities, the governing board is required to have student and faculty members who are elected to that role by their peers.
Thirdly, I propose mandating IHLs to consider petitions above a set number of signatures. Doing so serves the following two functions. For the university population, it legitimises petitions as a tool for policy change by providing certainty that such petitions will, at the very least, be considered by decision-makers at IHLs. For the IHLs, it serves as a filter mechanism that prevents unnecessary consideration of frivolous petitions.
Such a move should prevent a repeat of what happened to students representing Fossil Free Yale-NUS and Students Taking Action for NUS to Divest respectively. In March 2019, these two student groups calling on NUS to divest from fossil fuels were granted a meeting with NUS administrators after making such a request for six months, only to be told that their petition, which had garnered nearly 800 signatures, was not enough to show substantial support for divestment.
This raises the question of what number of signatures is enough. Creating a requirement for IHL management to address petitions with a sizeable number of signatures would strengthen accountability and transparency. One happy side effect of such a system is that it may also help students learn about how they can be active and involved citizens in a democracy.
Fourthly, I propose simplifying the process for setting up new student interest groups. For many students, campus life is a defining feature of their time in university. Interest groups are one of, if not, the biggest contributor to a vibrant campus life. When students' interests and passions are not served by existing interest groups, they should be empowered and facilitated in setting up their own.
Could the registration windows be extended or made more frequent or perhaps could registrations be accepted on a rolling basis, as is from what I understand, currently the case with SMU, but not the case with some other IHLs? Could IHLs also make available to students a model club constitution so to speak, to make setting up a new group easier?
Lastly, for my last proposal, I would like to say that we need to learn from not just mistakes or gaps but also places of strength.
For example, when SMU was founded just over two decades ago in 2000 and was facing the challenge of how it should brand itself and create a school culture, it took only three years before they set up Singapore's first formal peer helping programme in a university. This was at a time when mental health for youths was nowhere near receiving the public and institutional attention that it now receives.
While the impact on employability and other standardised metrics of peer support, may not be clear, talking to students and studying feedback on this programme, I think it is clear that the student response has generally been supportive of the programme. There are now 1,200 qualified peer helpers, with 200 helpers being trained each year.
This is a good example of how IHLs can make positive change quickly and effectively by just listening to the voice of students.
To take another example, I believe in the wake of the spate of sexual offences and sexual misconduct incidents in some of the IHLs, some IHLs now have a more robust approach specific to sexual misconduct but some have proposed further reforms. I think some degree of collective experience sharing would help codify how IHLs take in and act on student and staff feedback on issues related to sexual misconduct and other types of issues.
Therefore, in addition to my earlier proposals, I would like to suggest that more be done to share best practices among IHLs and encourage levelling up, particularly in regard to the domains of feedback handling, accountability and the campus experience of students and staff that I have talked about today.
To conclude, Mr Speaker, Sir, our IHLs are to some degree a microcosm of our society. The environment we create there will have ramifications for the character development of our students, which in turn will play a huge role in determining the course that our nation takes in the decades ahead.
The proposals I have made to strengthen accountability and transparency at IHLs would also set a good example for the tone we want in our wider society. By giving them more scope to make a difference in the IHL through feedback and activities like creating petitions, we would be better equipping and encouraging our IHL students to become better citizens of Singapore in the years ahead.
Mr Speaker: Minister Chan.
The Minister for Education (Mr Chan Chun Sing): Mr Speaker, Sir, if I may respond to Mr Leon Perera's Adjournment Motion. Mr Leon Perera has said many things, many of which we can all agree. But I would say that we would also take a very nuanced position on some of the points that he has made.
First, Mr Leon Perera's speech can be summarised into one of accountability. And I agree we should promote accountability and I will elaborate on this. But before I go into that, I was a bit intrigued by Mr Leon Perera's many examples and yet he prefaced all his comments, that what he highlighted may not be representative of our IHLs' state. So, I was not very sure if Mr Leon Perera meant what he said, or he accepts that what he said is not representative of our IHLs, and that certainly our IHLs have room to improve.
So, I will take it in the spirit that Mr Leon Perera is trying to help us improve our IHLs' administration and what he says is not representative of the state of our IHLs. And I take this in good spirit. I, for one, would be the first to agree with Mr Leon Perera, that all our institutions, IHLs included, have room to improve and we will certainly take into account many of the comments that he said.
My next point has to do with, and let me clear the deck first, on some of the statistics and survey that Mr Leon Perera cited on academic freedom. I believe my Second Minister Dr Maliki Osman, had previously replied to this in a Parliamentary Question. And I would be one to say that I will take all surveys very carefully.
When surveys say that we have done well, I remind my people to never let this get to their head. When surveys say that we have not done as well, we do not take it to heart personally, but we always remind ourselves that there is room to improve. But I always remind myself and my team that we should look at all surveys holistically and understand the purpose behind each survey, the scope of the survey and what it really tells us and does not tell us. So, I would suggest that we take all these statistics and surveys very carefully.
On the ranking of our IHLs: some of the rankings rank us very well, some of the rankings do not rank us so well. And the difference is because they all measure different things. For us, as a portfolio of institutions, we must have the responsibility and the confidence to know what we are looking for in our IHLs beyond a narrow set of metrics – be it publications in selected journals and so forth. It must also encompass student development, faculty development, how they use their resources well and so forth. So, that is my point on cautioning us to be careful about using surveys that measure partial statistics to reflect a wider point.
But I would like to come back to what Mr Leon Perera led off with, which is the issue of accountability and participation by faculty and students. What we certainly agree with is that we have and we will continue to enhance the accountability and also the participation of faculty and staff in all our institutions – from Government to the IHLs. I think we can all agree on that.
But where we are a bit more nuanced than Mr Leon Perera's presentation is this – accountability by the leadership must mean the following; not just accountability to a certain group of students to meet what they desire or want. Accountability must mean a fair consideration of the holistic demands across the diversity of students, not only in this generation, not only a select group of stakeholders, but for this generation, across diverse student groups and across different generations. That is accountability. That is the concept of stewardship.
The fact that some students or some groups of students at some point in time did not get what they want, does not equate to a failure in accountability. It may be a failure to share, as the Member has suggested, the considerations. But to suggest that just because some people did not get what they want or have their needs fulfilled is a failure of accountability – that, I think, would not be how you and I would characterise the situation. I think we can agree on that.
But I want to come back to this concept: very importantly, participation and consultation must not just be with select stakeholders. In any large organisation, be it in the Government or even in your Town Council or in our Town Councils or in any institutions, we must consider the stakeholder needs of the entire stakeholder group that we are dealing with. Make a considered decision and take leadership, responsibility to explain those decisions. Leadership accountability is not about just making nice speeches to try to make some groups of people happy and finding out that either it is inconsistent across time or inconsistent across groups.
That is the true spirit of accountability.
So, for many of the points that Mr Leon Perera mentioned, I would agree that there is room for our IHLs to improve. But I want to make a distinction – to not say that just because of these isolated incidents, which in his words may not be representative of our IHLs, that therefore, they have not been accountable. So, I have to make that point.
We thank Mr Leon Perera also for his various suggestions on how our IHLs can improve. Empowering the rank-and-file – we agree on that and in fact, indeed, many of our IHLs have mechanisms to consult their rank-and-file and make them participate in various decision bodies and decision mechanisms. That does not mean that just because they are not on the board, therefore, there is no such mechanism.
I will give an example. In Nanyang Polytechnic, they have a Student Senate. They do not sit on the board but they give their feedback and there are different channels of feedback for different issues, for different levels of accountability.
One example, if we are setting school fees, the responsibility of the management and the leadership must not just be to a certain group of students but to the diverse stakeholders, including the people who fund them and also, across the different generations. There are issues where we can have more student participation, but there will also be issues which I do not think will be appropriate for student participation. And I think we can agree on that.
Second thing – petitions to be taken seriously set above a certain number. I would have a slightly nuanced position. I do not think setting a number is necessarily the correct thing. In fact, the correct thing for us to do, and as what we have been doing, is that we take every issue, every feedback seriously, regardless of whether it has reached a certain threshold of numbers. An issue that has many people chiming in to say that that is a good thing, does not necessarily make it the most urgent issue. On the other hand, an issue with very few or much fewer people chiming in also does not mean that that is a not an important issue.
What we need to do is not to go on in a mechanistic way and say whether this is or is not an important issue. Listen to every feedback seriously, give it due consideration and ask ourselves: how do we make the best decision, not just for the individuals who say so, but for the diverse stakeholders in the university compound and ecosystem, and the diverse stakeholders across different generations? That is the burden of leadership.
Next, the new student interest groups – I think this is an easy one. We can all agree. We try to help people set up new interest groups and I like this, because I want students to take on leadership responsibilities. Having said that, when you set up a group, just like the debate prior to the Adjournment Motion, we must have some rules on what should be supported and what should not be supported. Just as the debate has said, this must be a safe space for students to interact, to debate. But it cannot be a space whereby you set up any interest group that impinges on the interests of other groups.
So, there are some basic rules. But in general, we agree with the spirit that we should have more students taking leadership because this is how they grow.
Mr Speaker: Minister Chan, you have about two minutes more.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: And my final response is that on the spread of good practices, you can be assured that it goes from the board level, all the way down to every level. Today, our six AUs, the Presidents and the Chairs of their boards, meet regularly to share the best practices. And not just to share the best practices but on how they can work as an integrated team to compete as one Team Singapore, rather than competing amongst themselves.
So, Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank Mr Leon Perera for his various suggestions and will take them to heart seriously. But I will emphasise this: accountability means the understanding of diverse stakeholders' interests, not just in the current ecosystem but also across generations.
And I expect the leadership of the IHLs to exercise their leadership responsibilities to make sensible decisions on what are the things to consult and what are the things that they cannot consult everyone on, but have to take on that leadership responsibility to decide and subsequently, explain those decisions clearly to their people. That is leadership.
Leadership is not just about saying the nice things to people to make them happy, without telling them the consequences.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Resolved, \"That Parliament do now adjourn.\" (proc text)]
Adjourned accordingly at 7.22 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":"Measures to Safeguard Safety and Security of Cabin Crew and Passengers on Board Airborne Aircraft","subTitle":"Answer to Question No 21 under Standing Order No. 22(4) Proviso","sectionType":"WANA","content":"21 Mr Shawn Huang Wei Zhong asked the Minister for Transport with regard to the recent incidents of non-compliance of safety instructions on board an aircraft flying inbound into Singapore (a) what are the measures taken to safeguard the safety and security of the cabin crew and passengers; and (b) what enforcement actions are available to the cabin crew whilst the aircraft is still airborne.
Mr S Iswaran: This reply also addresses a similar question filed by Ms Hany Soh1 for a subsequent Sitting.
Singapore has laws to ensure the safety of passengers, including requiring passengers to be seated with their seatbelts fastened at take-off and landing, and prohibiting individuals from boarding an aircraft when intoxicated and from becoming intoxicated in-flight, where they could jeopardise the safety and order of the aircraft. The pilot-in-command and air crew members authorised by the pilot-in-command are empowered by law to take any reasonable measures, including physical restraint, to secure the safety of the aircraft in flight as well as the safety and well-being of all passengers and crew on board.
We are also committed to the safety and well-being of aviation workers. In-flight, it is an offence to behave in a threatening, offensive, insulting or disorderly manner towards a crew member, and offenders who are convicted could be fined up to $100,000, or imprisoned for up to five years, or both. Airlines also train their frontline staff and crew to protect themselves while managing unruly or disruptive passengers.
There has not been any significant increase in the rate of unruly behaviour on board Singapore carriers, at around 1.4 incidents per 1,000 flights over the past five years. The authorities have investigated the individuals responsible and taken appropriate action, including legal action, depending on the facts of the case.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Question subsequently withdrawn: To ask the Minister for Transport (a) in the past one year, what is the number of incidents where airport ground staff or cabin crew members are abused by unruly passengers at Changi Airport terminals or on board flights arriving at or departing from Singapore; and (b) what are the measures in place at Changi Airport and on board planes to ensure the safety of passengers and to prevent cabin crew members from being subjected to such abuse."],"footNoteQuestions":["21"],"questionNo":"21"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Statistics on Family Violence Cases and Support Available for Victims","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"25 Ms Mariam Jaafar asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) how many victim care cadre counsellors are assigned to provide support during an investigation of sexual crime and family violence; (b) how many victims have requested for such support; and (c) what are the (i) mean and (ii) longest waiting times respectively, before victims receive such support.
26 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether he can provide an update on the number of Police reports on family violence received in each of the past five years; (b) whether there has been a rise in domestic violence cases; and (c) how do the Police intend to better protect victims of domestic abuse.
Mr K Shanmugam: There were 5,190 Police reports on family violence in 2021, a slight increase from 5,134 in 2020. From January to June 2022, the number of Police reports on family violence was 2,603. There were 2,638 cases in the same period in 2021. The Police started to track such reports in 2020 to assist the Taskforce on Family Violence to better understand the situation and develop recommendations to tackle family violence.
The Police work with social service agencies to support victims. Victims are referred to the nearest Family Service Centre or the Family Violence Specialist Centre if they request for assistance, and to one of the four crisis shelters funded by MSF if they request for shelter. The Police will also assess the risk of victims encountering further family violence and refer those assessed to be at higher risk to social service agencies. Where appropriate, the Police will encourage the victim to apply for a Personal Protection Order or an Expedited Order from the Courts, to better protect himself or herself from the perpetrator. If the perpetrator breaches such orders, he or she may be arrested by the Police.
To provide emotional support to victims throughout the course of investigations, Police can activate volunteers under the Victim Care Cadre Programme (VCCP), with the consent of the victim. As of October 2022, 167 volunteers have been appointed under VCCP. Since the programme started in 2014, more than 490 victims of sexual crime and family violence have requested for such support. Victim care officers can be activated to attend to the victim on an urgent basis. Alternatively, an appointment can be scheduled based on the victim’s preferred time and date.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"More Places in Direct School Admission Programme and Mainstream Avenues for Students to Pursue Interests","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"27 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Minister for Education in view of the increase in this year's applications for Direct School Admission for Secondary Schools (DSA-Sec), whether more spaces will be provided for students to be admitted via DSA-Sec.
28 Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling asked the Minister for Education in view of the steady rise in direct school admission applications, whether the Ministry is considering more mainstream avenues for students with abilities in sports and humanities to pursue their interests.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: The Direct School Admission exercise for Secondary Schools (DSA-Sec) provides a pathway for students to enrol in Secondary schools based on their diverse talents and potential, beyond their academic performance demonstrated at PSLE. The number of DSA applications has increased over the years, in line with MOE’s efforts to broaden the definition of merit beyond academic results and increase the accessibility of DSA.
Since 2018, we have increased the number of DSA places, allowing Secondary schools to admit up to 20% of their Secondary 1 intake. In the 2022 DSA-Sec exercise, around 3,900 students or 10% of the 2022 Primary 6 cohort received offers. As such, there remains sufficient DSA places for eligible students to enrol in schools, and MOE currently has no plans to expand the number of places.
At the same time, MOE will continue to ensure multiple avenues for students to discover and develop their diverse talents and interests. These include Co-Curricular Activities (CCAs); art, music and PE curriculum; and Applied Learning Programmes and Learning for Life Programmes. These enable every student to access opportunities to support their development, regardless of whether they participate in DSA.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Accounting for Use and Sale of State Land","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"29 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance whether payment into the past reserves is required when the Government uses state land for building public infrastructure, such as hospitals, schools and transport facilities.
30 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) whether the value of state land which has not been sold is recorded in the Government Financial Statements; (b) if so, whether this is recorded on a historical cost or fair value basis; and (c) whether the total value of Government assets on the balance sheet becomes higher when there is a sale of state land.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Land that is owned by the state and used by a Government Ministry for public infrastructure purposes, such as for Government schools, hospitals and bus interchanges, remains as state land. Since there is no disposal, such land remains as part of the Past Reserves. As such, the issue of payment into the Past Reserves does not arise.
State land may be sold to Statutory Boards to enable them to fulfil and discharge their statutory functions. For example, state land is sold to JTC for the development of industrial land and to HDB for the development of public housing. When ownership is transferred to the Statutory Board, for example, under a 99-year lease, the state can no longer use the land for the duration of the lease. To ensure there is no draw on Past Reserves, the land is disposed of to the Statutory Board at fair market value and the proceeds accrue to Past Reserves.
The Government does not record the valuation for unsold state land. Instead, the Government maintains a listing of state land that is protected as part of the Past Reserves. The Government only values state land at the point of sale to enable disposal at fair market value and avoid a draw on Past Reserves as explained above, and not on an ongoing basis.
Government assets include financial assets and the listing of state land and buildings. As has been explained before in this House, most recently on 7 November 2022, disposal of land in exchange for land sale proceeds only converts a physical asset to a financial asset. The total value of the Government’s assets, therefore, does not become higher when there is a sale of state land.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Promoting Safe Riding and Use of Footpaths and Park Connectors","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"31 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether LTA will consider encouraging all pedestrians and all bicycle, personal mobility device and personal mobility aid users to keep left when using footpaths or the park connectors so as to promote safe and considerate use of footpaths and park connectors by all users; and (b) whether the Ministry can include this messaging in safe riding courses and all its public education materials relating to safe riding and safe use of footpaths and connectors.
Mr S Iswaran: LTA has, through various channels, been encouraging all path users to keep left on paths, to allow others to pass safely. Firstly, this is a guideline set out under the Code of Conduct for public path users, including pedestrians, which can be accessed through LTA’s website. Secondly, LTA has been promoting the message of keeping left on paths through various public campaigns and educational materials, such as LTA's Confidence on Wheels programme, which educates users on safe riding practices. Thirdly, LTA has been reaching out to communities directly through the Active Mobility Community Ambassadors (AMCA). These are volunteers who engage the community and serve as ambassadors to promote the safe and gracious sharing of our paths. Interested individuals, groups and corporations can register their interest to be an ambassador at https://go.gov.sg/amca.
We will continue with such public education efforts to build a safe and gracious path-sharing culture in Singapore. I urge all path users to play their part to abide by the rules, be considerate and look out for one another. Collectively, we can make our experiences on paths more pleasant ones.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures to Improve Service Quality of Poor Performing Telcos","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"32 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Communications and Information arising from IMDA's inaugural publication of statistics on telecommunication service providers' handling of consumer feedback (a) what will be done to improve the service quality of the poorest performing telcos; and (b) whether IMDA will impose on telcos a maximum waiting time for their hotline or live chat to better protect consumers' interests.
Mrs Josephine Teo: The Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) seeks to enable a vibrant and competitive telecommunications market, in order to improve service quality and to protect consumers’ interests.
In this regard, IMDA’s inaugural publication of statistics on telecommunication service providers’ handling of consumer feedback is a new initiative that provides increased transparency on an important aspect of telecommunication service providers’ performance. This is intended to help consumers make more informed decisions when choosing a service provider. IMDA has also published other performance reports, for example, the publication of statistics on service providers' network quality performance, since 2007.
Telecommunication service providers are, ultimately, responsible for attending to their own customers and resolving their complaints. If they do not improve their customer service, consumers can and do vote with their feet and switch to other service providers. In addition, IMDA has set up an Alternative Dispute Resolution, or ADR Scheme, to further incentivise telecommunication service providers to resolve contractual disputes with their consumers in a timely manner. Hence, IMDA will monitor service performance over time, including various customer service standards, to assess if improvements are made and if high standards are maintained.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Tracking of Seniors Who Discontinue Rehabilitative Physiotherapy Sessions","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"33 Miss Rachel Ong asked the Minister for Health whether there are plans to track the number of seniors who discontinue rehabilitative physiotherapy sessions despite not reaching the set physiotherapy goal, including those who do so due to financial difficulties.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: MOH does not have data on the number of seniors who have discontinued rehabilitation sessions despite not attaining the rehabilitation goals.
Seniors who face difficulties in paying their rehabilitation bills may seek their healthcare provider’s assistance in applying for discretionary financial assistance, including MediFund assistance. This ensures that seniors can receive the care they require, regardless of their financial circumstances.
It is important for seniors to complete their rehabilitation care. Members of Parliament may wish to extend help or direct seniors who may be facing difficulties to MOH for further follow-up.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on HDB's Remaking Our Heartland Programme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"34 Mr Darryl David asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether he can provide an update on HDB’s Remaking Our Heartland (ROH) programme; and (b) whether the recent HDB record deficit will significantly impact the overall ROH programme in any way.
Mr Desmond Lee: The Remaking Our Heartland (ROH) programme aims to provide a comprehensive rejuvenation blueprint for existing HDB towns and estates, so as to keep them sustainable and vibrant. It brings multiple agencies together to develop customised plans that suit the needs of each town. ROH plans could include the upgrading of the Town Centres, Neighbourhood Centres and parks, building of new communal spaces and improvements to connectivity networks.
Since the launch of the programme in 2007, we have selected 13 towns and estates for comprehensive rejuvenation under ROH. For the first two ROH batches covering Punggol, Dawson and Yishun under ROH 1 and East Coast, Hougang and Jurong Lake under ROH 2, most of the key plans and proposals have since been completed. The proposals for the third batch of ROH in Woodlands, Toa Payoh and Pasir Ris, are currently at various stages of implementation.
Where possible, HDB will jointly develop public spaces with residents and local interest groups. For example, between 2020 to 2022, HDB engaged over 5,800 residents and community stakeholders via surveys and workshops on their suggestions for the upgrading of 10 neighbourhood parks under ROH 3. Works for these parks will commence progressively from 1Q2023. Other works, such as the upgrading of Neighbourhood Centres, will complete progressively from 4Q2023 and residents can look forward to new multi-generational facilities, more shaded areas and enhanced greenery. When completed, the ROH 3 works in Woodlands, Toa Payoh and Pasir Ris will benefit more than half a million residents living in the towns.
In March 2020, we announced that four more towns, Ang Mo Kio, Bukit Merah, Choa Chu Kang and Queenstown, will be rejuvenated under ROH Batch 4. For ROH 4, there is a greater emphasis on public engagement and co-creation, as residents play a key role in the makeover of their towns. We have engaged residents at more stages, including at the early planning stage, to better understand what residents value about their towns and what improvements would benefit them most.
HDB conducted an online survey from March to April 2020 to gather residents’ aspirations and ideas to rejuvenate their towns. Subsequently, two rounds of online Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) were conducted in 2020 and 2021. To reach out to older residents in Bukit Merah and Queenstown, HDB also carried out physical engagements in May and July this year.
Participants gave constructive feedback over a variety of issues, including matters relating to general infrastructure, facilities and services as well as prominent monuments and upcoming developments in each town. Based on the feedback received, HDB has been working closely with the relevant agencies to develop the plans for the ROH 4 towns. More details on the rejuvenation plans will be announced when ready.
We are committed to proceeding with the ROH 4 plans, notwithstanding the deficits incurred by HDB, to ramp up the supply of public housing. However, the Government will need to manage within the tight fiscal space by prioritising between different spending needs and ensuring the cost effectiveness of our spending for fiscal sustainability.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Effectiveness of Nationwide Language Campaigns","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"35 Mr Raj Joshua Thomas asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) how does the Ministry assess the effectiveness of the nationwide language campaigns; and (b) what are its findings thus far.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Our four official languages form key aspects of our Singapore cultural identity and heritage and collectively anchor our national identity. They also provide a common means of communication within and across communities, allowing us to establish connections with our families, friends, colleagues, neighbours and society at large.
The various language campaigns helmed by their respective language councils and committees support Singapore’s bilingual policy. These efforts complement the formal learning of languages in schools and encourage greater mastery, use and appreciation of our official languages beyond the classrooms.
The Speak Good English Movement promotes the use of proper English for effective communication in multicultural Singapore. The English language helps us maintain our advantage in doing business and communicating with the world. The Mandarin, Malay and Tamil language councils promote the appreciation and use of our mother tongue languages through programmes and festivals, such as the Speak Mandarin Campaign, Malay Language Festival or Bulan Bahasa and the Tamil Language Festival. These targeted efforts foster a greater appreciation of our cultural heritage and identity and enable us to better connect with wider communities in Asia and across the world.
In addition to the work of these language councils, many community and interest groups also initiate and sustain efforts to promote their respective languages and cultures. For instance, Business China, the Tamil Representatives Council (TRC) and Angkatan Sasterawan ’50 (ASAS ’50) partner the language councils to expand the appreciation of mother tongue languages and culture amongst Singaporeans. This year, in the area of the literary arts, the Singapore Writers Festival made special efforts to honour pioneer women writers of the Malay literary scene. The organisers also co-curated a range of programmes with local Chinese, Malay and Tamil language and literary partners and their communities.
Over the recent years, we have observed continued positive public response to the various language campaigns and programmes. Before embarking on their campaigns, the language councils and committees would set their aims and key performance indicators to measure the outreach and impact of their efforts, such as the number of participants, programmes and supporting partners, as well the strength of the digital reach of programmes.
We are heartened by the keen public response and participation in the different language campaigns. Before the COVID-19 pandemic, all four language campaigns presented an average of over 350 programmes annually from 2017 to 2019. During the pandemic period of 2020 and 2021, all four language campaigns pivoted to digital platforms and offered more than 600 programmes. This year, the language campaigns continue to receive strong support.
For instance, (a) the Speak Mandarin Campaign's signature Family Talent Competition recorded its highest participation with 1,168 family teams in 2022. This is double the participation numbers before COVID-19; (b) the Malay Language Council, Singapore, reached out to some 75,000 participants in the recent Malay Language Festival or Bulan Bahasa 2022; (c) the launch programme of the Tamil Language Festival 2022 alone reached more than 50,000 viewers; and (d) the Speak Good English Movement's foray into TikTok with a hashtag challenge garnered 2.2 million views.
The collective efforts to promote our four official languages have borne fruit. According to a poll by the Institute of Policy Studies in 2020, 78% of survey respondents said they could speak English \"well\" or \"very well\". For mother tongue languages, 80% of Chinese respondents, 95% of Malay respondents, and 75% of ethnic Tamil respondents said they could speak their respective mother tongue languages \"well\" or \"very well\".
The language councils and committees will continue to refresh their respective language campaigns and programmes to ensure that they remain relevant. MCCY will encourage and support the continued growth of such efforts to maintain the momentum achieved, as our four official languages form an indelible and active part of our Singapore identity.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"SAF's Assessment and Promotion of Sustainability in Its Operations and Training","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"37 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Defence (a) how does the SAF assess and promote sustainability in its operations and training, especially in reducing the use of single-use items; (b) whether the SAF tracks its use of single-use items; and (c) if not, whether the SAF will start tracking its use of such items.
Dr Ng Eng Hen: As announced, MINDEF and the SAF are committed to meet the national targets set under the Singapore Green Plan 2030, without compromising SAF’s operational effectiveness. Apart from developing and implementing these centrally driven plans, SAF has also launched a sustainability challenge amongst units to encourage ground-up ownership and initiatives in sustainability efforts.
On single-use items, SAF is guided by our national protocols which take into account that almost all of our waste is incinerated and stored locally. Nonetheless, to inculcate good habits, SAF has largely stopped the use of bottled water for routine meetings. Single-use items will also no longer be used by canteen vendors under new contracts starting January 2022. To discourage the single use of plastic bags, SAF eMarts have also started charging for plastic bags. Besides reducing the use of single-use items, SAF also makes effort to recycle our used items. For example, SAF has established waste disposal contracts that recycles electronic waste, waste oil, chemicals and scrap metals.
MINDEF and SAF will continue to consult our External Advisory Panel for Environmental Sustainability and ground advocates on ways to reduce our emissions and waste footprint. Where feasible and practical, we will track our progress.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Need for Returning Singaporeans to Show Evidence of COVID-19 Vaccination Status","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"38 Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked the Minister for Health whether there is a need for Singaporeans entering Singapore to show evidence of a COVID-19 vaccination or a polymerase chain reaction test since vaccination-differentiated safe management measures have been lifted.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: With the year-end travel peak and the presence of COVID-19 infection waves in other countries, the Vaccinated Travel Framework remains a relevant measure. By identifying those who have not completed a primary course of vaccination, we can require them to take a pre-departure test and, for visitors, to purchase COVID-19 travel insurance before coming to Singapore.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Mitigation Strategy to Deal with Cellular Phone Jams at Large Events","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"39 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Communications and Information what mitigation strategy is put in place to deal with cellular phone jams occurring at large-scale crowd events that have a potential to develop into public order situations.
Mrs Josephine Teo: For large-scale crowd events where mobile cellular network traffic in the vicinity could be higher than usual, the Infocomm Media Development Authority works with mobile network operators to implement measures to increase capacity. This is already the case for events, such as the National Day Parade. Such measures range from optimising their networks that serve the event areas, to the deployment of additional network equipment. Mobile networks are closely monitored and engineers will be on standby to address network issues. Voice calls are also prioritised over Internet access on mobile networks, to ensure callers are able to reach emergency services.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Effectiveness of Customer Service Training Provided to Khoo Teck Puat Hospital's Patient Care Officers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"40 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Health (a) whether the Ministry has studied the effectiveness of the customer service training provided by Singapore Airlines for Khoo Teck Puat Hospital's Patient Care Officers; (b) if so, what are the Ministry's findings; (c) if not, whether the Ministry will consider doing so; and (d) whether the Ministry will consider expanding such training to other restructured hospitals.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Individual healthcare institutions manage the training of their own healthcare staff, including in areas, such as customer service, for staff in patient-facing roles. SIA is renowned for their customer service and I am sure healthcare institutions will benefit from learning from SIA’s approach to training.
As part of MOH’s ongoing work to evolve the role of healthcare workers, we have been coordinating with the various healthcare clusters to review and develop relevant training programmes, including areas, such as effective communication and customer service.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Encouraging Singaporean Medical Students to Specialise as Family Doctors","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"44 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Health in light of plans under Healthier SG to promote the use of family doctors (a) whether the Ministry has expended any efforts to engage Singaporean medical students locally or abroad to persuade more medical students and medical graduates to specialise as family doctors or family GPs; and (b) if this has not yet been done, whether the Ministry will consider doing so.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: MOH has been working on several fronts to interest and encourage our doctors and medical students to take up family medicine.
Firstly, we have included more topics on family medicine in the curriculum of local medical schools. The Joint Committee of Family Medicine Singapore also runs outreach activities to raise awareness of family medicine training among medical students.
Secondly, MOH Holdings conducts regular recruitment drives and engagements to encourage Singaporeans studying in recognised overseas medical schools to return home to practise. Through these platforms, these medical students are updated on the latest developments in Singapore, including plans for HealthierSG, as well as the importance of family physicians.
Thirdly, MOH has been working with healthcare institutions and relevant professional bodies to develop more pathways and places for family medicine training.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Building of Pedestrian Foot Bridge Between Gardens by the Bay East and Suntec City","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"45 Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked the Minister for National Development whether the pedestrian foot bridge between Gardens by the Bay East and Suntec City as shown in the URA Master Plan will be built or will it be replaced with the bridge connecting Bay South and Bay East.
Mr Desmond Lee: We are carefully studying the development plans for this area, which is a prime location at the heart of the city and along the waterfront. This includes exploring the possibility of a new bridge to enhance connectivity between the Bay East Garden and Bay South Garden as part of the Bay East Garden development project, as well as the plan for the bridge between the Bay East Garden and Bay Central Garden which is still undergoing studies.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Prison Inmates Helped by Yellow Ribbon Singapore in Securing Job Placements","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"46 Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan asked the Minister for Home Affairs in the past 10 years, how many prison inmates has Yellow Ribbon Singapore helped annually to secure job placements before and after their release respectively.
Mr K Shanmugam: Between 2012 and 2021, Yellow Ribbon Singapore (YRSG) assisted about 2,200 inmates a year to secure jobs before their release. The inmates are matched to suitable jobs based on their skills and preferences.
YRSG also provides employment assistance to ex-offenders after their release. Between 2012 and 2021, YRSG assisted close to 140 ex-offenders a year to secure jobs.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Safeguarding User Privacy and Data against Illegal Tracking by Tech Companies","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"47 Mr Shawn Huang Wei Zhong asked the Minister for Communications and Information with rising concerns of tech companies illegally tracking location data for search and advertisement purposes, what are the measures in place to safeguard the privacy and data of users in Singapore.
Mrs Josephine Teo: Location data can form part of the personal data that organisations collect, if such location data can be used by companies to identify individuals. Location data may be used legitimately, including for search and advertisement purposes, such as when it is anonymised before use, or the organisation has obtained consent. Illegal tracking occurs when organisations fail to obtain consent when required, or obtain consent through misleading or deceptive practices. In such cases, organisations, including tech companies, may be in breach of the Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA).
When organisations collect location data as part of their customers’ personal data, they are required under PDPA to manage the data responsibly and securely protect them. PDPC has outlined specific security measures on location data in the Guide to Data Protection Practices for ICT Systems, which organisations are expected to adhere to. For instance, the Guide suggests that organisations could collect approximate location data of users, rather than their exact location. It also suggests that apps provide users with the option to authorise the collection of their location data only when required, rather than on a continuous basis. PDPC has previously taken companies to task for failure to protect location data.
While PDPA designs safeguards to protect consumers’ personal data, consumers are, ultimately, the first line of defence to protect their own location data. Location data can be collected by any mobile app developer that has been granted permission to read the GPS sensor on a consumer’s mobile phone. Thus, consumers should exercise caution with regard to the types of apps they download and the app permissions they consent to.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Accidents Involving Drivers Aged 65 and Above and Shortening Revalidation Cycle","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"48 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) what is the percentage of traffic accidents involving drivers aged 65 and above in the past three years; (b) what vehicles and driving licences do these accidents typically involve; and (c) whether the Ministry will consider shortening the current revalidation cycle of three years as required by rule 4A(1) of the Road Traffic (Motor Vehicles, Driving Licences) Rules for motorcycles and light motor vehicles, especially for those who have a previous accident record.
Mr K Shanmugam: Between 2019 and 2021, 16% of fatal accidents, and 16% of accidents with injuries, involved vehicle drivers and motorcycle riders aged 65 or older. This proportion has remained stable over the recent years.
Amongst these accidents, 69% involved motor cars, 17% involved motorcycles, and 14% involved other vehicles, such as heavy vehicles.
The current licence revalidation regime strikes a balance between road safety and providing senior citizens the convenience of driving and, for some, they require a licence for their livelihood as well. At this point, given that there is no deterioration in the road traffic situation due to elderly motorists, we do not see a need to shorten the current licence revalidation cycle for them.
The Ministry will continue to monitor the situation and review as necessary.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Effect of Improved Standards on Capacity of New Migrant Worker Dormitories","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"51 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Minister for Manpower in view of the improved standards for new migrant workers dormitories that took effect on 18 September 2021 (a) whether there has been a reduction in the total foreign worker dormitory capacity compared to pre-implementation time; (b) if so, what is the level of such reduction; and (c) whether this new reduced capacity is sufficient to support Singapore’s construction development needs post-COVID-19.
Dr Tan See Leng: As announced last year, the improved dormitory standards are only imposed on new migrant worker dormitories that have applied for approval on or after 18 September 2021. There has not been a reduction in the total migrant worker dormitory capacity since September 2021.
As the economy recovers from COVID-19, there has been strong demand for dormitory beds as employers have been hiring more migrant workers to catch up on projects. The number of Work Permit holders in the Marine, Construction and Process sectors has increased by 25% since January 2022 and is 11% higher than pre-COVID-19 levels.
As the numbers of migrant workers in Singapore are already significantly higher than pre-COVID-19, they cannot keep rising. Employers should secure housing for their workers before arrival in Singapore and take into account their ability to house new workers before they take on more projects.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Appeals to Switch from Commercial Bank to HDB Housing Loans","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"54 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for National Development (a) how many appeals has HDB received for each of the past three years to allow existing HDB homeowners to switch from commercial bank housing loans to HDB housing loans; and (b) what are the reasons for unsuccessful appeals.
Mr Desmond Lee: From 2019 to 2021, HDB received about 90 appeals per year from HDB homeowners to refinance their housing loans from financial institutions (FIs) to HDB. The appeals were not acceded to, as HDB does not allow the refinancing of housing loans from FIs to HDB.
HDB offers the HDB concessionary loans to eligible flat buyers, particularly lower-income groups, to support them in their home ownership aspirations. Flat buyers who have better financial means can approach FIs for a housing loan. Given HDB’s focus on supporting Singaporeans’ home ownership aspirations, HDB does not seek to compete with FIs in the mortgage financing market, as doing so may dilute the market share of FIs and reduce their willingness to provide mortgage financing for future flat purchases. This may lead to a reduction in financing options available to HDB flat buyers.
We fully understand that some HDB flat owners may be anxious about the current economic outlook and their ability to service their existing housing loan. For HDB home owners who have housing loans from FIs and are facing difficulties servicing the loans, we encourage them to approach their lenders early to explore solutions. MND, HDB, MOM and MAS have worked with FIs to establish a standardised workflow to assist such HDB flat owners in distress. This includes working with flat owners on potential loan restructuring solutions, referring them to HDB and social service agencies for assistance, and, where foreclosures are unavoidable, working with flat owners to source for their next accommodation.
HDB will continue to focus on its core mission of providing affordable and accessible public housing for Singaporeans.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Effect of Announced Fee and Salary Adjustments on Private Preschool Operators' Sustainability","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"55 Mr Darryl David asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) whether the Government has considered how the recently announced measures to reduce fees and enhance salaries for anchor and partner operators in the preschool sector can affect private preschool operators; and (b) whether there are any plans to work with private preschool operators to see how they can continue to operate in a sustainable manner.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The recently announced move to reduce fees and enhance salaries for Anchor and Partner Operators is part of the Government’s strategy since 2012, to provide families with access to affordable and quality preschools.
I would like to clarify that Anchor Operators (AOPs) and Partner Operators (POPs) are private sector players in the preschool market. In particular, the POP scheme allows more small- and medium-sized private operators to join. In return, AOPs and POPs follow prescribed fee caps and quality requirements, such as achieving Singapore Preschool Accreditation Framework (SPARK) certification and ensuring continued professional development of their educators.
The Early Childhood Development Agency (ECDA) recognises that there are private preschool players who are not on the AOP or POP schemes. They offer niche programmes and meet other needs and preferences of parents. If such services are valued by parents, the preschool would be able to price its offering higher. The reality is that the key competitive pressure faced by such private preschool players is from other sectors in the economy competing to offer good salaries and careers to the same potential pool of skilled manpower. If the Government did not continue to review the support for AOPs and POPs, the challenge of finding and retaining sufficient manpower would be felt by the entire preschool sector and by parents who would not have affordable quality preschool options.
Lastly, I want to assure the Member that preschool operators not on the AOP or POP schemes still benefit from ECDA’s other schemes. These include funding for smart solutions to raise productivity, and preschool support schemes to defray staff training, infrastructure and rental costs. Operators not on the AOP or POP schemes can also participate in sector-wide initiatives, such as ECDA’s Scholarships and Training Awards, the Skills Framework for Early Childhood, and the Professional Development Programme. They can tap on SkillsFuture Singapore and Workforce Singapore’s course fee subsidies and programmes, such as the Career Conversion Programme (CCP), to hire and train mid-career jobseekers.
The recent moves are important ones to signal the Government’s support to our families and early childhood educators. Overall, families will enjoy greater access to quality and affordable preschools near their homes as Government-supported preschool capacity expands. At the same time, the market will remain open to preschools not on the AOP or POP schemes. ECDA aims to encourage operators to innovate in response to changing market patterns, so that we have a vibrant and competitive sector that meets the different needs of Singaporean families.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Ensuring Enough Vegetarian Food Stalls in Hawker Centres and Food Courts","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"56 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment in view of the growing number of residents eating less meat or going on vegetarian or vegan diets, but with some hawker centres not having any vegetarian food stalls, how will the Ministry ensure that there are enough vegetarian food stalls in our hawker centres and food courts.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: NEA manages hawker centres as community dining spaces that aim to provide a variety of affordable food options for diners.
NEA tenders out cooked food stalls under broad categories, such as cooked food, halal cooked food and drinks. Individuals who bid for a stall at our hawker centres can decide on the food items to sell to cater to customer demands.
The food options offered would largely be dependent on market demand and what patrons would like to see at the hawker centres and, ultimately, the hawkers themselves have to decide on their food offerings in a manner that ensures the commercial viability of their businesses.
Nonetheless, NEA does monitor the spread of stalls and take in feedback to ensure a variety of food at our hawker centres, including for stalls with vegetarian options. We welcome individuals selling vegetarian food to bid for stalls at our hawker centres. We also note that apart from dedicated vegetarian food stalls, stalls selling other food items, such as economy rice, rojak or prata, can also provide non-meat options.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Review of Spent Regime for Criminal Records","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"57 Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether the Ministry will review the duration of the crime-free period before a criminal record will become spent and the offences disqualified from becoming spent, under the Registration of Criminals Act 1949.
Mr K Shanmugam: MHA periodically reviews the spent regime for criminal records. In our last review in 2021, MHA assessed that the existing regime and criteria continue to be appropriate to facilitate the reintegration of ex-offenders, in particular, those who committed minor crimes.
We have other measures to facilitate their re-integration into society. For example, the Singapore Prison Service (SPS) provides a range of rehabilitation programmes for inmates during incarceration. These programmes may include psychology-based correctional programmes, family programmes, education programmes and religious programmes. SPS also works with Yellow Ribbon Singapore (YRSG) to provide industry-relevant skills training to enhance inmates’ employability, employment assistance to help inmates secure jobs prior to release, and career retention support to ex-offenders in their transition from prison to the national workforce.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reporting Requirements for Businesses","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"58 Mr Don Wee asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) whether new regulation should be mandated on reporting greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions for all businesses operating in Singapore; and (b) if not, whether the Government will consider establishing minimum reporting GHG requirements for businesses, with reporting requirements to be progressively tightened over time.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Under the Carbon Pricing Act regulations, business facilities operating in Singapore with direct greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions exceeding 2,000 tonnes annually are subject to mandatory requirements to report their emissions to NEA. These business facilities comprise taxable facilities with direct GHG emissions exceeding 25,000 tonnes annually and reportable facilities with direct GHG emissions between 2,000 and 25,000 tonnes annually. Taxable facilities and reportable facilities account for about 80% and about 1% of Singapore’s emissions respectively. Collectively, these facilities account for almost all direct emissions from industry and power, with remaining emissions coming mainly from land transport. In addition, companies listed locally are subject to SGX requirements on climate-related disclosures, as in many jurisdictions globally.
There are, currently, no plans to extend reporting requirements beyond these business facilities to the smaller emitters, which include SMEs. Nonetheless, the Government will continue to encourage local businesses to monitor and reduce their GHG emissions through capability-building programmes, such as the LowCarbonSG programme by the Carbon Pricing Leadership Coalition Singapore, which is supported by EnterpriseSG’s Enterprise Sustainability Programme.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Cost Changes of Moderna and Pfizer Bivalent Vaccines since Last Supply Contract","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"59 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Health (a) how have the cost of the Moderna and Pfizer bivalent vaccines changed since the last supply contract with the vaccine manufacturers; and (b) what is the dollar or percentage change in pricing per dose.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: \tWe are unable to disclose information regarding the price of vaccines purchased, due to contractual obligations in the vaccine purchase agreements with Moderna and Pfizer.
62 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance whether the Ministry will consider introducing additional investment guidelines to the investment mandate of our sovereign funds in view of the recent investments made on cryptocurrency exchanges.
Mr Lawrence Wong: I thank the Member for the question. I will address it in my reply at the 30 November 2022 Parliament Sitting. [Please refer to \"Bankruptcy of Cryptocurrency Trading Platform FTX and Impact on Singapore's Financial Markets, Regulation of Such Asset Class and Strategies of Singapore's Investment Funds\", Official Report, 30 November 2022, Vol 95, Issue 78, Oral Answers to Questions section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Strategies to Prevent Overcrowding and Risk of Stampede in MRT Stations","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"69 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Transport what strategies are put in place to prevent MRT stations from being overcrowded with commuters and to reduce the risk of crowd pushing, crushing and collapses from occurring.
Mr S Iswaran: Our rail operators and LTA have in place rail incident management plans which include station-specific crowd control procedures. MRT stations are manned by station staff and monitored by operation control centres on a 24/7 basis. Upon detecting potential build-up of crowds in any part of the station, station managers will trigger a series of crowd control measures to regulate the inflow and outflow of the station. If necessary, operators will contact the relevant Home Team agencies for assistance. Let me give you some examples.
For example, if a crowd is forming on the platform due to service delay, operators may increase train frequencies, where possible, to promptly clear the crowd. Meanwhile, operators may also take measures to slow down the crowd movement from the concourse to the platform, such as switching off the escalators or even holding back commuters at the concourse level until the crowd at the platform has eased. If necessary, operators will also temporarily divert commuters to other nearby MRT stations. Similar measures are used if there are large crowds trying to exit stations.
These crowd control procedures are part of operators’ rail incident management plans, which are regularly reviewed by LTA in consultation with the Singapore Police Force. There are also regular joint exercises to ensure that relevant personnel are familiar with the plans. In addition, for special events where larger crowds are expected, such as National Day Parade, Formula One races and New Year’s Eve countdowns, rail operators, LTA and the Singapore Police Force work closely with the event organisers to formulate crowd management contingency plans.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Subsidies for Prime Location Public Flat Owners","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"70 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for National Development (a) how does HDB intend to reassure Prime Location Public Housing (PLH) flat owners that the subsidies provided by HDB are more than the subsidies recovered from them if it does not release the exact subsidies provided for PLH flats; (b) whether HDB seeks to recover nominal or inflation-adjusted subsidies provided; and (c) whether HDB will reduce the subsidy recovery percentage if there is a greater than expected price appreciation by the time PLH flats exceed their minimum occupation period.
Mr Desmond Lee: The Prime Location Public Housing (PLH) model ensures that new public housing built in prime, central locations will remain affordable, accessible and inclusive for Singaporeans. Left solely to market forces, housing in prime locations would be out of reach for many, given their attractive locations and attributes, and corresponding higher prices, and it is likely that only the better-off would be able to afford them.
To ensure that these flats remain affordable for a wide range of Singaporeans, flats offered under the PLH model are priced with additional subsidies, on top of the substantial subsidies already provided for Build-To-Order (BTO) flats today.
As a result of these additional subsidies, PLH flat owners benefit from the opportunity to enjoy an uplift from the price appreciation of these flats when they are sold on the open market, which is typically much higher than other BTO flats in non-prime areas. To mitigate these windfall gains and to ensure equity with other BTO flat owners who are not accorded the additional subsidies, PLH flat owners who choose to sell their flats will have to return to HDB a percentage of the resale price or the valuation of the flat upon the sale of their homes, whichever is the higher. For the 10 PLH projects launched thus far, the subsidy recovery rate is fixed at 6%.
The subsidy recovery rate, therefore, does not equate to the amount of the additional subsidy. Rather, the subsidy recovery rate is imposed on a percentage basis to ensure that PLH flat buyers do not have disproportionately higher gains upon the sale of the flat than BTO flat buyers.
As HDB does not recover an amount equal to the additional subsidy, the question of whether it seeks to recover nominal or inflation-adjusted subsidies does not arise.
For the same reason, the subsidy recovery rate would not vary even if there is a greater-than-expected price appreciation by the time PLH flats exceed their minimum occupation period. The PLH owner would still have to pay 6% of the resale price or valuation, but, by the same token, the PLH flat owner would also get the benefit of the 94% of the greater-than-expected price appreciation.
The subsidy recovery rate is made known to all flat buyers during HDB’s sales launches. PLH flat owners who do not sell their flat will not be required to pay the subsidy recovery rate.
Overall, the PLH model seeks to support Singaporeans’ home ownership aspirations. It offers more than just the additional subsidies, as it gives Singaporeans the chance to live in and enjoy the benefits of prime, central locations. We will continue to review the PLH model, including the extent of additional subsidies and the subsidy recovery rate, to ensure that public housing remains affordable and accessible to a wide range of Singaporeans.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Necessity of Electronic Health Declaration via SG Arrival Card","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"71 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for Health whether the electronic Health Declaration done through the SG Arrival Card by specified travellers arriving in Singapore is still necessary in light of prevailing COVID-19 management measures.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The electronic Health Declaration remains necessary to support public health surveillance efforts at the borders for existing and emerging infectious diseases of concern, such as Yellow Fever, Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and Ebola. Before the COVID-19 pandemic, we used a paper-based declaration system, which has since been simplified and digitised into the electronic Health Declaration.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Strategy on Cryptocurrency Investments and Protection of Retail Investors","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"73 Mr Seah Kian Peng asked the Prime Minister (a) what is the Government's strategy for managing cryptocurrency investments in future, including risk mitigation strategies; (b) what is the extent to which private retail investors have been affected by the recent rout of cryptocurrencies; and (c) whether the Government will do more to educate people about the risks of such investments.
74 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Prime Minister (a) whether MAS plans to further tighten cryptocurrency trading by retail investors; (b) whether Singapore retail users should only be allowed to park their assets under a local entity of any cryptocurrency exchange; and (c) what additional safeguards or regulations will be implemented on cryptocurrency firms operating in Singapore to protect local consumers.
75 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Prime Minister (a) what factors are taken into account in determining the eligibility of Binance and FTX cryptocurrency trading platforms to operate in Singapore; and (b) whether these factors for licence eligibility will be reviewed.
81 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Prime Minister with the collapse of cryptocurrency trading platform FTX (a) how many institutional and retail investors in Singapore are affected; and (b) whether are there further downside risks in other similar platforms.
83 Ms Mariam Jaafar asked the Prime Minister in light of the recent bankruptcy of cryptocurrency trading platform FTX, when will additional consumer protection rules be considered, including limiting retail participation and rules on leverage when transacting in cryptocurrencies.
Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam (for the Prime Minister): I thank the Members for the questions. Mr Lawrence Wong, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance, and Deputy Chairman of MAS, will address these in his reply at the 30 November 2022 Parliament Sitting. [Please refer to \"Bankruptcy of Cryptocurrency Trading Platform FTX and Impact on Singapore's Financial Markets, Regulation of Such Asset Class and Strategies of Singapore's Investment Funds\", Official Report, 30 November 2022, Vol 95, Issue 78, Oral Answers to Questions section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reasons for Increase in COE Prices and Number of Motorcycles Deregistered","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"86 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for Transport (a) what are the new drivers for the recent increase in COE prices for motor vehicles and motorcycles; (b) to what extent are these drivers cyclical and non-cyclical in nature; and (c) at present, how many motorcycle owners have de-registered their motorcycles without renewing their COEs.
Mr S Iswaran: I thank the Member for the question. Mr Louis Chua has filed a related question for a subsequent Parliament Sitting. I will also address his question in my reply.
In land-scarce Singapore, along with the need to control traffic congestion, we limit our vehicle population and allocate the quota through the Vehicle Quota System, where bidders bid for a Certificate of Entitlement (COE) to register a vehicle. As the vehicle growth rate has been 0% per annum since 2018, the supply of COEs is primarily determined by the number of vehicles deregistered. COE prices reflect the demand and supply for vehicles. Since motor showrooms and vehicle dealerships reopened in June 2020 after the circuit breaker, the demand for all vehicles and, by extension, COEs, has been strong. At the same time, COE supply has decreased over this period due to a lower number of vehicle deregistrations. As a result, COE prices have been increasing.
As some industry watchers have highlighted, there is a cyclical pattern behind COE supply since most vehicles tend to be deregistered closer to the end of their 10-year COE lifespan. The COE supply for cars was last at its lowest in 2013.
The Member also asked about the number of motorcycle owners who have deregistered their vehicle, without securing a new COE. As with other vehicles, there is turnover in the ownership of motorcycles. This could be due to a variety of factors, including changes in commuting patterns and needs, or a decision to lease rather than buy.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of Rising Costs and Resource Constraints on Timeline for \"30 by 30\" Goal","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"87 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment with regard to the progress of the \"30 by 30\" goal (a) what are the resource constraints faced by food producers; and (b) whether higher energy and other input costs have any impact on the timeline to meet this goal.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Food producers in Singapore face constraints in the availability of land and manpower. They also need to deal with the costs of energy, water and agri-inputs, such as feed, fry/fingerling and seeds. Due to factors, such as geopolitical tensions, rising inflation and inclement weather events, our farms, as with many other businesses, have been facing higher costs associated with energy and agri-inputs. The Singapore Food Agency (SFA) works closely with our local farms to address these challenges and we remain committed to working towards our goal of developing the capabilities and capacity to meet 30% of Singapore’s nutritional needs by 2030.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Digital Singapore Dollar as Genuine Electronic Currency","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"88 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Prime Minister with regard to the proposed trial of a digital Singapore dollar (DSGD) for Government payouts and vouchers (a) whether the proposed restrictions on fungibility and bearer value will undermine the objective of understanding how the DSGD would operate as a genuine electronic currency; and (b) if so, how will the DSGD differ from an e-voucher system, such as RedeemSG.
Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam (for the Prime Minister): A digital Singapore dollar is, essentially, money that can be digitally programmed to impose conditions under which the money can be spent. For example, merchants and issuers of digital Singapore dollars can specify the types of shops and validity period for their use prior to consumers receiving these money. When consumers make payment at these permitted shops, the digital Singapore dollars are transferred to the shop owners with the programmed conditions removed. The shop owners can then go on to use these digital Singapore dollars free of conditions, such as to pay their suppliers and so on. There are thus no restrictions on its fungibility and bearer value.
MAS has collaborated with the industry to initiate a few trials to test the potential applications of such a digital Singapore dollar. At the recent Singapore FinTech Festival, trial participants used vouchers adapted from RedeemSG at participating food and beverage outlets, and the merchants received digital Singapore dollars with each voucher redeemed.
Using digital Singapore dollars in this way offers some advantages over pure e-voucher systems: (a) merchants would not need to submit a separate claim to the voucher issuer and wait to be reimbursed; (b) consumers or merchants need not manually verify the validity of these vouchers, as the conditions for accepting them are digitally programmed; (c) merchants can easily support vouchers issued by multiple issuers through a common scheme, rather than having to onboard each issuer separately; and (d) MAS will continue these collaborations with industry participants. Future phases of work will study ways to improve user experience, as well as ensure security and privacy.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Implementation of Silver Zones and Lessons Learnt","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"89 Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether he can provide an update on the progress of the implementation of Silver Zones; and (b) how have the designs evolved to take on lessons learnt from the Silver Zones implemented earlier.
Mr S Iswaran: As at 31 October 2022, LTA has completed 26 Silver Zones, and another 24 zones will be progressively completed by 2025, bringing the total number to 50.
Since the first Silver Zone was completed in 2014, LTA has been improving the design features to better meet the needs of the local community. These include using 3D road markings to encourage motorists to slow down where physical traffic calming measures are not feasible and reducing the thickness of speed regulating strips to reduce vehicular noise.
LTA has also been engaging communities upstream – at the design stage – to co-create and implement feasible suggestions, such as widening footpaths and providing more crossing points with larger centre medians, where the elderly can pause to rest when crossing the road.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Persons Under Age 18 Involved in Drug Trafficking and Measures to Protect Youths","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"90 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for Home Affairs in the past five years (a) how many persons under the age of 18 have been (i) investigated (ii) arrested and (iii) charged for offences in relation to drug trafficking respectively on annual basis; (b) of these, what proportion are under (i) 14 years of age and (ii) 16 years of age respectively; and (c) what measures are being taken to protect very young Singaporeans from exposure to drug culture and being recruited into drug-related crime.
Mr K Shanmugam: Between 2017 and 2021, about 19 persons under the age of 18 were arrested and investigated for drug trafficking every year. Of these, about 27% were under 16 years old and about 2% were under 14.
Between 2017 and 2021, about four persons under the age of 18 were charged and found guilty of drug trafficking every year. Of these, about 21% were under 16 and none was under 14.
The Government has taken several measures to try to protect the young from being recruited into drug-related crime or exposed to a drug culture.
We strengthened our laws in this regard. In 2013, we increased the punishment for adult traffickers who traffic a Class A controlled drug to a person below the age of 21. We also introduced a new offence for an adult who causes or procures any young person or vulnerable person to traffic or import drugs. In 2019, we made it an offence for an adult to permit, or not take reasonable steps to prevent, a young person below 16 years of age from consuming illicit drugs in the adult’s possession.
Second, the Central Narcotics Bureau, or CNB, works with its partners to educate the young on the harms of drugs. CNB engages students from Primary and Secondary schools and Institutes of Higher Learning through a range of activities, such as talks and sharing sessions, pre-overseas exchange briefings, and skits. CNB also provides informational resources to persons in positions of influence over young persons, such as parents, counsellors, National Service commanders and educators, with tips on how to spot possible drug abuse and where to seek help for their children or wards.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Nominal Wage Growth for Full-time Employed Singapore Citizens by Industry","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"92 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Manpower what has been the nominal wage growth for full-time employed Singapore Citizens by industry in the year-to-date.
Dr Tan See Leng: \tAs with previous years, the nominal median income growth for full-time employed residents by industry is released annually in January. The latest available data is as of 2021, and the 2022 data will be released in end-January 2023 in the report on Labour Force in Singapore.
1 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Prime Minister (a) whether individuals who are not Singapore Citizens can be granted Public Service Commission, A*Star and National Research Foundation scholarships and fellowships; (b) if so, whether they are required to become Singapore Citizens prior to commencement of the scholarship or fellowship; (c) if so, how many have done so; and (d) how many have subsequently renounced their Singapore Citizenship.
Mr Chan Chun Sing (for the Prime Minister): The Public Service Commission (PSC) Scholarships, A*STAR Scholarships and Fellowships and the National Research Foundation Fellowships are established to serve different purposes.
PSC Scholarships are targeted at outstanding young Singaporeans who are committed to a career in the Public Service to serve Singapore and Singaporeans. Hence, the current policy is that only Singaporeans are eligible to apply for the PSC Scholarships.
The A*STAR Scholarships are aimed at nurturing a pipeline of locally-based scientific talent who can contribute towards Singapore's future economy, society and science. Considering only those who are Singaporeans at the time of application would limit our selection pool, given the size of Singapore's population.
The majority of A*STAR scholars are Singaporeans. Foreign-born scholars, including Singapore Permanent Residents (SPRs), who take up the overseas scholarships, such as the National Science Scholarship (NSS), are required, under the terms of their scholarship award, to take up Singapore Citizenship no later than the third year of their studies, and for the A*STAR International Fellowship (AIF), prior to embarking on their fellowship.
Non-Singapore Citizens (SCs)/non-SPRs who take up the local PhD scholarships under A*STAR are contractually obliged to work in a Singapore-based entity for three years upon completion of their PhD studies if they have not obtained SC/SPR.
A*STAR has awarded scholarships to over 1,700 individuals. Of this, approximately 300 individuals were SPRs/foreign nationals at the point of scholarship award, making up approximately 18% of A*STAR's scholar population. To date, about 90% of these scholars have applied for and have been granted SC, and about 10% are in various stages of applying for Singapore Citizenship.
A*STAR is not aware of scholars who have subsequently renounced their Singapore Citizenship.
Beyond building a strong local core, A*STAR recognises that a diversity of talent is needed to strengthen Singapore's R&D ecosystem. A*STAR also provides awards/attachments to international PhD and pre-PhD students. These students contribute to a diverse graduate student community in Singapore and help to strengthen A*STAR and Singapore's network of international linkages.
The National Research Foundation Fellowship provides research funding to outstanding early-career researchers to carry out research in Singapore's Autonomous Universities and research institutions. To allow Singapore to benefit from the global research talent pool, early-career researchers of all nationalities can submit their applications through an annual open competitive call. There is no requirement for these Fellows to take on Singapore Citizenship.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Factors Considered When Introducing Mandatory Disclosure Requirements for Financial Institutions","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"2 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Prime Minister whether MAS will take into account the United Nations Sustainable Stock Exchanges' Model Guidance on Climate Disclosure in addition to the International Sustainability Standards Board's standards when introducing mandatory disclosure for financial institutions.
Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam (for the Prime Minister): The Sustainable Stock Exchanges Initiative's Model Guidance on Climate Disclosure (SSE Model Guidance) provides a template to guide issuers on implementing the recommendations of the Task Force for Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD).
The draft standards issued by the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) build upon the TCFD recommendations and the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB) standards, among others. The ISSB standards are expected to form the global baseline for sustainability disclosures by corporates and financial institutions.
ISSB is expected to issue its own guidance on how to report against its standards, which will likely supersede the SSE Model Guidance over time. Many jurisdictions expect to shift from existing standards and guidance, such as the TCFD recommendations and SSE Model Guidance, towards ISSB standards and guidance.
As MAS has stated, it will set out a roadmap for mandatory disclosure requirements by financial institutions based on the ISSB standards.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of FTX's Bankruptcy on Singapore Investors and Businesses and on Implementation of Digital Singapore Dollar","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"3 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Prime Minister what are the lessons and impact from the recent bankruptcy of cryptocurrency exchange FTX on the timeframe and measures to be taken for the implementation of a purpose-bound digital Singapore dollar by MAS.
4 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Prime Minister (a) whether there is an estimated number of Singapore investors who are affected by the insolvency of cryptocurrency trading platform FTX; (b) what is the estimated size of total investments affected; and (c) of these, how many are from retail investors.
5 Mr Shawn Huang Wei Zhong asked the Prime Minister with regard to the collapse of the FTX Crypto Exchange recently (a) what is the impact on Singapore investors and businesses; (b) what are some of the measures in place to protect investors; and (c) what are the short- and medium-term plans to ensure a well-paced crypto industry development in Singapore.
Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam (for the Prime Minister): I thank the Members for the questions. Mr Lawrence Wong, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance, and Deputy Chairman of MAS, will address these in his reply at the 30 November 2022 Parliament Sitting. [Please refer to \"Bankruptcy of Cryptocurrency Trading Platform FTX and Impact on Singapore's Financial Markets, Regulation of Such Asset Class and Strategies of Singapore's Investment Funds\", Official Report, 30 November 2022, Vol 95, Issue 78, Oral Answers to Questions section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Treatment of Singapore Banks' Crypto Asset Exposure and Capital Adequacy","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"6 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Prime Minister (a) what are MAS' requirements as to the prudential treatment of Singapore banks' crypto asset exposure; and (b) what are the risk-weighting requirements applicable to crypto asset exposures in assessing Singapore banks' capital adequacy.
Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam (for the Prime Minister): Singapore-incorporated banks' exposures to crypto assets are insignificant, contributing less than 0.05% of their total risk weighted assets.
The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS) is working to finalise a framework for the prudential treatment of banks' exposures to crypto assets. MAS contributes actively to this work, which seeks to ensure that banks maintain adequate capital and liquidity for such exposures. BCBS has issued two rounds of consultation thus far and will finalise the framework around the end of 2022.
Pending the finalisation of the framework, MAS requires Singapore-incorporated banks to apply a 1,250% risk weight for exposures to riskier crypto assets, such as Bitcoin and Ether. This is the highest risk weight under BCBS' capital framework. Based on MAS' minimum total capital adequacy requirement of 10% for systemically important banks incorporated in Singapore, this means that Singapore-incorporated banks are required to hold $125 of capital against an exposure of $100 to a crypto asset like Bitcoin. For less risky crypto assets, such as tokenised corporate bonds that meet a set of conditions to ensure that they pose the same level of financial risks as traditional corporate bonds, the prudential treatment is similar to that applied to the traditional non-tokenised asset.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Breakdown of Effective Tax Rate by Companies' Profits before Tax","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"7 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance in each of the years from YA2018 to YA2021, what is the effective tax rate for companies with (i) up to $10,000, (ii) from $10,000 to $200,000, (iii) from $200,000 to $1 million, (iv) from $1 million to $10 million, (v) from $10 million to $100 million, (vi) from $100 million to $1 billion and (vii) more than $1 billion, in profits before tax respectively.
Mr Lawrence Wong: There have been requests from members for different types of information on corporate tax on several occasions since last year. Each new permutation of data request requires intensive effort to compile. The Government already publishes extensive data on corporate tax, which is publicly available on www.data.gov.sg. This includes data that can be used to estimate the overall effective tax rate for companies in each of the published chargeable income band. We suggest that Ms Hazel Poa refer to the website to access the necessary data.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Contribution and Withdrawal Requirements of Supplementary Retirement Scheme for Locals and Foreigners","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"8 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) whether the Ministry will review the Supplementary Retirement Scheme (SRS) for Singaporeans by raising the maximum contribution per annum to match that of foreigners; (b) why are foreigners allowed tax reliefs on their income when they contribute to the SRS; and (c) whether the withdrawal requirements and penalties will be amended for more equality between locals and foreigners.
Mr Lawrence Wong: The Supplementary Retirement Scheme (SRS) is a supplementary savings scheme for all who work in Singapore. It is separate from the CPF scheme which caters specifically to Singaporeans and Permanent Residents (PRs). SRS, therefore, provides an avenue for foreigners working in Singapore to plan and save for their retirement.
SRS does not have the same tax benefits as CPF. Singaporeans and PRs benefit from full income tax relief on compulsory employee CPF contributions, and CPF withdrawals are not subject to any income tax. In comparison, SRS is a tax deferral scheme where contributions to SRS benefit from income tax relief, but withdrawals will be subject to income tax. The amount of income tax paid will be dependent on the circumstances of the withdrawal, such as the timing and amount of SRS funds withdrawn, and the individual's income tax band.
The maximum SRS contribution for foreigners is currently set to be equal to the maximum SRS contribution for Singaporeans and PRs, together with their CPF contributions, which foreigners do not participate in.
Generally, Singaporeans, PRs and foreigners are subject to the same conditions for SRS withdrawals, including a penalty on early withdrawal of SRS savings prior to retirement. However, foreigners may be allowed to make a penalty-free one-time withdrawal after 10 years from the date of first contribution, subject to conditions, such as withdrawing the full amount. This concession recognises the non-permanent nature of residency for non-PR foreigners, while balancing against the scheme's objective of encouraging retirement savings.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Limits for Exposure to Different Asset Classes for National Sovereign Wealth Funds","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"9 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance in view of the distinct investment and development mandates for the two national sovereign wealth funds, whether the Ministry issues guidelines to each on acceptable limits for exposure to different asset classes, including alternative assets, such as cryptocurrency and cryptocurrency exchanges.
Mr Lawrence Wong: The Government expects GIC and Temasek to deliver good, long-term returns on their portfolios, in line with their respective mandates. The Government sets out its risk tolerance to the investment entities but does not prescribe guidelines on the allocations of specific assets or asset classes for our investment entities, whether for cryptocurrencies or other assets. We systematically review the overall risks of the whole portfolio of assets invested by the entities. This includes monitoring whether there is appropriate diversification across asset classes, sectors and geographies.
The Government holds the boards and management teams of GIC and Temasek responsible for formulating their respective investment and risk management strategies in accordance with the Government's overall risk tolerance.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Value of Temasek Holdings' Investments in Cryptocurrency Trading Platform FTX and Its Subsidiaries","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"10 Ms Mariam Jaafar asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance what is the value of Temasek Holdings' investments in cryptocurrency trading platform FTX and its subsidiaries.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Temasek issued a statement1 on 17 November 2022 on its investments in FTX. The total cost of Temasek's investment in FTX was US$275 million, or 0.09% of Temasek's net portfolio value of S$403 billion as of 31 March 2022.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : 1 Temasek's statement on FTX can be accessed at https://www.temasek.com.sg/en/news-and-resources/news-room/statements/2022/statement-FTX"],"footNoteQuestions":["10"],"questionNo":"10"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Applicability of GST Offset Packages to Singaporeans Employed Overseas with No Reportable Tax Returns","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"11 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance whether the GST offset packages apply to Singaporeans employed overseas with no reportable tax returns.
Mr Lawrence Wong: The Assurance Package (AP) for GST and the permanent GST Voucher (GSTV) scheme are meant to offset Singaporeans' GST expenses incurred in Singapore. To qualify for benefits, such as the cash and MediSave top-ups under AP and GSTV, the citizen must be residing in Singapore in the relevant year.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Valuation of New and Old Reclaimed Land and Their Inclusion in Current and Past Reserves","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"12 Mr Pritam Singh asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) does the value of new land that has been reclaimed go into current reserves; (b) whether this value is based on the actual cost of reclamation or the value of new land in reference to the Chief Valuer's land betterment charge (LBC) tables; and (c) for land previously reclaimed, whether the revaluation for marking to market is done once a year based on the annual LBC rates or once every six months based on the six-monthly LBC rates or is the value of the land in past reserves held at the cost of land reclamation until it is sold to the Government for a specific use.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Past Reserves are used to fund land reclamation. The reclaimed land will form part of our state land holdings and is protected as Past Reserves. There is no change to the value of Past Reserves as the transaction is a conversion of a financial asset to a physical asset.
The Government does not record the valuation for unsold state land, including reclaimed land. Instead, the Government maintains a listing of state land that is protected as part of the Past Reserves.
The Government only values state land, including reclaimed land, at the point of sale to enable disposal at fair market value and avoid a draw on Past Reserves, and not on an ongoing basis. Hence, the issue of revaluation does not arise.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Key Outcomes from German Federal Chancellor Olaf Scholz's Visit to Singapore","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"13 Mr Raj Joshua Thomas asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs what are the key outcomes of the recent visit by the German Federal Chancellor Olaf Scholz to Singapore.
Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: German Federal Chancellor Olaf Scholz was in Singapore for an Official Visit on 14 November 2022, during which he met President Halimah Yacob, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, both Deputy Prime Ministers and key political office holders. Prime Minister Lee and Chancellor Scholz endorsed a Joint Declaration titled \"Partners for a Resilient and Sustainable Future\", which takes stock of our existing areas of collaborations, and includes a comprehensive plan of action to strengthen cooperation in new and emerging areas, such as renewable energy, the digital economy and cybersecurity.
Chancellor Scholz gave a keynote speech at the 17th Asia-Pacific Conference of German Business (APK), which was attended by over 600 participants, including C-suite business leaders. APK served to promote business ties between Germany and Singapore as well as our region. The Germany-Singapore Framework for Sustainability and Innovation was signed on the sidelines of APK, which aims to enhance economic collaboration at the government-to-government, government-to-business and business-to-business levels.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact from US and India's Upgraded Ties with ASEAN","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"14 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs with the United States and India upgrading ties with ASEAN to comprehensive strategic partnerships level (a) what is the expected economic impact for Singapore; and (b) what are the specific areas of deepened collaboration expected between Singapore and the two countries respectively.
Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: The establishment of the ASEAN-India and the ASEAN-US Comprehensive Strategic Partnerships (CSPs) were sought by both Dialogue Partners and will build on their longstanding and multi-faceted relations with ASEAN to deliver more meaningful, substantive and mutually beneficial cooperation. Singapore welcomed both CSPs, especially the contributions by both India and the US towards an open, inclusive, peaceful, stable and prosperous region.
Singapore and ASEAN will benefit economically from the CSPs. With India, ASEAN will commence reviewing the ASEAN-India Trade in Goods Agreement (AITIGA) to make it more user-friendly, simple and trade-facilitative to facilitate stronger trade and investment flows. With the US, ASEAN will benefit from new initiatives, such as the ASEAN-US Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Initiative and the ASEAN-US Platform for Infrastructure and Connectivity. ASEAN and the US will further cooperation in the ASEAN Smart Cities Network and strengthen ASEAN's public health infrastructure through the ASEAN-US Health Futures Initiative.
Through these CSPs, Singapore can deepen collaboration with India in important areas, such as regional connectivity, cybersecurity and the digital economy to benefit our businesses and people. For the US, we hope to work together to support ASEAN's clean energy transition, strengthen the region's energy security and grid resilience, and establish low-carbon energy solutions and green energy infrastructure.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Ex-spouses Overstaying in Matrimonial Homes Ordered Sold by Court","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"15 Ms Carrie Tan asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) for the last five years, what is the annual number of requests received by the Singapore Police Force for help regarding ex-spouses who are overstaying in matrimonial homes that have been ordered by the Court to be sold; and (b) what is the typical course of action when such requests for help are received.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Police do not track the number of such requests. The breach of such Court orders, by itself, does not constitute a criminal offence.
When such requests for help are received, Police will assess based on the facts and circumstances of each case. For situations where criminal offences are disclosed, Police will investigate accordingly.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Efforts to Monitor and Prevent Cannabis Plant Cultivation in Singapore","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"16 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Home Affairs how is the Central Narcotics Bureau monitoring and preventing cannabis plant cultivation within Singapore.
Mr K Shanmugam: The cultivation of the cannabis plant in Singapore is an offence under the Misuse of Drugs Act. The possession of any part of the cannabis plant, including the whole plant and its seeds, is also an offence.
The Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB) works with agencies, such as the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority and Singapore Customs, to detect and prevent the importation of cannabis. CNB also takes enforcement action against persons found to be cultivating cannabis in Singapore.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Efforts to Deter Use of Cannabis in Singapore","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"17 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Home Affairs what more can be done to deter the use and prevalence of cannabis in Singapore.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB) has been working with its partners to educate the public, especially youths, on the harms of cannabis.
It regularly publishes explainer videos, news stories and other resources on its website and social media platforms. These materials are also made available to persons in positions of influence over youths, such as parents, counsellors, educators, community leaders and National Service commanders. CNB will be increasing its collaboration with the education sector to better engage students on drug matters.
To ensure that its materials are relatable to youths, CNB works with youth advocates, such as students from Institutes of Higher Learning, on projects, such as campus-based exhibitions and outreach campaigns, including correcting misinformation about \"medical cannabis\" and the nature of cannabis addiction, and to encourage students to take a strong stand against drugs.
At the same time, CNB will continue with its enforcement efforts, including cracking down on Telegram channels facilitating drug transactions.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Community Partnerships to Strengthen Support for Victims of Sexual Crime and Family Violence","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"18 Ms Mariam Jaafar asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether he can provide an update on the efforts to boost community partnerships to strengthen support for victims of sexual crime and family violence.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Police collaborate with community partners and strategic stakeholders to support victims of sexual crime and family violence. For example, the Police are working with SG Her Empowerment Limited (SHE) to improve the reporting experience for victims. As of October 2022, 167 volunteers have been appointed under the Victim Care Cadre Programme (VCCP). Police can activate these volunteers, with the consent of the victim, to provide emotional support throughout the course of investigations. The Police also work with the Family Violence Specialist Centres (FVSCs), which provide support to victims of any form of violence, including sexual violence.
Since July 2022, the Police have deployed Family Violence Community Police Officers in all Neighbourhood Police Centres. These officers manage family violence cases and escalate high-risk cases to social service agencies to enable early upstream intervention.
The Police Training Workgroup (PTWG) was set up by the Police and MSF in June 2021 to enhance training for frontline Police Officers in managing victims of family violence, as recommended by the Taskforce on Family Violence. Members of PTWG come from diverse backgrounds, such as Family Service Centres, the Singapore Council of Women's Organisations, crisis shelters and the Family Justice Court. The workgroup has tapped on the members' professional and practical experiences to develop a scenario-based training package for the officers.
The Family Violence Working Groups (FVWGs), comprising community and Government agencies, was set up in March 2021 to raise awareness of family violence and ensure that victims have access to help. MSF will also continue to raise public awareness on family violence through the Break the Silence campaign and providing Family and Domestic Violence Awareness Training to more stakeholders across the public, private and people sectors.
We urge anyone who suspects or witnesses family violence to call the National Anti-Violence and Sexual Harassment Helpline (NAVH) at 1800-777-0000.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Illegal and Problem Gambling during World Cup 2022","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"19 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether illegal gambling activities tend to increase sharply during the World Cup period; and (b) whether the Ministry intends to push out problem gambling advertisements and messages with more frequency during the period of the World Cup 2022.
Mr K Shanmugam: MHA has, indeed, observed an increase in illegal football betting during major international football tournaments, including the World Cup. In anticipation of this, the Police have stepped up enforcement efforts during this World Cup 2022 period. The Police are also working with various stakeholders to disable telephone lines that are reported to be used for advertising illegal gambling activities, block access to illegal gambling content and websites, as well as close bank accounts involved with illegal gambling activities. The National Crime Prevention Council has launched a campaign to warn the public about the risks of betting with illegal operators.
In addition, the National Council on Problem Gambling (NCPG) has launched a new campaign to caution the public on excessive football betting. The NCPG video is screened before and during football matches on television. There will also be advertisements on radio, newspaper and social media platforms.
Ultimately, however, individuals must exercise personal responsibility. Family members and friends should also look out for people close to them who may be affected by problem gambling and encourage them to seek help by calling the NCPG Helpline (1800-6-668-668) or Webchat (www.ncpg.org.sg).
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Breakdown of COE Bids by Engine Capacity in Last Five Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"20 Mr Abdul Samad asked the Minister for Transport in each of the past five years, what is the breakdown of COE bids by engine capacity of (i) 200 cc and below, (ii) 201 cc to 400 cc and (iii) above 400 cc.
Mr S Iswaran: From 2018 to end-October 2022, in each year, about 70% of all motorcycles registered are with engine capacity of 200 cc and below. These represent the mass-market motorcycle models. Of the remaining 30%, about two-thirds are used to register motorcycles of 201 cc to 400 cc, and one-third to register models of 401 cc and above.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Expected Operational and Start Date of Stage 4 of Thomson-East Coast Line","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"21 Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked the Minister for Transport whether he can provide an update on the expected operational and start date of Stage 4 of the Thomson-East Coast Line.
Mr S Iswaran: Stage 4 of the Thomson-East Coast Line (TEL4) will provide greater connectivity for commuters travelling to and from the East Coast region. Seven stations under TEL4 are expected to commence passenger service in 2024. The eighth TEL4 station, Founders' Memorial station, will open in tandem with the Founders' Memorial.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Progress of Upgrading Works on Bukit Panjang LRT System","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"22 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether he can provide an update on the progress of the upgrading works on the Bukit Panjang LRT system; and (b) when will the system revert to full dual loop service.
Mr S Iswaran: The Bukit Panjang LRT (BPLRT) system renewal contract was awarded to Bombardier Singapore in 2018. It covers the upgrading of multiple systems on a live line. This includes renewing the entire signalling and power rail system, adding 19 new trains, upgrading another 13 trains from the existing fleet, and equipping the system with condition monitoring capabilities.
While progress has been made and part of the backend signalling system has already been upgraded, the project has also faced several challenges since 2020 due to the impact of COVID-19. These include manpower shortage, slower progress due to lockdown of cities (as train manufacturing works are undertaken in China) and supply chain disruptions. We now expect the project to be completed in 2026.
In the meantime, BPLRT continues to offer full dual-loop services during peak hours. However, to reduce the strain on our ageing BPLRT systems before the renewals are completed, BPLRT will continue to operate in a single loop during off-peak hours when ridership is lower. To mitigate the impact on residents, there are more than 10 bus services operating within Choa Chu Kang and Bukit Panjang, with five of them running parallel to stretches of BPLRT.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Unmanned Aircraft Activity Permits Issued Annually and Review of Height Limit for Drones","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"23 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Transport (a) how many unmanned aircraft activity permits are issued annually in the past three years; (b) whether there has been a rising trend; and (c) when will the review for the height limit for drone aerial activities be completed.
Mr S Iswaran: The number of unmanned aircraft (UA) activity permits issued by the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore (CAAS) in the last three calendar years are: (i) 2,174 in 2020, (ii) 2,837 in 2021 and (iii) 2,902 from January to October 2022. The number of activity permits issued from January to October 2022 is also the highest within a single year, since the introduction of the regime in 2015.
Besides the restrictions within five kilometres of all aerodromes, CAAS also imposes a height limit of 200 feet above mean sea level on all UA activities, to safeguard aviation safety. CAAS is reviewing the height limit in consideration of the development of technological solutions, such as the remote identification of UA, which will allow CAAS to better monitor and ensure the safe conduct of UA activities. The review timeframe will be based on the deployment timeline of these solutions.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Improving Ingress and Egress of Emergency Vehicles in Silver Zones","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"24 Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin asked the Minister for Transport given that the creation of Silver Zones generally involves the reduction of lanes in a designated area to a single lane, whether there can be any improvements made to consider the smooth ingress and egress of emergency vehicles in such zones.
Mr S Iswaran: In designing the Silver Zones, LTA adjusts the existing road infrastructure such that some road space is freed up to provide more crossing space for elderly pedestrians and/or some roadways are reduced to single-lane roads to reduce vehicle speeds. These changes enhance pedestrian safety within the zones.
From the first Silver Zone implemented in 2014, LTA has worked closely with relevant agencies, including Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF), to ensure that the ingress and egress of emergency vehicles in such zones are not hindered. Along most segments of the zones, special low height centre dividers are installed – instead of regular height centre dividers – to allow emergency vehicles to drive onto the divider so that they can bypass any obstruction along single lane roads, when needed.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Industry-specific Targets for PM2.5 Pollution","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"25 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) whether the Ministry has industry-specific targets for PM2.5 pollution; and (b) whether there is any data showing our progress on such targets over the last five years.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: NEA sets standards on air pollutant emissions, including particulate matter (PM) that covers PM2.5, which all industrial plants must meet. Major emitters are required to install stack emission monitoring systems to provide NEA with real-time monitoring of pollutant emissions.
The regulatory emission standards apply to all industries, and there is no industry-specific target. NEA regularly reviews the industrial emission standards and benchmarks them against international standards to ensure that our standards remain relevant.
The industrial emission standards were last tightened in 2015. New plants have been subject to the tightened emission standard for particulate matter since 1 July 2015, while existing plants have until 1 July 2023 to comply.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Petrol Stations Granted SG Clean Certification","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"26 Mr Raj Joshua Thomas asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) how many petrol stations have applied for and been granted the SG Clean certification; and (b) whether there are any initiatives by the Ministry to improve the cleanliness and hygiene of petrol station toilets.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: NEA launched the SG Clean Quality Mark certification in February 2020 to rally businesses to take ownership in maintaining high standards of cleanliness and hygiene on their premises. Premises owners or operators who meet a set of sanitation and hygiene requirements, including enhanced toilet cleaning, can apply for and be awarded the SG Clean Quality Mark certification. To date, more than 120 retail outlets in petrol stations have been awarded the SG Clean Quality Mark.
NEA will continue to work with various partners, such as Restroom Association of Singapore, Singapore Kindness Movement and Public Hygiene Council, to promote the cleanliness of public toilets, including those in petrol stations, and encourage good toilet etiquette. Under the Environmental Public Health Act and Regulations, cleanliness lapses, such as the failure to clean and maintain a public toilet and its sanitary conveniences, are subject to enforcement action. We invite petrol station operators to partner NEA in the annual Clean Public Toilets Campaign, which is currently running from November 2022 to February 2023.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Teachers for Character and Citizenship Education Classes","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"27 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for Education (a) whether teachers who are not Singapore Citizens or Permanent Residents teach Character and Citizenship Education classes; (b) if so, in which year are they allowed to do so; and (c) what measures are in place to ensure that they understand and impart Singaporean values.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: All teachers are responsible for imparting values and developing socioemotional competencies in their students and may be deployed to teach Character and Citizenship Education (CCE) lessons. Having said that, less than 1% of our teachers are neither Singapore Citizens nor Permanent Residents.
In deploying teachers to teach the CCE curriculum, which also covers cyber wellness, mental health and education and career guidance, schools will identify those with the requisite skills and dispositions, and provide them with the necessary professional development and guidance.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Slots for Sporting Co-curricular Activities in Schools for All Applicants","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"28 Miss Rachel Ong asked the Minister for Education (a) whether Primary and Secondary schools are able to provide sufficient slots in sporting co-curricular activities (CCAs) for all students who apply for them, outside of forming school teams; and (b) if not, why.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: Our schools provide a range of CCA, that is, clubs and societies, physical sports, uniformed groups, and visual and performing arts, to provide holistic education and cater to diverse student interests. Beyond school teams, students keen to participate in Physical Sports CCA may join recreational or development teams.
Most students are allocated one of their CCA choices. Some popular CCA may not be able to accommodate all interested students due to constraints with facilities, coaches or scheduling. To support interested students beyond CCA, schools also offer Sports Education Programmes where students can take up sports programme as an enrichment.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Attendance in Mandatory Counselling Programme in Family Violence Cases","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"29 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Social and Family Development for the past five years, in cases of family violence (a) how many orders under the Mandatory Counselling Programme have been made to mandate perpetrators, victims and other family members to attend counselling; (b) what is the percentage of cases in which one party failed to attend the counselling programme; and (c) what is the percentage of cases, following the counselling programme, which led to a withdrawal of the Personal Protection Order or Expedited Order.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Under the Women's Charter, the Court may issue a counselling order for the protection or personal safety of the applicant of a Personal Protection Order (PPO).
From 2017 to 2021, about 4,300 counselling orders were issued. About 8% of the respondents did not attend any counselling sessions.
The Court has not compiled data on the proportion of cases where the PPO was withdrawn following the mandatory counselling programme.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Staff-to-child Ratio at Places of Safety and Juvenile Homes","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"30 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Social and Family Development in the past five years, what is the annual average and median staff-to-child ratio at (i) places of safety and (ii) juvenile homes.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: All places of safety are required to meet MSF's minimum care staff-to-child ratio of 1:10 (previously 1:15). This new ratio was introduced in 2020.
As a result, the average and median care staff-to-child ratio in places of safety improved from 1:12 (average and median) in 2017 to within the minimum ratio by 2021.
The two juvenile homes, that is, Singapore Boys' Home and Singapore Girls' Home, are places of safety and operate under the same minimum care staff-to-child ratio.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Undergraduates Studying Islamic Studies and Availability of Certified Teachers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"31 Mr Abdul Samad asked the Minister for Social and Family Development and Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs in light of the MUIS requirement for asatizahs in the graduate category to have a degree in Islamic Studies (a) whether the Ministry has data on the current number of undergraduates studying Islamic Studies; (b) how many new asatizahs are required each year; and (c) what plans does MUIS have to ensure that there are enough certified Islamic teachers.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The mandatory Asatizah Recognition Scheme (ARS) was implemented in 2017 to develop a capable, credible and confident pool of religious teachers (asatizahs) for the Singapore Muslim community. ARS has two tiers, T1 – Islamic Teacher (Graduates) and T2 – Quranic Teacher.
Under T1, Islamic teachers must be graduates in Islamic Studies from a recognised university and have a good command of the Arabic language. Under T2, Quranic teachers must possess a certificate in Quranic teaching from a recognised institution.
Based on MUIS' Asatizah Manpower Planning Studies (AMPS) conducted in 2021, about 350 new asatizahs would be required over the next five years, or around 70 new asatizah per year. Currently, there are about 5,000 asatizahs operating in the religious sector, serving our religious institutions, such as mosques, madrasahs and private Islamic Education Centres and Providers (IECP). Based on projections in AMPS and the number of Islamic Studies graduates returning annually, there will be sufficient asatizahs to meet the community’s current and future religious needs. There are, currently, over 600 students known to MUIS that are undergoing degree programmes related to Islam or Islamic Studies, but not all of them will go on to be religious teachers.
To ensure that the religious sector remains vibrant and able to attract, as well as retain, religious teachers, MUIS embarked on the Asatizah Workforce Development Plan (AWDP) in 2019. AWDP aims to develop the asatizah workforce structurally through the adoption of industry good practices, such as the Career and Competency Framework (CCF) and Common Salary Guideline (CSG), as well as the development of upskilling programmes, such as the Skills Upgrading Plan (SUP) and the Religious Leadership and Talent Development programme (RLTD).
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Redevelopment of National Skin Centre","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"32 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Minister for Health whether he can provide an update on the redevelopment of the National Skin Centre.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Several of our healthcare projects have been delayed due to supply chain disruption and manpower shortages in the construction sector. The construction of the new National Skin Centre (NSC) building is now scheduled for completion by 2023, instead of 2022. NSC would still continue its services from the existing National Skin Centre till the completion of their new building.
Beside NSC, the new polyclinics in Sembawang and Khatib will be delayed by a year, to open in 2023 and 2024 respectively. The integrated development of the redeveloped Jurong Polyclinic and a new Nursing Home will also be delayed by two years to 2027.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"COVID-19 Infections Acquired by Patients from Within Hospitals and Nursing Homes","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"33 Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Minister for Health with regard to the cases of COVID-19 infections acquired by patients from within hospitals and nursing homes from April to September 2022 (a) what proportions of transmissions occurred from (i) patient to patient, (ii) healthcare worker to patient and (iii) other means; and (b) what is the basis of these conclusions or estimates.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: As we move towards living with COVID-19, we have ceased mandatory testing of admissions and staff surveillance testing since March 2022 and comprehensive contact tracing efforts since April 2022. Without epidemiological investigations for each case, we are not able to tell where individuals who have tested positive for COVID-19 in hospitals and nursing homes were infected. Nevertheless, through infection prevention and control measures, our healthcare institutions reduce the risk of patient-to-patient or staff-to-patient transmission as much as possible.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Incentives in New Nationwide Sodium-reduction Campaign to Shift Consumer Behaviour","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"34 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Health (a) how will the new nationwide sodium-reduction campaign shift consumer behaviour to take up low-sodium alternatives; (b) whether there are incentives for businesses to use or offer low-sodium alternatives; (c) if so, what will these incentives be; and (d) what are the measurements for success and the timeline to achieve them.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: As reported in the media, the Health Promotion Board (HPB) launched a public education campaign on sodium reduction in October 2022, to inform the public about health concerns associated with high sodium intake and encourage consumers to switch to lower-sodium alternatives labelled with the Healthier Choice Symbol.
As announced in the Committee of Supply 2022, HPB's Healthier Ingredient Development Scheme provides grants for salt, sauces and seasoning suppliers to develop lower-sodium ingredients and promote their adoption among F&B businesses.
We target to reduce Singaporeans' daily sodium intake by about 15% over five years, from 3,600 milligrams in 2022 to 3,100 milligrams in 2026.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Leveraging Smart Home Technology and Devices to Support Senior Care at Home","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"35 Miss Rachel Ong asked the Minister for Health whether there are plans to leverage on smart home technology and devices to support senior care at home given Singapore's ageing population.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: MOH and partner agencies do leverage smart home technologies to enhance care and support for seniors in their homes. For example, under the Lift Improvement and Facilities Enhancement for the elderly project, a wireless Alert Alarm System was jointly developed by HDB, MOH and GovTech. This is implemented at selected 1-room rental blocks with relatively high concentrations of seniors. Seniors in distress can call for help by pressing alert buttons. This will alert a nearby Active Ageing Centre or Careline's 24/7 helpline.
Service providers have also been partnering the private sector to trial smart technologies that best suit their seniors' needs. These include enabling remote monitoring of vitals, assessment of mental and emotional well-being, and reminders for events and appointments.
We also support the development of innovative technology for senior care at home. MOH launched the Care-At-Home Innovation Grant in 2015 under the National Innovation Challenge on Active and Confident Ageing, to fund research on enhancing the efficiency and quality of home care services.
For example, one project developed a web-based health management system integrating technology and various home care services, such as smart home sensors, medication adherence and meal planning and delivery. The system improved productivity of care staff and led to better care outcomes like increased medical adherence and reduced hospital admissions. The Government will continue to explore how promising research projects can be scaled up and deployed.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Flat Applications Involving Ex-spouses' Disputes over Listing Child as Essential Occupier","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"36 Ms Carrie Tan asked the Minister for National Development (a) in the past five years, how many housing purchase applications that involve a dispute between ex-spouses regarding the listing of their child as an essential occupier have been received by HDB; (b) whether HDB refers these applicants to any agency for help with dispute resolution; and (c) what is the course of action recommended by HDB in such cases.
Mr Desmond Lee: Divorced parents with shared care and control of their child(ren) have an equal right to list their child(ren) in their application to buy or rent an HDB flat. As any individual is only allowed to be listed in one HDB flat application, we require such divorced parents to come to an agreement before either party lists their child(ren) in a flat application.
Those who are unable to reach an agreement with their ex-spouse can approach HDB to discuss their options. From January 2018 to October 2022, HDB received 24 appeals from divorcees who were unable to obtain their ex-spouse's consent to list their child(ren) in a flat application. HDB will review each case and is prepared to exercise flexibility based on individual circumstances, to ensure that both parties have options to provide housing for themselves and their child(ren). HDB may also advise them to approach a Family Service Centre (FSC) for assistance, where needed.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Low-income Families with Bedridden Members Residing in Flats Selected for Home Improvement Programme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"37 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for National Development what assistance may be provided to low-income families with bedridden members residing in HDB flats selected for Home Improvement Programme (HIP) and do not have ability to get alternative accommodation for them during the period of HIP works at their homes.
Mr Desmond Lee: To assist elderly residents or residents with mobility issues residing in HDB flats undergoing Home Improvement Programme (HIP) works, toilets within the flat could be upgraded individually to keep at least one toilet available for use. Workers can also assist residents when they move from their flats to the designated rest areas or temporary toilets located in the void deck, by guiding them to these areas and helping those with mobility issues or on wheelchairs.
Under HIP arrangements today, the HIP schedule could be adjusted to provide buffer time for residents to arrange to stay with their relatives or friends during the upgrading period. HDB also assists residents in sourcing for temporary accommodation in public rental flats on a case-by-case basis. Eligible elderly residents with high care needs may approach the Agency for Integrated Care for referral to the subsidised Nursing Home Respite Care service, which provides temporary residential stay and care in a nursing home.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Basis for Treating BTO Flat Owner with Marriage Annulled and HDB Subsidy Paid Back as Second-time Applicant","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"38 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for National Development why a person who originally purchased a subsidised HDB BTO flat and whose marriage is annulled by the Family Justice Court and thereafter required to pay back any HDB subsidy received with interest, is treated as a second-time applicant when applying for a BTO flat subsequently.
Mr Desmond Lee: A married couple who had purchased their first HDB BTO but subsequently annulled their marriage would no longer be eligible for any housing grants they received for the flat purchase and will thus need to return them to HDB. They may also have to surrender the flat to HDB at the prevailing compensation price. Thereafter, the owners will not be treated as having enjoyed a housing subsidy and will each still be considered first-timers for their next HDB flat purchase.
Individuals who are seeking an annulment of marriage or who have annulled their marriage may approach HDB if they require further assistance or advice on their housing options.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Waiting Time for Applications under HDB's Parenthood Provisional Housing Scheme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"39 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for National Development in each of the past three years (a) what is the average waiting time before an application under HDB's Parenthood Provisional Housing Scheme is approved; and (b) what percentage of such applicants are waiting for their BTO flats to be completed.
Mr Desmond Lee: The Parenthood Provisional Housing Scheme (PPHS) provides an additional temporary housing option for households awaiting key collection for their new HDB flats. In other words, it is open to households who have been successful in booking a flat and are awaiting flat completion.
PPHS is open for application once every two months. Eligible applicants are put through a ballot and those shortlisted via the ballot are invited to select a flat and sign the tenancy agreement in the month following their application. They will collect the keys to the PPHS flat at the same time and can move in immediately.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Cause of Landslide at Clementi NorthArc BTO Flat Construction Site","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"40 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for National Development (a) what is the status of the investigation into the cause of the 2 September 2022 landslide at the construction site of Clementi NorthArc Build-To-Order flats; (b) whether any legal proceedings have been instituted against any of the contractors or subcontractors for the construction; (c) whether slope inspections have been stepped up at park connectors adjacent to large drains, canals or rivers; and (d) if so, by how much.
Mr Desmond Lee: On 2 September 2022, a landslide occurred at the Clementi NorthArc Build-To-Order construction site. This was caused by slope failure, which refers to the sudden collapse of a slope due to changes in soil strength or the destabilisation of the slope. After the incident, the Building and Construction Authority (BCA) had inspected the surrounding buildings and found them to be structurally sound.
BCA is, currently, investigating the cause of the incident and whether there have been any contraventions of the Building Control Act and Regulations. BCA will consider the appropriate enforcement action after the investigations have been completed.
Agencies that manage public land carry out regular inspections on slopes that may pose a risk to public safety and implement appropriate mitigation measures to stabilise the slopes as needed. This includes slopes that are near park connectors adjacent to large drains, canals or rivers. Our agencies may also step up inspection frequency during periods of intense wet weather.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Price to Income Ratio of BTO Flats in Mature Estates","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"41 Mr Pritam Singh asked the Minister for National Development (a) for the first nine months of 2022, what are the prices of three-room, four-room and five-room HDB BTO flats in mature estates at the 25th, median and 75th percentiles, respectively; (b) for the same period, what is the mortgage servicing ratio for flat buyers taking HDB loans who purchased BTO flats in mature estates; and (c) for the same period, what is the house price to income ratio for buyers of BTO flats offered in mature estates.
Mr Desmond Lee: The prices of BTO flats in mature estates offered in the first nine months of 2022 are tabulated in Table 1 below.
While the prices of BTO flats in mature estates are, generally, higher compared to non-mature estates, this is largely attributable to the attractive geographical attributes, for example, proximity to city centre, and proximity to key amenities, for example, key transport nodes and major retail establishments. HDB provides significant subsidies and grants, so that Singaporeans can consider them as options alongside other affordable flats offered in non-mature estates.
Over the same period, among flat buyers who purchased BTO flats in mature estates and collected their keys, more than 80% of them had a mortgage servicing ratio (MSR) of 25% or lower for their HDB loans. This means that these flat buyers can service their HDB loans using their monthly CPF contributions, with little or no cash outlay. This value is significantly lower than the international benchmark of 30% to 35%. The house price-to-income ratios (HPIs) over the same period for the majority of the buyers (more than 70%) was below five. This is considerably lower than other comparable cities, such as London, Los Angeles and Sydney, where the HPIs are between eight to 15 times. In Hong Kong, it is more than 20 times.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"HDB Resale Transactions with Cash-over-valuation by Town and Flat Type","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"42 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for National Development (a) what is the current proportion of HDB resale transactions with Cash-Over-Valuation (COV); and (b) what is the (i) 25th percentile (ii) average (iii) median and (iv) 75th percentile COV by town and flat type in the year-to-date.
Mr Desmond Lee: HDB resale flat transactions are conducted on a willing-buyer-willing-seller basis, with prices negotiated and mutually agreed upon between flat sellers and buyers. The transacted prices of resale flats for the last 12 months are published on the HDB InfoWEB to guide potential sellers and buyers.
After a resale price has been agreed upon, the flat sellers will grant an option to purchase (OTP) to the buyers. If the buyers wish to use their CPF savings or a housing loan to pay for the flat purchase, they will need to make a Request for Value to HDB. Cash-over-valuation (COV) arises when the resale price is higher than the market valuation of the flat, as the difference can only be paid in cash. Otherwise, there is no COV. Buyers can decide whether to exercise the OTP for the resale transaction depending on the valuation and any COV payable. Should they choose not to proceed with the transaction, buyers will forgo the option fee of between $1 and $1,000 paid to the seller.
Around one in four resale flat buyers in 2022, up to October, paid a COV. This is an increase from 2020 where around one in five resale flat buyers paid a COV, but an improvement from 2021 where around one in three paid a COV. The majority of buyers did not have to pay any COV. For each flat type, the 25th percentile and median COV across all towns was $0. The 75th percentile COV ranged from $5,000 to $38,000.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Change in Average Rents by Town and Flat Type in Third Quarter of 2022","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"43 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for National Development based on the latest data from HDB for approved rental flat applications, how have the average rents by (i) town and (ii) flat type changed in the third quarter of 2022 compared to the equivalent period in 2019, 2020 and 2021 respectively.
Mr Desmond Lee: HDB publishes median rental figures on the HDB InfoWEB. Median rentals are a better indication of open market rental price trends, as average rentals could be affected by outliers.
The median rentals by town and flat type in the third quarter of 2019 to 2022 are given in Table 1. From the third quarter of 2019 to the third quarter of 2022, there has been an increase in the median rentals for all flat types across towns, ranging from $300 to $1,150.
44 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Communications and Information whether the Ministry, in compiling the submissions received from individuals and industry players during public consultations on proposed legislation, can publish all unedited submissions after seeking the necessary permission from the feedback providers, to provide the full range of perspectives on the issue at hand instead of only publishing a summary of responses.
Mrs Josephine Teo: Mr Leon Perera had asked a similar question which was comprehensively addressed in the Sitting of February 2021. As previously explained, Government agencies conduct many forms of public engagements, including consultations on proposed legislation, to obtain feedback on issues of concern to the public. We appreciate the importance of closing the loop with relevant stakeholders and will often also share findings with the public at large. Given the breadth and depth of feedback, they are usually summarised to capture the key themes. Where specific comments provide additional insight, they may also be reflected.
However, not every respondent would consent to having their feedback published in full, as many would prefer to provide feedback on a confidential basis. Only publishing feedback from respondents who have given consent might also give an incomplete picture of the feedback gathered. This may well result in a skewed picture and run counter to the objective of reflecting the broad range of views from the public.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Plans for Masters or Seniors Level Competition to Promote Sporting Excellence","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"45 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth what are the Ministry's target and plan for masters or seniors level competition to promote sporting excellence, especially as Singapore's population ages.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: As Singapore's population ages, MCCY and SportSG have been intentional in developing strategies to enable seniors to participate in sports and physical activities to ensure their health and well-being, as part of the national Action Plan for Successful Ageing and the recently launched Healthier SG initiative.
In 2017, Sport Singapore established the ActiveSG Masters Club to bring together various sports interest groups and conduct programmes, such as fitness workouts, for those aged 40 and above. These programmes cater to a range of levels of fitness and allow seniors to progress at their own pace. The ActiveSG Masters Club partners various health and community organisations to provide expertise and support seniors in their sporting activities. This includes the Gym Tonic programme – an effective, evidence-based strength training programme that improves seniors' functional abilities.
As part of the annual GetActive! Singapore initiative, Sport Singapore works with partners, such as the Agency for Integrated Care (AIC), Qi Gong Association, Senior Activity Centres and nursing homes, to provide friendly competitive opportunities during Seniors' Sports Day. For example, seniors enjoyed playing walking football, seated volleyball and walking captain's ball during the National Celebration of Seniors last month. In 2022, 150,000 seniors participated in ActiveSG competitions and programmes.
For seniors who wish to engage in more competitive sport and represent Singapore at international competitions, the Temasek Foundation Inspire Fund for Athletes provides financial support for their sporting aspirations. This fund has no age limit or restriction on the type of sports. To date, the Fund has supported 50 seniors to compete overseas and fly our Singapore flag high. For example, Mr Toh Lian Tai, aged 63, won Gold in the Men's Singles Intermediate (60+) category at the Asia Pickleball Open in April in Thailand; Ms Katherine Choo, aged 72, won Silver in the Women's 1,500-metre event at the World Masters Athletics Tempere in June in Finland.
We are encouraged by the increasing participation rate of our seniors in physical activities – from about 40% in 2011 to about 70% in 2021. We will continue to pursue opportunities for sports and physical activities for our seniors.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Promotion of Sea Sports amongst Youths","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"46 Ms Tin Pei Ling asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth given that Singapore is surrounded by sea and our aspirations towards being a sporting nation, (a) what is being done to encourage sea sports, such as ocean paddling; (b) whether there is sufficient space to support such sports; and (c) whether there are plans to drive a higher adoption rate of sea sports, especially amongst youths.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: MCCY works with a variety of stakeholders to provide opportunities for Singaporeans of all ages to participate in sea sports. These efforts include the promotion of open water sports, such as sailing, canoeing and dragon boating.
There are many programmes across multiple locations that encourage Singaporeans, especially our youths, to try out and pursue various open water sports.
SportSG runs the ActiveSG Canoe Academy (ACA), which offers programmes for children and youths to pick up paddling skills in a fun and safe learning environment. ACA works closely with the Singapore Canoe Federation (SCF) to develop those with potential to become athletes and represent Singapore, and support their development journey towards high performance.
During the school holidays, students can sign up for ActiveSG School Holiday Programmes, which include water sports, such as snorkelling and scuba diving.
National Sports Associations (NSAs) in charge of open water sports also run programmes to encourage broad-based participation in their sport. For example, the Singapore Sailing Federation organises Learn To Sail programmes to teach sailing to children as young as seven years old. The Singapore Dragon Boat Association holds their Dragon Boat Orientation Programme at Kallang Water Sports Centre, where experienced trainers and steerspersons guide interested members of the public to try out the sport.
At Outward Bound Singapore (OBS), participants take part in open water activities like kayaking and sailing, as part of outdoor adventure education for youth development. These activities regularly spark interest in some participants to pursue open water sports further through the activities organised by SportSG and the respective NSAs.
With its six PAssion Wave outlets located at various reservoirs and parks, the People's Association (PA) offers a variety of open water sports programmes for Singaporeans of all ages, including dragon boating, kayaking, sailing, windsurfing and stand-up paddling.
As these open water and sea sports are held at various existing and new water sports centres all across our island, including at our northern and eastern coasts as well as at our reservoirs inland, we have plenty of space for all these activities. We will continue to explore suitable venues for open water and sea sports activities.
For instance, as part of the Punggol Eco-Town, SportSG is working with various Government stakeholders, through the Punggol Eco-Town Working Committee, to design Punggol Waterway into an Integrated Adventure Hub for Water Sports and Water-based Lifestyle Activities.
The Government will continue to support efforts that promote Singaporeans’ participation in open water and sea sports.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of Continued Global Tech Layoffs on Tech Workers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"47 Mr Shawn Huang Wei Zhong asked the Minister for Manpower in view of the continued tech layoffs globally, what is the assessed impact on tech workers in Singapore.
Dr Tan See Leng: This question has been addressed in the combined oral reply to Question Nos 3 to 6 on the Order Paper for the 28 November 2022 Sitting.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Profile of Singaporeans Affected by Global Tech Industry Layoffs and Support Available","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"48 Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what percentage of employees affected by the global tech industry layoffs are Singaporeans; (b) what are their typical demographics and job roles; (c) whether the Government expects more layoffs affecting Singaporean tech employees in the next six months; and (d) what support will these employees receive, especially those who recently made a career switch on the premise of a booming tech industry.
Dr Tan See Leng: This question has been addressed in the combined oral reply to Question Nos 3 to 6 on the Order Paper for the 28 November 2022 Sitting.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Foreign Worker Dormitory Operators' Restrictions on Their Residents' Movement","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"49 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether the Ministry has any restrictions on foreign worker dormitory operators' ability to impose rules on dormitory residents' freedom of movement; and (b) if not, whether it will consider curtailing dormitory operators' powers to protect dormitory residents' leisure options.
Dr Tan See Leng: Dormitory operators for migrant workers are not allowed to impose rules that prevent their residents from leaving the dormitories for leisure, unless expressly instructed by the Commissioner to do so in specific limited circumstances, such as to protect the safety or health of residents.
MOM's Forward Assurance and Support Teams (FAST) regularly engage migrant workers to identify and resolve any issues of concern as well as to ensure dormitory operators comply with regulatory requirements. If any dormitory resident faces any issue with movement restrictions imposed by a dormitory operator, he can approach his employer, MOM, or report the case via the FWMOMCare mobile application. MOM will assist and follow up with the dormitory operator.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Ages of Retrenched Tech Company Employees and Support Given","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"50 Dr Shahira Abdullah asked the Minister for Manpower given the recent retrenchments by tech companies and Singapore's efforts to develop tech talent (a) what are the ages of those retrenched; (b) what support is being given to youths who may have been retrenched; and (c) whether the demand for tech talent has started to reduce this year as compared to 2020 and 2021.
Dr Tan See Leng: This question has been addressed in the combined oral reply to Question Nos 3 to 6 on the Order Paper for the 28 November 2022 Sitting.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null}],"writtenAnswersVOList":[],"writtenAnsNAVOList":[],"annexureList":[{"annexureID":2288,"sittingDate":null,"annexureTitle":"Annex 1","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20221128/annex-Annex 1.pdf","fileName":"Annex 1.pdf","sectionType":"BP","file":null},{"annexureID":2289,"sittingDate":null,"annexureTitle":"Annex 7","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20221128/annex-Annex 7.pdf","fileName":"Annex 7.pdf","sectionType":"BP","file":null},{"annexureID":2290,"sittingDate":null,"annexureTitle":"Annex 2","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20221128/annex-Annex 2.pdf","fileName":"Annex 2.pdf","sectionType":"BP","file":null},{"annexureID":2291,"sittingDate":null,"annexureTitle":"Annex 3","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20221128/annex-Annex 3.pdf","fileName":"Annex 3.pdf","sectionType":"BP","file":null},{"annexureID":2292,"sittingDate":null,"annexureTitle":"Annex 4","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20221128/annex-Annex 4.pdf","fileName":"Annex 4.pdf","sectionType":"BP","file":null},{"annexureID":2293,"sittingDate":null,"annexureTitle":"Annex 5","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20221128/annex-Annex 5.pdf","fileName":"Annex 5.pdf","sectionType":"BP","file":null},{"annexureID":2294,"sittingDate":null,"annexureTitle":"Annex 6","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20221128/annex-Annex 6.pdf","fileName":"Annex 6.pdf","sectionType":"BP","file":null}],"vernacularList":[{"vernacularID":5384,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Don Wee","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20221128/vernacular-Mr Don Wee PQ7-8 28 Nov 2022.pdf","fileName":"Mr Don Wee PQ7-8 28 Nov 2022.pdf"},{"vernacularID":5385,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20221128/vernacular-28 Nov 2022 - Minister Masagos - Constitution (Amnd) Bill.pdf","fileName":"28 Nov 2022 - Minister Masagos - Constitution (Amnd) Bill.pdf"},{"vernacularID":5386,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Ms Sun Xueling","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20221128/vernacular-Sun Xueling 377A 28Nov2022-Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Sun Xueling 377A 28Nov2022-Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":5387,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20221128/vernacular-28 Nov 2022 - Mr Zhul Rahim - Constitution (Amnd) Bill.pdf","fileName":"28 Nov 2022 - Mr Zhul Rahim - Constitution (Amnd) Bill.pdf"},{"vernacularID":5388,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Mohd Fahmi Aliman","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20221128/vernacular-28 Nov 2022 - Mr Mohd Fahmi Aliman - Constitution (Amnd) Bill.pdf","fileName":"28 Nov 2022 - Mr Mohd Fahmi Aliman - Constitution (Amnd) Bill.pdf"},{"vernacularID":5389,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Baey Yam Keng","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20221128/vernacular-Baey Yam Keng 377A 28Nov 2022 -Chinese (BYK).pdf","fileName":"Baey Yam Keng 377A 28Nov 2022 -Chinese (BYK).pdf"},{"vernacularID":5390,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Ms Rahayu Mahzam","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20221128/vernacular-28 Nov 2022 - SPS Rahayu - Constitution (Amnd) Bill.pdf","fileName":"28 Nov 2022 - SPS Rahayu - Constitution (Amnd) Bill.pdf"},{"vernacularID":5391,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Sharael Taha","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20221128/vernacular-28 Nov 2022 - Mr Sharael Taha - Constitution (Amnd) Bill.pdf","fileName":"28 Nov 2022 - Mr Sharael Taha - Constitution (Amnd) Bill.pdf"}],"onlinePDFFileName":""}