1 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Health in light of the US research paper suggesting that COVID-19 reinfection is more dangerous (a) what is the mortality rate and serious complication rate of those in Singapore catching COVID-19 for a second or third time vis-a-vis a first-time infection; and (b) how does vaccination alter the mortality and severe illness rate in both groups.
\tThe Minister for Health (Mr Ong Ye Kung): Sir, the Member has referred to a US research paper, which according to media reports, found that second COVID-19 infections are more severe compared to first infections.
I am afraid the media reports have not been clear or accurate. The paper cited by the Member does not compare the severity between first-time infections and reinfections. Instead, it compares the outcomes of those who had a first COVID-19 infection, versus those with two or more infections. And therefore, not surprisingly, the study found it is more likely for persons to develop adverse health outcomes after two or more episodes of COVID-19 infection, compared to people who had only one infection episode. Put it simply: getting sick twice is worse than getting sick once; but getting sick for the second time is not worse than getting sick the first time.
In fact, from September to mid-November 2022, the mortality rate of reinfection cases in Singapore was four per 100,000 cases, lower than that for first-time infection cases at 35 per 100,000 cases. The rate of severe illness – those requiring oxygen supplementation, intensive care or death – was also lower for reinfections at 232 per 100,000 cases, compared to first-time infections at 282 per 100,000 cases.
Our data also shows that achieving minimum vaccination protection – in other words, three doses of mRNA or four doses of Sinovac – lowers the risk of severe illness, whether it is a first infection or re-infection.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Yip.
\tMr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): I thank the Minister for his clarification. Is there any data that the bivalent vaccine booster has helped to reduce severe illness and death? What is the uptake of the bivalent vaccine? And with the Singapore public treating living with COVID as a new normal, how can we improve the uptake of the bivalent vaccine?
\tMr Ong Ye Kung: The initial data from clinical trials of the bivalent vaccine and now, empirical data based on our actual lived experience, show that it has been effective in reducing severe illnesses. Today, when you compare, especially for the aged, those who have gotten full protection and up-to-date vaccination, versus those who have not, it still shows a significant difference between the prevalence of severe illness if they get infected. I do not have the data with me, but it is at least four to five times more likely to fall severely ill if you are not fully vaccinated or not update-to-date with the vaccination.
Today, we are administering healthy numbers of vaccines – about 20,000 a day in uptake; it is quite good. This includes both mono-valent and bivalent. I do not have the breakdown, but the take-up has been encouraging for people keeping their vaccination up-to-date. We will continue to put out public messages to encourage people to take their vaccine, keep it up-to-date, because the pandemic is not over. We will be stepping up our mobile vaccination teams into the heartlands so that, especially for the seniors, they will find that it is more accessible to getting their vaccination up-to-date with the mobile vaccination teams in place.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Gan Thiam Poh.
\tMr Gan Thiam Poh (Ang Mo Kio): Thank you, Speaker. I just want to ask the Minister is there data to show what is the reinfection rate and the seriousness of using mRNA and other vaccines.
\tMr Ong Ye Kung: Can the Member repeat that? I was not too clear.
\tMr Gan Thiam Poh: My question is, is there data to show what is the effective rates of using mRNA and the seriousness of reinfection, and the difference between mRNA vaccine and others, these two categories.
\tMr Ong Ye Kung: There was a similar Parliamentary Question before and I showed some of the data. The Member should be able to find it in the Hansard. Essentially, for the non-mRNA vaccine, we mostly use Sinovac. Sinovac is effective if you take three or more shots, preferably four shots. It does protect you against severe illness. I remember the protection rate is about 70-plus percent. But if you use mRNA, it is even more effective, at 80-plus, almost 90%.
So, both are effective, with mRNA vaccines having an edge over Sinovac.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reports of Platform Workers Suffering Injuries in Course of Work","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"2 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for Manpower in the past three years, how many reports have been received from platform firms or platform gig workers regarding injuries suffered in the course of platform or gig work including (i) near-misses (ii) accidents without injury (iii) accidents with injury of any severity and (iv) accidents with injury serious enough to require medical help.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Manpower (Dr Koh Poh Koon) (for the Minister for Manpower): Companies are required to report their employees’ injuries to MOM to facilitate expeditious processing of work injury compensation claims and ensure that the injured employees receive the necessary compensation. Platform workers are currently not covered by mandatory work injury compensation requirements, so platform work injury data is not reported to the Ministry.
The Government has accepted recommendations by the Advisory Committee on Platform Workers, including strengthening financial protection in case of work injury. Upon implementation of the work injury compensation framework for platform workers, the reporting of work injuries for platform workers will be mandated.
\tMr Speaker: Dr Tan.
\tDr Tan Wu Meng (Jurong): Mr Speaker, I thank the Senior Minister of State for his answer. I have Clementi residents who are delivery riders with platform companies; some have been injured on the job. The General Insurance Association (GIA) recently proposed expanded use of prolonged medical leave insurance and group personal accident insurance instead of Work Injury Compensation Act (WICA) framework. Can I ask the Senior Minister of State, why did the insurers and platform companies not suggest this earlier, especially when they already knew that there were riders who were dying on the job?
Second, does it mean that the GIA proposal will need every company to buy 24-hour insurance coverage for their workers, even if the platform worker is only doing a few hours a day with that particular company? And if so, who is going to pay under the GIA recommendation?
Thirdly, if the GIA proposal is taken up, is it going to weaken the role of WICA? Will it encourage employers in other sectors to convert their employees into contractors so as to avoid the responsibilities and compensation that come with WICA protection for workers?
\tMr Speaker: The Senior Minister of State can respond to the three supplementary questions raised. But just a reminder to Members to limit it to two questions.
\tDr Koh Poh Koon: Thank you, Speaker. I believe the hon Member must be referring to the statement made by GIA to a Business Times article on 24 November 2022.
Let me just explain that today, some platform companies do provide platform workers with compensation for work injuries, but the coverage is uneven across different platforms and at much lower levels than what employees are entitled to under the WICA. For example, platform companies' coverage for death or permanent disability is largely in the $10,000 to $30,000 range, compared to employees' entitlement under WICA of up to $289,000. That is a significant difference in the magnitude of coverage.
This is why the Platform Workers Advisory Committee recommended requiring platform companies to provide the same scope and level of work injury compensation as employees' entitlement under WICA. This recommendation is both fair to the employers and to the platform workers. Employers meaning the platform companies.
It is fair to platform workers because they receive the same work injury compensation protection as other workers exposed to the same job risks, such as employees in related sectors like logistics. It is fair to platform companies because they only need to cover platform workers if they are injured in the course of work. If, for example, the platform worker was injured while running personal errands, the platform company is not responsible to provide compensation. This is no different from employers' responsibility towards their employees under WICA and ensures a level playing field across different companies.
On the other hand, GIA has suggested requiring companies to purchase prolonged medical leave insurance and group personal accident insurance, in place of WICA. Such insurance policies provide 24/7 coverage and compensation, regardless of whether an injury happen in the course of work. They also use fixed payouts, unlike the WICA mechanism where compensation amount varies based on the worker's total earnings.
While we welcome platform companies to go above and beyond by providing 24/7 coverage for their workers, the Government should not require them to do so, to provide coverage for injuries that are not as a result of work. Similarly, it would not be right to provide a fixed payout to injured platform workers when platform workers are a diverse group, ranging from those who engage in casual work – perhaps only infrequently and a short number of hours a day – to those who do it on a more full-time basis, on a daily basis.
The Platform Workers Advisory Committee recommended that compensation for platform workers should vary based on workers' earnings, the same way that WICA operates today for injured employees. This is fair to the platform worker and platform company as the amount of compensation would depend on the extent of income lost by the worker due to the injury at work.
Dr Tan Wu Meng asked if GIA's suggestions will weaken WICA. I just want to reassure the Member that MOM will ensure that companies do not misclassify workers in order to skirt the requirements under WICA. But indeed, one other important aspect of WICA is that under this legal framework, there is an established mechanism under which companies and workers who object to the insurers' assessment of the claim, can file a dispute. MOM will then oversee a dispute resolution process, to adjudicate and settle the claim. This ensures that claims are resolved fairly in accordance with the WICA framework, without prejudice to the company or the worker.
GIA's suggestion of using only existing prolonged medical leave insurance or group personal accident insurance in place of WICA would relegate this to private insurance policy whose terms and conditions are dictated by the insurer without a clear mechanism to adjudicate disputes.
I appreciate why insurers would want more flexibility in how they compensate claims. But to ensure fairness to workers and companies, I do not think we should be leaving it to insurers to be the final arbiter of any disputes in work injury claims. There could well be a conflict of interest in such a scenario.
In the committee's engagement with different groups of platform workers and looking at some of the surveys and studies conducted by the Institute of Policy Studies (IPS), there is feedback from workers that when they want to claim injury claims from some of these insurers as a result of group personal accident insurance policies they were protected under, they often have to jump through hoops. And some of them find it very difficult to actually get the claims settled. There were some who told us that they gave up filing claims because it was so onerous and they had no place to turn to.
In our engagements with insurers, we were also told that offering prolonged medical leave insurance and group personal accident insurance at the same level of coverage as WICA would result in higher insurance premiums for platform companies, compared to an insurance policy based on the committee's recommended approach. This is not surprising since the scope of coverage for these policies is much wider, on a 24/7 basis.
Thus, GIA's suggestion would result in higher business costs to platform companies, especially since regardless of the type of insurance, platform companies will need to purchase insurance that covers all platform workers, and this includes precisely the group that Dr Tan said – those who only do one hour of work a day on the platform. GIA's statement is in contrary to what insurers have advised the committee.
GIA also suggested that platform workers could rely on MediShield Life coverage for medical expenses due to work injury. Again, let me reiterate the principle that platform workers should receive the same level of coverage for work injury compensation as employees.
Given that employees are covered for up to $45,000 in medical expenses for work injuries by their employers, there is no reason why platform workers should have to rely on MediShield Life which they pay for using their own MediSave, and consequently, pay part of the medical bills using their MediSave or out-of-pocket cash if they suffer a work injury.
GIA's suggestion is essentially asking platform workers to pay for their own medical expenses. For these reasons, GIA's proposal is not a viable alternative to the advisory committee's recommendation of requiring platform companies to provide the same scope and level of compensation as employees under WICA. It will lead to either unsustainable premiums for platform companies while work injury compensation for platform workers, they are far below the level of entitlements by employees under WICA.
I note that The Business Times article which the Member probably referred to – that was published on 24 November – stated that GIA Chief Executive Officer Mr Ho Kai Weng said, \" GIA members firmly believe financial protection for platform workers can be efficiently achieved through the existing solutions compared to the WICA-based solution.\" That is the crux of the supplementary question asked by the hon Dr Tan Wu Meng. That is, if it was so viable, why did the insurers and platform companies not suggest this earlier when there were workers who were injured or suffered death while on the job.
Our discussions with insurers showed it was not possible to do so in a cost-effective way. But given the confidence that GIA has on the efficiency of existing products and policies that they have and the public statements by various platform companies that platform workers deserved protection for injuries incurred in the course of their work, I would suggest that GIA members work closely with platform companies to offer financial protection and compensation for these workers at the level of WICA as soon as possible by the first quarter of next year, hopefully, using their existing products while maintaining the cost of premiums at parity with WICA insurance products.
This will provide better coverage for the workers in the interim and keep costs manageable for platform companies and consumers while we work on implementation details of WICA for this group of workers by the end of 2024. In conclusion, Mr Speaker, I would like to reiterate that the committee's recommendations are fair to both platform companies and workers and take a balanced approach to strengthening platform workers' financial protection in case of work injury in a sustainable manner. We look forward to continuing our engagements with platform workers, platform companies and insurers as we work towards implementing these recommendations.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Liang Eng Hwa.
\tMr Liang Eng Hwa (Bukit Panjang): Sir, I want to thank the Senior Minister of State for leading this future major effort to take care of the welfare of our platform workers and also for him to personally come down to Bukit Panjang to engage our platform workers support group just a few months ago. The Senior Minister of State mentioned about the recommendation from the advisory group, I would like to ask him for the reception from the platform workers and the company so far on all these recommendations. And in particular, I want to hear from the Senior Minister of State, his views on the concern raised by Grab with regards to the issue of level playing field as the taxi's street hail platforms are excluded from the recommendations, whether there would potentially be issues of price and market distortions?
\tDr Koh Poh Koon: Sir, I thank Mr Liang for working with the committee in the lead-up to the announcement by helping us to also provide avenues to engage to workers. Indeed, these are early days since the recommendations were announced. The early sensing from different stakeholders, workers, companies and consumers showed that it is a positive set of recommendations that is much welcomed. The workers basically welcome the fact that they will now – when it is implemented – have better work injury compensation, much better than they had today under WICA.
But, of course, the details of implementation are not fully out. So, there are some concerns about whether it will be effectively implemented. For the platform companies, they have put out statements to say that recommendations are fair and balanced and they welcome the changes that will enhance the protection given to these group of workers. So, on the whole, this is very much welcomed.
Our surveys before the release also showed that consumers in various surveys, between 70% and 90% are prepared to pay up to 10% more in prices to make sure that these workers have the adequate protection, so long as the price increase that they pay for goes directly to helping these workers address their income retirement, their retirement adequacy as well as their ability to have housing adequacy.
Generally, the public, the companies and the workers themselves all welcome this set of recommendations.
Specific to the comment that the Member raised about Grab's statement expressing that – excluding street hails from these recommendations would create an unlevel playing field. I would say that, in fact, including street hail into this recommendation would cause an uneven playing field instead. The simple reason is that street hail taxis actually work on a different business model as opposed to a platform model because in the street hail model, the taxi driver is essentially renting the taxi from the taxi companies. The taxi driver decides how he wants to pick up passengers, where he wants to pick up, he can deny working for the day, if he chose to, with no penalties levied by the taxi company. It is more of a rental and rentee kind of relationship.
In fact, in a street hail engagement, the passenger pays to the taxi driver directly. The money does not pass through any app platform, it does not go through the taxi company and there is no commission being levied on the amount of fare that the passenger pays to the taxi driver through a street hail. In that sense, the degree of management control is less and perhaps non-existent in this case. And that is why in the deliberation, the committee recommended that platform companies that exert a certain degree of management control on these supposed group of self-employed workers will then need to provide these workers with some degree of basic protection which includes work injury compensation as well as retirement and housing adequacy.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Spouses of HDB Flat or Executive Condominium Owners who Have Bought Private Properties","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"3 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for National Development how many spouses of the owners of HDB flats and executive condominium, who are registered as occupants and not joint owners of the flat, have bought and invested in another private property in their own name in each of the past five years.
\tThe Second Minister for National Development (Ms Indranee Rajah) (for the Minister for National Development): Mr Speaker, as resale Executive Condominium (EC) units are private residential property, HDB does not track data on the owners and occupiers of EC units beyond five years from when the EC receives its Temporary Occupation Permit (TOP). As such, HDB does not have data of all who are currently occupants of the EC unit that their spouse is an owner of.
As for those registered as occupiers of their spouse's HDB flat, HDB's data only captures whether they proceeded to purchase a private property after fulfilling the requisite Minimum Occupation Period. However, HDB does not capture whether they purchased the private property in their own name or jointly with others. They may have purchased the private property with their spouse, who may then have subsequently disposed of the HDB flat. As such, HDB is unable to provide the specific information that the Member had asked for.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data for Full-time Trained and Untrained School Counsellors","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"4 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Education in each year for the past five years, what is the respective breakdown on the median and average ratio of full-time trained and untrained school counsellors to students in primary schools and secondary schools.
\tThe Minister of State for Education (Ms Gan Siow Huang) (for the Minister for Education): Mr Speaker, all schools are resourced with one or two trained school counsellors depending on the school's counselling needs. Prior to their formal training at the National Institute of Education, untrained school counsellors are attached to schools to learn from experienced school counsellors but will not be involved in actual counselling work. Beside school counsellors, students are also supported by a network of teacher-counsellors, flexi-adjunct school counsellors, peer supporters and community resources such as Response, Early Assessment and Intervention for Community Mental Health teams and Family Service Centres.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.
\tMr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Thank you, Sir. And I thank the Minister of State for the reply. I have seen the good and important work our school counsellors do, but I think they need some help, they are severely understaffed. Could I ask the Minister of State whether we are planning to increase the number of trained school counsellors in school? What is the ideal number and perhaps what is the timeframe for this increase?
\tMs Gan Siow Huang: As I mentioned earlier on, all our Primary school, Secondary school, Junior College (JC) and Centralised Institutes (CI) schools are resource with one or two school counsellors. And in total, we have about 410 school counsellors deployed in our schools currently.
Hon Member Louis Ng has mentioned that this might not be a sufficient number. Actually, our schools can also engage flexi-adjunct school counsellors to supplement their short-term manpower needs and this is at the discretion of the school leaders and management. Overall, about 120 flexi-adjunct school counsellors are engaged in our schools. MOE has also provided further training to over 700 teachers, who are then deployed as teacher-counsellors in our schools to work alongside the school counsellors.
Currently, there are about two to three teacher-counsellors in each school and we aim to increase the number of teacher-counsellors to over 1,000 over the next few years. I hope the hon Member and Members in this Chamber take a more holistic approach towards supporting students with counselling needs. The load cannot fall fully on the school counsellors. Instead, we need to look wider at the community support within the school – fellow students, teachers, adjunct school counsellors and outside of the schools, the community partners. Our interest must be to provide adequate and effective support to our students.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.
\tMr Louis Ng Kok Kwang: Thank you, Sir. Just a further clarification. We talked about the teacher-counsellors, but I think we agreed that teachers are really quite overworked. I just spent the weekend with the Singapore Teachers' Union talking about the workload and their concerns. Now you are asking to do counselling work as well. And that is why the clarification really is on whether we can increase the support to school counsellors, separate from teacher-counsellors, so teachers can focus on teaching and school counsellors can help the students who really do need that help quite desperately.
\tMs Gan Siow Huang: We recognise that counselling work is demanding and teacher-counsellors have to balance their teaching and counselling workload. Schools does have the flexibility to reduce teaching or CCA duties for teacher-counsellors to provide them more time to spend with their students if they need to. And training for teacher-counsellors also has been enhanced to equip them not only to support their students' well-being, but also better manage their own well-being. We do that for the school counsellors too. Self-care is also important for the counsellors.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Time Taken for Anti-Scam Centre to Investigate Cases","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"The following question stood in the name of Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim –
5 To ask the Minister for Home Affairs (a) what is the (i) average (ii) longest and (iii) shortest time it takes for the Anti-Scam Centre (ASC) to investigate scam cases thus far; and (b) does the ASC provide guidance to individuals who experience frozen accounts to appeal to the courts under section 35(8) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
\tMr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): Question No 5.
\tThe Minister of State for Home Affairs (Ms Sun Xueling) (for the Minister for Home Affairs): Mr Speaker, Sir, we had answered a Parliamentary Question on the time it takes Police to investigate scam cases just recently in July 2022.
The time taken to complete scam investigations depends on a couple of factors such as the type of scam, how well the scammer covers his tracks and whether or not the monies have been transferred overseas, because if it involves overseas jurisdictions, which often is the case when it comes to scams that happened in Singapore, then the time taken is necessarily longer. In that sense, every case in terms of investigation time differs significantly.
Bank accounts suspected to be involved in scam operations will be frozen by the Police, with monies seized as proceeds of crime. The freeze on the bank accounts will be lifted upon completion of investigations.
Persons whose bank accounts are frozen can make an application to the Courts to withdraw money for reasonable living or legitimate expenses. Section 35(8) of the Criminal Procedure Code allows the account holder to submit an application to the courts to access their funds for the payment of basic expenses, including any payment for foodstuff, rent, discharge of a mortgage, medicine, medical treatment, taxes, insurance premiums and public utility charges, amongst others. Where asked, the Police will inform account holders of this possibility and advise them to seek legal advice.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Gerald Giam.
\tMr Gerald Giam Yean Song: I thank the Minister of State for her replies. I have got to two supplementary questions. Nowadays, bank accounts are absolutely essential for daily living because if the bank account is frozen, it could severely impact the person's ability to conduct daily transactions like receiving their salary. My first supplementary question is, the Minister of State mentioned that they can apply to conduct some limited transactions, does this include being able to receive their salary into their bank accounts?
Secondly, can the Singapore Police Force (SPF) and even the Prison Service provide banks with a letter stating that the investigation or conviction against the person has been completed and what the outcome is so the bank will not flag these persons as being high-risk and prevent them from being from using the bank account or opening a bank account.
\t
\t\tMs Sun Xueling: I thank the Member for his supplementary questions. Indeed, we recognise that victims of scams require their bank accounts to be able to make daily transactions. We all recognise the importance of having a bank account to facilitate these transactions. I think the difficulty that the Police faces is that during investigations, some of these bank accounts, unfortunately, from the victim's perspective, they are absolutely a victim in the absolute sense.
But what has happened to some of these accounts is that they may be also tainted with the sense that scam monies may also have been remitted into these accounts, because when a scam syndicate operates, we often see that monies are transferred from one bank account to another and there is often co-mingling of monies in bank accounts. So, the Police actually has to freeze the relevant bank accounts for the purposes of investigations.
The Police freezes these bank accounts when there are two instances. Let me just share with you, for instance, where another victim has made a police report and designates a specific bank account as having received their scam monies. So, the victim from your perspective, victim A for instance, may see himself or herself as the victim who has transferred monies out. But actually, if you look at the entire scam syndicates and its operations, this particular victim A's bank account, could have been compromised whereby another victim's monies has been transferred in as well. That is number one.
Number two, as part of fund tracing investigations, because for instance, in a job scam, it can impact hundreds of persons at the same time. So, as part of tracing the flows of monies, they will have to freeze many bank accounts and you will often see that there are multiple claimants on the specific sums of monies.
I just wanted to share that this is the background as to why the Police has to freeze bank accounts. For instance, you mentioned where a victim actually requires a bank account to be able to facilitate their transactions, if the bank account is actually frozen, what we would suggest to the victim, is actually for them to open another bank account for the purposes of receiving their salaries, because unfortunately, like I mentioned in my original reply, the time taken for investigations for scams can differ significantly, depending on the complexity of the case. And we do not want to unnecessarily impede the victims' ability to transact on a bank account, so we would typically recommend that they set up a separate bank account, to be able to receive their salaries.
On your second point, there are various reasons why a bank account can be blacklisted. A victim, like I mentioned before, they themselves see themselves as a victim in the absolute sense, but unfortunately their bank account has been compromised, it could have been used almost in a sense like a money mule, because monies have been transferred in and out of the account. So, there could be various reasons why an account is blacklisted. The Police would give inputs on whether an investigation has completed to the banks, but the banks will have to make their own assessment as to whether or not to continue to blacklist a particular account holder, when it comes to setting up new bank accounts.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Gerald Giam.
\tMr Gerald Giam Yean Song: I thank the Minister of State for the detailed answer. I think we are on the same page here, but I understand that once the Police informs the bank that a certain account needs to be frozen, will that impact that account holders' ability to open up another bank account? As in, will the bank flag this person is high-risk and therefore not allow him or her to even open another bank account and so, that would present difficulties for them.
So, the purpose or my second supplementary question just now, was then, can MHA provide more information to the banks on the update of the investigations, so that the banks can use that to assess and perhaps, lower the risk level of this particular account holder, so that they can allow them to open up, may be, a limited purpose bank account.
\tMs Sun Xueling: I thank the Member for his further question. The Police will do their very best to provide information to be able to help these victims move on and expedite investigations as much as necessary to be helpful to the victims. But, MHA will only be able to share information that does not compromise investigations. So, I think it differs on a case-by-case basis.
\t
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Allocation of Percentage of HDB Community Care Apartments for Seniors to Suitable Younger Persons with Disabilities","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"6 Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng asked the Minister for National Development whether a percentage of the HDB community care apartments to be launched for seniors can be allotted for suitable younger persons with disabilities so that they can live within the community.
\tThe Minister of State for National Development (Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim) (for the Minister for National Development): Sir, Community Care Apartments, or CCAs, seek to expand the continuum of housing-cum-care options for seniors. CCAs integrate senior-friendly design features with care services that can be scaled up as seniors' needs evolve. The services and activities offered will cater to seniors across a wide range of care needs and enable seniors to age independently in place for as long as they can within the community.
The CCA is a new model. We have launched two pilots, which are still under construction, and we will need to evaluate them when they are operational to ensure that they provide sufficient support to the intended target group before we consider expanding the target segment further.
I would like to assure the Member that Government agencies are actively studying options to support persons with disabilities to live independently in the community. Under the Enabling Masterplan 2030, a task force comprising Government agencies as well as disability social service agencies (SSAs) has been formed to look into community living models and will consider existing gaps as well as new residential options to better support persons with disabilities. We can look forward to the task force's recommendations next year. There are also various SSAs that have initiatives to enable persons with disabilities to live independently in the community and we will support these where we can.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Consumers Enjoying Tax Rebates under Commercial Vehicle Emissions Scheme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"7 Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) how many consumers enjoy tax rebates under the Commercial Vehicle Emissions Scheme (CVES) since its implementation; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider delaying the stepdown in incentives announced on 15 November 2022 on adjustments to the CVES.
\tThe Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (Mr Baey Yam Keng) (for the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment): Under the Commercial Vehicle Emissions Scheme or CVES, purchasers of cleaner light commercial vehicles receive a cash incentive to defray the purchase cost. More than 6,700 CVES incentives have been awarded since the CVES was implemented on 1 April 2021.
The CVES was due to end on 31 March 2023. Following our review and consultation with industry, we have announced the extension of the CVES on 15 November 2022 with adjustments to the scheme. We have taken industry feedback into consideration and extended the CVES with a smaller stepdown in incentives than initially planned. The revised incentives and surcharge quanta ensure that the total cost of owning and using a cleaner vehicle over its lifespan will continue to be lower than a more pollutive one, maintaining the momentum towards cleaner vehicles.
\tMr Speaker: Dr Lim Wee Kiak.
\tDr Lim Wee Kiak (Sembawang): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to ask one supplementary question regarding whether has the scheme achieved the initial target? Will the Ministry consider further extension of this scheme? The feedback from the commercial users is that it has been extremely helpful for them for the conversion. If this scheme is removed, then their cost will go up.
\tMr Baey Yam Keng: Of course, we hope that more vehicle owners will switch to cleaner vehicles. That is the purpose of the scheme. We are happy to see that 6,700 vehicle owners have benefited from that and we hope that the momentum will carry on. That is why we are extending the scheme even though it was due to expire in a few months' time.
We have considered the option of extending the scheme without changing any of the scheme parameters, but there was a need to adjust the pollutant thresholds, to account for the new and more stringent emissions test cycle – which is called the Worldwide Harmonised Light Duty Test Procedure, which will be solely adopted from 1 April 2023. This is to ensure that there is sufficient variety of price competitive vehicle models across all the three bands, while continuing to spur the adoption of cleaner energy vehicles. So, we would like to urge all light commercial vehicles owners to make good use of this extension and help us towards achieving a cleaner target for Singapore.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on Families Owning More than One Car","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"8 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Transport how many households currently own (i) one car (ii) two cars and (iii) three or more cars, including cars owned by different members of the same household.
\tThe Minister for Transport (Mr S Iswaran): Mr Speaker, as of 31 October 2022, about 471,000 households own cars. Of these, about 12% own two cars and less than 3% own three or more cars.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Gerald Giam.
\tMr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): I thank the Minister for his reply and his figures. Can I ask the Minister two supplementary questions? What impact do these multiple car owners have on the price of COEs, considering they not only add to the demand, but because they tend to come from higher-income households, they have the ability to pay more for their COEs. And secondly, has the Ministry considered the possibility of introducing measures to dampen the demand for second and subsequent Category A cars from the same household, so that the limited supply of cars can be spread out more equitably to those who need it most – for example, caregivers and those who need to drive for work.
\tMr S Iswaran: Mr Speaker, I thank the Member Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song for his question. Firstly, I think the underlying thesis is that somehow this component of the COE ownership is driving price increases. If we look at the facts, the proportion that has been accounted for by households in these various categories has been relatively stable over time. There has not been any major shift in patterns of demand. If anything, in fact, multiple car ownership amongst individuals has shown probably a bit of a declining trend; firstly.
Secondly, in terms of what accounts for the COE prices, whilst we can look for many plausible explanatory factors, the fundamental issue is supply and demand. Demand remains unabated, whereas supply is constrained, because we have a zero-growth policy and the supply is determined by de-registrations – which are in part affected by the 10-year cycle because of the historical pattern of car registrations and also because of current economic environment in people's decisions on the margin – whether they want to de-register or extend their COEs on the cars that they already have.
So, on balance, I would say that it does not necessarily follow that any effort to curb car ownership beyond the first car in any household will necessarily have a dampening effect on COE prices, which is the second point that the Member raised. For two reasons, first, the quantitative impact is unclear as I have just explained; and secondly, because there may be very legitimate reasons why households have a second car or need a second car. So, we have designed a system where the market, based on demand and supply, clears the COEs at a certain price and we need to try not to adjust or affect the fundamentals too much because then it starts to create unintended consequences in the market.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Gerald Giam.
\tMr Gerald Giam Yean Song: I have a quick supplementary question. I accept that the second and third car households have not contributed to the increase in the COE in recent years, but does it add to the baseline of the COE demand. Because it might well be the fact that the number of households with two or more cars has not increased over the years, but 12% is not a small number, so that could also be causing the baseline price of the COE to be high.
\tMr S Iswaran: If I may make two points in response to the Member's questions. First, as I said the percentage has been stable over a period of time, at a time when COE prices were not so high. So, if the baseline argument is to be made, it must be made consistently across a 10-year cycle.
And the fact is, it is not so much that part of the equation, but more the supply side that has been affecting the overall prices of the COEs because of what we have seen.
It is also worth noting that households — because implicit in the Member's question is that multiple car ownership is biased towards higher-income households. I think that is the point the Member is making, if I am correct, is that right? Yes.
So, there is a certain equity argument that is being advanced as well. I would point out that households that own multiple cars are not just those that live in private residential housing. There is actually a distinct proportion that also live in public housing.
So, there are different reasons why people have more than one car and we should have a care in making decisions on how to curb these additional demands.
Going back to the first point, I think that the patterns have not changed dramatically; in fact, it has been fairly stable. But we remain open and I think policy has to be informed by data and the patterns. And we will continue to track them.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Educating First-time Home Buyers or Sellers on Non-exclusive Agreements","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"9 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for National Development whether there is any requirement for individuals signing an exclusive estate agency agreement to be formally advised of the option of signing a non-exclusive agreement, especially in situations where the individual is entering into a property transaction for the first time and may not be aware of the existence of non-exclusive agreements.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for National Development (Mr Tan Kiat How) (for the Minister for National Development): Mr Speaker, Sir, an Estate Agency Agreement (EAA) is a contract between a consumer and a property agency and agent for the performance of estate agency work. The agreement protects the interests of both parties by providing contractual clarity in the property transaction.
Under the Council for Estate Agencies (CEA)'s Code of Ethics and Professional Client Care, a property agent must explain the meaning and consequences of the agreement to the client and give the client sufficient time to read and understand the content, so that the client can make an informed decision whether to enter into the agreement with the agent. Property agents who fail to do so may be issued a warning letter, imposed with financial penalties of up to $100,000 and/or have their registration suspended or revoked. There is no specific requirement for a property agent to advise the client on the options between an exclusive and a non-exclusive agreement.
In addition, CEA actively promotes consumer education. CEA continues to work with relevant agencies, for example, HDB and CASE, and the real estate agency sector and online property portals to educate property consumers about the purpose of signing an estate agency agreement, the differences between an exclusive and a non-exclusive agreement, and consumers' obligations under each type of agreement. Consumers are advised to choose and sign the type of estate agency agreement based on their needs and preferences.
Mr Speaker: Dr Tan Wu Meng.
\tDr Tan Wu Meng (Jurong): Mr Speaker, I thank the Senior Minister of State for his answer. My Clementi resident told me that she signed an exclusive agreement with an estate agent, but she was not told about the option of other types of agreements, including non-exclusive agreements.
Sir, can I ask the Senior Minister of State two supplementary questions. Firstly, I note that the Senior Minister of State mentioned the phrase \"it is a contract between a consumer and an agent\". So, can I ask the Senior Minister of State if MND has studied best practices from other Ministries. For example, under the Consumer Protection Fair Trading Act, the Second Schedule, Part 1, item 23, mentions omitting a material fact might be considered an unfair practice. So, can the Senior Minister of State tell us: is the option of a non-exclusive agreement a material fact when a customer is going to sign an exclusive agreement?
Secondly, can I also ask the Senior Minister of State to elaborate on how MND sees the fiduciary duty of estate agents regarding sellers? Does it include some measure of requirement for informed consent when signing an exclusive contract, especially for first-time sellers who are not experienced and may require additional support and clarification?
\tMr Tan Kiat How: Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for the two supplementary questions. Let me take them in turn. Let me first clarify that the use of EAA is not mandatory. Consumers are encouraged to sign the agreement with their property agencies and agents to protect the interests of both parties, but it is not mandatory. In fact, many property sellers and buyers DIY, and do it themselves, and do not appoint an agent.
To Dr Tan Wu Meng's question about best practices and informed consent, CEA takes seriously, its responsibility in upholding the professional standards in the real estate agency industry and its primary responsibility of safeguarding consumers' interests. That is why I mentioned in my reply earlier, that an estate agent or the real estate salesperson, the technical term, is expected and required to explain the content of the agreement to the buyer or seller before the agreement is signed. A breach of that can be investigated and penalties can be imposed against the real estate agent.
On consumer awareness, I mentioned it earlier, but allow me to elaborate and set in context Dr Tan's case about his resident. I appreciate and empathise where Dr Tan is coming from, but in context, we have received very, very few complaints against real estate salesperson on the use of an exclusive or non-exclusive agreement – less than 1% of all the cases we received over the last five years. So, very few complaints against real estate salesperson, on this particular point.
There are other complaints and they are the more egregious ones about conflict of interest or inappropriate handling of the client's money, which are important other considerations that we have in investigating the real estate salesperson.
Financial investment in a property or buying and selling properties is a big financial investment for many families. Please do take time to look at the various resources on CEA's website. They have a very comprehensive guide, in four languages, guiding the consumers on deciding if you need an agent; how to ensure your agent is properly registered with CEA; how to negotiate agent's commissions; how to look at the various agreements, including what agreements needs to be signed between the real estate salesperson and yourself; and understanding the agent's responsibilities and obligations, and how money is to be handled.
So, I encourage those who are buying or selling properties, especially those doing for the first time, please do go to CEA's website and check out the different resources.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Availability and Resiliency of Government's Digital Services","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"10 Mr Shawn Huang Wei Zhong asked the Prime Minister with the increased digitalisation of Government services (a) what are the measures to ensure the availability and resiliency of these systems; and (b) what alternatives are available to the public for continued access to critical services when there is a sustained system and service outage.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Communications and Information (Dr Janil Puthucheary) (for the Prime Minister): Mr Speaker, unscheduled downtime of Government digital services occurs infrequently, affecting service availability less than 0.1% of the time in 2021. Among services that experienced unscheduled downtime, the median cumulative downtime for the whole of 2021 was four hours. This is partly because the majority of Government systems providing services to the public have been moved to commercial cloud hosting platforms, which have high availability. And these platforms, and the services that run on them, are designed for better availability.
For systems which provide critical services, there are further measures to better ensure high availability and resilience. For example, backup hardware and network links, as well as monitoring tools to detect and alert system owners of potential problems.
When systems go down, we seek to detect the outage quickly and recover service availability fast, while mitigating the impact of the outage. Government agencies have ICT incident management plans and exercise them regularly. Agencies may also activate measures to allow citizens to perform critical transactions offline, in-person or over the phone.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"IT System Outages in Local Public Healthcare Institutions and Measures to Ensure Resiliency under Healthier SG","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"11 Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked the Minister for Health (a) in the past three years, how many incidences of IT system outage have occurred at local public healthcare institutions; (b) what measures are being taken to ensure that the national healthcare IT system will have adequate capacity for the planned system enhancements under Healthier SG; and (c) what helplines or support will be available to affected persons in case of an IT system outage or malfunction, especially for doctors and patients.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Health (Dr Janil Puthucheary) (for the Minister for Health): Mr Speaker, Sir, as explained in Parliament on 12 September and 20 October this year, we will continue to review our system design and architecture, and invest in capabilities to strengthen the resilience of our IT systems and reduce disruptions. We are also reviewing our downtime and business processes to minimise the impact during outages.
Our public healthcare institutions have business continuity plans that are activated in case of emergencies. Each institution's business continuity plan is supported by solutions with appropriate functionality and can be used when key applications are unavailable to allow public healthcare institutions to continue with the delivery of patient care services. For example, users would be able to view a patient's historical clinical information but may not be able to enter new clinical information into the system during the downtime. Patients should contact their healthcare provider for medical assistance as needed.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Factors that May Impede Adoption of Electric Vehicles","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"12 Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether the supply of certificates of entitlement will be a key determinant to accelerate transition to electric vehicles over the next few years; (b) whether high interest rates, supply chain issues and other costs will derail the plan of phasing out internal combustion engine vehicles by 2040; and (c) if so, what alternate plans will be considered to mitigate the impact.
\tThe Minister for Transport (Mr S Iswaran): Mr Speaker, COEs are not differentiated by propellant type, so we do not expect COE supply to be a key determinant of the pace of vehicle electrification.
Despite cost pressures on vehicles in recent times, such as supply chain issues and higher interest rates, Electric Vehicle (EV) adoption in Singapore has grown strongly this year. For example, electric car registrations in 2022 so far, have exceeded 10% of all new car registrations. That is almost triple the rate last year.
The Government also continues to support EV adoption by providing tax rebates, accelerating the deployment of EV charging points and strengthening regulations to ensure the safety and reliability of our EV charging network. In fact, in this Sitting later, we will be moving an EV Charging Bill.
LTA will continue to monitor the overall EV adoption trends and take appropriate measures as necessary to support our overall vision for cleaner energy vehicles in Singapore.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Length of Review Period for Households on ComCare Short-to-Medium-Term Assistance Programmes","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"13 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Social and Family Development with respect to households assisted with ComCare Short-to-Medium-Term Assistance (SMTA) that wish to have the support renewed (a) whether there is a difference in the review period for households assessed to require short-term assistance as compared to the review period for medium-term assistance under SMTA; and (b) what is the average review period for the purposes of assessing applications for renewal in both circumstances.
\tThe Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social and Family Development (Mr Eric Chua) (for the Minister for Social and Family Development): Mr Speaker, the term \"Short-to-Medium-Term Assistance\" (SMTA) is a single category describing ComCare assistance that is not long-term in nature.
In terms of both the processing time and duration of approved support, we make no distinction between what may be considered short-term or medium-term assistance. More than nine out of 10 ComCare applications, including renewal applications, have been processed within four weeks, once the necessary documents have been submitted by applicants. Approved applications are typically for periods of about three to six months and are renewable on further application.
Mr Speaker: Mr Murali Pillai.
\tMr Murali Pillai (Bukit Batok): Mr Speaker, Sir, may I ask the hon Senior Parliamentary Secretary whether MSF is prepared to review its system to set timelines for the three categories of cases: short-term assistance, medium-term assistance and long-term assistance? The reason why I suggest this is because then there will be efficiency in relation to provision of time-bound support for these families and it will also result in the saving of manpower and the time on the part of MSF officers in assessing each case to see whether the help should be renewed.
\tMr Eric Chua: Mr Speaker, I thank the hon Member for his additional supplementary questions. I think there are two buckets here. One is for long-term assistance. Typically, we are looking at residents who may not be able to be in employment, so we are talking about seniors who live alone; seniors who are not able to work and in the long haul, will need assistance for quite a long time. So, that is long-term assistance.
For short- to medium-term assistance, we are looking at families and I think that the Member will agree with me that there will be some variability, in terms of the conditions in each family. I have mentioned earlier in my original reply that the families are able to come back to the Social Service Office to renew their applications, even before their applications are due to expire. The point about this renewal process is not so much to impose an unnecessary bandwidth tax on these families but rather to have regular check-ins with these families, so that together with the families, we can journey with them, understand the difficulties they are facing and then, render assistance where needed.
So, as I have mentioned in my earlier reply, between short and medium term, we do not make that distinction, but the principle is one and the same and that is to lend appropriate and prompt assistance to the families, where needed.
Mr Speaker: Mr Pillai.
\tMr Murali Pillai: Sir, I apologise if I was not clear in my earlier question. The point is this: you have a category called Short-to-Medium-Term Assistance for Comcare. I have heard from the hon Senior Parliamentary Secretary that the Ministry does not make a distinction in relation to the timelines for the review. My point is whether MSF could consider imposing timelines, or rather, coming up with appropriate timelines, so there is no mismatch in expectations of families getting assistance and the expectations of the Ministry in relation to assessing whether or not continued care and assistance is needed.
I have now, situations whereby families are coming up and saying, \"Look, my situation has not changed and yet, I have to come back to MSF to submit my case for review.\" That presents a waste of time and effort.
\tMr Eric Chua: Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for his supplementary questions. I will make two points in response. First is the fact that I think between families to families, there are differences in circumstances, differences in terms of the challenges that each family faces. So, what is applicable to one family might not be quite applicable to the rest.
The second point I want to make is that the renewal process, as much as possible, we have made it less onerous. In terms of documents submission, we are not expecting the family to come back with the full suite of documentation that was needed at first application. In fact, we will only need documentation that reflects the changes. For instance, if there are changes in terms of employment status, due to hospitalisation leave, medical leave, or changes in other aspects of their financial conditions, those documents can be presented to the Social Service Office so that relevant assistance can be presented.
In terms of making sure that there is as little bandwidth tax on them as possible for the renewal process, the Member would be happy to note that now, applications for renewal as well as first applications can be made online on the SupportGoWhere portal. As much as possible, we are trying to make this as seamless and as frictionless a process for families as possible.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Protection of Interests of Sub-accounts in Enhanced Central Intermediary Scheme for Excess Solar Power Flowed Back to Grid","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"14 Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui asked the Minister for Trade and Industry with regard to the Enhanced Central Intermediary Scheme (a) what are the regulations or rules that protect the interests of sub-accounts who wish to recover excess solar generation power that flows back to the grid; and (b) what are the potential workarounds to resolve constraints faced by sub-accounts in receiving payments for exported solar electricity from the master account holder.
\tThe Minister of State for Trade and Industry (Ms Low Yen Ling) (for the Minister for Trade and Industry): Mr Speaker, the Enhanced Central Intermediary Scheme, or ECIS, allows contestable consumers with small solar panel systems, that is, less than 10 Megawatts of Alternating Current, to sell their excess electricity into the wholesale electricity market through SP Services as an intermediary.
Sub-accounts can do so through the master account, after fulfilling their demand and the aggregated onsite demand of the master account and other tenants. The sub-accounts will need to enter into commercial agreements with the master account to share revenues from the sale of electricity to the grid.
While there are no specific rules or regulations governing such commercial agreements between the master and sub-accounts, the Government encourages all parties to be fair and transparent, and we support industry-led efforts in promoting best practices.
The Government will also continue to review ways to incentivise and promote more solar adoption, including co-creating solutions with private developers and industry players, as well as working with stakeholders to address regulatory challenges and maximise solar energy adoption in Singapore.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Edward Chia.
\tMr Edward Chia Bing Hui (Holland-Bukit Timah): Thank you, Speaker. I would like to thank the Minister of State for her reply. Can the Minister of State elaborate on what are the constraints faced by sub-account holders in selling back the excess energy to master account holders, especially when there are now technical solutions such as bidirectional private meters?
Secondly, can MTI consider mandating master account holders to compensate sub-account holders through either EMA's framework or a fair tenancy industry code of conduct framework? Because it is important to help businesses adopt solar energy and fully benefit from it. In turn, this supports our Singapore Green Plan.
\tMs Low Yen Ling: Mr Speaker, I would like to thank Mr Edward Chia for his two supplementary questions. I want to assure him that MTI and EMA work very closely with MSE. We are very committed to encouraging our households as well as businesses to accelerate and catalyse solar energy adoption.
On his first supplementary question, sub-accounts can sell their excess electricity through the master account. But that is after fulfilling their own energy demands as well as the aggregated onsite demand of the master account and other tenants. The sub-accounts will need to enter into commercial agreements with the master account to share the revenues accordingly.
We have been advocating to various stakeholders and industry developers – whether they are landlords holding master accounts or tenants holding the sub-accounts – to be fair and to be transparent. Because of the arrangement that I have talked about, SP Services would not have sight of the energy consumption of the tenants.
Imagine we are talking about Landlord A holding the master account and he has five tenants holding five sub-accounts. SP Services would only have sight of the master account. Because of that, only the landlord's master account can export excess solar energy to the grid and be paid via the ECIS.
So, to address, Mr Chia's first question, MTI and EMA are working with the SP group on the feasibility of an IT system enhancement to enable the master accounts or the sub-accounts with solar panels installed on their buildings to be paid accordingly, based on the excess solar energy that is exported to the grid. As this system-wide enhancement requires very massive, system-wide changes to the existing IT infrastructure, I seek the Member's understanding that they would require some time to make a proper and comprehensive assessment and to implement the necessary changes.
In his second question, the Member mentioned a code of conduct. I think he is alluding to the one by Fair Tenancy Industry Committee (FTIC), which applies to the retail premises. The Code of Conduct for the Leasing of Retail Premises in Singapore, developed by FTIC sets out key leasing principles to enable fairer and more balanced lease negotiations for the retail premises. Where it concerns retail premises, if there is any feedback, MTI and Enterprise Singapore will refer the feedback to the FTIC for review and incorporation into the Code of Conduct.
So, in the same vein, we encourage all the parties in this case – whether landlord holding the master account or tenants holding the sub-accounts – to be very fair and transparent as they negotiate and undertake their commercial agreement. We are committed to supporting industry-led efforts to promote best practices.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Edward Chia.
\tMr Edward Chia Bing Hui: Thank you, Speaker. I also thank the Minister of State for sharing that SP is looking into technology systems to account for sub-accounts' excess energy. But in some cases, most of the excess energy generated by sub-account holders are being subsumed by the master account holder, because there is no total aggregated excess energy. In this case, would SP be able to track that, since there is no aggregated excess?
If it is very much based on a commercial agreement, then, we need to help sub-account holders who are usually tenants, because they are already in asymmetrical structural relationship to negotiate with the master account holder. In this case, the master account holders are benefiting from the excess energy.
\tMs Low Yen Ling: I want to thank Mr Edward Chia for these two further points. Therein lies two points: one is in terms of the IT factor that I talked about. I have explained that based on the current system, SP only has sight of the energy usage by the master account. In order to address this, they are looking at the feasibility of undergoing system enhancements and that will have system-wide implications and so they need time to do an evaluation.
In the meantime, whether you are the landlord holding the master account or you are the tenant, large or small, holding the sub-account, there needs to be a spirit of fairness and transparency, as you negotiate the conditions for the sharing of the revenue. I want to assure the Member that we take this very seriously. MTI and EMA will review any feedback and if there is a case in point, we certainly will follow up with the relevant master and sub-account holders, to make sure we facilitate a discussion. In the meantime, we will work with the relevant trade and industry associations and all stakeholders to promote industry-led sharing of best practices.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of High-rise Schools on Children's Social Interactions and Development","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"15 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for Education (a) whether the Ministry has plans to build taller and high-rise schools; (b) whether the Ministry has assessed the developmental importance in childhood and formative years of play, social interaction and friendship-building and the role of open unstructured spaces and unstructured interactions in child development; and (c) whether high-rise school buildings will affect this.
\tThe Minister of State for Education (Ms Gan Siow Huang) (for the Minister for Education): Mr Speaker, to make best use of the limited land in Singapore, MOE considers how we can adopt higher-rise designs without hindering or compromising teaching and learning. In particular, MOE provides open spaces in our school campuses, to support student learning, as well as healthy social and emotional development.
One example is Valour Primary School, which was completed in 2020, with eight-storey blocks. The school has various sky terraces and pockets of open spaces adjacent to classrooms at multiple levels, which allow students to interact, play and exercise. The second level of the school is designed as an open area, with (a) a parade square which doubles up as a play court, (b) a playground and (c) other outdoor learning spaces. Together, these sections form a contiguous space for both formal and informal student activities.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Recent Workplace Safety Offences and Incidence of Repeat Offenders","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"16 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Manpower of the 558 firms penalised during the recent workplace safety enforcement operations between 15 August 2022 and 17 October 2022 (a) how many firms are repeat offenders who have received penalties for workplace safety infringements previously; and (b) what is being done to prevent repeated safety breaches from happening.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Manpower (Mr Zaqy Mohamad) (for the Minister for Manpower): Mr Speaker, this enforcement operation was aimed at reducing slips, trips and falls (STFs) at the workplaces, which was the leading cause of major injuries in the first half of 2022. The operation uncovered common contraventions such as STF hazards not identified during risk assessments, control measures not implemented for poorly maintained flooring and workers wearing inadequate footwear. All these contraventions required very basic mitigations for the workers’ safety.
MOM issued a total of 12 stop-work orders (SWO), over 200 composition fines and close to 1,600 notices of non-compliances to 558 companies in the Construction, Manufacturing, Transportation and Storage and Accommodation, and Food Services sectors.
Despite the Heightened Safety Period and the repeated calls by the Ministry, slightly more than half of the 558 companies had received penalties for workplace safety and health (WSH) offences previously. These repeat WSH offenders received stiffer penalties, such as higher composition fines compared to first time offenders. Those with poor WSH performance were also inspected more regularly. For instance, DA Engineering Pte Ltd, a repeat WSH offender, was issued with a SWO and fined a total of $8,000 as this enforcement operation continued to uncover multiple unsafe conditions in its workplace.
The Ministry recognises that tangible improvements to unsafe WSH practices go beyond issuance of penalties.
For companies with fatal or major injuries, MOM requires them to engage external auditors to conduct a thorough review of their WSH processes and implement measures to prevent recurrence. The WSH Council has also strengthen the support for companies, especially our SMEs who need help to improve their WSH practices and processes through StartSAFE. Under the StartSAFE programme, SMEs have access to WSH consultants who can provide professional advice and hands-on guidance on how to identify WSH risks, implement good WSH practices and prevent recurrence of a WSH offence.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Melvin Yong.
\tMr Melvin Yong Yik Chye (Radin Mas): Sir, I thank the Senior Minister of State for his response. I have two supplementary questions. Since the introduction of the Heightened Safety Period from 1 September this year, how many CEOs and Directors were made accountable for serious workplace safety breaches, what was the highest penalty imposed and if the ACOP had been used to penalise any Director thus far?
Two, as part of the Heightened Safety Period measures, how many companies had volunteered for the StartSAFE programme that the Senior Minister of State mentioned, which I believe is offered free to companies? Are there any plans to reach out to more companies, in particular SMEs, to take up this programme?
\tMr Zaqy Mohamad: I thank the Member for asking about the Approved Code of Practice for Directors and CEOs (ACOP) that was just recently implemented on 1 November this year. So, we are just a month into it. Prosecutions typically take time, and therefore, I do not have an update, specific to the ACOP.
But what I can say is this: today, under section 48 of the Workplace Safety and Health Act, company directors as well as C-suite or senior leaders can already be prosecuted under the law for contraventions or not complying to workplace safety and health measures. ACOP helps us to put an added layer to put more transparency and clearer obligations on managements and boards so that they look after the workplace safety and health of their employees and workers. So, it makes it clearer. And if needed, it makes also clearer for prosecution, for us to prosecute them in Court.
\tBut let me also give the Member some idea since he asked about what we have done so far with prosecution of board directors and senior leaders. I will take two recent cases. One is the director of Thyme Food & Services who was charged under section 48 of the WSH Act for failure to prevent the offence of the occupier. The director was fined $45,000 while the firm was fined $185,000. So, we do differentiate between firms and directors. In the other case, Leeden National Oxygen Ltd was also charged under the same section 48 of the WSH Act – the ex-CEO for failure to exercise due diligence as CEO. He was fined $45,000 while the firm was fined $340,000. So, these are actual offences which we have prosecuted under the older regime. But, with ACOP, it makes it easier for us to prosecute as the regime is a lot clearer.
Specific to StartSAFE, I agree with the Member that beyond just enforcement and penalties, it is also important for us to inculcate that culture and mindset of workplace safety among leaders and businesses. So, if we look at StartSAFE, we have brought in more than 140 companies, in fact, that have signed up since September and October this year since we started the heightened safety period. This is close to 50% higher than what we typically got monthly before this. So, there is, indeed, higher demand.
But, certainly, if you ask me whether it can still be better, this is where I seek the help of the unions, for example, and employers and trade associations, to encourage more companies, because this is fully funded by the Government for SMEs. And SMEs have also been shown to have a higher incidence of fatalities and major injuries this year. So, we want to inculcate and bring more on board as much as we can.
Since the launch of ACOP as well, we have also now engaged various industry associations and companies, particularly to promote the adoption of ACOP principles and measures. So, what we will be doing next is to develop online resources on ACOP and incorporate ACOP into bizSAFE level 1 by the first quarter of 2023. So, we are going to institutionalise ACOP into our bizSAFE certification programmes and, therefore, I hope we will get more firms on board as we formalise it as well.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Melvin Yong.
\tMr Melvin Yong Yik Chye: Sir, I thank the Senior Minister of State for his further clarifications. We are about three months into the heightened safety period. Can the Senior Minister of State share if this period and the measures have helped to improve the workplace safety situation across the various industries and are there any plans to extend the heightened safety period beyond 28 February 2023?
\tMr Zaqy Mohamad: I thank the Member for his follow-up question on the heightened safety period. To recap, MOM introduced a slew of measures to strengthen WSH as part of our heightened safety period from 1 September this year to 28 February next year. So, this is really to target egregious companies with serious or fatal workplace accidents. To date, I think we have had some promising results or outcomes so far. Prior to 1 September, we were having about 4.5 fatal accidents per month, on average. After the heightened safety alert was implemented, we have about two fatalities per month. So, we have slowed down the momentum. I hope it continues. I think there is greater awareness among firms. But again, we should move towards zero because every fatality is just one too many.
To date, more than 30 companies were also required to engage external auditors to conduct a thorough review of the WSH processes following the issuance of stop-work orders during the heightened safety period. So, in addition, two companies Le Fong Building Service and Green Cycling were debarred from employing new foreign workers for up to three months and their CEOs had to personally account to MOM to take responsibility for rectifications. So, this also shows the change in posture that we are taking now, to make leaders, CEOs, a lot more accountable for fatalities and major injuries in their workplaces. Another the heightened safety period, MOM also called for mandatory safety timeout to be completed by 30 September 2022 and we are enforcing it as we move along with inspections.
To the Member's question whether this will be extended, the heightened safety period is still ongoing. So, let us review it. The initial outcomes, as I have shared, have slowed down the momentum of fatalities. So, I think that is a good sign and we hope that continues. But it is still too early to say. Let us wait till March next year and then we will decide after we see the total outcome of the whole period.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Review of Monthly Household-income Ceiling for Prospective Buyers of BTO Flats and Executive Condominiums","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"17 Mr Ang Wei Neng asked the Minister for National Development whether HDB is prepared to review the monthly household-income ceiling for prospective buyers of BTO flats and Executive Condominiums respectively, given the high inflation rate.
\tThe Second Minister for National Development (Ms Indranee Rajah) (for the Minister for National Development): Mr Speaker, the income ceilings for the purchase of subsidised HDB flats and Executive Condominiums, or ECs, are reviewed regularly to ensure that public housing remains within reach of the majority of citizen households and that housing subsidies are given to those who need them most. Factors that are considered include the household incomes of Singaporeans and prevailing housing market conditions, among others. We are also mindful that lower-income households could be crowded out by an adjustment to the income ceilings.
The income ceiling was last reviewed in 2019, when it was raised from $12,000 to $14,000 for families buying a new flat, and from $14,000 to $16,000 for families buying an EC from property developers. At the same time, we introduced the Enhanced CPF Housing Grant, or the EHG, to better support lower- to middle-income families buying their first homes.
There are no plans to revise the income ceilings at this point. At the current income ceiling of $14,000, about eight in 10 Singaporeans are eligible to apply for a BTO flat, while the $16,000 ceiling enables about nine in 10 Singaporeans to apply for EC. There is no income restriction for the purchase of a resale HDB flat on the open market.
HDB is committed to helping Singaporeans, particularly first-timers and lower- to middle-income families, to own a home. The Government will continue to monitor housing market conditions closely to ensure that public housing remains affordable and accessible.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Ang.
\tMr Ang Wei Neng (West Coast): Thank you, Speaker and I thank Minister Indranee for the comprehensive reply. The real income of Singaporeans may not increase this year and next year because of high inflation. But their nominal income will likely increase if inflation stays high at 5% this year, and probably next year at 10%. So, does this not affect only the income ceilings of application of BTO flats but also affect Singaporeans' income criteria eligibility for Enhanced Housing Grant, which means that $1,500 now get $80,000 of EHG, a lot of them may exceed $1,500 because of the increase in nominal income but not the real nominal income?
My second supplementary question is that in 2010, the income ceiling for HDB BTO flats and the EC, the differential is $2,000 – that is, the difference between $8,000 and $10,000. Today, the gap remains at $2,000. But in 2010, the differential was 25%. Today, the gap is 14%. And the average price of, say, a 3-bedroom EC, as compared to a, HDB 4-room flat, is probably more than double. So, could the Second Minister consider these two considerations?
\tMs Indranee Rajah: I thank the Member for his supplementary questions. I also understand his concern, which is about affordability and accessibility for HDB housing for the majority of Singaporeans. What HDB and MND do is to look at it as a whole, not just one lever or one particular measure in isolation. Overall, what we are trying to do is to look at the demand as well as the supply which, of course, in the pandemic years, has been somewhat constrained.
So, to ensure that public housing remains affordable and accessible, one of our current priorities is to rein in the strong upward momentum in HDB resale prices. To this end, as the Member knows, we have rolled out additional measures in September 2022 to moderate demand and ensure prudent borrowing amidst rising interest rates. And then to moderate demand for resale flats, MND and HDB introduced the 15-month wait-out period for private property owners and ex-private property owners to buy a non-subsidised HDB resale flat. Raising the income ceiling at this juncture may negate the efforts to cool the resale market as it would enable the higher-income households to bid up resale prices further.
Our other priority is to ramp up the supply of new flats to meet the strong demand for public housing. Thus, any review to raise the income ceiling would also have to be balanced against greater competition for the finite resources of the Government.
So, in short, what we are really saying is this. We understand the concerns. We know that Singaporeans are keen to buy their HDB flats. On MND and HDB side, we will do our utmost to ensure that they remain affordable and accessible. Tweaking the income ceiling, in and of itself, may not necessarily be the best measure. We will look at it overall and see how we can maintain that accessibility and affordability.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Ang.
\tMr Ang Wei Neng: I was also asking about the income criteria to qualify for the various levels of the Enhanced Housing Grant and other housing grants. So, with the increase of the nominal income, you put a lot of people at a disadvantage that they cannot qualify for the higher housing grant. That is the question. That is the first supplementary question. The second supplementary question is about the differential in gap between the HDB BTO income ceiling as well as the EC income ceiling. The gap of $2,000 is quite different between today, which is a 14% difference, as compared to 2010 when it was a 25% difference. So, two different questions. I hope the Second Minister can answer the two questions.
\tMs Indranee Rajah: In so far as the grant is concerned, if the concern is whether or not their housing grant can be increased, that is something we can look at and make a separate decision because they are two separate things. So, if the Member is asking, today, can I say that we will increase the income ceiling, the answer is there are no plans to do that at this stage. If the Member is saying whether we can increase the grants, that is something we can look at. But, overall, the key message to the Member and to Singaporeans is that we will do whatever is necessary to ensure that housing remains affordable and accessible.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Windfall Taxes on Energy Companies in Light of Their Record Profits","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"The following question stood in the name of Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis –
18 To ask the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) whether the Government has considered implementing windfall taxes on energy companies in light of record profits by oil majors; and (b) what are the considerations behind implementing or not implementing such a tax.
\t
\tAssoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): Question No 18.
The Senior Minister of State for Finance (Mr Chee Hong Tat) (for the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance): Mr Speaker, in light of elevated global oil and gas prices over the past year, some countries have introduced windfall taxes on the profits of energy companies. Such taxes can yield short-term revenues. But they will damage the economy in the longer-term.
In particular, it is typical for energy markets to experience up and down cycles. Higher profits in good years help the energy companies smooth out past losses and prepare for future downcycles. Windfall taxes arbitrarily applied to companies just because of their recent “record profits” will lead to considerable business uncertainty and disincentivise long-term private investments. Energy companies will hold back on investing in greener fuels and decarbonisation measures, which will make it harder for us to achieve our net-zero targets.
Sir, more generally, Singapore’s value proposition as a trusted business hub has been based on our long-term stability, anchored on strong rule of law and a predictable regulatory environment. Arbitrary measures like windfall taxes will send the wrong signal to businesses and discourage them from investing in Singapore. This will erode investor confidence and, in turn, affect Singapore’s competitiveness and the livelihoods of our workers, who could either lose their jobs or have fewer career advancement opportunities when businesses divert their investments elsewhere.
We must not let the temptation of short-term revenue gains come at the expense of our long-term economic competitiveness. We must be careful not to resort to populist ideas to raise revenue that will ultimately hurt businesses, hurt our economy and hurt Singaporeans.
\tMr Speaker: Order. End of Question Time. The Clerk will now proceed to read the Orders of the Day.
[\tPursuant to Standing Order No 22(3), Written Answers to Question Nos 20, 23-30, 33-44, 46-47, 49, and 51-52 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":"Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment No 3) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Resumption of Debate on Question [28 November 2022], \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\" – [Minister for Social and Family Development]. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Question again proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.
Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): Mr Speaker, as Members of this House executing our duties in Parliament, we simultaneously hold three distinct identities. We are, first and foremost, representatives of the people that voted for us. In my view, this is our utmost responsibility: to properly capture and reflect the views of our constituents. Second, we are members of a political party, who were likewise elected to formulate policies for our nation. For the Workers’ Party, our mandate – as loyal opposition – is to provide alternative views and constructive critique of the ruling party’s ideas and proposals. And third, we are of course individuals who carry our own beliefs and convictions.
Rarely is there confluence in these three identities, which results in us having to make a reasonable effort at balancing between different preferences and exercising compromise. But this is not necessarily as difficult as it sounds; for esoteric bills, our electorate often expects us to do our homework and choose what is in the best interests of the country at large. Hence, they may not hew to strongly-held views of their own. At other times, there are bipartisan consensus on how best to proceed and so our interventions in Parliament are limited to flagging points of concern, but the Workers’ Party nevertheless votes alongside the ruling party.
In a matter such as the repeal of section 377A and the attendant proposed constitutional amendments, however, it would appear that there is not only an intractable divide between the different interests that we represent, but our own personal convictions may play a role in the choices we are forced in make.
In my speech, I wish to explain why I believe that these disparate views can be reconciled and how this leads me to vote the way that I will.
In the many letters written to me by the residents of Sengkang, those that have expressed their concern over the repeal of 377A have, almost uniformly, cited their reservation over how such a repeal would open the floodgates to revisions to the traditionalist interpretation of marriage.
This concern has not only been limited to those who are more religiously inclined. I have spoken to residents who would otherwise hold no strong views on 377A, nevertheless underscore their wish that the heterosexual definition of marriage be, somehow, protected.
To be clear, this is a prospective fear: one based on how the repeal of 377A is a slippery slope; once the law is removed, the floodgates are open and all manner of permissive laws become possible.
In contrast, 377A is currently on the books and consenting relations between two men is currently a crime. This is no longer prospective, but real. In principle, a man engaged in same-sex sexual relations could be jailed, if the strict letter of the law were to be followed.
The repeal decision is thus a trade-off between the removal of a tangible, actual threat of imprisonment, versus a perceived, potential concern over how repeal would undermine marriage. It seems clear to me that there is not, and cannot, be a genuine equivalence between the two.
The usual pushback against claims that 377A constitutes an actual violation of the law, is that 377A is not enforced and – on the basis of court judgments – will not be, unless otherwise instructed by the Attorney-General. This suggests that the Article is merely a relic, one that has no bite and hence, any fear is similarly ephemeral. Why not the existing status quo, then?
It is true that the Courts have previously ruled that 377A would not be prosecuted. Even so, sexual relations between men remains, on the books, an arrestable offence. Think about what this means when the status of rule of law in our country if we insist on instituting laws that simultaneously do not matter in practice. How many more de jure issues also would not matter, de facto? If we wish to make a slippery slope argument, this strikes me as a far slipperier one.
Furthermore, we should recognise that even an unenforced law can have effects on individuals and society.
Think of the symbolism behind what a law, any law, implies. Suppose, for a moment, there was a law prohibiting relationships between individuals of different races, and further suppose that a similar legal precedent and political compromise exists, in that those who are in such a miscegenated relationship are assured that they will never be prosecuted. It is a hypothetical but is it fair to expect those who are in a mixed-race relationship to accept the assurance that such a sword of Damocles hanging over their relationship does not really mean anything?
To take the argument further, should we expect that individuals will feel that they are a fair and equal part of society, when society has deigned it permissible to have a law that, even while unenforced, nevertheless explicitly condemns their behaviour? Can we expect such individuals to truly feel that they are accepted as a part of Singaporean society, when Singaporean law declares them to be criminals?
Some would suggest that Singapore is different. We are an Eastern society, with different cultural mores and practices. They argue that a repeal of 377A amounts to bringing in the polarisation and cultural wars – so prevalent in the seemingly dysfunctional democracies of the West – back home.
I agree that Singapore is different. Our cultural norms skew toward greater social conservatism and society stresses compromise for the sake of harmony, rather than the contentious and often raucous activism favoured by civil society and activism in the West.
But an untenable status quo, however entrenched, does not imply that all is well under the surface. For those who keenly feel the yoke of discrimination, suggesting that we should keep things the way that they have always been – simply because that is how it has always been – is more than simply benign neglect. It is an insult to their plight, to the burden that they have been bearing, perhaps silently, until now. It is like telling a prisoner that their desire for freedom is an attempt to stir up unrest while they are in jail.
As a man attracted to the opposite sex, I can never fully empathise what it means to develop feelings for someone of the same gender. But when I was a hot-blooded teenager, I had a dear friend, who turned out to be gay, explain to me what his world was like. The analogy has stayed with me ever since. Just imagine, he said, if the way you feel about women – the strong, unrelenting attraction when you first meet, the wish to share one’s most innermost thoughts and feelings with them, the deep desire to be with that person for the rest of your life – imagine if all that was not the natural order of things. Imagine that society deemed my attraction to women as not just abhorrent, but also judged intimate expressions of my love to be criminal.
This is not too far from other historical legacies where the law deemed certain forms of love to be illegal. As recently as the 1960s, interracial relationships were limited in some form in as many as 31 US states, as it was in Nazi Germany and apartheid South Africa. While I am not equating the two, my point is that my own relationship as well as that of my parents – which occurred between two different ethnicities – would have fallen afoul of the law.
The usual retort to such scenarios is that it is contrived; humans are not animals and, after all, we can always exercise self-restraint. Some argue that because same-sex attraction is ultimately psychological, it can be overturned, with intervention and counselling. Perhaps. But I am not here to question the natural biological order which I respect. After all, it is a physiological reality that asexual reproduction among mammals is impossible. And hence, the male-female pairing is necessary to ensure the continuation of these species. Even so, for certain individuals, such attractions are deeply embedded in what may be regarded as innate biologically-led behaviour.
For these reasons, I support the repeal of the discriminatory law that is 377A.
Even so, I also cannot really ignore how many in our Asian society continue to equate marriage and partnership to one between a man and a woman. This view is held not only those who are religious – by which I mean not just by groups that have been more vocal about traditional marriage, such as evangelical Christians and Muslims – but, based on my conversations with residents in Sengkang and beyond, also those who do not strongly profess any faith.
For these Singaporeans, the fact that marriage must involve a union between a man and a woman goes beyond a legally binding contractual relationship. It is a fundamental belief, a worldview. This sense is so deeply ingrained that they are not only are unable to accept the principle of same-sex marriage. For them, were such marriages to become recognised, they – perhaps paradoxically – would feel that society is not only no longer representative of who they are, but some may even go as far as to feel that it has turned against them. It is secondary that heterosexual norms remain the firm majority. Many will feel a sense of exclusion and victimhood.
As it turns out, this worldview is remarkably pervasive. While I do not have comprehensive data, I have had many conversations over the course of the past few months and I would be willing to venture that a significant majority of Singaporeans – including those in Sengkang, including otherwise liberal-minded spirits, and even including those who are otherwise sympathetic about the repeal of 377A – carry this perspective close to their hearts.
It is important that we do not dismiss this worldview as emanating from an oppressive majority, finally receiving their comeuppance. This is because I actually believe that such sentiments – even if some may argue are seemingly misplaced – are indeed genuine.
When I was a teenager, I took my Christian faith very seriously – to the point where I even harboured ambitions to be a missionary. While I am no longer as zealous today as I was, I can fully empathise with how it is like to hold fast to a set of tenets and beliefs that so completely shape one’s worldview that it would be wholly inconceivable to not expect that challenges to it would not be met with visceral resistance.
To reiterate: this is not a sentiment that is limited to those that are religious. It is one that is accepted by broad segments of Singaporean society, almost to a point where it is regarded as self-evident among these groups. To those within this group, their sense of identity and meaning is as much tied to heteronormativity as those who identify as homosexual tie theirs otherwise. Just as important, threats to these identities affect their behaviours and their welfare.
It is for this reason that I do not see a decision to alter the Constitution as essentially a compromise for merely the sake of political expediency, necessary for the repeal of 377A. Rather, it is the manner by which the state will echo what society, as a whole, believes in.
Prime Minister Lee had explained in his National Day Rally speech that challenges via the judicial system were becoming more insistent, and that we did not wish to go down the dangerous road of judicial activism. He also explained why decisions on the repeal of 377A and – perhaps more importantly, constitutional amendments – should be determined in the legislature. He was articulating, in this specific instance, the principle of de facto parliamentary sovereignty, a notion that others have observed also applies to Singapore.
As Workers’ Party chair Sylvia Lim has articulated, there may be potential legal lacunae that passing such constitutional amendment may entail. I am also aware that the amendment will continue to discriminate – albeit to a lesser extent – against those who wish to normalise their same-sex relationship, especially in matters of public policy.
This question of jurisprudence – where I am very sympathetic to the views of Ms Lim – is important and a concern. But even accepting this argument, I believe that there remains a strong justification for ensuring that deliberation of matters of broad societal concern occur within the forum designed for such matters, which is this House. I will also explain why I believe that a social institution such as marriage may reasonably be included in a foundational document, such as the Constitution.
Keeping in mind that representative democracy will always be imperfect, it is nevertheless the closest system we have that reasonably aggregates the preferences of our people at large. And in our time, the significant majority of Singaporeans have articulated their preference for a clear reassurance that the institution of marriage be protected.
Could this justify a constitutional amendment then? From my perspective, I do not see why not. Constitutions are live documents, meant – as Thomas Jefferson once said – to serve the present generation. They embody the rights of nature, of society and of government; these are essential principles of constitutional design. Many constitutions embed rights of association. Consequently, I believe it is reasonable that our Singaporean Constitution captures the key institutions that our society cherishes, which includes this cornerstone institution of marriage.
Mr Speaker, as Members of Parliament, I believe that it is paramount that we carry out our duties of representation faithfully, echoing, to the best of our ability, the views of the majority of our constituents, even when this position may differ from what we, individually, may hold. It is in this light that I see a vote in favour of a constitutional amendment that codifies the institution of marriage as a reflection of the conversations I have had with my many diverse constituents on this matter.
Keen observers will nevertheless note that the constitutional amendments that were proposed, however, merely refer to how the legislature may define marriage, leaving the specific definition indeterminate. Should the amendments be more specific then? This is where I depart from those who would go further, those who are asking for a heterosexual definition of marriage be hardcoded into the Constitution. In contrast to the more fundamental notion of the institution of marriage, its definition does not strike me as an unwavering principle that belongs to a constitution. It is therefore appropriate that such a definition be clarified only in subsidiary legislation, subject to change by the people of the contemporary time.
Almost two centuries ago, the French political philosopher Alexis de Tocqueville documented his observations on the then-nascent state of democracy in the United States. He shared his admiration for the democratic project as it unfolded in America. Even so, he pointed out an inherent tension in the power of democratic majority opinion, and in particular, he highlighted what he observed to be the \"tyranny of the majority\".
Tocqueville did not much propose a resolution to this conundrum, beyond suggesting, like his contemporary, English philosopher John Stuart Mill, that appropriate respect for individualism and liberty could offer a way out of this conundrum. Importantly, these thinkers believed that it was vital for each society to arrive at their own definition of the limits that public opinion would have over individual lives. One could argue that democratic republics, of which Singapore is one, are the practical manifestation of this compromise between individual rights and popular opinion.
We stand, today, at a similar precipice, albeit in our own Little Red Dot. The way I see it, the repeal of section 377A is the way that our society respects these individual rights, while enshrining the institution of marriage within the Constitution is how we respect the values of the majority. Hence, the decision we make today is not solely about a political compromise, as so many have suggested. It is also about striking the balance between the principles of individualism and majoritarianism.
As a republic, we are required to do right by our people – we have it right there in our Pledge, a commitment to \"justice and equality\". Which is why fundamentally discriminatory laws such as section 377A should no longer be allowed to stand. But at the same time, our commitment to – also in our pledge – \"build a democratic society\" calls on us to affirm our common values, such as marriage, that make us one united people. That is why I will vote yes to both of these amendments today.
Mr Speaker: Ms He Ting Ru.
Ms He Ting Ru (Sengkang): Mr Speaker, like many of us in this House, I am often filled with questions about the type of world we live in, the world that I want my children to inherit from us. I worry about how I can inculcate in them the right values, the right tools to be able to dissect tricky situations and to be able to tell right from wrong, even when the world around you sometimes appears to have gone mad.
Today, my sons are still young, and it will be years yet before they are old enough to understand the topics we are debating and to have their own views on these matters, which touch on the very core of what it means to be humans living together in a society. But I hope that when they are old enough, they will be able to understand and appreciate what I say here today, as it is my contribution to what I hope will be a healthy and positive debate for a more tolerant and accepting nation. These are topics that are fundamental to who we are as individuals, who we are as a society.
And because society is a collection of individuals, this necessarily means that we are people who have different views and ways of looking at things. It comes as no surprise that we have many different viewpoints and that some amongst us do feel extremely passionately about the issues involved. This is a good thing in and as of itself, as it shows that we care deeply about the society we live in.
When the repeal of section 377A and the amendments to the Constitution were first announced, my thoughts were initially clear-cut – this relates to my conscience and it seemed straightforward. Yet, as I listened to friends and residents who shared their thoughts with me on the matter, I realised that there was a wide variety of opinion on the matter, each informed by one's own life experiences, their own social or religious value systems. It would also be impossible to find a position that everyone fully agreed on. But whether they are for or against repeal, one thing was clear to me: that everyone is motivated by the same desire to see Singapore move in the right direction, in the direction of the greater good.
I think it is crucial that we do not lose sight of this, even as we may debate over what this greater good is. This is important because having many different cultures, values or viewpoints is not new to Singapore and it will not be the last time we face an issue that risks our society being increasingly polarised.
But I am reminded that we can face challenges as a nation and can do so soberly in a way that balances the individual's right to hold their own beliefs and practices, with the need to build a cohesive society founded on principles of understanding and acceptance.
It is also not lost on me that I am speaking today not just as an individual, but as a representative of my constituents who have entrusted this privilege to me and my teammates. This is something that we will never take for granted, even as we strive each day to be worthy of that trust.
But Sengkang, like Singapore, is multi-faceted. And as interests and viewpoints are split on section 377A, I believe we need to remind ourselves of the same principles of acceptance and understanding that have helped us build a strong ship that can weather difficult storms.
I believe that we must have empathy and put ourselves in the shoes of those who hold different views from us, and to try our very best to understand where their concerns are coming from. We must approach this difference with respect; it does not do anyone favour to dismiss the other as being hysterical, overblown, or wanting to impose corrupt values on others. We must above all, work to not discriminate against our fellow citizens.
It is this principle that moves me to vote in support of repeal today.
I do not believe that we should have a law in the books that is plainly and obviously discriminatory. It sends a signal that one segment of society is so morally reprehensible that their identity should be considered criminal, even if it is only on paper. It excuses discriminatory behaviour and contradicts the Pledge we take, as citizens of Singapore \"to build a democratic society, based on justice and equality\".
Not repealing section 377A today would be at odds with steps that Singapore is taking to be a fairer and more equitable society for all and will go against the principles behind the Government's welcome announcement that we will finally legislate against discrimination. Many in this House have already mentioned the Government's announcement to introduce anti-discrimination legislation and I believe the repeal of section 377A plays its part in our move towards a more inclusive society.
Some residents and concerned citizens have written to me to express concerns about the repeal of section 377A and the deleterious effect that this will have on the next generation. Having three young and curious children myself, I fully appreciate where this is coming from. And indeed, I often find myself worrying about how to teach them to know right from wrong, and to be able to distinguish between good and bad influences. After all, we cannot completely insulate them from the outside world and our children will be exposed to many different ideas and arguments which we believe are wrong.
Our role as a parent is to educate, to guide them as we think fit and to have a sense of moral values which they can apply to different situations. Yet, our children are also their own people, and we must accept that they too will eventually grow up to have their own views, make their own choices and to deal with the consequences of their actions.
And while it is true that a country's laws do provide some moral guardrails for what is acceptable to society as a whole, history has shown us that in some instances, this has not always been the case. After all, I like to think that if I lived in a time and society where slavery was legal and accepted, I would still teach my children that the very concept of a human owning another human is abhorrent and unacceptable under any circumstances.
Having said all of this, I have also heard and understand the concerns of those who feel that the repeal of section 377A will be a slippery slope to further shifts in policy that they feel are simply unacceptable, or that its repeal will cause deep faults and divisions in society that are irreparable.
I understand and respect their concern. But since as early as 2007, the regard for section 377A as a bad law has been growing. Legal personages, including former Judges of the Court of Appeal and a former Chief Justice, have cast doubt on its constitutionality. Similar arguments have been made in this House before as well. If not, today, the law would likely have been struck down in the near term.
But we must also not mix legality with morality. The repeal rejects a legal framework of discrimination, but parents remain able to educate our children and impart the moral lessons that we want within our household, shaped by our own beliefs and faiths. The concerns relating to the silencing of certain groups are also, I believe, understandable. However, Article 15 of our Constitution guarantees the freedom of religion in Singapore, specifying that \"every person has the right to profess and practise his religion and to propagate it\". This right has been upheld by the Court of Appeal.
And if there should be any proposed amendments to remove or water down the right to religious freedom in Singapore, I will not hesitate to oppose it.
In fact, this approach is similar to thorny moral questions that are handled differently between religions or communities today, yet our laws are secular and do not attempt to enshrine the moral compass of each group. Our laws seek instead, to provide the protection for each community from discriminatory treatment from another. The same principle applies here and the protection of religious freedom will remain a core tenet of our democracy.
With this in mind, I record my concern about the proposed constitutional amendment before us. I appreciate the concern behind its formation. Yet, from a legal perspective, the proposed amendments carve out an area of legislative decision-making and functionally shields it from judicial review. Specifically, the proposed Articles 156(3)(b) and (4) prevent laws and policies relating to the heterosexual definition of marriage from being challenged in Court on the basis of the fundamental liberties provisions in the Constitution.
This causes me some concern. While I can understand and appreciate that the majority of Singaporeans feel that marriage is between a man and woman and share the concern about a judiciary running roughshod over the will of the people as expressed through Parliament, I note that the Singapore Courts have always been conscious of the concept of parliamentary sovereignty, giving precedence to the lawmaking function of Parliament and are ever cognisant of not overstepping the line into judicial law-making.
Perhaps in taking fright at the \"phantom menace\" of judicial activism, we may be losing sight of a more fundamental principle – that the judiciary should be the ultimate arbiter of the constitutionality of legislation and has an important role in safeguarding the fundamental liberties protected therein. Article 156, while not an ouster clause in the traditional sense, functionally shields legislation from being tested against the protection of fundamental liberties under Part 4 of the Constitution.
This concern goes beyond the present issue and I hope we will not lose sight of the bigger picture. If we were to pass this constitutional amendment today that prevents the Courts from determining the constitutionality of a legislative policy, what would stop a future Parliament from passing discriminatory legislation and then shielding it from judicial oversight?
For example, a future Parliament may decide to pass or entrench laws that prevent the propagation of one's religion and then immunise that from court challenge on the basis of the constitutional protection for religious expression by introducing a carve-out similar to the present amendment as contained in Articles 156(3) and (4).
I would additionally urge empathy when debating and passing the constitutional amendment. While I applaud removing the divisive thorn of section 377A from the body politic, I worry too that the constitutional amendment may continue to advance the divisiveness that we precisely want to combat.
Although I understand and appreciate why the Government has introduced the new Article 156, I find that I must abstain from the amendments proposed to the Constitution due to my concerns relating to the carve-out from judicial oversight.
Finally, the divergent views on section 377A underscore the need for measured dialogue, for opportunities to walk in the shoes of another, to not view fellow Singaporeans as an existential threat and to not underestimate the good sense, resilience and pragmatism of the Singaporean people.
For a pluralistic society like Singapore, it is in walking together, in conversation with each other, all the while cognisant and respectful of our differences that we are able to move forward. Sometimes, legislation is not just the imperfect substitute for society's greater good, it can be a barrier to it.
I note that I have spoken very much in the abstract so far, on principles and ideas. Yet, allow me the liberty to close with a personal anecdote about a boy I grew up with in this part of the world. We moved to different cities in our teens and did not see each other for almost a decade. One day, in our 20s, our paths were fortuitous enough to cross again thousands of miles from home and I remember sitting up late one night, chatting about nothing in particular. I made a throwaway, teasing comment about whether he would take girls to a particular spot to impress them. What followed next was totally unexpected.
He suddenly grew quiet and paused for a long while, looking away. I could see that his mind was racing and he swallowed hard a few times. Finally, he looked at me and said, \"You probably don't know this, but I'm gay. I thought a long time about whether to tell you but decided to do so because I think you'd be okay with it.\"
It was now my turn to be silenced as he started telling me about how a few months ago, he attended his sister's wedding, where he felt compelled to tell lie upon lie to well-meaning relatives asking when it would be his turn to get married. He felt like a total charlatan but overriding this was his greatest fear that he did not want to \"bring shame upon his parents\".
I will never forget the fear and anguish and the pain in his eyes and I regret that this was not the first, nor the last time I saw these emotions as someone \"came out\" to me about their sexual orientation – all because they feared condemnation and disgust for who they were. It is a whirlwind of emotions that I will never fully understand and I would not wish this on anyone.
It is a timely reminder that for the vast majority of us, the topics we discuss today are but academic to our personal situation. Yet, to some of our fellow Singaporeans, every moment of their lives is affected by it.
We do not have to condone it nor encourage it, but I hope we can find it within ourselves to try to empathise with them, even just a little bit – that we can find it within ourselves to be able to live and hope and pray that the LGBTI members of our community are able to live without discrimination and fear of being ostracised.
Conversely, those who support the repeal of section 377A or even feel that we should go further should also not attempt to bludgeon their views upon those who are deeply uncomfortable with it and instead try to understand the reasons behind why they feel this way. This will be a start towards better understanding each other and how we can begin to heal any rifts that may have arisen.
After section 377A is repealed, life will go on. Families and spouses who love and value each other and their children will continue to do so. Love and hope can still triumph over anger and mistrust, and we will still open our doors and hearts to our neighbours in the community who need an extra helping hand – like the countless stories of neighbourhood group chats stepping in during the pandemic, the students of our Sengkang schools who came together to make gift cards to show their appreciation for our healthcare heroes in our healthcare facilities and their vaccination centres.
This is what makes us as a nation, as one nation, and I hope we never lose sight of this, nor stop fighting to keep this as our shared future. [Applause.]
Mr Speaker: Dr Tan Yia Swam.
Dr Tan Yia Swam (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, in my view, the proposed amendments are nothing more than stating the current social norms.
I am not a lawyer. Let the lawyers discuss the legal aspects of the implications of such a change. I am not a religious leader. I look to them to lead the future discussions of what their faith finds permissible. I speak to you now, as a doctor and as a mother of boys.
As a doctor, I will treat all patients who come before me equally, regardless of race, language or religion, and – I add – sexual preferences or gender identity. I ask about these only to advise on any impact on their medical care.
As a mother of boys, I want for them a world where they can grow safely in. What does that mean?
Think back to your growing years. It was a time to find oneself – your identity and who you are – and I dare say that there are some adults who are still searching or may never find the answer their whole lives.
We form our identity through multiple factors – our character at birth, be it extro- or introverted, then shaped by family, school and peers. Teenagers explore their sexuality and their gender identity.
In my time, tomboyish girls and effeminate boys were given mocking and even derogatory names. For those of us who were lucky to never be confused as to whether you liked a boy or girl, it was already not easy. We still worried and fussed over whether your crush liked you back, collected red saga seeds, folded hearts from bus tickets and listened to heartbreak songs.
For those who felt an attraction to someone of the same gender, I can only imagine the fear and anxiety – fear that there’s something wrong with you, that your parents will disown you, that your friends will call you a freak. How many have suppressed their feelings and stayed single or went on to have a heterosexual relationship just to fit in? How many are deeply unhappy?
For those who have advocated actively for LGBTQ rights, I applaud their steadfast commitment and bravery. I am glad that one key change will be achieved – the decriminalisation of the homosexual male.
I look to an environment where each person can grow and explore safely.
As I have said in most of my other speeches, education is key – education by the family, by formal schooling and by the various faiths. For those people facing conflicts and stress, there must be safe havens for them to seek fair and balanced counselling without undue influence.
Perhaps the healthcare profession needs to step up and lead this with paediatricians, psychiatrists, psychologists who are trained and experienced – professional providers who do not impose their personal views.
In schools, I urge MOE to review the sex education component to ensure that it is based on science and facts, while controversial opinions and trends are clearly stated as such. This will be a guide for parents to use in our own conversations at home with our growing children. To fellow parents, if you, like me, grew up without any knowledge of LGBT terms, let us educate ourselves. What is hetero, homo, pan or asexual? What is trans or cis gender? What is sexual orientation versus sexual identity? Only then we are equipped to guide our children as they grow and explore. This is when we can meaningfully share our personal beliefs, our religious convictions and allow the child to find his or her own way, with love and support.
We fear what we do not know. We react with anger when we are hurt. We are all talking a lot. But are we listening? I am deeply aware of how divisive discussing LGBTs rights is and how society may become fragmented. We are one Singapore, one united people. I urge everyone to stay calm and be kind. The above notwithstanding, I support both amendments.
Mr Speaker: Mr Xie Yao Quan.
Mr Xie Yao Quan (Jurong): Mr Speaker, Sir, before I speak on the substantive matters concerning the Constitution amendment and the repeal of section 377A, let me first make one point that I think has not been made enough.
This is the fact that the debate that we are having yesterday and today in this House is a milestone – a huge milestone – for our evolving democracy. It reflects the political leadership of a government and a parliamentary majority who have resolved to rise to our duty, not abdicate from our responsibilities and find the political courage and gumption to confront the difficult issues head on and do what is right even if there is no political favour to be gained and, indeed, every chance of a political cost to bear.
Once the prospects of the Courts striking down section 377A in a future challenge became clear, this Government of the day did not choose to \"unsee\" what it had seen. The Government did not look the other way. Instead, we sprang into action, put it squarely on the agenda as our duty required us to and set out to find a way forward for all Singaporeans, difficult as it may be.
So, I say – especially to the youths who desire a more robust democracy in Singapore – I say let us celebrate this moment. This is our democracy in action. This is our democracy growing stronger.
I listened to my colleagues yesterday – Mr Christopher de Souza, Mr Alex Yam, Minister Vivian Balakrishnan, Ms Jessica Tan, for example – who hold very strong beliefs on the family unit and want the institution of marriage to be protected and strengthened. Nonetheless, eventually, by the end of their speeches, they have also expressed their strong support for repeal in this debate.
On the other hand, there was Senior Parliamentary Secretary Baey Yam Keng, for example, who has been advocating strongly for repeal, indeed, since 2007. Yet, in this debate, eventually, by the end of his speech, he has also expressed strong support for protecting the institution of marriage.
So, very different starting points – repeal on the one hand, protecting the institution of marriage on the other – and a broad tent of views, a broad tent of starting points, even amongst PAP Members of Parliament representing various parts of our society.
Yet, we have found mutual accommodation and we have found convergence in support of both Bills. And we have closed ranks and come together to try and bring all Singaporeans along on the way forward, together, in the national interest, our personal views notwithstanding, as my colleague Mr Murali Pillai has so eloquently put it.
This is how a responsible governing party works. This is our democracy in action.
And I am glad that Opposition Members and Nominated Members have all joined us in seizing this moment. We owe it to Singaporeans to do right by our democracy. We discuss the difficult issues directly, and above all, we stand for unity and compassion as one people.
Mr Speaker, Sir, now, let me get to the substantive matters.
First, on the repeal of section 377A. I will start with a quick story. I once asked two friends – husband and wife, in their 30s, young parents to two kids and we were talking about their expectations of their children. And I asked them, what if their son turns out to be gay, and wishes to bring his partner home to meet them, what would they think? Without missing a beat, they replied to me, they cannot even begin to contemplate and imagine such a scenario.
I do not think they belong to a minority of young parents today. Far from it. Yet, if their son does turn out to be gay, I would make a guess that they will: one, love him all the same; and two, they will certainly not want their son, and his acts of intimacy with his partner, consensual, in private, to be labelled as criminal. Why should their son be labelled a criminal?
This, I think, is the crux of the section 377A issue. Regardless of our views on homosexuality, I think we can generally agree that we know a gay friend or even family member, and we love and respect him like we do any other friend or family member, and we have very little reason, really, to see him as a criminal.
I believe this is the prevailing morality of our society. And because our laws ought to reflect the morality of our society, repealing section 377A and decriminalising gay sex is really the right thing for us to do. I am glad we are doing it.
We could very well stop here. Legislatively, there is no obligation or inevitability that as we decriminalise gay sex, we will also protect the institution of marriage. It is a deliberate act of Parliament, a carefully considered and balanced decision and move, to do both at the same time. And we do it, because we know that taken together, this set of arrangements would be one that our society, as a whole, can probably accept, and it can point a way forward for all of us.
Going back to the story of my two friends, the young parents. Yes, if their son does turn out to be gay, they will certainly not want their son's private activities to be criminal, but I think it will be much less certain if they will accept the notion of a son-in-law, or of a grandchild, or grandchildren, within the context of such a marriage between their son and his gay partner.
And I think they would also completely understand if their friends were to turn to them and say: look, we really will not agree to allowing your son to marry here in Singapore, because it runs against our beliefs and it runs against what we would like our children and grandchildren to believe about marriage, or at least, what we would like our children and grandchildren to see and hear for themselves before forming their own conclusions.
On marriage, I think, this is the prevailing morality of our society, and our laws and policies should also protect this, even as we repeal the law on gay sex.
Indeed, it seems, from a survey conducted by TODAY just two months ago, that younger Singaporeans generally think this way too. Sixty-eight percent view the repeal of 377A positively and at the same time, an almost equal proportion wishes to uphold the current definition of marriage between one man and one woman.
Let me also say this. Some have commented that where we are today is effectively one step forward and two steps back for the gay community. I have to respectfully disagree. I think this is real progress. Gay sex is decriminalised in Singapore, finally. At the same time, we are coming together as a society and coming to terms with the reality that a majority of us are not yet ready to give up our fundamental beliefs including on marriage and so, let us find a balance, let us find mutual accommodation. This is a mark of our maturing society. This is real progress.
Some, on the other hand, have characterised the repeal as a capitulation by the Government – and society at large – to the relentless campaigns and militant advocacy of some gay rights activists. I think this is quite unfair too. I believe, instead, that this change is about all of us, our society as a whole, maturing, progressing organically.
Change takes time – and this has taken quite some time – but this change has not been precipitated by the narrow words or actions or deeds of a few. I think this change represents part of our broader progress towards becoming a more inclusive society, in various other dimensions like wage level, age, disabilities, mental health and yes, we have become more inclusive on the dimension of sexual orientation, too. Sir, in Mandarin, please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, sir, try to imagine as a parent that one day your son tells you, “Mom and Dad, I am gay. I have a partner. I want to bring him to see you”. What would you say? What would you think?
It may be a difficult problem and I do not wish any parent to go through this test. But, if this is the reality, then I guess that our first response should be that our love for our children remains the same. In addition, we would not wish the son to be considered a criminal because of his sexual orientation.
This second point is the crux of section 377A of the Penal Code. Regardless our attitude towards homosexuality, we would have homosexual friends or even family members in life. Like anyone else, they deserve to be loved and respected. I think we can also agree that we have no reason to regard their sexual life in private as a criminal offence. It is inhumane and unfair. I therefore support the repeal of section 377A. This is what we should do as an inclusive society. This is our duty.
Of course, I fully understand that many Singaporeans are worried about the consequences of repealing section 377A. What will LGBT and gay rights group advocate next?
If the next step after repealing section 377A is to recognise and allow same-sex marriage, what will happen to the norms and core values of our society? These concerns are fundamental and important, and it is precisely because of this that together with repealing section 377A, the Government is also proposing to amend the Constitution to protect the current definition of marriage. Yesterday, Minister of State Sun Xueling pointed out that the Government has put in a lot of efforts to address the issue of section 377A and the concerns of various groups in society.
I would like to say is that these two Bills reflect the political courage of a responsible Government and Parliament. Although the section 377A issue is difficult, we did not abdicate from our responsibilities.
There is an ancient saying that “the policies of the country must benefit the people, and the key to political education is for the policies to be implemented smoothly”. The Government has faced the issue squarely and found a compromise. Through these two Bills, the Government has achieved this.
The key to a successful policy is its smooth implementation. This time, the PAP did not lift the Whip. The ruling party’s job is to rule and enable policies to be carried out smoothly, and the ruling party has achieved this.
This is a victory for our democratic system and for all Singaporeans.
(In English): So, where else do we go from here? My hope is that all sides will continue engaging with each other and do so with ever greater depths of mutual respect, understanding and empathy. And it starts with avoiding unhelpful assumptions.
For one, gays and lesbians are not a monolith. Not all homosexuals are judicial activists; and judicial activists do not speak for all homosexuals. At the same time, not all social conservatives are Christian or Muslim. Indeed, many conservatives are either of other religions, or not religious at all. Their socially conservative views, while deep-seated, are not religious in nature.
I also hope that our engagements going forward will be in the real world, offline. Not in social media where certain narratives get amplified much more than others. Social media creates echo chambers and not equally. Some chambers may be small, but their echoes are especially loud and reverberate well beyond the realms of the chambers themselves.
We have Singaporeans who are concerned about how and what social media is buffeting us with, and I think, rightly so. We need safe spaces, in the real world, where all views can come forth and be heard equally, where we can get a good sense of the real balance of views amongst all of us. And in these safe spaces, no one should have to labour under the fear of name-calling or being cancelled, especially by bad actors under the guise of anonymity. Mr Speaker, Sir, with this, I support both Bills.
Mr Speaker: Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin.
Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Speaker, Sir. I would like to start off my speech by highlighting the significance of this debate being held in this House.
The separation of powers is a deeply rooted principle in our parliamentary tradition. Parliament makes the laws, the Executive administers the laws and the Judiciary interprets and applies the laws when disputes are brought before the Courts. In this House, regardless of personal beliefs, we are duty-bound to represent the different voices of Singaporeans. This is a responsibility that I do not take lightly.
Over the past few months, a number of my residence in Cheng San-Seletar have written to me or even come down to my Meet-the-People Sessions to express that, while they do not believe that acts of intimacy between two consenting men should be a crime, they sincerely wish to preserve the definition and institution of family. Others have shared that removing criminality from homosexuality is long overdue, given that the law was introduced back in 1938. Some have also questioned if there is actually a real possibility of 377A being struck out by the Courts, while others have also worried about the wider ripples of this repeal, whether this has potential to change the way that marriage is defined in Singapore or how sexuality education will be taught to their children.
I have also heard stories of gay youths facing discrimination in their friend groups or struggling to find acceptance among peers who do not have the capacity or vocabulary to understand them. And also of youths who hold more conservative beliefs who have been called out in schools.
Sometimes, these disagreements occur online, hidden under the cloak of anonymity which emboldens individuals to speak carelessly. But loud does not always mean right and some may feel pressured into adopting a view. When issues are contentious, tribes are built and positions are entrenched and conversations quickly start from an adversarial place. This environment, if left unchecked, do not allow for people to build the capacity to discuss and debate with respect and reconcile even internal incongruence between faith, heart and mind before coming to their own considered position.
While it may be just one section of law – and about consensual acts in private, no less – section 377A has come to represent much more for many over the years, concerning fundamental values of individuals in a visceral way.
As elected representatives, we value every perspective shared with us. As such, this matter which has been debated in both public and private spaces for many years, even before the 2022 National Day Rally, belongs here in this House after years of consultation and engagement in both public and private spaces – not in the Courts, where judges must make decisions based on the information and facts presented before them, resulting in a binary decision.
Laws and policies must be guided by a careful balancing of the scales, not having the scales tipped to one side or the other through judicial activism or driven by individuals with the resources to litigate. I will not belabour this point as it has been raised by hon colleagues such as Mr Murali Pillai yesterday.
This process of a judiciary intervening actively in social issues may also signal an unwillingness of elected politicians to deal with such issues ourselves and leave such decisions to the Courts so that we do not have to assume responsibility for them. In some countries, judicial activism has deepened polarisation in societies – for example, over immigration matters in Australia and abortion rights in the US.
This also results in judicial appointments in themselves becoming politicised affairs. We should not foster this culture in Singapore and so I agree with the hon Minister for Social and Family Development on the approach of this Bill.
I appreciate that we are dealing with this now. The decision made in 2007 to accept the legal untidiness and ambiguity of keeping the law on the books was the compromise struck by society at the time. Later in 2018, Attorney-General Lucien Wong affirmed the Public Prosecutor would not prosecute two consenting men for having sex in private, giving legal significance to the political compromise struck in 2007.
Former Attorneys-General Walter Woon and VK Rajah also separately said it was not desirable for the Government and Parliament to direct the Attorney-General not to prosecute offences under section 377A. Following these comments, Attorney-General Lucien Wong clarified that the Public Prosecutor retains independence in deciding whether to pursue a case under section 377A. He shared that \"while the Public Prosecutor is entitled to consider public policies in exercising his discretion, these do not fetter the exercise of prosecutorial discretion.\"
In all the feedback I have received, many of our people, regardless of race, language or religion, agree that acts of intimacy between two consenting men do not make them criminals. We have also generally not seen public interest or organised groups for the active enforcement of section 377A. For most, the disagreement lies solely in if it should be repealed.
So, we must ask ourselves, objectively, 15 years on, should we accept the legal untidiness and ambiguity, given that over the last 15 years, there has been little public interest in seeing section 377A enforced? From a legal perspective, it is not quite tenable for us to keep this dead letter law and I support the repeal.
Sir, I have heard the concerns of those who are seeking for the definition of marriage between one man and one woman to be codified in the Constitution. However, the hon Minister for Social and Family Development has elaborated on why such an approach is not the right one for Singapore. For this reason, I can understand the intention of the introduction of Article 156 to the Constitution as part of a package of amendments which strives to reflect a balance – protecting the existing definition of marriage from constitutional challenges per the majority views today while leaving space for future generations to make their own decisions based on the contexts of their time.
Sir, societies evolve over time and leaders must proactively respond to the conditions of the day. The Singapore I grew up in is different from the one of my parents and I can also appreciate that the Singapore which my children one day may grow up in could be unrecognisable from my lived experiences.
To do this, while we may choose to educate and guide our families based on our own personal values, we ought to avoid passing down entrenched positions to future generations, especially in our secular shared space. Sir, in Malay, please.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Ever since Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong made an announcement about section 377A during National Day Rally 2022, many have been discussing this issue and expressed their support as well as their opposition. Our Malay/Muslim community is not a monolithic community. Each generation has different views, backgrounds, and experiences. In my discussions with organisations and different individuals, I have heard different perspectives. I would like to thank everyone who took the time to share their thoughts with me.
I also had the opportunity to meet leaders, staff, and volunteers from our various Malay/Muslim organisations. In our conversations, many have expressed hope that the family institution will be protected, in addition to the repeal of Section 377A. Some shared their concerns about their ability to manage and support conversations between family members about Section 377A. Others shared their personal struggles to reconcile their faith, mindset and society so that they could impart values to their children that are aligned with their faith and the way they were brought up because it is something that they cherish. Nonetheless, they still believe that any assistance and social services should be given on the basis of compassion and place an importance on the dignity of the individual, regardless of their sexuality.
The tolerance and diversity that we have in Singapore is something that we have nurtured and built over the years. It exists today because the generations before us as well as the current generation agree that it is important for us to seek a compromise in our public spaces where advocacy does not necessarily mean that we need to tear down each other.
(In English): On that note, I would like to finish off my speech to ask not just the Members of this House but Singaporeans at large – where do we go from here, with not just dealing with this repeal but other issues that may divide us?
There are two paths.
The first sees us entrenched in our positions, unwilling to engage in constructive dialogue with others who may not see the world the way we do. The second sees us engaging in respectful conversation while remaining steadfast to our own values.
Path 1 leads to division and we have seen the damage this has done in fractured societies. Path 2 leads to understanding and in turn, peace and a more lasting prosperity. It is a path rarely paved and harder fought and uncharted territory for many of us. In moments of crisis, we run the risk of deviating back to Path 1.
In the context of section 377A, we move beyond talking about criminality in the same sentence as homosexuality and see people as individuals for who they are. It is easy to say that we must move beyond tolerance and towards understanding but harder to accept that we can no longer steer clear from speaking on contentious issues.
I ask that we endeavour to not invalidate the lived experiences of others and that we do not fall prey to living in echo chambers.
Singapore is not in a special bubble which makes us immune to these risks and I do believe that our leaders understand that. As a young nation, we have not had as many years to discuss and debate or come to a landing of what we expect of each other as well as an understanding of trade-offs.
I am hopeful that efforts such as Forward Singapore will build up the muscle for society to do so, if done well. Such sessions are an important part of setting up a two-way mode of engagement between the Government and people, where engaging in productive dialogue, varying points of view, becomes the new normal.
In closing, there are many ways to create change. Sometimes, it requires us raising our voices; most times, it requires persistence and tough conversations; and always, it involves time, a big heart and the willingness to hear each other out.
Ultimately, change should not be born out of or led by fear as fear will not protect us. I echo my hon colleague Joan Pereira's sentiments – that we should come from a place of love – and, I will add, also of courage. Knowing that there are diverse groups who feel strongly about this, I hope that we can continue to be brave, to have tough conversations with mutual respect for our fellow Singaporeans.
Mr Speaker: Mr Abdul Samad.
Mr Abdul Samad (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Prime Minister Lee first announced in his National Day Rally Speech in August 2022 that section 377A would be repealed. Since then, this matter has been deeply debated by members of the public as well as Members of this House.
Based on my interactions with my friends, colleagues, union leaders and members, I have gathered that there are sentiments of worry and unhappiness amongst Singaporeans on this topic, despite the many engagement sessions carried out earlier involving various groups of leaders and fellow Singaporeans.
We have heard today and yesterday from more than 20 Members of Parliament and Nominated Members of Parliament on this thorny and sensitive subject matter. I am heartened by the passion and conviction of the various speeches by the Members of this house and their commitment to safeguard the natural institution of marriage and family structure, as reiterated by many.
On the other hand, I am also comforted, knowing that we are according the necessary space to those who had previously felt oppressed by the existence of section 377A in our books.
I would like to thank both Minister Masagos for his explanation on the implications of the insertion of a new Article 156 into our Constitution with regards to marriage as well as Minister Shanmugam's explanation on the importance of repealing section 377A in this House instead of being struck down by the Court.
In fact, many in our society may not have known that prior to this announcement, there have been constitutional challenges filed in Court against section 377A on the basis that it violates the Constitution. Prime Minister Lee also mentioned during his National Day Rally Speech that the Attorney-General and the Minister for Law have advised that in a future Court challenge, there is a real risk of section 377A being struck down.
Sir, our union members and fellow workers are also residents of the Members of Parliament here. They, too, shared their concerns with me either in person, over calls, messages or even emails.
I have received emails from multiple individuals and groups calling for the retention of section 377A. This view is commonly held by more conservative and/or religious groups as they are concerned with what the repeal of section 377A represents – that there would be an erosion of family values and the traditional definition that marriage is between a man and woman could be challenged.
There is also another view that the Government should not intervene nor police private and sexual behaviours between consenting adults. Accordingly, it should be removed from our books, especially if the Government would not actively enforce it.
With all being said, I hope the Government can enlighten laypersons like myself on the relevant processes for legislative and policy reforms. Under what circumstances would the Court be empowered to strike down the laws passed by Parliament? What can be done by Parliament to avoid the striking down of the laws? Should the matter be canvassed before Parliament for Parliament to consider repealing the same first? What is the difference between these two processes? Can an infographic illustrate these processes to make it easier for people out there to understand?
Nevertheless, I am glad that this issue is canvassed before us presently, as such a law which has far reaching implications on Singapore’s family structure and societal norms should be decided by Parliament, which has the people’s mandate, and not the Courts, which only interpret and apply the laws passed by Parliament.
At this same juncture, I applaud the Government’s decision of introducing Article 156 into our Constitution. Article 156(2) provides that the Government and public authorities may, in exercising their executive authority, protect, safeguard, support, foster and promote the institution of marriage. This is wholly consistent with what most Singaporeans want – which is to maintain the current family and social norms, where marriage is between a man and a woman, and children are brought up in such a family structure. We hope that the existing measures, such as public housing policies and financial benefits for married couples, as well as education and media policies continue to promote and safeguard the institution of marriage. Sir, I will now speak in Malay.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, our discussions on the repeal of Section 377 and amendments to the National Constitution have gained the attention of our citizens, regardless of race or religion. Many have expressed their concerns about the impact on our way of life if Section 377 is repealed. Sadly, not many people have given equal attention to the Constitutional Amendment through the addition of Article 156 which clarifies and strengthens the definition of marriage and family.
Many are asking whether the Government agrees with the actions of such groups to the point that it acknowledges and gives in to their demands. We are all aware of the emergence of such groups and it is a grave concern for our society, present and future. The repeal can be seen as a minor success for this group. Is it possible that in the future they will continue to make more demands based on equal rights for all in society? Will the Government also support and allow the same thing, just as it does now?
There is nothing wrong with expressing concerns, but we must accept that the world belongs to all of creation including humans, fauna, mountains, flora and countless others. This group of people are also human beings just like us. We should rightfully share the vastness of this world with all of God's creations. Let us not alienate them, just because of their sexual preferences. Let us spread kindness to all humankind and recognise the challenges that they face. They never asked to be that way, but we who claim to be of sound mind and body should take up the role of advising and sharing with them the natural state of life.
Let us cultivate respect, instead of being judgmental, based on our own different opinions, positions, and beliefs. We must avoid spreading slanders that can divide our society. The harmonious cohesion that we built over the years that is founded on mutual respect must be maintained and strengthened. United we stand, divided we fall!
(In English): Sir, I am sure that the repeal of section 377A will bring some form of relief and comfort to those who have previously felt oppressed by the same – in knowing that our societal norms have shifted and we, as a society, are ready to accept and grant them the space needed.
In my personal view, the Government has arrived at a nice balance – granting homosexuals the space that they need through the repeal, while recognising and upholding the traditional definition of marriage through the constitutional amendments.
In closing, I echo what our Prime Minster said at the National Day Rally that we must maintain the mutual respect and trust that we have painstakingly built up over the years and stay united as one united people.
I stand by and support the decision to repeal section 377A as well as amendment to the Constitution because Every Human Matters!
I also call on fellow workers and employers to treat every worker equally regardless of their gender, because Every Worker Matters!
Mr Speaker: Minister of State Faishal Ibrahim.
The Minister of State for Home Affairs and National Development (Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim): Mr Speaker, in Malay, please.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Over the past few months, the Government has consulted extensively with various groups on this important issue.
I have met Malay/Muslim religious leaders, Malay/Muslim organisations, interfaith groups, youth groups, and healthcare professionals during those engagement sessions. Participants shared their honest and candid feedback.
The majority in our society, including the Malay/Muslim community, value and wish to uphold the traditional view of family, where marriage is between a man and a woman, with children raised in such a family setting.
The Government is fully supportive of this. Our position on marriage and family is clear, and this has consistently been reflected in our policies and legislation. The conventional definition of marriage is set out in our laws – in the Women’s Charter and the Administration of Muslim Law Act (AMLA). Many of Singapore’s policies are based on that definition, including adoption, housing, education, and media.
With the Constitutional amendment, the Government is taking steps to protect the definition of marriage and related laws and policies from constitutional challenges. This would ensure that any changes to the definition of marriage can only be debated and decided through Parliament, and not through the Courts.
If we look at the various challenges mounted against Section 377A over the years, we can expect similar challenges to the definition of marriage and laws and policies based on this definition.
Such decisions should not be left to the Courts to decide. During Prime Minister’s National Day Rally speech, he made it clear that judges have neither the expertise nor the mandate to address political questions, nor rule on social norms and values. Minister Masagos had also earlier in his speech highlighted US and India as examples of why Court-led decisions could lead to undesirable, win-lose outcomes for society.
If we do not take action to protect the institution of marriage, and allow this to be left to the Courts, we risk damaging the bedrock of society which is the structure of family.
Where important social issues are concerned, Parliament is more suited to deal with them. Parliament can consult different groups, take in their feedback, and assess the best way forward while balancing wider societal considerations. In essence, the making of pro-family laws should be decided by Parliament; not by the Courts.
I have shared a gist of the above in my various engagements with the Malay/Muslim community and most of them understood and welcomed this.
As Minister Shanmugam explained in his speech, we are also moving to repeal Section 377A.
During my engagements, some, including those in the Malay/Muslim community, shared they were concerned that the repeal would signal a sea of change in other laws and policies, and result in a sudden shift of the tone of our society.
Some also shared their fears – that the repeal of Section 377A would open the floodgates for same-sex marriage and same-sex family formation, normalising LGBT discourse in our society, and lead to knock-on effects pertaining to sex education in schools, normalising the portrayal of LGBT relationships in the media, and so on.
I would like to reassure the community that there will be no change to the Government’s position on marriage and family.
The Government has no plans to change the definition of marriage to include same-sex marriages. Similarly, policies relying on the current definition of marriage will remain unchanged. This has also been echoed by the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong that this Government has no intention of changing the definition of marriage, nor the policies that rely on this definition.
You may ask, “why repeal Section 377A now?” Allow me to briefly explain why the Government has decided to repeal Section 377A and protect the definition of marriage.
First, repealing Section 377A is the right and principled thing to do.
Fundamentally, there are no law-and-order concerns arising from consensual, adult homosexual conduct in private.
Society has changed since Parliament last debated Section 377A in 2007. In 2007, our society was not yet ready, but our engagements over the past few months have shown that most Singaporeans today accept that sex between men should not be a crime.
Even if we may be personally opposed to homosexual conduct, we should recognise that Section 377A as a law has been a marker of stigmatisation to those in the gay community, and experienced as a stark reminder of their rejection by the rest of society. Removing this source of psychological and physical distress from their lives is the right thing to do, so we can move forward as a society where our gay family, friends, and colleagues are treated with the same degree of respect.
Second, as Minister Shanmugam has explained earlier, there is a significant risk of Section 377A being struck down by the Courts, on the grounds that it breaches the equal protection clause of the Constitution.
Third, if Section 377A were to be struck down by the Courts, our definition of marriage and related laws and policies would be subjected to similar legal challenges.
Taken together, the Constitutional amendment and the repeal of Section 377A reflect the approach that the Government is taking to prevent the definition of marriage from being overturned by the Courts, while doing the right thing and maintaining unity and social cohesion.
Earlier I mentioned some of the key concerns raised by the Malay/Muslim community with regards to the repeal of Section 377A and the possible implications. I also made clear that there will be no change to the various laws and policies related to marriage as it is not the Government's intention to cause a destabilising shift in our society.
Let me address some of the feedback the Government has received from our engagement sessions.
First, I understand that the Malay/Muslim community wishes to protect longstanding religious and family values.
Regarding this, I would like to refer to the Mufti's recent religious guidance concerning LGBT matters. Mufti clarified that in Islam, only sexual relations between a husband and wife is permitted. I agree this should continue to be protected and promoted.
At the same time, Mufti also acknowledged that we live in a diverse society where we ought to respect differences in worldviews and that we should continue to extend compassion to Muslims who identify as LGBT. As Muslims, we must exercise kindness and empathy to our fellow Muslims who might have differences in opinions and views from us.
Second, some are concerned that the push for LGBT rights would infringe on religious freedom.
I would like to clarify that the repeal will not affect the religious freedom of the Malay/Muslim community which will continue to be constitutionally protected.
Malay/Muslim community leaders and asatizah can continue to preach freely on Islamic beliefs about homosexuality, including doing so online to engage more youths on the matter, as long as it is done respectfully, and does not cross redlines of inciting violence or hate towards others. The community should also take reference from Mufti's guidance.
More importantly, I would like to emphasise that religious freedom must be balanced with mutual accommodation, respect and compassion in our plural society. This is essential to maintaining social cohesion.
Where sensitive issues are concerned, people are free to disagree with one another, and we should have the space to air views and concerns.
But even so, as we navigate these differences in worldviews, we must remember to abide by principles of mutual, understanding, respect and accommodation in these interactions so that we are able to have constructive conversations on how we can move our society forward.
In an earlier interview, Mufti commented that the repeal of Section 377A was a complex social issue and a tough balancing act for everyone, including the Government and religious groups.
As a community, we must continue to be guided by Islamic values and teachings in all that we say and do, even as laws change. We have to be careful not to polarize debate on this issue and risk straining the communal ties that we have built up painstakingly over the years.
As Muslim leaders, we should not focus on our own personal views and appeal to our own community only. Instead, we should fully consider what is best for our community by considering and balancing the views of all Singaporeans. This will ensure that we adopt a holistic view and approach to enable us to move forward together.
In line with what Mufti has stated, although homosexuality is a sin, the community should not reject or ostracise them. We should remain principled and balanced even though we have different views and look at what is best for the society as a whole.
This is why the Government supports both the repeal of Section 377A and the amendment to the Constitution to protect marriage.
As we move forward, I would like to call on everyone to keep calm and exercise moderation as we work out a consensus for the betterment of Singapore, as one united society, as we have always done.
I would also like to thank our community leaders and colleagues for sharing their views and giving their support to the Government in this matter. We heard their views and opinions, and we will continue to work closely with them in this matter.
I am touched with their readiness to continue strengthening our nation-building ecosystem despite facing complex issues from time to time. Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, the repeal of section 377A holds great significance for many across the social and religious spectrum. The heated civic discourse and vigorous advocacy speaks to strongly held beliefs that many hold on this issue.
This has been an opportunity for Singaporeans to learn to disagree in a spirited but civil way. I believe that such open debate is a sign of a healthy and functioning democracy. However, in doing so we cannot lose sight of our shared humanity.
I can do no better than quote MUIS. In response to the repeal of section 377A, it said that Muslim law \"places importance on human dignity, respect and peaceful relations\". It further said, \"These values are crucial as we navigate complex socio-religious issues today. As Muslims, we should treat everyone with full dignity and respect. Everyone, regardless of their sexual orientations, must feel safe in our society and institutions. Muslims should uphold the best of character, charity and compassion, in dealing with others, even with whom we disagree\".
I believe these statements apply not just to those of the Muslim faith but to all of us. As we continue to engage on discrimination against the gay community and discrimination of any form, I hope we continue to treat each other with dignity, respect and kindness.
In doing so, we cannot shy away from having conversations with people that we do not identify with. We need to continue the dialogue on issues affecting the gay community with the intent of achieving progress for everyone.
For the gay community, the repeal of section 377A is the correct thing to do. It is the correct thing to do not only because of the likelihood of success of any Court challenges. It is the correct thing to do because gay Singaporeans deserve, like any other member of society, not to be criminalised for their private behaviour.
The repeal of section 377A is a positive step towards making Singapore a more equal and inclusive society. We should recognise and thank the collective efforts of activists and organisations over the years to raise awareness about the challenges that the gay community faces and foster acceptance of gay individuals within our society. We need to continue to have conversations about these issues as our nation progresses.
Sir, I have three points of clarifications on both Bills.
My first point is on the treatment of prior convictions under section 377A. In his National Day Rally speech, when he announced the intended repeal of section 377A, Prime Minister Lee said he believed that the repeal is the right thing to do and that it would provide relief to gay Singaporeans.
Minister Shanmugam has also said that it would be wrong to continue criminalising the sexuality of gay Singaporeans and what they do in private. Nobody, he said, deserves to be stigmatised because of their sexual orientation, so repealing section 377A and removing their pain is the right thing to do.
If the continued stigmatisation of gay Singaporeans is wrong, then the continued stigmatisation of gay Singaporeans because of their record of conviction under section 377A must also be wrong.
Under the Registration of Criminals Act, an offence under section 377A is a registrable crime. Any criminal record of a conviction under section 377A will become spent after a crime-free period of five years. An exception is if the person is disqualified from having their criminal record being spent.
As such, this may mean that individuals with existing records of conviction under section 377A because the conviction was within a five-year period or because the individual is disqualified from having the record becoming spent. These individuals may, due to their records, remain stigmatised, even as we repeal section 377A.
Can the Minister clarify if there are any individuals with existing records of convictions under section 377A that have not been spent? Can the Minister clarify how these prior convictions will be treated?
My second point is about support provided to students of diverse genders. The repeal of section 377A sends a strong message against the discrimination of gay Singaporeans on the basis, again, of their private behaviour. As Minister Shanmugam shared, this legislative step is a significant step in removing stigma on a legislative level and will also go some way in removing hurt.
However, discrimination and stigma do not just exist in abstract policies. Many individuals of diverse genders face discrimination, stigma and hurt in their day-to-day interactions in the community and even with their closest loved ones.
These challenges can be especially daunting for young students who are just starting to build their identity and navigate their teenage years which can already be a stressful experience for anyone.
Many surveys, both local and international, show that many individuals of diverse genders experienced symptoms of generalised anxiety disorder. Many also experienced major depressive disorder and engage in self harm.
Our teachers in schools are a first line of defence in identifying students who may be struggling from such stressors and challenges. They are also well placed to facilitate appropriate intervention.
Can Minister share what support has been or will be extended to such students? In particular, what role will teachers and schools play in identifying students of diverse genders who may be struggling and extending such support to them?
My final point is on the new Article 156(1) in the Constitution. It enables the legislature and the Government to define, regulate, protect, safeguard, support, foster and promote the institution of marriage. In the explanatory statement, examples of such activities included housing preferences and financial benefits for married persons, and education and media policies that promote and safeguard the institution of marriage.
As we encourage marriage, I hope we will not discriminate against single parents, whether they are unmarried, divorced or widowed.
I am glad that Minister Masagos provided some assurances on this during his opening speech that single parents will not be left behind. Indeed, increased support for single parents is one of the main recommendations in the White Paper on Singapore Women's Development, published this year by the Government.
I have raised recommendations on housing policies to ensure that single unwed parents and their children will have a roof over their heads. I have also asked for single unwed parents to receive the Parenthood Tax Rebate, the Working Mothers' Child Relief, and the cash component of the Baby Bonus. It is a whole suite of parenthood policies that exclude and discriminate against single unwed parents. There is a lot more we can do.
Can the Minister confirm that even as the Government takes steps to define, regulate, protect, safeguard, support, foster and promote the institution of marriage, we will also continue to review our policies to ensure that single unwed parents are adequately supported? Sir, notwithstanding these clarifications, I stand in support of both Bills.
Mr Speaker: Ms Janet Ang.
Ms Janet Ang (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this debate. I am mindful that the subject concerns sensitive matters of religious beliefs, sexuality and identity. I stand to speak what I believe and beg the indulgence of everyone who may not necessarily hold the same view.
We all have friends and family who may hold the liberal view or conservative view when it comes to matters concerning sexuality and morality. At the same time, we all have friends and family who are LGBTQ+ persons. The long public debate of the status of section 377A of the Penal Code has weighed heavily on all sides and has divided our society and even families.
To see the cup half full, I would say that during this time, especially since 2018, parties holding differing views have learnt more about one another's perspectives and engaged in dialogues with the Government, and directly or indirectly with one another. The Government has listened and the proposed amendment to the Constitution, along with the repeal of section 377A of the Penal Code, will soon bring the debate to a legislative closure.
I hope that after today's debate and after this House has decided, we will move forward together as one Singapore, upholding our pledge to be one united people, respecting one another's dignity as human persons and upholding the Singapore family built on marriage between a man and a woman, and the children they will birth and raise, to be the bedrock of our society.
I declare I am a Catholic and have been brought up knowing that my Creator is a loving God and he loves everyone. The catechism of the Catholic Church teaches Catholics that the men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity, even as they are called to chastity. Pope Francis, in his encyclical, Amoris Laetitia – The Joy of Love, wrote, and I quote, \"We would like before all else to reaffirm that every person, regardless of sexual orientation, ought to be respected in his or her dignity and treated with consideration, while 'every sign of unjust discrimination' is to be carefully avoided, particularly any form of aggression and violence.\" The Catholic Church's position is clear – homosexual acts are sinful, but homosexual orientation is not.
The Archbishop of Singapore, His Eminence, Cardinal William Goh, in a statement in August 2022 after the Prime Minister's National Day Rally speech on this matter of repealing section 377A, has come out to say that the Church is against the criminalisation of LGBTQ+ people and, so, supporting the repeal of section 377A is not the issue. Rather, the issue is with regard to the rights as a Catholic Church, to teach and practise our beliefs and regard the family and marriage as defined between a man and a woman, according to natural law. As we have all heard over these two days in Parliament, his concerns on this issue matter to more segments than just the Catholic Church.
Several hon Members of Parliament have referred to the Youth Survey conducted in September by the news media, Today. Here is an excerpt from the news report: \"The demographically representative survey, which polled 1,000 respondents aged between 18 and 35, was carried out between 5 and 16 September. Almost seven in 10, or 68%, of youths polled said that the repeal of section 377A of the Penal Code, which criminalises sex between homosexuals, is positive for inclusivity in Singapore. But when asked if same-sex marriage is wrong, the respondents were generally divided, with 37% agreeing or strongly agreeing with the statement, and 33% disagreeing or strongly disagreeing. The remaining said that they were neutral. At the same time, 62% of the respondents felt that it was important to uphold and safeguard the definition of marriage as that between a man and a woman.\"
There have been various polls done over time and, while they may not all be statistically significant, I believe they do sufficiently tell the story. First, that Singaporeans are sympathetic towards decriminalising gay sex; two, Singaporeans are divided on the acceptance of same-sex relations; and three, the majority of Singaporeans, both young and old, believe that it is important to uphold and safeguard the definition of marriage as that between a man and a woman.
After much prayer, research and listening to many, including my own daughters, repealing section 377A is the right thing to do, and doing so will send a statement to the LGBTQ+ community that they are safe being who they are, even if their behaviour may not be accepted by the mainstream community in Singapore.
Supporting the repeal is not the issue. As many in the House have said, the removal of anti-gay sex laws in some countries saw the issue of same-sex marriage falling under the spotlight and there are large segments in Singapore who care deeply about marriage as defined currently between a man and a woman, as well as family norms, such as how children are brought up and what is taught in school. Most people have come to accept that gay sex is a matter of private individual choice.
Same-sex marriage, however, is effectively changing a social institution, contrary to what most Singaporeans believe and are ready to accept. For me, marriage is a sacred bond between a man and a woman, committing fidelity to each other, so long as they both shall live, and bringing forth children to form a family and fulfil the natural order of the transmission of life.
In fact, this Parliament has declared 2022 as the Year of Singapore Families. Singapore families want to be confident that, in Singapore, we will be able to freely guide our children on what we believe to be right and wrong. Likewise, for us Catholics, the Catholic Church needs to be confident that their rights to preach and to teach in the parishes and Catholic schools, according to Catholic beliefs, will be protected. As we have heard in these past two days, the same is true for other religious communities and even for non-religious Singaporeans.
I would, therefore, like to ask the Minister to clarify a few points to help address concerns and worries in the minds and hearts of Singaporeans, even as we move to support the repeal of section 377A.
Firstly, with the amendment to the Constitution, are there still circumstances where the definition of marriage as that between a man and a woman can be subjected to challenge? What are those circumstances and how will the Government deal with such circumstances?
Second, will the Christian and Catholic Churches be assured that they will continue to be free to preach against gay sexual acts? Cardinal William Goh has spoken of his concerns that we may be drawn into a situation as in the West, where we cannot even say that a same-sex relationship is wrong. For the Catholic Church, this would not be acceptable as the Church must have freedom to continue to teach in the Catholic schools and from the pulpit what we believe, and practise what we teach.
Third, how will MOE handle sexuality education in our schools, both public and private, and assure Singaporeans that Singapore's family and social norms, based on traditional Singaporean values, will be protected? Bullying and cancel culture must not take root in our educational institutions and our society.
Fourth, we should not allow a culture where people of religion are ostracised, attacked for espousing their views or their disagreements with LGBTQ+ viewpoints and vice versa. Singapore has worked hard to create inter-religious harmony in our society. How will the Government protect and safeguard this precious strength and asset of our country?
Let me close by reiterating my desire that after today's Bills are carried, the LGBTQ+ community amongst us will feel reaffirmed that they are safe being who they are, and, together, all of us, as Singaporeans, we will rise above differences in views and beliefs, and respect one another's dignity as human persons. We will work together to prevent cancel culture to take root in our educational institutions, our workplaces and our society.
We will maintain our religious freedom to practise and teach what we believe to be right and wrong. We will uphold Singapore's societal norms where marriage is a union between a man and a woman and that married couples live as role models for their children and children's children. And we will not disregard the importance and essential need to have the holistic family as the bedrock of our society.
And finally, we will continue to dialogue, to listen with compassion and kindness, to one another. Mr Speaker, notwithstanding my clarifications, with hope and trust, I stand in support of the amendment to the Constitution and the repeal of section 377A of the Penal Code.
Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Chua.
Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis (Sengkang): Mr Speaker, I welcome the move to repeal section 377A of the Penal Code. For too long, the law has remained in our statutes, explicitly stating that sex between adult men is a crime, even if it is consensual and done in private.
Despite the Government having said multiple times in the past that it will not enforce the colonial era law, and with the Court of Appeal ruling earlier this year that section 377A was unenforceable in its entirety, its existence has very real repercussions that affect many of our fellow Singaporeans, their families and their loved ones.
The topic of this debate is a complex and multi-faceted one, with individuals, including Members of Parliament, holding deep personal convictions. Yet, beyond the Bills and clauses themselves, we must also be cognisant that the issues we are debating have far-reaching effects into the personal lives of our fellow Singaporeans. It is on this note that I wish to touch on some aspects of the lived experience of our LGBTQ+ community in Singapore, which may be less apparent to those of us who are not from within the community.
I am a young father, with a loving and happy family. Section 377A never really bothered me in any way that I live my life. But over the years, I have gotten to know several members of the LGBTQ+ community, some of whom have become my close friends. The daily struggles they face regarding their sexual orientation and gender identity are very real. We all live in a largely heteronormative world. For my LGBTQ+ friends, that means they constantly face subtle judgement, discrimination, apathy and hatred, even towards them at home, at school, in the military and at work.
Seemingly nondescript questions of \"bring your girlfriend to drink next time\" or \"where is your husband?\" or \"do you plan to have kids\" can come up suddenly at family gatherings or happy hour drinks at work and make them squirm. Think about those awkward Chinese New Year conversations that you have with distant relatives at various stages of your life, be it when you are single, married but without children, or even married with one child, and replicate it throughout the rest of the year.
These questions become even more damaging, especially when they are unsure of how others will react to their true sexual orientation or gender identity, and potentially affect their opportunities at work and in society. So, some choose to hide their true selves and avoid talking about who they are dating or their hopes and dreams to lead a stable life. They stay hidden from society. Some choose to be public about it but fear the risk of being punished for their choices by not being considered for promotion at work or being bullied at school. In some form or another, individuals who identify as LGBTQ+ have to cope with additional mental and emotional stress and, in some cases, physical abuse, just for being someone they were born as.
Mr Speaker, it has been well-documented that LGBTQ+ individuals are at a higher risk of depression and mental and physical health dangers. Some suffer from internalised homophobia, where they loathe themselves over a sexual orientation or gender identity that they had no choice over.
A recent NUS public health survey found that among 570 sexual minority young adults aged 18 to 25, 59% had contemplated suicide and 14% had attempted to kill themselves. Having section 377A in our laws means that it is hard to organise support groups to help not just members of the gay community, which is who the laws target, but also the wider LGBTQ+ community, who face discrimination, bullying or mental struggles, just for being who they are.
Schools and companies may think twice about setting up official LGBTQ+ groups, or at least show overt support in counselling and supporting these individuals. Let us not forget the unfortunate incident from earlier this year, where a school counsellor himself presented content discriminating against the LGBTQ+ community, before being suspended from all duties pending investigations. The fact that there remains a legal route for prosecuting LGBTQ+ persons has a specific state-sanctioned chilling effect on the community.
Retaining 377A also makes Singapore look anachronistic, especially in light of our Asian financial hub status. Hong Kong's Legislative Council passed legislation decriminalising homosexual acts in 1991. China repealed similar laws in 1997. Japan briefly made homosexuality illegal and then repealed the law during the Meiji era. Homosexual acts were never a legal issue in Taiwan. India, which also shares similar colonial roots as Singapore, struck the law down in 2018. Having section 377A made it challenging to convince prominent members of the LGBTQ+ community – Singaporean or otherwise – in the arts, financial sector, tech and many other areas to remain in Singapore and make meaningful contributions to our society and economy. The LGBTQ+ community's joy of seeing section 377A repealed would have been even greater if not for the fact that the move merely puts Singapore more in line with other cosmopolitan, open and inclusive societies.
In addition, retaining a law that is not actively enforced or cannot be enforced sends a confusing signal on how one should comprehend Singapore's legal system. It also means that there is always a chance that a future Government may attempt to prosecute a man for sex with another man that was done in private and consensual. That is why I applaud the Government's move to repeal section 377A.
Some will know that my colleague and fellow Sengkang GRC Member of Parliament Assoc Prof Jamus Lim attended a Pink Dot rally this past June in his personal capacity. As shared in a media release for Pink Dot 14, \"We are living in an increasingly divided world. The ability to reach across the spaces between us, for dialogue and co-created understanding, is what will keep us safe.\"
Mr Speaker, the issue of repealing, at its core, is not a political one but one that grants dignity and freedom to a marginalised section of Singapore. I am glad to see that society is, indeed, ready to move on and repeal section 377A. But repealing section 377A does not mean discrimination towards the LGBTQ+ community disappears overnight. Discrimination against such individuals still exists in Hong Kong, China, Japan, India and many other jurisdictions where gay sex is not illegal per se.
On the constitutional amendment that is being proposed, the message that Singapore sends is quite clear: the idea that marriage is only between a man and a woman and this is a decision that will be left for the legislature and society to decide, and not by the Courts. For the geographies that I mentioned earlier that have repealed discriminatory same-sex laws, that discrimination still exists is a reminder to us that social acceptance is crucial to any landmark legal or constitutional changes, to maintain harmony and stability in society. As such, I do recognise the importance of the signal the new Article 156 sends, to provide greater protection for the definition of marriage and its related policies today.
After the Prime Minister's announcement at the National Day Rally, MCI said that media policies on homosexuality will remain, which means, as a Toy Story Fan who has enjoyed the entire Toy Story series since 1995, I cannot bring my children to watch Lightyear, a Pixar animated children's film due to \"overt homosexual depictions\", as though homosexuality is unspeakable and cannot be seen. MOE said that the education curriculum will still be focused on what the majority of society supports, which is family, between a man and a woman. But at the same time, we need to be conscious of LGBTQ+ individuals being invisible in our curriculums.
It will take time for society to come together and, as shared by Leader of the Opposition, Mr Pritam Singh, \"create conditions for all Singaporeans to succeed and certainly not to feel marginalised\", \"where we are tolerant of Singaporeans who are different in as far as the law allows.\" But it is all the more important for us to understand one another's viewpoints, stay civil and respectful as we engage all members of society as Singapore becomes more inclusive and open.
I had the privilege of hearing from one of our LGBTQ+ advocates recently and she is a household name who needs no introduction, Ms Theresa Goh. She shared her incredible journey as a child born with spina bifida, to becoming our first female swimmer at the 2004 Athens Paralympic Games, winning Gold at the 2006 IPC World Swimming Championships and Bronze at the 2016 Paralympic Games. More recently, she has also been elected as one of 10 members of the Singapore National Olympic Council Athletes' Commission.
While we know her for her extraordinary achievements, what is less well known were the struggles she and her family had to go through as a disabled person and a queer woman here in Singapore. What was particularly heart-wrenching to me was hearing her speak so casually about the difficulties her parents had in searching for a kindergarten for her back in the 1990s, as they faced repeated rejections the moment the kindergartens found out that she had a disability. She shared that there was even one day when she was not feeling well and threw up after lunch, yet her teacher did not help to clean her up. But she felt that had she been any other normal child, her teachers would have cleaned her up before her parents came to pick her.
It is upsetting to hear of such experiences, but I also take comfort in that such behaviour would be completely unacceptable and unthinkable in today's circumstances and we, as a society, have moved to become more accepting of the disabled since the 1990s.
Today, however, LGBTQ+ inclusivity remains a frowned-upon topic. As late as 2017, when Theresa shared about how she decided to \"come out\" in an interview with The Straits Times, she was particularly afraid of how other people would see her and how they would react. At home, she was worried that her parents, in particular, would take this news badly. However, they reassured her that all they want is for her to find somebody who would take care of her, whether that person is a boy or a girl.
While Theresa's story has a happy ending, another close friend of mine is still facing challenges in broaching this topic with his parents. As an only son, he has been extremely filial to his parents and shares a very special bond with them. A number of years ago, he felt that he no longer wanted to hide his sexuality from his parents and wanted to be completely honest with them as he has been with every other aspect of his life. This was not taken very well unfortunately, with his mother feeling distraught that there was something wrong with her son and even prays at the temple regularly with the hope that, one day, he will be \"normal\" again. I pray that, one day, his parents will accept him fully for who he is.
Mr Speaker, let me draw on what I see in the finance sector where I work. Many financial institutions encourage their employees to bring their true selves to work, because they believe that only then can they truly be engaged in what they do and fully develop their passions. Many banks see being open about being who you are can make for a more productive workforce. They have clear DEI – or diversity, equity and inclusion – talent policies. Incorporating DEI into business operations has proven to benefit companies' performance because it encourages a wider range of views and opinions among staff. All these have clear, measurable impact and should equally apply to our country and economy, too, where we place a very strong emphasis on developing everyone's potential.
A survey by YouGov in May 2022 on behalf of LinkedIn shared that 75% of LGBTQ+ professionals indicated that it is important that they work at a company where they feel comfortable bringing their full selves to work and 49% indicated that they will not work at a company that does not have LGBTQ+ friendly benefits. Similarly, a Deloitte survey of 600 members of the LGBTQ+ community across 12 countries showed that over 70% of the respondents are more inclined to remain with their current employer because of its approach to inclusiveness, while 37% of respondents indicate that they are actively considering changing employers to find one with a more inclusive culture.
Every individual in Singapore should be able to contribute in their fullest capacity without fear of being discriminated against for who they are – be it over race, language, religion, sexual orientation or gender identity. Only then can Singapore be truly a global, cosmopolitan, harmonious home that we can all be proud of.
I have a male friend who married his partner of seven years just before the pandemic in New York. The two men are in a loving relationship but there is just one snag – my friend is an only son. When he is old and bedridden, he wants to know that he can trust someone to make difficult medical and legal decisions for him. All they hoped for is that there is at least a jurisdiction out there that can give them societal and legal guarantees that straight couples enjoy. That is why he married his partner, even though he knows that their marriage is not recognised in Singapore. I support the repeal of section 377A and the Constitution (Amendment) Bill.
Mr Speaker: Ms Ng Ling Ling.
Ms Ng Ling Ling (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Speaker, I rise to speak on the Penal Code and the Constitution (Amendment) Bill as a mother, community leader and friend, in addition to my role as an elected legislator of this land.
Since the proposed repeal of section 377A was mentioned in the media and the public, I have received several written appeals from my Jalan Kayu residents to urge the Government not to do so. These residents are mostly parents of young children and youths. As a mother, I can relate to their concerns.
In October 2007 when the Parliament undertook a comprehensive review of our Penal Code since its major amendments in 1984, the public feedback on section 377A was emotional. The Cabinet, after extensive public consultations and discussions, concluded at the end of the debate that Singapore society remained conservative and the majority preferred to uphold a stable society with traditional, heterosexual family values while giving homosexuals the space to live their lives and contribute to society.
As one who has been brought up in a traditional Asian family, I understand Singaporeans who uphold the construct of a family formed by marriage between a man and a woman. This is an important cornerstone of any society since the start and for the continuation of human history.
Why then the need to repeal section 377A now? The Minister for Home Affairs, Mr Shanmugam, gave a detailed explanation. Section 377A was first introduced in 1938, when Singapore was still part of the Straits Settlements and under colonial rule. The origin of the provisions of section 377A stretched even further back to the Victorian times in the 1860s.
Looking at the recent developments in other jurisdictions like India, India's Supreme Court struck down part of the section 377 of their Indian Penal Code, which also criminalised gay sex. It went further to redefine marriage and familial relationships. As recent as in August this year, India's Supreme Court widened the definition of the family institution and ruled that familial relationships, \"can also take the form of domestic, unmarried partnerships and queer relationships.\"
To me, what happened in India gives a glimpse of the implications on societal norms when the judiciary branch of the government, which is the courts, instead of the legislative branch of the government, which is the parliament, began to interpret what are social norms, because the legislative branch, that is, the Parliament, avoided dealing with the matter.
As such, I think it is right for this Parliament of Singapore to debate and decide on the risks posed by recent constitutional challenges that our Court is also facing in terms of section 377A in our Penal Code, with the most recent one in just February this year in the case of Tan Seng Kee vs Attorney-General.
As I am not a trained lawyer, I will not dwell further into the legality of this case, which Minister Shanmugam has also explained yesterday. Suffice to say that I am of the view that this Parliament has the duty to set in place constitutional amendments to clarify our definitions of marriage and family.
In this regard, I have also taken careful note, as a community leader, of the wider views, especially among our younger generation, whose views must also be valued. I will not repeat the studies and surveys that several of my fellow hon Parliamentarians have mentioned about the attitudes towards the repeal of section 377A among our younger generation.
I will share that, in a Youth Network dialogue session, which I attended shortly after the National Day Rally this year, almost the full hall of youth audience between the ages of 15 and 35, raised their hands in support of the repeal of section 377A. On further dialogue, I learned that most youths are of the view that a law that will not be enforced is better off removed. I understand the views of the youths.
But what touched me most in that session were a few young adults, who shared that they regretted being too quick to judge and being insensitive in their teenage years when some peers struggled with their sexual identity in their puberty years. With more maturity now, they felt that they could have been more supportive. One even contacted me for opportunities in social service agencies to serve as a counsellor for the homosexual individuals who may be in need, like how we would have helped any other individuals who are in need in Singapore.
As a trusted friend of a few homosexual individuals, some of whom I have known since school days, I have heard their stories of life's challenges, of loss and of regaining of hopes. What they taught me as a friend is the need for human kindness, compassion and love to prevail over judgement and stigmatisation.
As we propose the repeal of section 377A in our Penal Code and amend our Constitution for the Parliament of the day to be able to reflect our majority electorate's values on the definition of families in Singapore, let us do so with always a care for our fellow Singaporeans at heart, no matter how diverse we are.
Mr Speaker, I struggled with my speech for many months, like many hon Parliamentarians who have spoken out in these two days of Debate. In the end, it was the reconciliation of my mind, of the duty I have as a Parliamentarian, and my heart, which holds respect and care for people, that I accept the need for the repeal and the important amendments to our Constitution, which will leave space for us as a people to continue to forge understanding, reconciliation and a future together.
Mr Speaker: Mr Derrick Goh.
Mr Derrick Goh (Nee Soon): Sir, during the Committee of Supply debate in March this year, I asked the Government to clarify its position on the Court of Appeal's ruling on the constitutional challenge to section 377A of the Penal Code since it was last debated in 2007.
Given proactive steps taken by the Government on stakeholder engagements, including the Minister's explanation yesterday on the historical context of relevant laws, I fully understand the implications of the Court's rulings and judgments. I welcome the Government's clear explanation of the legal risk that the colonial-era 377A faces and the potential domino impact on other parts of our legislation and related policies. I accept Minister Shanmugam's interpretation on this issue.
I also fully agree that it is the responsibility of our Government and this House to address this issue head on. We cannot cop out and pass this uncomfortable duty to the judiciary. Both Minister Masagos and Minister Shanmugam spoke of the perils of court-led decisions, where the US Supreme Court controversially reversed 50 years of federal abortion rights. The US media noted the chaos brought about by the court judgment to a great nation already split by deep political divide. Singapore cannot afford to take this path.
As the debate on this topic can be divisive, I am glad that our Government has taken accountability and has taken steps to help us navigate this complex matter in an inclusive and transparent way, where views from different segments of our society are heard.
I, too, can attest to this process, where after the National Day Rally Speech, we discussed this issue at Nee Soon's events with our grassroots leaders, residents and religious organisations. We did so in a cool-headed manner and I have to say, the discussions we had with a lot of understanding and empathy. It was way calmer than I earlier expected as this issue is an especially difficult one for all of us to speak on.
This topic affects many in the community who are our friends, relatives and colleagues from both gay and traditional families. While majority of Singaporeans do not want to criminalise sex between gay men, residents I spoke to are concerned whether the repeal of section 377A will lead to an erosion of the protection for marriage, family and children and if the underlying motives of past legal challenges go beyond mere removal of stigma and criminalisation.
I note that the Constitution (Amendment) Bill, which safeguards the definition of marriage without tying the hands of future generations, is a balanced approach to allow the Government of the day to consider prevailing societal attitudes.
On this premise, my community at Nee Soon welcomes Prime Minister Lee and Deputy Prime Minister Wong's assurance that the definition of marriage will not change under their watch and the PAP Government's stance on the traditional family as a basic building block of our society will be strengthened while also respecting the dignity and place of gays in our community.
On this point, it is my hope that on this basis, our Government will continue to find ways to further strengthen the structure of marriage and family in our current policies.
Sir, as we debate the repeal of section 377A and the safeguards put in place, we should also be clear of any impact to the way of life as we know in Singapore and the measures necessary to guide the way forward.
As the premise for the repeal of section 377A is that what happens in private should not be criminalised, the concern of the community is that this could be incorrectly viewed as a signal for stronger public advocacy of gay relationships.
We need to remember that the debate will not make this issue any less divisive. We should expect diverse and passionate views from different stakeholders in society to carry on after today. As such, we will need to continue to ensure a safe space for healthy and civil conversations, just as we did over the last many months so that our society evolves peacefully.
On this note, can the Minister explain his thoughts on further mechanisms that the Government will put in place to promote genuine, healthy engagements? Will surveys be done regularly and discussed over national conversations? In some ways, this can guide the discourse moving forward, monitor fault lines and potentially reduce harassment or discrimination of pro-gay groups or those who do not agree with them, especially in secular spaces such as schools and workplaces.
Currently, some multinational companies offer family benefits to their gay staff, like those for traditional couples. Can the Government explain if it supports such arrangements and its position if gay couples were to push for more workplace benefits? Sir, in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, with regards to section 377A, over the past few months, we have held discussions with grassroots leaders, residents and religious groups at some of our activities in Nee Soon. I have covered their questions in my English speech and look forward to the answers.
More importantly, from the national conversations, we can see that Singapore has gained maturity to discuss sensitive issues and find a balance. I think this is the unique Singapore spirit. I hope that we can continue to seek common ground while preserving differences and make better decisions for our society.
(In English): Sir, in our Singapore Pledge, we committed ourselves to build a democratic society based on justice and equality. For me, this process of stakeholder engagements leading to this debate has, I believe, enabled all of us to better understand what our pledge really means.
Our Government has demonstrated its even-handed approach and the two Bills placed before us are well-balanced and are steps forward in the right direction. It recognises that there is a place for everyone, factoring majority preferences and protecting the dignity of our gay community. We are all together better off.
Singapore has always prided itself as a melting pot of cultures, races and religions. In navigating and not avoiding this issue, we have grown together as a nation and I am confident that we can continue to find strength and harmony in diversity as we continue to write our Singapore story. I support in support of these two Bills.
Mr Speaker: Miss Rachel Ong.
Miss Rachel Ong (West Coast): Thank you, Mr Speaker. The announcement of the repeal of section 377A has elicited much response from the ground. Many in this House shared and agreed that this has been a divisive topic. Over the past four months, I have received emails and messages, met in person with residents and members of the public across age groups who are supportive as well as those who are against the repeal.
While most have been respectful in sharing their opinions, I have come to learn of the hostilities some groups carried against those who do not share their views. The vitriol in some manners of speech is of concern to me.
Singapore understands the value of diplomacy and keeping peace with other nations. We do not have the option of being careless with our words or relationships. Diplomacy has been and continues to be key to our progress.
However, it would be futile to work hard on external relationships if our internal relations are weak. A House divided against itself will not stand. Singapore cannot afford a society fractured by toxicity, with one group severing ties with the other simply because we hold different values and opinions.
As Singapore progresses and continues to expose ourselves to global issues and movements, there will only be more opportunities for diverging options to arise in our society. We must ready ourselves. We must work towards a society that can hold difficult conversations where we make room for disagreements and do not force people into a corner of hate. We need to allow many rooms for disagreement but not disharmony.
For this reason, Mr Speaker, I wish to focus my speech on how we can shape Singapore conversations on contentious issues such as the repeal, with a heart set on peace-making, to close the space between us and find the way forward.
Peace by domination and subjugation is not peace. One side prevailing at the expense of the other will break the social compact that is vital for us to be able to live in harmony. Once the compact is broken, repealing section 377A will not be the only divisive issue.
Some view the repeal as rending the moral fabric of society and vice versa.
I take heart by the stated positions of a number of our respected religious leaders earlier in August. Then Archbishop, now Cardinal William Goh spoke of the Roman Catholic Church's neutrality on the repeal, provided that the church continues to have the freedom to teach what it believes and practise what it teaches. Mufti Nazirudin Mohd Nasir spoke of the complexity of the issue. He shared Islam's clear stance on sexuality and marriage and at the same time, the need to respect differences and keep our society cohesive and intact.
What we need to recognise is that the moral and social fabrics of any society are intricately intertwined. One risks being torn as a consequence of the rending of the other. As such, I commend our Government for seeking to protect both the moral and social fabrics of this nation through the proposed Bills. After all, problems are solved in the middle, not at the extremes.
Finding a way forward does not mean we have to hold onto unenforced laws like section 377A, nor does it mean we have to redefine marriage and, consequently, family. Since our families form the foundation of the moral and social fabric of Singapore, we must protect the definition of marriage to avoid more division amongst our people as lines get blurred.
Finding a way forward does mean that people or groups that fall outside the norms of a traditional family are still to be embraced and supported, whether the single parents, singles, widows, widowers or homosexual family members and friends.
As a Member of Parliament, I represent the aspirations of residents from traditional and non-traditional family units and also the rights of my constituents, regardless of their sexual orientation. I hope the decriminalisation of gay sex will bring relief to those who have experienced discrimination. At the same time, those who are heterosexual should also not have to live in fear or be discriminated in their workplaces, schools and communities because they stand neutral or express pro-traditional family views.
It has brought distress to some parents to hear that terms ranging from \"cancel them\", \"bigots\" to homophobic, derogatory names are being used in our classrooms against students who do not share the same views on this topic, forcing others into silence.
No one should attack the other and no one should fear being cancelled for holding or expressing pro-homosexual, pro-traditional family views or neutral views. We cannot allow coercion to infringe upon an individual's right to decide on matters of conscience and conviction. This is a right that we must protect through legislation as an open, multi-religious and multi-ethnic society.
Wisdom is found in the ability to get along with others. Just as family members differ from one another, yet still share our lives together, can we, as Singaporeans, define our relational compact to be one of a wider brother- or sisterhood? We can remain honouring of others while disagreeing, respectful without conforming.
Singapore has worked hard to create and build models that have worked well for us – economically, socially and religiously – precisely because we are a pluralistic society. This has been our strength, not a weakness. I am hopeful that we can do the same in the space of affirming heterosexual marriage and family culture, while creating safe social spaces for gay persons.
On the personal front, my feet are firmly rooted in my faith and my arms are wide open. Wide open especially to people who believe differently from me. It is this rootedness that allows me to love and walk alongside those different from me, and to stay interested in their lanes and their realities.
On the repeal, let us remember that our sexual identity, while being an important aspect of our identity, is not the sum total of who we are. If we choose to go deeper into our fuller human identity, we will perhaps find connections that will help us acknowledge and understand one another in our common humanity.
Mr Speaker, my hope is for us to be intentional in sieving out divisive voices in the midst of deep disagreements. Let us not give in to discord nor give up on unity but give our best to our nation. May we then realise our commonalities, close the space between us and, together, discover the Singapore forward.
Mr Speaker: Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 4.25 pm.
Sitting accordingly suspended
at 4.01 pm until 4.25 pm.
Sitting resumed at 4.25 pm.
[Deputy Speaker (Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo) in the Chair]
[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]
Mdm Deputy Speaker: Minister Shanmugam.
The Minister for Home Affairs (Mr K Shanmugam): Thank you, Mdm Deputy Speaker. I thank the Members who have spoken up in support of the Bills. Most have expressed support for the repeal of section 377A.
I will deal with questions raised by Members on: (a) our approach towards cancel culture; (b) past section 377A convictions; (c) keeping sex identification in NRICs and passports; (d) Article 156; and one or two other issues.
Mr Zhulkarnain asked for any update on the Government’s plans to deal with \"cancel culture\" and whether there will be any consultation and feedback process. My Ministry – MinLaw – is looking at measures to deal with the harm caused by cancel campaigns online.
People really ought to be free to stand by their beliefs and express their views, with due respect for the feelings of others without fearing being \"cancelled\". Many religious groups and organisations, in particular, are very concerned about this. Many church groups have spoken with us. Their experience is that when they express their views, they are shouted down and they feel bullied. Children in schools also feel this. This is not right.
I have said that we will try and do something about this. We are studying the matter. We are consulting different groups as part of our review. We want to try and strike the right balance. It is not an easy area to deal with or legislate on. We will give more details when we get a sense of what is doable.
Mr Louis Ng asked whether there are any individuals with existing conviction records under section 377A and how these records will be dealt with.
There are some individuals with convictions under 377A. Most of these cases involved non-consenting victims or acts against minors, or sexual acts committed in public. These acts continue to be offences, even after any repeal of section 377A. We do take a serious view of them.
Criminal records for offences are dealt with under the framework in the Registration of Criminals Act. And within that framework, people can apply to have their convictions rendered spent. Some of these offences have become automatically spent. Automatic expiry takes place after a period of time for specific offences and where the criteria are met.
Persons who are disqualified from having their conviction automatically spent, can apply to the Police for the record to be considered spent or rendered spent. But where egregious acts were committed, like non-consensual acts or sexual acts against minors, the records are unlikely to be treated as spent.
There are a small number of individuals who were convicted between 1988 and 2007 for consensual, private, homosexual acts, between adults. I have instructed my Ministry to consider how the records of these persons can be rendered spent proactively.
Mr Lim Biow Chuan said that he hopes that the Government will not allow individuals to remove their registered sex from their NRIC or passport. The short answer is that there is no such plan.
Ms Sylvia Lim suggested that there is no real need for Article 156(1) and (2) since the Constitution already vests legislative power in the legislature and the executive authority in the Government. Let me explain. It is a fairly basic point.
Let us take section 377A as an example. It is a law made in the exercise of legislative power by the Parliament. Section 377A has been challenged as being in breach of the Constitution. Ms Lim agrees that section 377A could be unconstitutional. The presence of Article 38 in the Constitution will not help if section 377A is in fact unconstitutional.
To put it another way, the fact that the Parliament can pass laws and that Article 38 gives that power, does not automatically mean that all such laws cannot be challenged. They can be challenged, for example, if they are contrary to the Constitution.
Article 156 is structured to give effect to and protect laws and policies based on the heterosexual definition of marriage. So, Articles 156(1) and (2) have been drafted in to give effect to this principle, to protect the laws and policies, based on that definition and to make it clear that passing laws and having policies based on the current definition of marriage are constitutionally valid. They give context to Articles 156(3) and (4).
We have been advised by AGC that Articles 156(1) and (2) could be relevant if there are questions raised as to whether regulating marriage and so on are constitutionally valid purposes and considerations for action by the legislature and Government.
Thus, Articles 156(1) and (2) have been enacted to make it clear that the legislature can exercise its legislative power to define, regulate, protect, safeguard, support, foster and promote marriage. Similarly, the Government and public bodies can exercise their executive authority to achieve these ends.
Mr Murali Pillai asked why is it necessary for Articles 156(3) and (4) to exclude the whole of Part 4 instead of just a few Articles.
Let us look at Article 156(3)(a) first. This protects the heterosexual definition of marriage itself from invalidation by Part 4. We need to exclude the whole of Part 4 because we cannot predict what possible arguments might be made against this definition in the future.
With section 377A, we have seen how the arguments in our Courts progressed from equal protection under Article 12 to asserting that sexual conduct is a form of liberty protected by Article 9 or a form of expression protected by Article 14.
Some of these alternative arguments have been accepted by courts in other countries. It is possible that additional creative arguments could be made about the heterosexual definition of marriage. For example, could marriage be a form of association that is protected by Article 14? Members may think it is a little outside of the orthodox interpretation today, but can you rule it out?
Thus, if we want to properly protect the heterosexual definition of marriage from Court challenge, we have to exclude the whole of Part 4.
But it is not a carte blanche. What is protected is quite precise. It is the heterosexual definition of marriage. That is because just as we have been clear about repealing section 377A – we took a clear position – we are equally clear; this Government is very clear – that we will protect the heterosexual marriage as a key institution in our society. That is why the Constitution is being amended.
But let me digress and say, as we say all this, as we listen to the speeches by Members on families, let us also not forget, let us also acknowledge that LGBT persons also have and come from families. They have parents, siblings, grandparents, nieces, nephews, aunties, uncles, close friends and much more. So, families are not exclusive to non-LGBT persons. Let us remember and acknowledge that these things are not binary.
Back to Article 156. If the Parliament tries to enact, say, for example, apartheid marriage laws or impose other outlandish definitions of marriage, those laws would not be protected. Because if you look at Articles 156(3)(b) and (4), the operating provisions, they protect the ability of the Parliament and the Government to make the laws and policies.
The protection, the shield is strong, but what is shielded, we have sought to make it quite precise.
If the Government tries to give benefits to married couples, for example, say, with the surname Tan, Article 156 will only protect the part of the policy that relates to married couples. The Government will still have to justify why giving benefits to only people with a certain surname\tis a relevant consideration. I think lawyers will understand; it will not be accepted as a relevant consideration.
Nor will the Government be able to take measures that are absolutely prohibited under Part 4, for example, slavery. If such a measure is taken, the challenge will not be that it is based on the heterosexual definition of marriage or some other basis, it will be that these measures are not allowed on any basis.
To directly answer Mr Murali Pillai – no, Article 156 does not enable the Government to banish anyone as the term is conventionally understood today. Why do I say that? Let me give an example.
It will be a nice constitutional question if, for example, a same-sex couple were to argue that since Singapore does not recognise same-sex marriages, they had no choice but to emigrate and that is effectively a banishment, and that this Government's policy in not recognising same-sex marriages is therefore in breach of Article 13, which precludes banishment.
So, you can see that a careful person will want to think about the different possibilities of arguments and then make sure that the drafting covers the different possibilities.
We do not believe that the Government's policies and laws are in breach of Article 13 or for that matter any other Article in the Constitution, but Members can see that creative arguments can be made. So, if you want to clear that we want to protect marriage and keep it within the province of the Parliament, then you need to make sure that your drafting is accurate. That is why we have had to draft Article 156 in the way it has been worded.
In the case of executive actions, common law judicial review under administrative law principles will generally still apply. The application of those principles must, however, take Article 156 into account.
For example, with Article 156, acting to promote marriage would not be an unlawful purpose or an irrelevant consideration. But otherwise, administrative law principles can and will still apply.
Ms Lim and Ms He Ting Ru say that judicial review under Part 4 should be fully available without restriction. Article 156 takes two specific issues out from the Courts' province and keeps them entirely within the province of the elected branches: (a) the heterosexual definition of marriage and (b) the ability of the Parliament and Government to make laws and policies based on this definition.
The Government believes that this is necessary for the reasons I have explained. Parliament and the elected Government should deal with these questions and try and strike the right balance on these complex and delicate social issues.
Ms Lim and Ms He's position would mean that they accept that the Courts can strike down the heterosexual definition of marriage or to curtail the ability of the Parliament and Government to make laws and policies based on this definition and for society to live with the consequences after that.
This, then, is the choice before the House today – whether we decide to have the certainty that the Parliament will decide on issues of marriage or whether we want to leave this to the Courts and live with the potential threat of unconstitutionality and have that change imposed on our society, as has happened in other countries.
Let me now turn to the Workers' Party's position on section 377A. Mr Pritam Singh, as Leader of the Opposition, says that the Workers' Party does not take a position on the matter. Thus, as a party, the Workers' Party has no official position. It does not support the repeal of section 377A. It does not quite oppose it either. It also does not support the constitutional amendments to protect marriage.
From their speeches, Mr Pritam Singh and Ms Sylvia Lim, for example, support the repeal. While Mr Singh supports the constitutional amendments, Ms Lim and Ms He Ting Ru do not support the constitutional amendments. Mr Dennis Tan and Mr Gerald Giam are against the repeal but support the constitutional amendments. Mr Leon Perera is for the repeal, somewhat more enthusiastically than his Leader, and as for the constitutional amendments, he takes a divergent position from his Chairman, Ms Sylvia Lim.
So, the Workers' Party had a debate among themselves. They debated and discussed but did not decide on a party position. The question is – if this is how one decides, how will such a team function if they are in charge?
Mr Pritam Singh said his lifting the whip on Workers' Party Members of Parliament (MPs) was democratic so as to allow for a full and honest representation of all views. This explanation is factually untrue. Every Member of Parliament must know that. So, it does no credit to this House to say these things.
The WP MPs could have made all the speeches they made, even with the whip in place. MPs are always entitled to state their honest views. They can agree. They can disagree. They can say what they think. You can express your views, whatever they are, without having to lift the whip.
I repeat that. The whip does not, and has not, prevented MPs from speaking their minds. MPs have always been free to express what they and their constituents think. The whip is relevant for voting, not speaking; and the whip sets out the party's position.
In moving the Bills, Minister Masagos and I took pains to lay out both sides of the issue. The PAP MPs speaking on the issue, too, have reflected the concerns, the fears and pain of the many individuals they have spoken with. These include views of Singaporeans from different religious groups, LGBT groups and others.
So, do not be mistaken. Views on all sides can, have been and must be fully ventilated and they have been ventilated by PAP MPs.
As I said earlier, the whip is imposed to set out the party's position as a whole. In our Westminster parliamentary system, parties must have a view on the important questions that come before the Parliament. They need to be honest in this House, say what they think is good for Singapore and be accountable to the electorate for their decisions.
The real point is that the Workers' Party as a party does not want to take a stand on this matter. It does not want to be seen as supporting the repeal. At the same time, it also does not want to be seen as opposing the repeal. That way, it hopes to be all things to all men, and not too much of anything to anyone. Members may know the second line was said in respect of a well-known person.
In my remarks yesterday, I reminded Members there are two reasons for repealing section 377A.
First, it is the right thing to do because there are no public concerns that justify private consensual sex between men being a crime. Some disagree with that. They think that the law should be retained as a matter of conscience. I mentioned yesterday that I accept that. We understand and respect these views. These are seriously held views by honest, sincere people, including in this House. They have thought about it, have decided that for reasons of conscience and often of personal faith\tthey cannot agree to the repeal.
But I also outlined a second reason to repeal section 377A – the significant legal risk of it being struck down by the Courts if we were to leave section 377A alone and the significant negative and disruptive consequences for Singaporeans and Singapore if that were to happen. That is a policy question – a question that requires us to consider what is in Singapore's interests.
From the debate, the following points are clear and are not in question, and the WP does not question them. One, section 377A is at risk of being struck out for being unconstitutional. Two, if section 377A is struck out, then, there is a further risk that the definition of marriage could be challenged as well. Three, and that then means that there are risks that our housing, education, media content policies and multiple other policies could all be challenged.
No one has questioned these risks in this House. The WP understands this; there are four lawyers among them in this House, including Ms Lim who has agreed that the legal risks with section 377A, exist. Given that, then what does the WP has a party propose, if you do not want to repeal section 377A and also do not want to support strengthening marriage which we have proposed?
The position with section 377A is like a train approaching. The question is whether we have the courage to act or rather dive for cover to protect yourselves and leave society to face the train wreck.
I emphasised this quite strongly yesterday. Given the risks, we have a responsibility to do our duty as Parliamentarians, to take a position, to deal squarely with the problem and not abdicate our duty. To say the party has no position allows the WP MPs to make speeches supporting all sides without having to make a decision and be held responsible for that decision. That is not true democracy. It is better described as wanting to speak without taking responsibility.
In the context of our debate, their position will mean that they would leave the decision to the Courts and let Singaporeans face the negative consequences, including perpetuating differences and polarising our society further; if we leave this matter to the Courts, because the Courts can only make binary decisions, as we have seen happen elsewhere.
If the WP truly believes that these sensitive matters ought to be decided by the Court, never mind the consequences, including further dividing us in endless rounds of litigation, then they should be honest and say so in this House. The only reason we can have a decision in Parliament is because the PAP has its whip in place. When you stand up and speak at length about the pain and suffering of the LGBT community, then I think one can ask, “Why don’t you take a clear stand and support the repeal?” Or if you believe otherwise, take a stand, oppose the repeal, as a party.
As I say this, Sir, let me tell Members, the issue of conscience which is real, is quite different from the issue of policy. I have focused on the policy issue. And I think it is not too much to ask that a clear stand be taken on policy issues.
Let me end by quoting Winston Churchill: “They are decided only to be undecided, resolved only to be irresolute.”
Sir, this Government has consulted widely and has come to a position. We believe that our policy offers a way forward. It balances the different views, maintains our social cohesion, keeps us together. The Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong have stated clearly that they will maintain this position. On this difficult matter, we will do our duty and take responsibility for holding society together. [Applause].
Mdm Deputy Speaker: Minister Masagos Zulkifli.
The Minister for Social and Family Development (Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M): Mdm Deputy Speaker, I thank Members for putting forth their perspectives and reasoning on this very important debate. In this House, Members have reflected the complexity of the issue and the diversity of our stakeholders. Something a court process will not achieve. Members have shown why Parliament, rather than the Courts, is the right forum to debate difficult social issues.
We have explained clearly why we must act without delay. Inaction will leave open the significant legal risk that the Court will, at some point in the future, rule section 377A unconstitutional. Parliament has a duty to act.
Let me turn to what we all need to do to keep Singapore united after we have debated and then voted on these Bills. Many Members touched on this in their speeches. Some have voiced the concern of Singapore going down a slippery slope after the repeal. Some touched on support for families with single parents. Others asked about the posture in educational institutions and expressed concerns on religious freedom.
Mr Alex Yam, Mr Sharael Taha and Mr Abdul Samad have asked for assurance that the repeal would not result in a change in social norms. Mr Derrick Goh asked about the use of surveys and engagements.
It is indeed the intention of the Government that there should not be a change in social norms following the repeal. This is precisely what Article 156 is intended to achieve. I explained in my speech yesterday, the many different practices and policies that support society’s notion of children within a marriage between a man and a woman.
On surveys, while they can help facilitate conversations and potentially reduce discrimination, we recognise that a single or a series of questions would not fully capture such a complex and emotive matter. It also depends on the survey’s sampling method, whether it is representative and when it was conducted. We have engaged extensively on this matter. There are ongoing efforts to facilitate conversations and civil dialogue.
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]
Mr Pritam Singh, Mr Mark Chay and Mr Louis Ng said there should be support for other families such as single unwed parents. My opening speech explained our approach. We make a distinction between incentives and support. Benefits intended to support a child’s development and caregiving are given to children of single unwed parents and of married parents equally. These include healthcare and education subsidies, the Government’s First Step grant and co-matching of the Child Development Account, as well as the Government-paid maternity leave to unwed working mothers to care for their infant.
Let me now turn to educational institutions. Ms Janet Ang and Mr Mohd Fahmi Bin Aliman have asked about sexuality education in public and private schools and the madrasahs. Dr Tan Yia Swam said students should be taught based on evidence. Mr Henry Kwek commented that school leaders should take a clear objective stance. Mr Mark Chay asked how we prepare students to be more understanding and empathetic. Mr Lim Biow Chuan also asked about international schools that compel staff or students to participate in gay community projects even if they do not subscribe to the same lifestyle.
I explained in my opening speech that our education policies and curriculum remain anchored on Singapore's prevailing family values and social norms, which most Singaporeans want to uphold. These include the family as the cornerstone of our social fabric, and marriage between a man and a woman. In our schools, all students learn and practise values such as mutual understanding, respect and empathy for everyone. They will also understand that issues can have multiple perspectives and are taught to listen to each other’s points of view, understand the perspective of others and learn to interact and engage respectfully with each other, even if their views differ.
The Sexuality Education Curriculum in MOE schools respects the primary role of parents and reflects the national posture on the heterosexual family as the basic unit of society. The curriculum remains secular and based on research and evidence. It is focused on age appropriateness and the developmental needs of the child when touching on topics such as homosexuality.
In madrasahs, sexuality education is part of their education curriculum and included in specially curated programmes. Madrasahs are also equipped with trained asatizah and teachers to address sexuality issues. Counsellors are available should students need further advice and support. MUIS is in regular consultation and collaboration with the madrasahs to further enhance the sexuality education curriculum for students. Teachers will also be equipped and updated on the current discourse on the matter, to advise and guide students on matters related to sexuality, according to the teachings and traditions of the religion.
For international schools, MOE does not regulate the curriculum. That said, as the schools operate in Singapore, they should respect our social norms and values. They must also be careful not to cross the line into advocacy on issues in Singapore that could be socially divisive, such as how sexual orientation, are handled in laws and public policy. These are matters for Singaporeans to discuss and decide.
Mr Louis Ng asked how LGBT students struggling with family and mental health issues are supported. Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim also asked how teachers and educators are supported.
Our schools have a system of support for students with issues concerning their well-being, including on sexuality. Teachers will listen to students objectively to facilitate support, and not discount, disregard or judge their views. They assure confidentiality but explain to students that the disclosed information has to be shared with the appropriate key school personnel to assist students in managing their concerns. Teachers also consult the School Leader and Lead School Counsellor who will further manage these cases, with the school counsellor providing targeted support for the student’s concerns. Where required, schools, will, with parents’ consent, refer students to professionals and relevant authorities to provide counselling support and appropriate intervention.
MOE’s focus is on the students’ well-being. Schools must remain a common and safe space for all students, regardless of their background. We have a duty to care to every student. For students with sexuality issues, our focus is likewise to provide them with a conducive learning environment and the necessary support to ensure their overall well-being. As sexuality issues are complex, schools work with these students and their families sensitively.
Mr Zhulkarnain asked where families can seek help. Family Service Centres offer family counselling and can also assist if family relations are strained because one of them has sexuality concerns.
Lastly, Members Mr Christopher De Souza, Mr Zhulkarnain, Mr Mohd Fahmi Bin Aliman, Mr Lim Biow Chuan, Mr Darryl David, Ms Janet Ang and Mr Alex Yam have spoken about religious freedom. I would like to make clear the Government’s position.
First, Article 156 will provide further protection for the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman. There are no plans to change this definition to include same-sex marriages. Religious leaders or any licensed solemniser for that matter, cannot solemnise a same-sex couple. This is against the law.
Second, religious freedom is protected in Article 15 of the Constitution. Every person has the right to profess, propagate and practise his or her own religion, subject to public order, health and morality. Every religious group has the right to manage its own religious affairs. One can still preach on the pulpit their beliefs about homosexuality or family, even if others might disagree. But no one should incite violence or hate towards others. This is against the law and is not the society we want to become. This is regardless of whether the comments are made in public, online, or in your private space.
Religious organisations, as owners of their premises at places of worship, have the discretion to refuse same-sex solemnisations or weddings to be held on their premises. There is no law which prohibits them from treating same-sex couples differently from opposite-sex couples when exercising such rights. Religious organisations may support those who are struggling or have issues with their sexuality, including through prayers and counselling, as long as consent is obtained and criminal thresholds of harm are not crossed.
Third, in exercising religious freedom, we must understand that we are also members of a plural society. We must graciously accommodate those who have different values from us. Gay people are members of our society and have access to the same opportunities and social support as other Singaporeans.
Social Service Agencies (SSAs) provide secular services to the community. Some SSAs are set up by, or affiliated to, religious organisations. All SSAs, regardless of their religious affiliations, serve all clients, including gay persons. Social service professionals are continuously trained to be sensitive to the diverse needs of clients.
Fourth, on employment, workplace and businesses. We do not tolerate discrimination at the workplace. Employees are protected against discrimination under the Tripartite Guidelines for Fair Employment Practices (TGFEP). These guidelines require employers to make employment decisions based on merit and not factors irrelevant to the job. For religious organisations, understandably, the potential employee's religion and values would be a relevant consideration for certain roles.
Mr Derrick Goh enquired about staff benefits offered by companies to gay couples. The Government, generally, does not interfere in how a private business operates. However, private businesses must respect that their own staff have a right to their personal beliefs. They also cannot cross the line into advocacy on issues in Singapore that are socially divisive, which include issues on homosexuality. These are matters only for Singaporeans to discuss and decide. At our workplaces, employees should not feel compelled to support causes or participate in activities that do not align with their beliefs. TGFEP is clear that an employee's support or non-support of causes, if not relevant to job performance, cannot be used in employment decisions and performance evaluation.
Lastly, we should keep the marketplace free from the polarising contestation of values. In a free and open economy, with an abundance of choice, businesses can decide what events are allowed on their premises. However, while businesses make their own commercial judgement with regard to their prospective customers, they should do so in a sensitive and respectful manner. Nonetheless, I urge everyone not to use commerce as a platform to display the conviction of their beliefs. In the spirit of mutual respect, I hope businesses and prospective customers can strive to be gracious and adopt the approach of \"live and let live\".
Mr Speaker, Sir, for complex issues, such as these, we must exercise leadership to make difficult decisions that are best for our society, even if it does not satisfy everyone's wishes. We are a secular Government. And while each of us, as individuals, may have our religious convictions, we take care to ensure that when we make decisions for the whole country, we apply secular, universal values and not individual religious beliefs.
Mr Dennis Tan, Mr Gerald Giam and Mr Faisal Manap indicated they will not support the repeal because of their religious values. Yet, they do not offer any solution on how we can keep society united and cohesive if section 377A is found to be unconstitutional. Is it their solution to accept a decision by the Courts? What would be the implications? If so, then why not vote for the repeal now?
Ms Hazel Poa says that the Progress Singapore Party (PSP) wants the definition of marriage to be decided by national referendum rather than by Parliament. The Government has explained why we are not proposing to hold a referendum on this issue. But let me explain again.
Our Constitution sets a very high bar for the holding of referenda. A referendum is required when sovereignty or the command of our Armed Forces and Police is at stake.
We have only had one referendum in our history – on our merger with Malaysia.
We should be very careful about elevating any matter to this level, saying it is equivalent to an issue on sovereignty.
It is the duty of elected Members of Parliament to consult, discuss and come to a decision even, and perhaps especially, for difficult and polarising social issues.
The PSP says that we should not allow Parliament to decide but, instead, let the definition of marriage be decided by national referendum. This might seem seductive. But let us call it what it is. It is an attempt to avoid taking a position, as Parliamentarians, as elected representatives of the people.
Even if a referendum is held, which side will the PSP be on? Would the PSP try to bring people together or stay silent on where it stands on heterosexual marriage, as it is doing in this debate?
Also, would a referendum settle this issue once and for all?
May I remind Members and the PSP what happened in the UK with Brexit. Both sides campaigned vigorously and bitterly. It created and entrenched polarised identities. Brexit was eventually approved, in a referendum, with the slimmest of margins, and people continued to campaign for a second referendum.
In the process, the credibility of the British government was severely damaged. Indeed, it has yet to recover.
Despite being in government, the Tories were split on Brexit. The leadership, rather than uniting around a single position, allowed their members of parliaments and even their ministers to take different views. A government unable to act, cannot govern.
Let us not look for politically easy options and cite referendum as an easy solution, just so that a decision does not have to be made in Parliament. In any case, even if the PSP wants a referendum, does it or does it not support the constitutional amendments?
They seem to be against it. It then leaves the Courts to decide on heterosexual marriage. I have explained why that is not ideal. In any case, PSP seems to be against the constitutional amendment. I have explained why that is not good for Singapore.
Mr Speaker, governing requires us to bring people with different perspectives together to ensure that various segments do not push for a maximalist position which would impinge on others, and pave the way forward. We should especially not adopt positions just because it coincides with our own religious beliefs. Indeed, everyone in Singapore cannot expect their maximalist position to be realised because Singapore is a vastly diverse society.
Singapore has progressed because everyone understands this and has been accommodating of one another.
This applies to governance. To be able to faithfully discharge our duties as leaders, we cannot make decisions that affect our fellow citizens based on personal religious beliefs. Instead, I hope we understand the principles of our religions, in making decisions that affect others. That is what our Malay/Muslim leaders we engaged were able to do after numerous engagements – they went beyond their own perspectives and assessed what is good for the community, Singapore and Singaporeans – and accepted why these changes need to be made.
I hope all Members of this House can do so, too, and support the repeal of section 377A, together with the proposed amendment to the Constitution.
Let me conclude. As a society, we cannot lose sight of mutual respect when we engage with one another and must endeavour to listen to those who disagree with us. We must not destroy their social or economic standing. We should not denigrate others. This applies to all sides in every debate. We should consistently exercise responsibility, restraint and sensitivity to one another, both online and in person.
The work of staying united as one Singapore is what lies ahead of us, even as the debate on these two Bills concludes.
Mr Speaker, this debate proves that this House is, indeed, the right forum for issues and policies that are complex and require political judgement. It is an example of Parliament stepping up to do its duty. It is a responsible Government that has balanced the views expressed by Members and stakeholders and has shown the viable way forward. We did not deflect the matter to the Courts nor kick the can down the road. This is the strength of our system in Singapore when each branch – the Legislature, Executive and Judiciary – does its part to its fullest and does it well and does what is right for Singapore and Singaporeans.
We have had a robust debate. With the passing of the two Bills – the repeal of section 377A and the introduction of the constitutional amendment – we have created space for society to deliberate on social issues within the political process, and not through a legal route which is zero-sum in nature. It is time to come together and move forward. Preserve the peace and stability that our society has fought hard for, and forge ahead – united, not divided – so that we can achieve progress as a nation for many more years to come. [Applause.]
Mr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.
Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I think the Minister – I refer to Minister Shanmugam – has mischaracterised my speech somewhat. What I said was specific to the party position in 2019 and here, there was a context. The party position, as I mentioned, was varied and divided, with no consensus as to whether section 377A should be repealed – and as I said, somewhat similar to Singapore society.
I lifted the whip and did not fetter the voting rights of Members of Parliament (MPs). I did not say speaking rights. I did not fetter the voting rights of MPs. This is consistent with the party position. What has been the result arising from this debate? Six for the repeal of section 377A; three against, for reasons of conscience.
The party position has now been established by way of a majority in Parliament.
On the Constitution, seven for and two abstentions for the reasons the Members mentioned. All the Workers' Party MPs, apart from Mr Faisal Manap who is down with COVID-19, put their personal positions on the record. And, in my view, they behaved like a loyal Opposition, not loyal to the PAP, but loyal to Singaporeans, knowing the position of Singaporeans outside of this House.
I have two clarifications for the Minister, Mr Speaker.
My first question pertains to an understanding of how and why the PAP chooses to lift the whip for some Bills and not others. And I raise this because the Minister raised it in his closing address.
Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong announced that the PAP did not lift the whip for this debate because section 377A is a matter of public policy. The Prime Minister, in his National Day address this year, said that not everyone is equally accepting of homosexuality and there were considerable reservations within certain religious groups.
For the Human Organ Transplant Bill of 2009, the PAP lifted the whip so that MPs could vote based on their religious and ethical beliefs. The first generation of PAP leaders under Lee Kuan Yew did the same with the Abortion Bill of 1969, where Mr Lee Kuan Yew himself rose to deliver a speech but was absent when it came to voting.
If I follow the Minister's reasoning, would it be correct to say Mr Lee Kuan Yew was abdicating his responsibilities?
There would be compelling reasons to suggest that for both these Bills, public policy could have been deployed as a reason not to lift the whip – but the PAP lifted it anyway. Can the Minister please clarify the consistency or lack of consistency with regard to lifting the whip?
My second question pertains to implications of the constitutional amendments for the LGBTQ+ community in the political context. With these amendments, the effect would be that the Courts are not the correct forum to determine questions of housing policies and same-sex marriage, for example.
At the 2011 General Elections some 11 years ago, the sexual orientation of an Opposition candidate came into the spotlight with the PAP asking the Singapore Democratic Party to \"come out of the closet\" and the PAP statement on this issue pursued an innuendo that made an allusion to paedophilia.
In view of the speeches made by PAP MPs over the last two days and the call for any change on the definition of marriage to be a political question, can I confirm the PAP's position with regard to LGBTQ+ candidates standing in General Elections?
Mr K Shanmugam: Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. Mr Singh mentioned democracy. He said that in the pursuit of democracy, he will lift the whip. If he now says that is not so, then he can state that for the record. He said, \"We are more democratic, we lift the whip\". And I just wanted to point out, let us just be accurate.
People can speak their minds even with the whip imposed. And when Mr Singh says the whip will not be imposed on his MPs, he is referring to voting positions. He is referring to a party position, that when he came into the Chamber here yesterday, the party did not have a position. That is what we are talking about.
And his MPs spoke on both sides; the party did not have a position.
It is not a question of totalling up the numbers at the end of the day. It is a question of coming upfront and saying, \"This is our position as a party even though individuals have their different views and they will speak about them\". That is the point I was addressing.
When will a whip be lifted and when will a whip not be lifted? I made it clear in this case, why is the whip being imposed. It is because it is a policy question with serious consequences for Singaporeans.
If we do not repeal section 377A, then we are saying we will not do what we have to do and we will pass on the buck to the Courts. That is an abdication of responsibility as Parliamentarians.
In such a situation, lifting the whip is not acceptable for the PAP because societal interests are at stake. But where it is purely matters of conscience and you do not quite see such a significant issue for society as a whole, where the very institution of marriage, all your housing policies and your education policies and your rules on the structure and basic content of society can change overnight and where societies get rent asunder by cultural wars, those are the risks we are talking about. Do we duck and say, \"Well, you know, we do not have a position\"? You are leaving it to the Courts.
Abortion is quite different in that it was a matter of individual conscience, at least at that point in time. I think, today, the issue is well settled in Singapore at least, unlike in some other countries. But at that time, it was a matter that raised very serious personal concerns. People would know the arguments. And, Ireland, much more recently.
I was not in the House at that point in time and I do not think we should draw conclusions from the fact that one or another Member was present or was not present. But I would be careful if I were Mr Singh to bring Mr Lee Kuan Yew into this and suggest that he had somehow acted dishonourably.
If Mr Singh can remind me of his second question?
Mr Pritam Singh: It was about the LGBTQ question vis-à-vis the PAP's position as to whether the LGBTQ community would not be a victim of some personal attacks.
Mr K Shanmugam: I think Mr Singh mentioned paedophilia. Again, I do not recall the facts. So, I can only answer in hypotheticals. I think if a paedophile was standing for elections, I am surprised Mr Singh would advocate that cause. Thank you, Sir.
Mr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.
Mr Pritam Singh: Mr Speaker, let me take up the last point. But before that, sorry, the point of abdication and suggesting that I am saying Mr Lee Kuan Yew was dishonourable. I never used those words. I think I made the point in the context of the question that I put to the Minister.
On the issue of paedophilia, let me share the specific statement that the PAP made which led me to make that point.
This was the statement that was released by the PAP. \"What is its agenda? A video has been posted on the Internet showing Vincent Wijeysingha participating at the forum which discussed the promotion of the gay cause in Singapore.\" I do not think there is a problem with that statement. And thereafter it says, \"The discussion at the forum also touched on sex with boys and whether the age of consent for boys should be 14 years of age.\" The innuendo I think is clear.
In the video, Mr Wijeysingha was introduced as being from the SDP. In addition to other comments, Wijeysingha stated, \"I think the gay community has to rally ourselves. Perhaps, one outcome of today's forum would be for those of us who are interested to come together to further consider how we can address the 377 issue as well as further rights issues in relation to gays and lesbians.\"
I do not have any issue with the PAP coming up and saying, \"Look, what is the political agenda of a candidate?\" But what is the relevance of that point on sex with boys, if not to cast aspersions on the candidate himself and to suggest that. Did he make that point? Was this a forum where this was the only issue that was discussed? So, that was intentionally included. That is my view of the statement.
Mr K Shanmugam: Mr Speaker, Sir, I hope we do not have to go into an extended discussion on this. Mr Singh started out the second question by saying that paedophilia was talked about. Let me make it clear to him. If there is a candidate who is standing for elections, whether for the PAP – and I hope the PAP will never field such a candidate – or for the Workers' Party or SDP. And if there is a suggestion of paedophilia, I will certainly speak about it and I am sure all right-thinking Singaporeans will speak about it and will say it is not acceptable.
So, I do not quite know the precise context. But as I said in my speech, sexual offences against minors continue to remain serious offences and we take a very serious view. I hope Mr Singh is not suggesting that paedophiles stand for elections and we do not need to talk about it.
As to whether there are broader innuendoes, I think let us get to the point, Mr Singh.
As the Workers' Party trooped into Parliament yesterday, there was one point. And that point is: Mr Singh, Sir, as Leader of the Opposition, was not prepared for his party to take a position. That is what we are talking about; not about an election held in 2011. We are talking about 2022. What is our position on section 377A? And whether we come here prepared to take a position or we are abdicating.
I think I have made my points. We leave it to Singaporeans to judge.
Mr Speaker: Mr Singh.
Mr Pritam Singh: Likewise, Mr Speaker, I think I have made my point with regard to what Minister has said. But the issue was not about paedophilia and I agree with him I do not think anybody in Singapore would be thrilled to have a person who is a paedophile standing for elections.
But the question I asked was: what is the PAP's position with regard to LGBTQ+ candidates standing in general elections? I do not think that question has been answered.
Mr K Shanmugam: It appears to me that, as usual, Mr Singh wants to move the goalpost and start an entirely new debate about who can and who will stand for elections. I am not the Prime Minister or the Secretary-General of the party, but my personal view is that anyone who is not a criminal and who is of good character and of sound mind and who can work for the residents ought to be able to stand for elections. In all of this, in a democracy, it also depends on how people are perceived and accepted in society. All of these are relevant considerations. One has got to look at individual candidates.
But Mr Singh started out by talking about paedophilia. I am sure the records, the Hansard, will show that. And that is why I answered. Because I was shocked that he would even ask that question.
Mr Speaker: Mr Singh.
Mr Pritam Singh: Indeed, Mr Speaker, the record will show what the context was with regard to that point on paedophilia. But I accept the Minister's reply to my second question. Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker: Any other questions? Clarifications? Ms Hazel Poa.
Ms Hazel Poa (Non-Constituency Member): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I wish to respond to Minister Masagos' comment earlier on PSP's position.
I wish to clarify that our position on wanting the definition of marriage to be determined via a national referendum instead of Parliament is not a convenient way to avoid difficult decisions. A case in point would be the fact that we do have a position on section 377A which is also a difficult one.
We are aware of the Government's position on what the criteria are for holding a referendum. It is just that we have a slightly different view on what are the issues that should go for a referendum.
In this particular case on the issue of the definition of marriage, we feel that this is an issue that is important to many Singaporeans and there is a high level of interest from the public to have a say in this matter. And since it is an area that does not require any specialised knowledge – which would otherwise make it unsuitable for participation from members of the public – and actually, marriage, as many Members have pointed out, is a matter of social norm, we feel that this is an area that is suitable for the public to participate.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: I thank the Member for the clarification. But I think the most important question is not the referendum. It is what is the PSP's position on the constitutional amendment. Are they for or against it? And, therefore, when the referendum, if held, are they for or against it?
Ms Hazel Poa: Okay. As far as the vote for the constitutional amendment is concerned, we will be voting no, because of what I have explained earlier, that we would like the definition of marriage to be via referendum, rather than through Parliament.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Finally, that has come out in the open. So, we know that they are going to support the repeal of section 377A, but they will not support that the amendment to the Constitution be made.
Their position means that while now there would be no further challenges to section 377A because it does not exist, there will now be new challenges that will be put up in Court on constitutional grounds that other institutions, like marriage and families, important to many Singaporeans, will now stand before the Court. And then we are back to square one again. We have to, reactively again, come to make a decision or wait for the Court to make that decision.
Ms Hazel Poa: We will support a constitutional amendment, if it says that the definition of marriage is to be determined via national referendum.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: They will wait for the train to crash on us.
Mr Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim.
Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Thank you, Speaker. I wish to make four points if I may, three are clarifications for the Minister for Home Affairs and one is a clarification on my position on the Constitution (Amendment) Bill.
Let me go to the clarifications for Minister for Home Affairs. Yesterday, during his Second Reading speech, he cited many Court challenges to the constitutionality of section 377A. We are all aware of them. But I do not believe any of the Ministers cited any Court challenges to the heterosexual definition of marriage. So, I would like to ask the Government, whether there has been any Court challenge to the heterosexual definition of marriage. And to that extent, would he not agree with me that his analogy of the oncoming train applies to section 377A, but does not quite apply to the heterosexual definition of marriage?
The second clarification, earlier he mentioned that the Government does not believe that their policies violate the Constitution. I would like to ask him, without Article 156 being enacted, is the Government not confident that it can convince a Court that marriage, based on heterosexual definition, is based on reasonable criteria? It serves the purpose of promoting procreation within a family unit under AMLA, under Women's Charter; and therefore, the Government is on much stronger footing on the constitutionality of the heterosexual definition of marriage, compared to section 377A. That is my belief anyway.
The third clarification is, I would like to ask the Minister to confirm that he accepts that the Courts have a constitutional role to ensure that Parliament's laws and Government actions do conform with the Constitution. I would like his confirmation on that.
And lastly, Sir, my clarification for the Constitution (Amendment) Bill, I did say that I am not opposing the Bill, but I am abstaining. And the reason I am abstaining is that I have concern about the role of the Courts having judicial oversight over the legality of Government actions and Parliament. I am concerned that that should be protected. I, for one, value it and that is why I am abstaining.
Mr K Shanmugam: Can the Member clarify or repeat the third clarification, please? I did not quite get that.
Ms Sylvia Lim: The third clarification is, I would like the Minister to confirm whether he accepts that the Courts have a constitutional role to ensure that Government actions, as well as Parliament's laws, do conform to the Constitution.
Mr K Shanmugam: So, three questions. One, whether I agree that while there is a more immediate risk on section 377A, that those concerns do not quite apply to the current definition of marriage. No, I do not quite agree. I think what we can see and what we need to take reference from is what has happened elsewhere.
We agree that there is a significant risk to section 377A. There, all of us are agreed.
What is the Government's concern about the current definition of marriage? If you look at what has happened in India. The courts first said that their version, their section 377 was not unconstitutional. And then, within a few years, they said – well, it is unconstitutional. And now, earlier this year, they have said – the definition of marriage should be broader than a purely heterosexual marriage.
This is a similar system and similar broad common law principles. One can say and one can discern that there are different approaches that the Singapore Courts take vis-à-vis the Indian courts. But I think if you were to look at it as a lawyer, legal analysis and, particularly, if you are charged with a heavy responsibility to make sure that Singapore is looked after properly and that you care for Singapore and that your concern is for the well-being of Singaporeans, then you will not take these risks.
You will think them through, whether it is immediate or perhaps it is in the mid-term. If you think that there is a risk, then our duty is to go out there, explain the risks and then say how we would seek to put the laws in place to protect society, protect marriage, protect the institution of marriage and the structure of marriage, so that our society, successful as it has been, can continue to be successful, and so that the fundamental values of Singaporeans can be protected.
It is not a game. You do not take chances. You do not take fine legal analysis. Fine legal analysis is necessary to identify whether there is a risk. Once you identify there is a risk, you then do not go and take chances.
So, if one were to ask, \"Is the risk to the heterosexual definition of marriage less than the risk to section 377A?\", the answer is yes. But that does not lead to, \"Well, we do not have to do anything about it\". If there is a risk to something as fundamental as marriage, you act – or at least this Government acts.
Second, do I not believe that the Government can convince the Court that providing for a heterosexual definition of marriage, we can tell the Court it is reasonable to say it should be between a man and a woman. Well, you have seen the arguments elsewhere. You have seen the social policy changes in the United Kingdom, from which many of our laws come. Of course, there, the laws have been changed through parliament, but there are many countries where the laws have been changed through the courts.
I, for one, while I believe that our Courts have always taken the approach, the three great branches of the state, as I said yesterday – the Courts, the Judiciary, Parliament and the Executive – the system has worked well because each has respected the sphere of the other and our Judiciary is independent.
If I were asked, I would say there is a reasonably good likelihood that we will be able to persuade the Court today that there is a basis for making a distinction between same-sex marriages and heterosexual marriages, and that the current definition of marriage in the Woman's Charter should be maintained. But if I were asked a different question, \"Is there a risk that it could be struck out?\", I think it would be either a stupid lawyer or a foolish lawyer who will say there is no risk. If you accept that there is a risk, then, what do you do? What do we do as Parliamentarians? I think the answer is clear.
Third, do I accept that the Courts have a constitutional role? Of course, I accept that. But I think if the question goes towards why do we then say that the Courts should not look at the definition of marriage, I think I have given a very extensive answer. What should count as marriage should be decided here. The Courts can only make binary decisions. We should discuss it, we should decide it and we should take into account what society is ready for and what society needs and what strengthens society. Even if we take a view which is different from the majority view, then it is our duty to go and convince society as to why we are taking that view. We can do all of those things; the Courts cannot do those things.
That is why we have decided there is this risk that the definition of marriage could be challenged and we have decided that is a matter for Parliament. We are not providing for a supermajority. So, any elected Government, by a simple majority, can decide on what a marriage ought to be like.
That is democracy. That is how democracy ought to work.
No Court can do what we did yesterday and today, which is to consider repealing section 377A, but at the same time, strengthening the institution of marriage and explaining the reasons, having it fully discussed, going out to the public and explaining – that is what is necessary. We believe that a future discussion would require these sorts of discussions and it may require changes to more than one piece of legislation.
How does the Court do that? They will decide on the question presented to them and strike out if they think it should be struck out. Where does that leave society?
So, this is not a case of, \"Are we avoiding the supervisory jurisdiction of the Courts?\" It has been explained. I believe the overwhelming majority of Singaporeans support us on this constitutional amendment.
Mr Speaker: The Question is, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\"
Pursuant to Article 5(2) of the Constitution, a vote is taken to ascertain that the Second Reading of the Bill is supported by the votes of not less than two-thirds of the total number of Elected and Non-Constituency Members of Parliament, which is 63 Members. Clerk, ring the division bells.
[(proc text) After two minutes – (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Serjeant-at-Arms, lock the doors.
I note that there are Members seated in the Speaker's Gallery. For Members seated there, the Clerk will call your name to indicate your vote.
Members seated within the Bar of the House will vote electronically. They are reminded to be seated at their designated seats.
The Clerk will first call the names of Members seated in the Speaker's Gallery to indicate their votes. These Members are to verbally state their vote indication when their names are called by the Clerk in alphabetical order.
[(proc text) Question put, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\" (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: The Clerk will now proceed to record the votes.
[(proc text) Thereupon, the Clerk read out the names of Members Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis, Ms He Ting Ru, Ms Sylvia Lim seated in the Speaker's Gallery, one at a time, for them to indicate their votes. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: The manual voting is now completed. We will now proceed with the electronic voting for Members seated within the Bar of the House. These Members should only start to vote when the voting buttons on their armrest start to blink.
Take a vote. You may now begin to vote. May I remind Members to depress your vote button firmly in order to register your vote in the system.
Members seated within the Bar of the House are advised to check that their names are registered according to their vote indication when the voting results are shown on the display screens. These results do not include the votes taken manually from the Members seated in the Speaker's Gallery and the final results are subject to the addition of these votes.
Before I proceed to declare the results of the vote, are there any Members who wish to claim that his or her vote has not been recorded correctly? No.
Mr Speaker: I will proceed to declare the voting results now. There are 85 \"Ayes\"; two \"Noes\"; and two \"Abstentions\". The Second Reading of the Bill has been carried by the votes of not less than two-thirds of the total number of Elected and Non-Constituency Members of Parliament.
[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M]. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment. (proc text)]
Third Reading
Mr Speaker: Third Reading, what day?
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Now, Sir, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Third time.\"
Mr Speaker: The Question is, \"That the Bill be now read a Third time.\" Pursuant to Article 5(2) of the Constitution, a vote is taken to ascertain that the Third Reading of the Bill is supported by the votes of not less than two-thirds of the total number of Elected and Non-Constituency Members of Parliament, which is 63 Members. Clerk, ring the division bells.
[(proc text) After one minute – (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Serjeant-at-Arms, lock the doors.
[(proc text) Question put, \"That the Bill be now read a Third Time.\" (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: The Clerk will now proceed to record the votes of the Members at the Speaker's Gallery.
[(proc text) Thereupon, the Clerk read out the names of Members Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis, Ms He Ting Ru, Ms Sylvia Lim seated in the Speaker's Gallery, one at a time, for them to indicate their votes. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: The manual voting is completed. We will now proceed with the electronic voting for Members seated within the Bar of the House. Again, Members should only start to vote when the voting buttons on their armrest start to blink.
Take a vote. Once again, do remember to depress the vote button firmly to register your vote in the system.
Members are advised to check that their names are registered according to their vote indication when the voting results are shown on the display screens. These results do not include the votes taken manually from the Members seated in the Speaker's Gallery and the final results are subject to the addition of these votes.
My vote is manually included as well. Before I proceed to declare the results of the vote, are there any Members, apart from myself, who wish to claim that his or her vote has not been recorded correctly? No.
Mr Speaker: I will proceed to declare the voting results now. There are 85 \"Ayes\"; two \"Noes\"; and two \"Abstentions\". The Third Reading of the Bill has been carried by the votes of not less than two-thirds of the total number of Elected and Non-Constituency Members of Parliament.
[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Penal Code (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Minister for Home Affairs.
The Minister for Home Affairs (Mr K Shanmugam): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\" I suppose I should read out yesterday's speech.
Sir, the Penal Code (Amendment) Bill will repeal section 377A of the Penal Code. As Members know, it criminalises acts of gross indecency between males, whether in public or private. This Bill is linked to the previous Bill in our Order Paper, the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment No 3) Bill.
In the debate we have just had on the Constitution (Amendment) Bill, I have explained the reasons for repealing section 377A. Members have already raised their questions and expressed their views on both Bills during the earlier debate, although they are still welcome to do so now if there are any additional questions or views.
Before I sit down, Sir, I have gotten the transcript of what Mr Pritam Singh said yesterday. I think I should read it and put it on record.
He said, \"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 section 377A, there is a risk that the democratic value of the Parliament could be diluted if the views of Singaporeans on the subject are not adequately ventilated in the House.\"
That is the point I was responding to and that is simply untrue. It is inaccurate. It does not do this House any credit because you are entitled to ventilate your views, we have always been ventilating our views and it should not be thought of in public that if the whip is imposed, you cannot ventilate your views.
Mr Singh also explained that the Workers' Party will be lifting the whip and he was not talking about some years ago; he was talking about this debate. If needed, I can read out other paragraphs, but I think I am just reading out what he said.
Mr Speaker: Mr Singh.
Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, that is an accurate rendition of what I said. But immediately after that, also, I said \"not lifting the whip would deny Workers' Party Members of Parliament (MPs) not in favour of a repeal of section 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\".
But the Minister is not wrong when he says, even though the whip is not lifted, it is entirely true that Members can speak freely. I do not dispute that, Minister.
Mr K Shanmugam: Thank you. Mr Speaker, I thank the Leader of the Opposition for that clarification. And so, I stand by everything I have said earlier, which is based on an accurate understanding of what Mr Singh had said.
Sir, I think I am not seeing many people wanting to speak.
Mr Speaker: Any more clarifications or comments? No.
Mr K Shanmugam: I beg to move, Sir.
Mr Speaker: The question is, that the Bill be now read a Second time. As many as are of that opinion, say \"Aye\".
[(proc text) Hon Members said \"Aye\". (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: To the contrary say \"No\".
[(proc text) Some hon Members said \"No\". (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Whip.
The Government Whip (Dr Janil Puthucheary): Mr Speaker, may I call for a Division, please?
Mr Speaker: Will hon Members who support the Division, please rise in their places?
[(proc text) More than five hon Members rose. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Clerk, ring the Division bells.
[(proc text) After two minutes – (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Serjeant-at-Arms, lock the doors.
[(proc text) Question put, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\" (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Whip, you have claimed a Division, would you like to proceed with the Division?
Dr Janil Puthucheary: Yes, please, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker: Clerk, please proceed with the Division. I note that there are Members seated in the Speaker's Gallery. For Members seated there, the Clerk will call your name to indicate your vote.
Members seated within the Bar of the House will again vote electronically. They are reminded to be seated at their designated seats and should only start to vote when the voting buttons on the armrest start to blink.
The Clerk will first call the names of Members seated in the Speaker's Gallery to indicate their votes. These Members are to verbally state their vote indication when their names are called by the Clerk in alphabetical order.
The Clerk will now proceed to record the votes.
[(proc text) Thereupon, the Clerk read out the names of Members Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis, Ms He Ting Ru, Ms Sylvia Lim seated in the Speaker's Gallery, one at a time, for them to indicate their votes. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: The manual voting is completed. We will now proceed with the electronic voting for Members seated within the Bar of the House. These Members should only start to vote when the voting buttons on their armrest start to blink. Members seated within the Bar of the House may begin to vote.
Members seated within the Bar of the House are advised to check that their names are registered according to their vote indication when the electronic voting results are shown on the display screens. These results do not include the votes taken manually from the Members seated in the Speaker's Gallery and the final results are subject to the addition of these votes.
Ms Sim Ann.
Ms Sim Ann (Holland-Bukit Timah): My vote as \"Aye\".
Mr Speaker: Before I proceed to declare the results of the vote, are there any Members who wish to claim that his or her vote has not been recorded correctly? No.
Mr Speaker: I will proceed to declare the voting results now. There are 93 \"Ayes\"; three \"Noes\"; and zero \"Abstentions\". The \"Ayes\" have it.
[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Whip.
Dr Janil Puthucheary: Mr Speaker, may I call for a Division, please?
Mr Speaker: Would you like to call it during the Third Reading?
Dr Janil Puthucheary: Oh, yes.
Mr Speaker: Mr Dennis Tan.
Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Hougang): Sir, may I have my dissent recorded and for the others to have their dissent recorded too?
Mr Speaker: Could you do that during the Third Reading instead?
Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong: Alright.
[(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr K Shanmugam]. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment. (proc text)]
Third Reading
Mr Speaker: Third Reading, what day?
Mr K Shanmugam: Now, Sir, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Third time.\"
Mr Speaker: The Question is, \"That the Bill be now read a Third time.\" As many as are of that opinion say \"Aye\".
[(proc text) Hon Members said \"Aye\". (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: To the contrary say \"No\". Whip.
Dr Janil Puthucheary: Mr Speaker, may I call for a Division, please?
Mr Speaker: Let me gather the voices. I think the \"Ayes\" have it. Clerks, please ring the bell.
[(proc text) After one minute — (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Serjeant-at-Arms, lock the doors.
[(proc text) Question put, \"That the Bill be now read a Third time.\" (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Whip, would you like to proceed with the Division?
Dr Janil Puthucheary: Yes, please, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker: Clerk, please proceed with the Division. I note that there are Members seated in the Speaker's Gallery. For Members seated there, the Clerk will call your name to indicate your vote.
Members seated within the Bar of the House will vote electronically. They are reminded to be seated at their designated seats and should only start to vote when the voting buttons on the armrest start to blink.
The Clerk will first call the names of Members seated in the Speaker's Gallery to indicate their votes. These Members are to verbally state their vote indication when their names are called by the Clerk in alphabetical order.
The Clerk will now proceed to record the votes.
[(proc text) Thereupon, the Clerk read out the names of Members Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis, Ms He Ting Ru, Ms Sylvia Lim seated in the Speaker's Gallery, one at a time, for them to indicate their votes. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: The manual voting is completed. We will now proceed with the electronic voting for Members seated within the Bar of the House. These Members should only start to vote when the voting buttons on their armrest start to blink. Please proceed to vote.
Members are advised to check that their names are registered according to their vote indication when the electronic voting results are shown on the display screens. Again, these results do not include the votes taken manually from the Members seated in the Speaker's Gallery and the final results are subject to the addition of these votes.
Before I proceed to declare the results of the vote, are there any Members who wish to claim that his or her vote has not been recorded correctly?
Mr Don Wee (Chua Chu Kang): I am registering my vote as \"Yes\".
Mr Speaker: It is registered as \"Yes\". Is that correct?
Mr Don Wee: Thank you.
Mr Speaker: I will now proceed to declare the voting results. There are 93 \"Ayes\"; three \"Noes\"; and zero \"Abstentions\". The \"Ayes\" have it.
[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Post-Appeal Applications in Capital Cases Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Law (Ms Rahayu Mahzam) (for the Minister for Law): Mr Speaker, Sir, on behalf of the Minister for Law, I beg to move, “That the Bill be now read a Second time”.
The Government has made important changes to the criminal justice system in recent years, towards a more progressive, balanced and modern criminal justice system that delivers just outcomes and protects society from crime. What we are putting forward before you today are measures to provide a process for post-appeal applications in capital cases.
Post-appeal applications in capital cases are applications that are filed by a prisoner awaiting capital punishment, or PACP, after all avenues of appeal have been exhausted. Normally, given that all appeals have been exhausted, there will be no further applications possible. These amendments provide a process for making such applications.
Let me first explain the context of such post-appeal applications.
Today, capital cases are governed by a rigorous process with multiple safeguards.
First, all persons facing capital charges are offered free legal representation under the Legal Assistance Scheme for Capital Offences, at trial and on appeal.
Second, capital trials can only be heard in the General Division of the High Court, or HC. The accused can only be found guilty of a capital charge if the Prosecution leads evidence and proves its case at trial, even if the accused does not contest the charge.
Third, where the HC imposes capital punishment, the accused is entitled to appeal to the Court of Appeal, or CA, against both the conviction and sentence. Even if the accused does not appeal or withdraws his appeal, the CA must still review the case and satisfy itself as to the correctness, legality and propriety of the conviction and sentence.
Fourth, even after the CA has confirmed the conviction and sentence, the PACP may apply for the case to be reviewed under Division 1B of Part 20 of the Criminal Procedure Code 2010, or the CPC, if the strict criteria for reviewing a concluded case are met.
Under our justice system, a person facing a capital charge has ample opportunity to raise any issues in relation to the charge and the sentence, and to have those issues considered by the Courts at the appropriate time. Our system allows justice to be done, where there are genuine issues to be dealt with. After the CA confirms the conviction and sentence, the PACP may also submit a petition to the President for clemency.
Finally, where the avenues of appeal have been exhausted, the lawfully imposed sentence will be carried out.
In recent years, there have been several instances where PACPs filed last-minute applications in capital cases, after all avenues of appeal have been exhausted. We are introducing this Bill to set out a process for such post-appeal applications in capital cases, to provide more clarity on the applicable court procedure for all parties involved. In the course of finalising the Bill, we consulted the Bar extensively, and took into consideration their feedback, in arriving at the final version of the Bill.
I will now go through the key amendments in the Bill.
Clause 2 introduces a new procedure in the Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969, or SCJA, for post-appeal applications in capital cases, or PACC applications. A PACC application is an application that meets two criteria.
First, the application was made by a PACP after the relevant date, which is either (a) the date when the capital sentence was imposed, upheld or confirmed by the CA, or (b) if there was an earlier application for permission to make a PACC application, or an earlier PACC application, by the PACP that has been decided, the date of the most recent decision. This makes clear that the new procedure applies to applications filed by a PACP after the appeal in the capital case has concluded or the capital sentence has been confirmed.
Second, either (a) the application is for a stay of execution of the capital sentence, or (b) the determination of the application calls into question, or may call into question, the propriety of the conviction of, the imposition of the capital sentence on, or the carrying out of the capital sentence on, the PACP. PACC applications do not include review applications under the CPC. Review applications are applications to review an earlier decision of an appellate court and will continue to be governed by a separate procedure under the CPC. A PACP must obtain the CA’s permission before he may file a PACC application. The procedure to apply for the CA’s permission is set out under the new section 60G of the SCJA.
In deciding whether to grant permission, the CA is to consider four matters.
First, whether the intended PACC application is based on material that could not have been adduced in Court before the relevant date, even with reasonable diligence.
Second, whether there was any delay in applying for permission after the material was obtained, and the reasons for the delay.
Third, whether the prescribed supporting documents have been filed within the prescribed time. These will include supporting affidavit(s) by the PACP’s counsel, or by the PACP, if he is unrepresented. The affidavit is to state, among others, the grounds for the application and the reasons for not filing the application earlier.
Fourth, whether the intended PACC application has a reasonable prospect of success.
Even if these four matters are not satisfied, the CA will have the discretion to grant permission for the application if it thinks fit. If permission is granted, the PACC application must then be made to the CA, and fixed for hearing, within the prescribed periods. The applicable procedure at this stage is set out under the new section 60H of the SCJA. Having the CA directly hear PACC applications provides a streamlined procedure for such applications, while still allowing these applications to be ventilated before the apex court.
If there is already an application for PACC permission, or a PACC application, pending determination, the PACP cannot make a subsequent application for PACC permission or PACC application unless the PACP has obtained the permission of the coram dealing with the pending application. This is provided for under the new section 60I of the SCJA. This ensures that the coram hearing the pending application is fully apprised of all the relevant circumstances or issues that the PACP wishes to raise and is able to deal with the matter holistically.
When a PACP files any application or action in a Court other than the CA, the new section 60J of the SCJA allows the CA to determine whether the application is, or the action contains, an application for PACC permission or a PACC application. If it so determines, the CA can deal with the application or action accordingly. This reduces any potential delay to proceedings. In line with the procedure for PACC applications, which must be made to the CA, the new section 60L of the SCJA provides that a stay of execution of a capital sentence may only be granted by the CA.
The new section 60M of the SCJA provides that the CA may decide whether to make a finding that there has been an abuse of process in (a) a relevant application or (b) any other application or action in order to delay or frustrate the carrying out of the capital sentence. The finding may be made on the CA’s own motion or upon the application of the Attorney-General or Public Prosecutor. This is in line with the CA’s current powers to make findings of abuse of process.
In deciding whether to make a finding of an abuse of process, the CA may take additional evidence, and may inquire into and take into account whether the prescribed matters for the making of a PACC application or a review application have been satisfied.
Lastly, clause 3 provides for amendments to the CPC. These are primarily consequential amendments to align certain aspects of the procedure for review applications with the new procedure for PACC applications in clause 2.
Clause 3(a) also provides that a capital sentence may be carried out, unless (a) the President has ordered a respite; (b) the CA has granted a stay of execution; or (c) there is a pending application for permission to apply for a stay of execution, or an application for a stay of execution, that meets the specified criteria.
This amendment will provide clarity for all parties on when the sentence may be carried out. It also provides statutory protection to PACPs by prohibiting the carrying out of the capital sentence – even without a stay of execution – where there is a pending application for permission to apply for a stay of execution, or an application for a stay of execution that meets the specified criteria. The amendments will provide greater clarity and guidance on the process and considerations which PACPs and their counsel should have regard to when making post-appeal applications. The amendments also do not affect access to justice. PACPs are not prevented from filing their applications and ventilating their arguments in Court. Sir, on behalf of the Minister for Law, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.
Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, the death penalty and the collateral criminal justice processes can be highly emotive matters, particularly after an appeal against the death penalty fails. But the varied considerations do not just include the rights of the condemned prisoner. There are other stakeholders in the criminal justice process. These include the rights of victims, the demand for fairness in the judicial system and the desire that Singapore remains safe for all.
For a prisoner awaiting capital punishment, the arguments are not academic discussions of principle but, literally, a matter of life and death. Prior to the introduction of this Bill, and after the Government indicated that it was considering introducing post-appeal procedures for capital cases, I authored an op-ed in our local press on the mandatory death penalty. One point I made was to leave the matter of late applications to the Courts and allow cost orders to be the appropriate sanction. My concern was that the legislative changes proposed would either significantly curtail or prohibit post-appeal applications. If this Bill was meant to close off the possibility of new evidence being heard or new legal arguments being made in post-appeal applications in capital cases, or PACCs, the Workers' Party would vote against this Bill.
Because of the irreversibility of the death penalty, lawyers should not be unduly fettered from advancing arguments to ensure that justice is done and their clients are saved from the noose. But I note that new material in the form of evidence and legal arguments are not prohibited by the proposals before the House today. The Court of Appeal is to be empowered under the Bill to take new evidence. While this Bill may appear to some as putting a spanner in the works for lawyers who wish to file PACCs, in my view, it serves to regulate the process better and does not close off defences not heard at trial. As a matter of principle, I do not see this Bill as hampering legal counsel who represent their clients dutifully.
The regulation of the PACC process has come into focus arising from the reality of vexatious applications. When I say, \"come into focus\", I am not talking only about the sterile procedural aspects of PACCs. The point here is that PACCs cause profound human effects. One cannot discount the reality of these applications taking their toll on the prisoner, their spouses, their children, their parents, their extended families and their friends. If the hopes created by PACCs are reasonably achievable hopes, natural justice demands that we do not close any door to them.
However, in cases of vexatious applications, which have a zero chance of success, then the hopes are wickedly false, if the lawyers are aware of that fact. While these prisoners are persons who have been convicted of crimes and who have exhausted their avenues of appeal, we must do right by them as that reflects what we want to be as a society. If I can sum it up in one word, what most of us want in the system is fairness.
Fairness must be a guiding principle in scrutinising all procedures relating to the death penalty. Of course, some may argue that it is not fair at all for the state to take the life of any person. But that is not the discussion for today. The mandatory death penalty is in our statutes for now. That may change as society or circumstances change. Our purpose today is to look at a sliver of the process and consider the just and fair handling of PACCs.
In the interest of achieving a fair process for PACCs, I have a few clarifications about the Bill. My first clarification relates to the statement made by the MinLaw spokesman and quoted The Straits Times of 7 November. The spokesman said, and I quote, \"The proposed amendments will clearly set out the process for such applications and the Court will have discretion to allow challenges, even if they do not comply with this process\".
May I ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary what is this discretion referred to here and what is its extent? Is the spokesman merely referring to the provisions in the proposed section 60J, under which the Court of Appeal may treat an application in another Court as a PACC application? If not, could the Senior Parliamentary Secretary clarify?
My second clarification concerns the proposed section 60J(7) which provides the matters the Court of Appeal must consider in deciding whether to grant an application for PACC permission. In particular, the matter for consideration in section 60G(7)(d) is whether the PACC application has a reasonable prospect for success. I would like to confirm if the legislative intent is for para (7)(d) to set a threshold standard or is section 60G(7)(d) merely one of four factors which must be considered but which may be overriden by other considerations at the discretion of the Court of Appeal judge?
Mdm Deputy Speaker, if it is meant to be a threshold standard, it could set a high bar that may prevent the applicant from even making a meritorious main application under section 60H. As such, I would like to clarify if the threshold standard required here is that of an arguable case and if this would represent the legislative intent insofar as section 60G(7)(d) is concerned?
If section 60G(7)(d) is not meant to be a threshold standard but merely a consideration which could possibly be disregarded if an arguable case comes before the Court, I would suggest that this be confirmed in the Senior Parliamentary Secretary's round-up speech.
My third clarification concerns the phrase \"even with reasonable diligence\" used in the proposed section 60G(7)(a), section 60G(15)(c) and more than once in section 60M. May I ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary what is the intention in using the word \"even\" in the phrase \"even with reasonable diligence\"? My reading is that the use of the word \"even\" suggests that reasonable diligence is being compared with a higher standard, say due diligence. Is that the intention? If so, then to the extent that it endeavours to set a reachable standard, I do not object to it. If the Senior Parliamentary Secretary can clarify this, then, should the Bill be passed, it would make clear to the Court of Appeal the legislative intent is to set a lower standard than that of due diligence.
The use of the term \"reasonable diligence\" brings me to my fourth clarification. The proposed section 60G(15) provides that where there has been abuse of process, the Court of Appeal, I quote, \"must not\" grant the application for PACC permission. This is unless evidence or legal arguments are presented that were not adduced before the finding of abuse of process and evidence or legal arguments could not even with reasonable diligence have been adduced in Court before the finding. The phrase used is \"must not\", which can only mean that the Court of Appeal judge has no discretion in the matter.
Here, Madam, there is a need to distinguish between the prisoner and the lawyer representing that prisoner. It is possible to conceive of a situation where the lawyer who made the prior application, which was an abuse of process, was not thorough enough in raising evidence or legal arguments that were reasonably available. The prisoner then changes lawyers and the new, more diligent lawyer then raises the evidence and legal arguments which were available previously but not raised.
In such a possible scenario, based on the Bill before us, due to section 60G(15)(d), the Court of Appeal must not grant the application for PACC permission. In such a scenario, it would appear that the Court of Appeal will have no discretion to take into consideration such a situation. May I ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary whether such a scenario was considered when the Bill was drafted and if it was, how does it relate to the proposed section 60G(15) (d)?
The remedy against the lawyer who did not raise the arguments could be a personal cost order. But the prisoner should not be unfairly prejudiced. May I ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary why the words \"must not\" were used? Is it necessary to remove the Court of Appeal's discretion in this case?
Mdm Deputy Speaker, all my clarifications seek to promote fair outcomes for all parties, which I am sure is also the intention of the Government. I look forward to hearing the Senior Parliamentary Secretary's responses. Subject to the replies to my queries, I support the Bill.
Mdm Deputy Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Madam, this Bill will introduce a new process for post-appeal applications in capital case (PACC) to safeguard our Court processes.
The new provisions will clarify the procedures for PACCs and the factors that the Court has to consider in granting permission.
Given the serious nature of capital cases, it is critical that due process is in place to ensure that meritorious applications by prisoners awaiting capital punishment are heard. Such processes and the grounds for any decisions must be clear and transparent.
I have three points of clarifications.
My first point is on the powers of the Court of Appeal to take additional evidence. A number of provisions in the Bill allow the Court of Appeal to take additional evidence. These situations include where the Court of Appeal is considering an application for permission to make a PACC application, is hearing a PACC application, is considering whether an application is a PACC application and is determining if there is an abuse of process.
Can the Senior Parliamentary Secretary clarify whether the Court’s power to take additional evidence is exercisable only of the Court’s own motion or whether a party can apply for the Court to exercise its power to take additional evidence?
Can the Senior Parliamentary Secretary also share on what grounds or in what circumstances will the Court exercise its power to take additional evidence?
If it is open to a party to apply to Court to take additional evidence, can the Senior Parliamentary Secretary clarify on what grounds can the application be made by a party?
My second point is what the standard of reasonable prospect of success entails. The Court is required to consider whether the PACC application has a reasonable prospect of success in deciding whether or not to grant an application for PACC permission.
To provide more clarity on what constitutes a “reasonable prospect of success”, can the Senior Parliamentary Secretary share how this standard compares to the other standards articulated by the Court?
My third point is on the meaning of abuse of process. Under section 60G(15)(c), the Court of Appeal must not grant an application for PACC permission if the applicant is found to have abused the process of court.
The Court of Appeal also has the power to make a finding of abuse of process. In the case of Syed Suhail bin Syed Zin vs Attorney-General, the Court found that while the defence counsel brought the review application to acquit Syed of the death penalty, this was by itself insufficient to find a collateral purpose amounting to an abuse of process. The Court observed that more would be needed to suggest that the intended outcome is in itself an abuse of process. Can the Senior Parliamentary Secretary clarify what factors the Court should consider if determining an application is an abuse of process?
Madam, notwithstanding these clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.
Mdm Deputy Speaker: Leader.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Exempted Business","subTitle":"Business Motion","sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Resolved, \"That the proceedings on the business set down on the Order Paper for today be exempted at this day's Sitting from the provisions of Standing Order No 2.\" – [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":"Post-appeal Applications in Capital Cases Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]
Mdm Deputy Speaker: Ms Hany Soh.
Ms Hany Soh (Marsiling-Yew Tee): Mdm Deputy Speaker, thank you for allowing me to speak on this Bill. I would first like to declare that I am a practising lawyer.
As Senior Parliamentary Secretary Rahayu had shared earlier, in Singapore, an accused person being charged with a capital offence will typically be offered free legal representation at trial and/or appeal through the Supreme Court's Legal Assistance Scheme for Capital Offences, in short LASCO, regardless of his or her nationality and means.
The accused persons would then be assigned by the LASCO case assignment panel with a lead counsel with at least seven years of legal practice, who have represented parties in several capital trials and appeals before the Court of Appeal against conviction and trial or acquittal.
Second, an assisting counsel with at least five years of legal practice and have represented parties in capital trials. And sometimes, also with a junior assisting counsel with experience in criminal trial procedure.
This team of assigned lawyers is expected to put forward the client's instructions to the best of their ability at the earliest opportunity through making representations to the prosecution, in the hope that the charge can be reduced to a non-capital one. If unsuccessful, they would proceed to put up a strongest possible defence at trial.
In the event that the trial judge is not with the defence and finds the accused to be guilty, deliberations will be made whether an appeal ought to be made against the conviction on the basis that the trial judge might have either made an error of law or an error of fact in reaching his decision.
As the procedure develops to this stage and beyond, you will often find that the defence case is evidentially weak and chances of succeeding becomes even slimmer. While counsels might have advised the convicted person on this, the convicted persons may, at times, still insist and instruct his lawyers to explore further court proceeding options. Grasping at straws, while prolonging their time away from facing the gallows, such futile exercises would invariably cause much time and resources to be wasted. Ordering of personal costs, as one Member has suggested earlier, may be futile as PACPs more often than not, are of limited means.
I therefore support this Bill, which seeks to deal with post-appeal applications in a capital case with a prisoner awaiting capital punishment, by introducing new procedures with enhanced safeguards for post-appeal applications. However, I wish to take this opportunity to seek the following clarifications.
Firstly, in relation to legal representation. Typically, LASCO’s assignment will end in the event mitigation has been made by counsel and sentence has been given by the Court or when the case has been delisted from the Supreme Court – for example, when the prosecution eventually offers to reduce the charge to a non-capital one and be dealt with at the State Court’s jurisdiction instead – or when Presidential clemency has already been sought after the accused has been convicted of the capital offence.
In this instance, would the LASCO scheme be extended to cover applications for PACC permission and PACC which may have occurred at a much later date after Presidential clemency has already been sought but rejected?
The next question is in relation to whether one, three or five Court of Appeal judges to decide on PACC matters. Pursuant to the new section 60G(2) of the SCJA, the application for permission may be heard by a single judge exercising the Court of Appeal’s jurisdiction. The SCJA also empowers for such application to be dealt with by three or any greater uneven number of judges sitting in the Court of Appeal. In this aspect, I wish to seek the Senior Parliamentary Secretary's clarification: under what circumstances would one, three or even five Court of Appeal judges be assigned to hear application for permission to make PACC application as well as PACC application?
Whilst I understand the efficiency in getting just one Court of Appeal judge to hear and make a decision, we have witnessed on several occasions where landmark cases were made when Court of Appeal judges have dissenting views amongst themselves. The fact that such application for PACC may constitute a last-ditch attempt to prevent a possibility of miscarriage of justice means it might be prudent to have at least three Court of Appeal judges hear such applications.
Finally, in relation to the right to seek clarifications. In the event a single judge has been tasked to decide on the application for permission and/or the PACC application, I understand from the new section 60G(8) and section 60H(6) of the SCJA that such applications may be summarily addressed without an oral hearing.
In such situations where the Court of Appeal judge has refused the application, I hope that a substantive written decision will be given to explain the basis of the decision. I would also suggest that there be liberty for PACP or his/her counsel to write in to seek clarifications and make further submissions to convince the judge otherwise. As per Lord Hewart, the then Lord Chief Justice of England, “Justice must not only be done, but must also be seen to be done”. Mdm Deputy Speaker, notwithstanding my requests for clarifications and suggestions, I stand in support of this Bill.
Mdm Deputy Speaker: Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim.
Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim (Chua Chu Kang): Mdm Deputy Speaker, if I may quote from the Court of Appeal judgment in the case of Datchinamurthy earlier this year: \"When a prisoner has been sentenced to the death penalty and is to be deprived of his life, he does not necessarily lose his other legal rights. Among other things, the exercise of discretion by the State in scheduling his execution is subject to legal limits, including the usual principles of judicial review and the fundamental liberties protected by the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore\".
Those where the words of Justice of Appeal Andrew Phang, a luminary legal giant who was honoured by members of the Judiciary, legal professionals and our greater community in his valedictory reference at the Supreme Court yesterday, which I attended.
When I was just a young law student, I observed a capital case hearing in the old Supreme Court Building – just next door. It was my first time attending any Court hearing. I was surprised when just before the sentencing, all of us in the courtroom was ordered to stand. I understood it as a mark of respect before the death penalty was handed down. The entire hearing also showed me how the system upholds the sanctity of life and the important role played by everyone – judges, prosecutors, and defence counsel – before anyone is deprived of his or her life. It was a moment that I remember till today.
It is thus not unsurprising that in capital offence cases, there is not only a thorough trial and appellate process where the Courts are careful and meticulous in sifting through the evidence and arguments, but there is also comprehensive support such as pro bono legal assistance through LASCO.
However, recently there have been many post-appeal applications in capital cases, also known as PACCs, which take up many years and judicial resources. Some of these PACCs were still being filed seven to 13 years after the first conviction. These PACCs take up not only judicial time and resources but in actual fact they have robbed the convicted inmates, and most importantly, their families, of what is left in their lifetime, and victims' families of a time for closure and peace.
This Bill ensures that in respect of PACC applications, there is a balance between due process and rights of PACP and also preventing the resources of the state from being unduly wasted by frivolous PACC applications. It is against this backdrop that I stand to speak today.
Mdm Deputy Speaker, I will touch on three points in my speech. First, on due process – how the Bill can ensure that the accused or PACP can be assured of due process in PACCs. Second, on liability of solicitors who are representing PACPs. Third, on what we can do together beyond this Bill to ensure that more awareness can be raised in relation to our criminal justice system.
First, on due process. The new process for a single judge hearing a PACC will save a significant amount of judicial time. This also means that it will be easier for the scheduling of court hearing on an urgent basis. However, a single judge hearing may give the impression that these PACCs are of lesser importance.
Since these PACCs are the PACP's last resort, perhaps we should require more safeguards than just one judge presiding over the PACC hearing. This is a point made by hon Member Ms Hany Soh too.
With the use of virtual hearing and technology, it is not difficult to convene a hearing with coram of two or three judges online. Perhaps it can also be clarified that for PACC of a certain degree of complexity, there can be more than one judge. To ensure efficiency, guillotine time or specific time limits for oral submissions and page limits for written submissions can be set prior to PACCs.
To borrow from the practice of international arbitration, the Courts can also set a memorandum of important issues to be address at the hearing so as to focus the judicial time on pertinent issues of relevance and materiality to the outcome of the PACC.
Separately, given the time-sensitive nature of the PACC, I hope that there will be assurance that such applications shall be heard urgently and that the AGC and its prosecutors will do their utmost best to achieve this as well.
Next, on the liability of solicitors representing the PACPs. Many defence counsel in these cases are doing it pro bono or on LASCO scheme. They are playing an important part in our criminal justice system. We owe a debt of gratitude to them appreciate their key role and contributions. Inevitably, the role of counsel comes under the spotlight in PACC applications where there tend be an abuse of process of delay in making such applications.
However, not all blame lies on the solicitor. Take for example, in cases where counsel has already advised the PACP that the chance of success is low, but the PACP insists on making such an application. In such a case, I hope that it will be made clear that any costs liability will be borne by the PACP and not counsel, except in egregious abuse of process cases caused by the solicitors.
The imposition of personal cost orders against counsel comes under the Criminal Procedure Code whereby lawyers who file applications that are frivolous or vexatious or otherwise an abuse of the process of the Court may have cost sanctions imposed on them. However, the Court of Appeal in the recent case of Iskandar bin Rahmat has recently held that a high threshold must be met before adverse cost orders may be imposed.
In the future perhaps the Ministry can consider codifying the narrow situations in which costs penalty may be considered against any counsel for clarity.
Another scenario is where new solicitors have just taken over conduct of the matter. Some PACPs are known to discharge solicitors and engage new ones at the last moment. In such cases, costs liability should be on the PACP. This is because counsel would be place in the most difficult position at the cost submissions or hearing because he or she cannot divulge or breach solicitor-client privilege. Where the PACCs are not conducted on a pro bono basis or on LASCO, a suggestion perhaps is to require the PACP to furnish security or undertaking for costs if certain requirements are met. This is nothing new in the civil appellate practice.
I hope these suggestions will encourage more defence counsel and pro bono LASCO lawyers who will step forward to contribute.
I now turn to raising awareness internationally. Under International law, the death penalty is not prohibited, whether by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) or any other international treaty. In Singapore, capital punishment is only applied to the most serious crimes that cause grave harm to others and to society.
In this regard, I also note the United Nations Human Rights Office of the Commissioner issued a statement in 1984 on the safeguards guaranteeing protection of the rights of those facing the death penalty. In particular, paragraph 6 of the safeguards stated that steps should be taken to ensure that appeals from a death sentence shall become mandatory. Paragraph 8 states: \"Capital punishment shall not be carried out pending any appeal or other recourse procedure or other proceeding relating to pardon or commutation of the sentence\".
In my view, this PACC Bill which further clarifies the due process beyond the appellate process is consistent with not only international law standards but also the safeguards aforesaid.
However, we can do more to raise awareness of the approach towards capital offences in our jurisdiction. For foreign PACPs, what are the measures that can be done to engage foreign embassies and governments on our approach towards PACPs who are foreign citizens? On a people-to-people level, what more can be done to raise such awareness?
One suggestion, perhaps, would be for our law schools or even the Judiciary to host foreign law students on exchange and expose them to the inner workings of criminal justice system. I hope that the foreign students or delegation will, having seen us up close, can better understand Singapore's context and criminal justice system on such capital offences.
Notwithstanding the clarifications, Mdm Deputy Speaker, I stand in support of the Bill.
Mdm Deputy Speaker: Senior Parliamentary Secretary Rahayu Mahzam.
Ms Rahayu Mahzam: Thank you, Mdm Deputy Speaker. I thank the Members who spoke in support of the Bill. I would like to address the questions that had been raised earlier.
Firstly, on Mr Pritam Singh's questions on the threshold. With regards to the first clarification that he raised, what was meant is that the Bill merely provides that the Court must consider the matters in section, 60G(7). The Court retains discretion to grant permission even if any or all the matters are not met. The Bill sets out the conditions to be satisfied and the procedures to be followed and is enabling in nature. This is to advance the interests of justice.
The statement by the spokesman referred to by Mr Singh, made the point that ultimately the Court will retain some discretion because the Bill does not absolutely rule out the exercise of such discretion.
Parliament's intention is that such applications where the conditions in this Bill have not been satisfied should generally not succeed given the legislative intent expressed through the Bill to set up a process to be followed. The Court will exercise considerable care because there is finality, because we do not want to rule out the possibility.
The framework sets out what the Court will consider and it is likely to be extremely rare for the Court to go beyond this. So, the intention is for the framework to be followed.
Mr Singh had a second question on the point of \"must not\" in section 60G(15).
The provision on abuse is about abuse by the applicant, not by the lawyer. When they have previously abused the process, we think that section 60G(15) is a fair requirement because the Court can still grant permission if the requirements in section 60G(15)(c) and (d) are met, which are reasonable requirements.
On the third point about reasonable diligence, this is a factor for the Courts to consider when deciding whether the evidence and arguments in the application could have been brought earlier. And this is not a new requirement – it is already in Division 1B of the CPC.
Mr Louis Ng had asked whether the Court's power to take additional evidence can only be exercised on its own motion and about the grounds on which the Court would exercise this power.
The Court's power to take additional evidence is exercisable on the Court's own motion, or upon a party's application. The Court has discretion to decide whether to take additional evidence. Depending on the facts, possible matters that the Court may take into account could include the nature of the additional evidence and its relevance to the issues before the Court.
Ultimately, this is a matter of judicial discretion.
Mr Ng had also asked for more clarity on the meaning of the \"reasonable prospect of success\", which Mr Pritam Singh also touched on.
The phrase \"reasonable prospect of success\" is meant to clarify that in deciding whether to grant permission to make a PACC application, the CA is to consider the merits of the intended PACC application. However, as the phrase makes clear, the CA is not required to conduct a full determination of the merits when deciding whether to grant permission to make a PACC application.
Ultimately, the CA will be guided by the language of the provision, which is whether the intended PACC application has a reasonable prospect of success. To this end, it may not be helpful to focus on the standards mentioned by Mr Ng because these have been developed in different contexts and it may not be applicable to the PACC application. Moreover, as I mentioned earlier, the CA has the discretion to grant permission to make a PACC application even if the CA is not satisfied that the intended PACC application has a reasonable prospect of success.
Mr Ng had also asked for clarification on the factors that the Court should consider when determining whether an application is an abuse of process.
Under the new sections 60G(15)(c) and (d) of the SCJA, even when there was a prior abuse of process finding, as I mentioned earlier, the CA may grant an application for PACC permission if: one, the PACP adduces material that was not adduced in court before the date of the most recent finding of abuse of process; and two, the material could not, even with reasonable diligence, have been adduced in court before that date.
The new section 60M(2) of the SCJA sets out, non-exhaustively, some matters that the Court may take into account in deciding whether to make a finding of abuse. For example, the Court may consider whether the application is based on material that could not have been adduced before the relevant date, even with reasonable diligence.
Ms Hany Soh and Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim raised questions about the coram for applications for PACC permission.
A PACC application cannot be heard and determined by a single Judge. Only an application for permission to make a PACC application can be heard and determined by a single Judge. Having a single Judge hear the application for permission to make a PACC application reflects the fact that, at this stage, the Court is only deciding whether permission to make the PACC application should be granted, and the Court is not required to conduct a full determination of the merits of the PACC application.
In a related vein, under the existing section 394H of the CPC, an application for permission to make a review application in respect of a decision of the CA is to be heard by a single judge sitting in the Court of Appeal.
Further, even in the case of an application for permission to make a PACC application, the CA has discretion in each matter whether to convene a coram of three Judges or a greater uneven number of Judges. Depending on the facts, a possible matter that the Court may take into account could be an issue raised in the application. And ultimately, this is a matter of judicial discretion.
Mr Zhulkarnain offered some suggestions to ensure the efficient use of judicial time for PACC applications. In line with Mr Zhulkarnain's suggestions, the Bill expressly allows the Court to make any incidental directions or give any interim orders as considered necessary for the management of the case, including a stay of execution of the capital sentence.
And as to Mr Zhulkarnain's point about the time-sensitive nature of such applications, the cases have shown that the Courts hear them urgently. For example, when a criminal motion was filed on 25 April 2022, two days before the PACP's scheduled execution, the Court heard the matter the very next day, on 26 April 2022.
Ms Hany Soh asked about the written grounds of decision and whether the applicant can seek clarifications and make further submissions after applications are summarily dismissed. The Bill requires the CA to consider the applicant's written submissions, if any, before summarily refusing an application. The CA has discretion to decide whether it will issue a judgment or grounds of decision together with or following the issuance of the written order. Any consequential matters raised will be dealt with by the CA.
Ms Soh had also asked about whether LASCO will be extended to cover PACC applications. Any such extension will have to be carefully studied in consultation with the relevant stakeholders before a decision is taken.
Mr Zhulkarnain asked about costs orders against lawyers. All lawyers have a duty to conscientiously assess the merits of a case before engaging in court proceedings. If the lawyer thinks there is no merit but the PACP insists on making the application, the lawyer should decline to act. The Courts have observed that the filing of ill-considered and baseless applications by lawyers cannot be justified on the basis that the PACP faces a capital sentence.
There are well-established principles on when a personal costs order can be made against a lawyer. It is for the Courts, in the exercise of judicial discretion, to determine whether to make a personal costs order against a lawyer. In such cases, the lawyer will have the opportunity to be heard.
Mr Zhulkarnain has highlighted the importance of raising international awareness and understanding of Singapore's approach to capital offences. We agree that this is important. Criticisms of Singapore's approach are often based on misconceptions and inaccurate facts. Singapore actively engages in international fora such as the UN, as well as bilaterally to address misconceptions and explain our approach. We will continue to engage and raise awareness and I thank Mr Zhulkarnain for his suggestions on how we can do so.
I believe I have answered the questions raised by the Members. With that, Madam, I beg to move.
Mdm Deputy Speaker: Are there any clarifications? None.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Ms Rahayu Mahzam]. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Resolved, \"That Parliament do now adjourn to 12.00 noon tomorrow.\" — [Ms Indranee Rajah]. (proc text)]
Adjourned accordingly at 7.06 pm.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Owners of HDB Shophouses who Rent Out Their Units","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"20 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for National Development (a) how many owners of HDB shophouses are currently not operating businesses in their shophouse and are renting out their shophouse; and (b) of these, how many are foreigners.
Mr Desmond Lee: HDB sold shops in the 1980s and 1990s to promote entrepreneurship and ownership of commercial properties. HDB has discontinued the sale of HDB shops in 1998 and rents out shops to businesses directly, for better trade curation and to ensure affordability of essential goods and services for residents. Today, about 8,500 of the nearly 15,200 HDB shops are sold.
As HDB shops were sold purely on commercial terms with no government subsidies, the shops are treated in a similar manner to private commercial properties and shop owners need not inform HDB when they rent out their shops. HDB hence does not have data on whether the private owners rent out their shops in part or entirely.
From our recently concluded Heartland Shops Study (HSS), of the businesses surveyed at sold shops, 25% were owner operated while the remaining 75% were rented out.
Based on HDB’s records at the point of sale or resale of the sold shop, about 99% of sold HDB shops are owned by Singaporeans or Singapore Permanent Residents. Foreign ownership makes up the remaining very small proportion.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"SkillsFuture Accreditation for Tertiary Education Providers and Instructors","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"23 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Education whether the Ministry will consider reducing the hurdle rate for experienced tertiary education providers, such as university lecturers and professors, to acquire SkillsFuture accreditation.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: To raise the quality of adult training and education in Singapore, SkillsFuture Singapore (SSG) sets out Adult Educators (AE) Qualifications Requirements that apply to Training Providers providing SSG-funded certifiable courses.
To support the Training and Adult Education (TAE) sector in meeting these requirements, the Institute for Adult Learning (IAL) offers Singapore Workforce Qualification (WSQ) programmes for adult educators that are in line with the TAE Skills Framework. An example would be IAL’s WSQ Advanced Certificate in Learning and Performance (ACLP), which equips adult educators with skills for classroom-based learning design, delivery and assessment, and emerging areas such as facilitating technology-enabled learning and workplace learning. The WSQ ACLP is offered in a modular format to enable flexible, just-in-time upskilling for existing adult educators.
Adult educators with prior relevant experience can seek credit exemption for the WSQ ACLP modules from IAL if they have comparable TAE qualifications and can produce evidence of relevant practice and experience.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Streamlining Process for Online Application of HDB Flats with Real-time Information and Level of Subsidy for Each Applicant","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"24 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for National Development in respect of applications for HDB BTO flats, what are the steps that HDB takes to continually streamline and improve the online application experience for users, including real-time information on the number of applications submitted, and subsidies or grants available to a specific user.
Mr Desmond Lee: HDB strives to provide relevant and timely information to would-be flat buyers, so that they can make informed decisions when applying for a flat in the sales exercises.
HDB provides a range of e-services on their website. These e-services help flat applicants check their eligibility to buy an HDB flat and estimate their housing budget, based on details they provide, before they apply for a flat.
For each Build-To-Order (BTO) sales launch, HDB also provides the indicative prices and details of the projects on the HDB Flat Portal, as well as resale market comparables, to help applicants make a considered decision on the project they could, and wish to, apply for.
Throughout the application period, HDB also provides regular updates on the flat application rates for each BTO project. We encourage flat applicants to refer to the information and apply for a project with a lower application rate to improve their chances of securing a flat. Based on past launches, about 40% of invited flat applicants do not proceed to book a flat. Therefore, an application rate of not more than 1.7 times would give flat applicants a good chance of securing a flat.
We wish to assure the Member that HDB regularly reviews and improves its systems, to enhance user experience. For instance, for the November 2022 sales launch, HDB rolled out a virtual waiting room feature on the flat application webpage. Should there be many applicants accessing the system at once, applicants will be directed to the virtual waiting room and given a real-time indication of how long they would need to wait before proceeding to the next step of their application. This has helped to smoothen the application process and provided more certainty to flat applicants on the estimated waiting time before they can submit their online applications.
As part of HDB’s continuous improvement towards better service delivery, HDB welcomes public feedback on the user experience for the services and information provided. We would be glad to take in useful suggestions from the public to ensure a good service experience for all.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Trends for Children Remaining in Places of Safety, and in Boys' Home and Girls' Home","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"25 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) in the past five years, what is the annual average and median lengths of time that children remain in (i) places of safety and (ii) the Singapore Boys' Home or Singapore Girls’ Home; and (b) if the data is not available, whether there is an increasing or decreasing trend in the average and median lengths of time that children remain in places of safety and the Singapore Boys' Home or Singapore Girls’ Home.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Children and young persons (CYPs) in need of care or protection may be referred by MSF or ordered by the Youth Court to reside in a place of safety. MSF’s Youth Homes, namely the Singapore Boys’ Home and Singapore Girls’ Home are also places of safety under the Children and Young Persons Act.
From 2017 to 2021, the average duration of stay for such CYPs ranged from 1.8 years to 2.2 years, and the median duration of stay ranged from 1.4 years to 1.6 years. The durations were relatively stable with no indication of an increasing or decreasing trend.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Lowering Singapore's Voting Age to 18","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"26 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Prime Minister whether there has been any reconsideration of lowering the voting age to 18 years.
Mr Chan Chun Sing (for the Prime Minister): The considerations for keeping our voting age at 21 have not changed. The replies to questions from Dr Lim Wee Kiak and Ms He Ting Ru that I gave in this House in August 2019 and October 2021 respectively still stand.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Conflicts in Execution between Singapore and Foreign Lasting Power of Attorney","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"27 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) how many cases commenced under the Mental Capacity Act 2008 involved a conflict between a Singapore Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA) and a foreign LPA executed by the same donor; (b) whether the Government intends to enhance our laws to recognise and enforce foreign LPAs and foreign mental capacity proceedings; (c) whether Singapore will ratify the 2000 Hague Convention on the International Protection of Adults; and (d) if not, why not.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The Government does not track the number of court cases involving a conflict between a Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA) made under Singapore’s Mental Capacity Act and a foreign LPA executed by the same donor.
We have no plans to amend our laws to recognise and enforce foreign LPAs and foreign mental capacity proceedings, or to ratify the 2000 Hague Convention on the International Protection of Adults to achieve the same end. This is because the requirements to make an LPA may differ greatly from country to country, and it is important to us that there are robust safeguards in place for Singaporeans to make an LPA to ensure that the interests of the donor will be protected.
Parties who wish to have a foreign LPA recognised or enforced in Singapore, or to resolve a conflict between an LPA made in Singapore and a foreign LPA, may seek their own legal advice.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Retention of Manual Payment Methods for Seniors","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"28 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Prime Minister with the recent update that 99% of all Government transactions can now be done digitally (a) how will the Government ensure that there remains manual payment methods for seniors who have difficulties with digital payments; and (b) with constant threats from increasingly sophisticated cyber scams, whether such total digitalisation will put our seniors at greater risk of scams.
Mrs Josephine Teo (for the Prime Minister): The Government serves a wide range of citizens. As more of them use and enjoy the benefits of digital tools in their daily lives, our services must also strive to offer comparable user experiences. This is a key impetus for government agencies to digitalise many transactions with citizens.
By and large, digitalised services have brought added convenience to the public as more transactions can be completed anytime, anywhere. Nonetheless, we recognise the need to support those who are not ready or unable to use digital services. Most government agencies provide in-person over-the-counter support or contact centre services to assist them. We have also set up ServiceSG centres where officers can guide and help citizens complete frequently used Government services across 20 agencies.
In addition, we recognise the need for continued availability of non-digital options for services that seniors regularly access. For example, physical CDC vouchers can be printed at community clubs and used for payment to participating merchants. In healthcare, patients at the 14 public hospitals continue to be able to make cash or NETS payment over the counter, even as digital options have become more widely used. Most also offer additional payment options, such as through 7-Eleven retail outlets, post offices, SAM or AXS kiosks.
Like the Member, we are concerned about the increased threats of scams. It is not only seniors who are scammed; victims come from all age groups. Scam tactics also vary and do not always rely on digital means.
The Government cannot realistically prevent citizens from falling prey to scams by avoiding digital services for public sector transactions, when so many of the transactions in their private lives have gone digital. We can instead seek to raise the level of security to make it harder for scammers to succeed. For example, with scams perpetrated through calls and SMSes, Senior Minister Teo Chee Hean explained, for the Parliament Sitting on 4 July 2022 [Please refer to \"Completion of Review of Use of SMS and Clickable Links for Government Agencies by Smart Nation Digital Government Group\", Official Report, 4 July 2022, Vol 95, Issue 63, Written Answers to Questions section.], the comprehensive set of measures to strengthen backend prevention, detection and mitigation measures that Government is implementing.
Public education is another critical plank of our anti-scam measures. For seniors in particular, the Singapore Police Force works with various stakeholders like Agency for Integrated Care (AIC) and RSVP Singapore to implement targeted programmes. The Cyber Security Agency of Singapore (CSA)’s SG Cyber Safe Seniors Programme also raises awareness and drives adoption of cyber hygiene practices amongst seniors. It has engaged more than 45,000 seniors since its launch; Programmes are also regularly reviewed and updated to ensure their relevance.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Using MediSave to Pay for Monthly Renal Dialysis Treatment","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"29 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Health whether CPF Board can exercise flexibility on a case-by-case basis for a person who wishes to draw down on his MediSave Account to pay for his spouse’s monthly renal dialysis treatment so long as he makes active monthly MediSave contributions even if his MediSave Account balance may be below what is required for his age.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Individuals can appeal to tap on their MediSave account to pay for their family member’s monthly renal dialysis treatment if their family member has insufficient MediSave balances, up to prevailing withdrawal limits. MOH assesses these appeals on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the affordability of the bill and expected impact of the withdrawals on the CPF member’s MediSave balances.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Phasing Out Paper Receipts to Reduce Paper Waste","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"30 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) whether the Ministry has studied the possibility of phasing out the issuance of paper receipts to reduce paper wastage; and (b) if not, whether such a study can be conducted locally.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: We have not studied the phasing out of paper receipts and there are no current plans to do so. The Government has introduced measures to increase the usage of electronic platforms for billing and invoicing, which would enhance productivity and reduce paper wastage. It has taken the lead and required electronic invoicing through the Vendors@Gov portal for suppliers transacting with the Government.
We encourage companies to adopt electronic invoicing with InvoiceNow, the nationwide e-invoicing platform that enables the direct transmission of invoices in a structured digital format across finance systems. Companies can also adopt best practices such as asking customers if they require a receipt or providing the option of a digital receipt. For instance, self-checkout counters at some supermarkets give customers the option not to print a receipt while some transport companies and retailers send receipts via email or in an app. We also encourage the public to switch to electronic bills and financial statements to replace hardcopies.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Temasek Holdings and GIC's Financial Losses from Investing in Cryptocurrency Platform FTX","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"33 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance in cases where large investment losses are made by Temasek Holdings and GIC, whether internal and external investigations are conducted to ascertain whether there is negligence or misconduct.
34 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) whether there is a Singapore equivalent of the Norwegian Ministry of Finance’s Council of Ethics for the observation and exclusion of companies from the Norwegian Government Pension Fund Global; and (b) if so, whether the list can be shared and maintained publicly for full accountability.
35 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) how does the Government monitor and assess the performance of Temasek Holdings and GIC; (b) whether monitoring and assessing their performance includes benchmarking their performance with those of other funds; and (c) if so, what are the funds against which Temasek Holdings and GIC are benchmarked against and how do they compare.
36 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) whether there are guidelines for the requisite sustainability and environmental due diligence and audits for state-linked investments locally and overseas; (b) whether there are guidelines for monitoring investments with potentially substantial climate change impact; and (c) how can state-linked investments continue to do their part and strengthen their contributions to make progress on global sustainability and environmental responsibility.
Mr Lawrence Wong: I thank the Members for the questions. I will address them 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":"Tracking of Dugong Population and Efforts to Conserve Its Numbers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"37 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether NParks is currently tracking the endangered dugong population and movements in coastal waters; and (b) what measures are being taken or planned to study and conserve unprotected seagrass meadows near Singapore's coast that form refuges for the dugong population and are critical nursery sites for other economically and ecologically important marine organisms.
Mr Desmond Lee: As part of the Nature Conservation Masterplan, NParks conducts regular surveys to monitor the health of our habitats and the biodiversity they support, including marine animals such as dugongs. To better detect the presence and prevalence of dugongs and other marine animals within our waters, NParks is working with researchers to pilot several remote monitoring methods, such as the use of environmental DNA and acoustic monitoring.
Since 2007, NParks has also been working with volunteers to monitor the health and extent of seagrass meadows near Singapore’s coast. We have also collaborated with industry and academia on research to better understand seagrass dispersal patterns, their resilience to environmental stressors such as changes in light availability, and their potential for restoration. Such research informs our efforts to conserve and enhance Singapore’s seagrass habitats, and contributes to the identification of core coastal habitats as part of NParks’ Ecological Profiling Exercise.
We will continue to take a science-based approach to safeguard Singapore’s marine biodiversity, including further research to better document and understand our diverse marine habitats and wildlife.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Plans to Maintain Dynamism in Tech Industry amidst Layoffs","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"38 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) how has the large number of layoffs from tech firms in the last year affected Singapore’s plans to have and maintain a thriving and dynamic tech industry; and (b) what mitigation factors are being undertaken to ensure that this goal remains.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The Information & Communications (I&C) sector is one of the fastest growing sectors in our economy, with its workforce growing by more than 40% in the last five years. Notwithstanding recent layoffs by some tech companies, there was strong hiring demand in the sector this year. There were 12,100 job vacancies in the I&C sector in June 2022, more than triple the 3,800 vacancies in June 2020. Most I&C workers have also been able to secure another job soon after retrenchment, with the rate of re-entry into employment within six months post-retrenchment for residents in Q2 2022 being higher than in the overall economy.
We have put in place measures to support retrenched workers. This includes interventions by the Taskforce for Responsible Retrenchment and Employment Facilitation (RTF) to offer career advisory and coaching services, and information kits on career resources to help affected workers transition to new jobs. The Minister for Manpower elaborated on these measures yesterday in his response to the Parliamentary Questions that have been filed on this matter. [Please refer to \"Impact of Layoffs by Big Tech Companies and Support Available for Affected Employees\", Official Report, 28 November 2022, Vol 95, Issue 76, Oral Answers to Questions section.]
We continue to believe that the I&C sector is poised for growth. We will support this growth in a number of ways: (a) We will continue to build our domestic tech ecosystem by attracting tech companies, talent, and investments into Singapore, and investing in our local tech companies; (b) We will strengthen partnerships between MNCs and local SMEs and support their innovation activities strategically; (b) We will continue to invest in training and upskilling our tech workforce so they can take on these jobs and create new ones; and (d) We are also establishing forward-looking digital trade rules through Digital Economy Agreements (DEAs) to connect our tech ecosystem to the world.
The Government will continue to monitor global developments and ensure that our digital economy remains competitive and resilient.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Encouraging Students to go on Overseas Study Trips, Exchanges and Internship Programmes Post COVID-19","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"39 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Education with the resumption of global travel (a) what are the steps taken to encourage more students from the Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs) to go on overseas study trips, foreign exchanges or internship programmes; and (b) what are the measures taken to prepare our IHLs to attract and welcome foreign students to Singapore on such trips or internship programmes.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: Students from our Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs) are encouraged to have overseas exposure as part of their personal development. With the easing of travel restrictions, the IHLs have resumed overseas exposure programmes for both outbound and inbound students, taking into account prevailing travel and health and safety rules. The IHLs are seeing renewed interest from foreign exchange students, and will continue to facilitate inbound exchange programmes through outreach and onboarding programmes that help exchange students settle into campus life.
MOE has recently provided responses to similar questions. The Member may also refer to the responses to the Parliamentary Questions filed in August, September and October 2022.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Lamppost-as-a-Platform Project","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"40 Mr Leon Perera asked the Prime Minister following the conclusion of trials in Geylang and One-North and the commencement of trials in Punggol Northshore, whether an update can be provided on the Lamppost-as-a-Platform (LaaP) project on the key performance indicators of the trials, insights gained from the concluded trials and preliminary findings from the Punggol Northshore trial.
Mrs Josephine Teo (for the Prime Minister): In an answer to a Parliamentary Question in February this year we explained that based on the first trial, which retrofits roadside lampposts in brownfield sites, GovTech assessed that it is technically feasible to deploy sensors on retrofitted lampposts. GovTech has also developed a lamppost infrastructure design that converts a normal lamppost into a shareable Lamppost-as-a-Platform (LaaP) that can accommodate multiple sensors.
The design allows agencies deploying sensors to share the same LaaP infrastructure and avoid duplicating the resources and time to set up their own infrastructure. We are still studying the demand, costs, and their impact on deployment.
The second trial tests use cases relevant to residential areas in a greenfield site, and its conclusion has been delayed by COVID-19. It is currently still ongoing and is expected to conclude in 2023. As the trial is still in early stages, it would be premature to discuss the performance.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"S Pass Holders' Highest Educational Qualifications","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"41 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for Manpower in each year from 2010 to 2022, what is the number of S Pass holders whose highest qualification was a (i) bachelor’s degree from a local University (ii) bachelor’s degree from a foreign university (iii) Master’s degree and (iv) PhD degree.
Dr Tan See Leng: As at June 2022, the number of S Pass holders whose highest qualifications was a PhD degree, Master’s degree and Bachelor’s degree from local University and foreign university is 400, 6,000, 2,100 and 72,200 respectively.
The share of S Pass holders in each highest qualification category has remained broadly constant since 2010.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Communication of NParks' Environmental Impact Assessments to Project Developers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"42 Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling asked the Minister for National Development with the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) consultancy services centralised under NParks, how will NParks communicate the EIA findings with project developers to ensure accurate implementation and reduce operational missteps in future projects.
Mr Desmond Lee: NParks will pilot centralising the management of Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) consultancy services, starting with new HDB and JTC projects from early 2023. This allows NParks to work closely with EIA consultants to enhance standards across the industry and develop best practices. The consolidation of information on Singapore’s biodiversity under one agency, will also help long-term monitoring and research, as well as the assessment of cumulative impact across developments.
Developing agencies will continue to be closely involved in the EIA process. This includes working with NParks upfront to refine the development plans, based on the EIA findings and feedback received from stakeholders, such as the nature community, and to develop and implement the necessary monitoring and mitigation measures.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Discouraging Excessive Sale of Cars by Disallowing Conversion of Rental Cars to Private Cars and Practices to Bypass Car Loan Curbs","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"43 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Transport (a) with COE premiums at a record high, whether the Ministry will consider disallowing the conversion of rental cars to private cars and vice versa to discourage excessive fleet sales; (b) whether the Ministry is aware of practices to bypass car loan curbs and what penalties have been meted out to those who engage in it; and (c) whether car loan curbs will be extended to rental, leasing and commercial vehicles.
Mr S Iswaran: Certificates of Entitlement (COEs) are allocated via a market-based bidding system and COE prices reflect the demand and supply for vehicles. The overall demand for cars has remained resilient while the COE supply has decreased due to a lower number of car deregistrations. COE prices have thus been increasing.
Cars can be converted in and out of the private hire car (PHC) scheme, which includes rental cars. This provides flexibility for the PHC market to respond more easily to changes in consumer demand. To disallow the conversion will add to the compliance cost for PHC operators, drivers and ultimately, affect the cost and availability of Point-to-Point services for commuters.
\tThe loan-to-value ratio and loan tenure limits for purchases of new or used cars were introduced in 2013 to encourage financial prudence. Financial institutions and car dealers who provide loans in the form of hire purchases or conditional sales agreements are required to apply these loan limits to eligible borrowers. Borrowers who provide false or incomplete declarations may have their motor vehicle loan rescinded or face a reduction in loan amounts. Commercial vehicles, including PHCs, are excluded from loan limits to avoid constraining the extension of credit to companies and individuals who rely on the use of such vehicles for their business and livelihood.
44 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for National Development (a) what efforts will be taken to preserve and expand Singapore's mangroves ecosystems under the OneMillionTrees movement; and (b) what percentage of the one million trees that will be planted in Singapore over the next 10 years under this movement will comprise of mangrove trees.
Mr Desmond Lee: NParks preserves and enhances Singapore’s mangrove ecosystems in several ways, to strengthen our climate and ecological resilience.
Under the OneMillionTrees movement, we partner the community to plant mangrove saplings in suitable coastal areas. For example, to date, we have planted close to 770 mangrove saplings in Pulau Ubin and we aim to plant 2,000 saplings there by 2029.
We also carry out other mangrove restoration and enhancement efforts. For example, we have constructed rock revetments along the coasts of Pulau Tekong and Kranji Coastal Nature Park. These structures protect our coastlines against erosion and facilitate the accumulation of sediments, which in turn promotes the natural growth of mangroves. In addition, through the use of the science-based Ecological Mangrove Restoration method, around 8,000 mangrove plants are expected to naturally take root at Sungei Durian on Pulau Ubin by end-2026. Such efforts to promote the natural propagation of mangrove plants further support our mangrove ecosystems, beyond the planting of saplings under the OneMillionTrees movement.
NParks will continue to conduct regular research and monitoring of our mangrove habitats to inform our strategies to enhance their resilience.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Separate Contracts for Maintenance of Footpaths, Green Spaces and Drains Located within Same Area","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"46 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for National Development whether the Government will review the current practice of PUB, LTA and NPB each issuing separate maintenance contracts for the maintenance of footpaths, green spaces and drains respectively even though they are all sited contiguously at the same location, with a view to developing a procurement model that leverages on operational synergies resultant from the aggregation of the scope of works at the same location.
Mr Desmond Lee: Government agencies are piloting such an approach of aggregating different municipal works and contracting a single operator to perform these works. Since February 2022, the Municipal Services Office (MSO) has worked with NEA, LTA, PUB, HDB and NParks to integrate a number of related municipal services, namely, cleaning, infrastructure maintenance, greenery maintenance and other municipal service operations, under one integrated operator, in Tampines town. The intent is to enhance responsiveness of service delivery. With clear accountability and a system of outcome-based contracting, the single operator is incentivized to find solutions to pre-empt or resolve recurring problems, even if the issues cut across agency boundaries. The ground crew of the operator is also crossed-trained to respond to different issues, in order to achieve greater productivity.
The pilot has commenced for less than a year. We will continue to learn from this pilot before considering further scaling up this integrated approach to municipal service delivery.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Factors Driving Demand and COE Prices for Categories B, D and E Vehicles","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"47 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Transport what are the key reasons for and the demand drivers behind, the record high Certificate of Entitlement (COE) prices for Categories B, D and E that were set in the latest COE bidding round.
Mr S Iswaran: I thank the Member for his question. I have addressed it in my reply for Question 86 for the written answer for the 28 November 2022 Parliament Sitting. [Please refer to \"Causes of Increase in COE Prices and Number of Motorcycles Deregistered\", Official Report, 28 November 2022, Vol 95, Issue 76, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer not Answered by End of Question Time section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Activation of Emergency Stop Plungers at MRT Stations","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"49 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Transport (a) how many times have the Emergency Stop Plungers at MRT stations been activated in each of the last five years; (b) what proportion of such activations occurred during peak hours; (c) what proportion of such activations are non-emergencies; and (d) what is the average duration of service disruption caused by such activations.
Mr S Iswaran: Emergency Stop Plungers, or ESPs, are located on walls or pillars near the platform screen doors. Passengers may press the ESP in case of emergencies, for example, if they see a fellow passenger stuck at platform gaps or doors.
Over the past four years, there has been an average of two to three activations of the ESP per month. About 25% of such activations occurred during peak hours. A majority, or about 60% of all activations, are for non-emergency purposes, such as when passengers want to retrieve their personal belongings which dropped onto the track.
When the ESP is activated, trains will be brought to a safe stop and station staff will attend to the situation. Train services will only resume when staff at the station and Operations Control Centre have assessed that it is safe to do so. It typically takes less than five minutes to resume train services.
Rail operators will continue to ensure that emergency situations are addressed safely and swiftly, and remind passengers to only use the ESPs in the event of emergencies.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Performance of ServiceSG Centres","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"51 Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling asked the Prime Minister (a) whether he can provide an update on the performance of the ServiceSG Centres since their inception; (b) what are the top five service requests received across these centres; and (c) whether there are any target number of centres to be added if the early pilots have demonstrated to be successful.
Mr Chan Chun Sing (for the Prime Minister): In 2022, the Public Service set up a total of four ServiceSG Centres, bringing the total number of centres to five. These centres are at Our Tampines Hub, One Punggol, Heartbeat@Bedok, Nee Soon Central Community Club, and The Frontier Community Club.
The Public Service seeks to digitalise its services to serve Singaporeans better and more efficiently. However, we appreciate that there will be citizens who need some help to transact with the Government digitally, or need help to navigate multiple government services. Therefore, we set up these ServiceSG centres to serve as one-stop physical touchpoints where officers can guide citizens through digital transactions and offer integrated services across different public agencies for citizens. The centres at Our Tampines Hub (OTH) and One Punggol (OP) provide over 400 services and the other centres in Community Clubs (CCs) provide over 200 services.
From January to November 2022, ServiceSG centres completed over 180,000 transactions. A high percentage of the citizens served at these centres are the elderly. The commonly requested services at the ServiceSG centres are assistance with Singpass, enquiry on government schemes, Community Club related enquiries and course bookings, assistance with CPF matters and assistance with tax matters.
The citizen satisfaction rate across these centres is at over 90%, on average. We have also received positive feedback from citizens, for the efforts to offer multiple, integrated services to them.
The ServiceSG centre is still a service transformation pilot by the Public Service Division. While the initial feedback is encouraging, we will continue to seek feedback and improve the service delivery, and conduct a proper evaluation of this pilot. If these centres indeed prove to be well utilised and helpful to citizens, we will plan for more centres in tandem with demand, prioritising areas where there is a higher concentration of citizens (for example, seniors) who have greater need for support with multiple digital transactions. As of now, we are planning for two more centres located at Keat Hong CC and Bukit Canberra.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Plan to Better Protect Gig Workers and Measures to Balance Interests of Gig Work Organisations, Gig Workers and Consumers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"52 Mr Ang Wei Neng asked the Minister for Manpower whether he can provide an update on (i) the plans to better protect gig workers and (ii) the measures to balance the interests of gig work organisations, gig workers and consumers in the wake of high inflation and a high-interest environment.
Dr Tan See Leng: On 23 November 2022, the Government accepted the Advisory Committee on Platform Workers’ recommendations to enhance protection for platform workers while balancing the interests of stakeholders.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Upcoming Development Plans to Ensure Dynamic Singapore Initial Public Offering Market","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"1 Mr Shawn Huang Wei Zhong asked the Prime Minister in view of Singapore listings having declined more than half from last year compared to the region, what are the upcoming development plans to ensure a dynamic Singapore Initial Public Offering market to keep pace with the investment momentum of the region.
Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam (for the Prime Minister): Initial Public Offering (IPO) volumes globally have fallen this year. The number of IPOs globally has fallen by 44%, and proceeds by 57%, in the first nine months of 2022 compared to the same period in 20211. SGX has seen nine listings to date, broadly similar to 2021 where we saw eight listings for the full year. But IPO proceeds from SGX listings fell, broadly in line with global trends.
The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) has shared in past sittings the initiatives that SGX and government agencies have implemented to increase the attractiveness of our equities market for local and international investors. Key initiatives include a $1.5 billion fund put together by the Government and Temasek to invest in the public listings of promising high-growth enterprises on SGX; a growth IPO fund by EDBi to support late-stage private enterprises to grow and prepare for an eventual public listing in Singapore; and an enhanced MAS grant scheme to defray the costs of a public listing on SGX, and to develop Singapore's equity research ecosystem.
SGX has introduced new listing options to cater to new economy companies, such as the Special Purpose Acquisition Companies (SPAC) framework. Details can be found in \tprevious Parliamentary replies2 [Please refer to: (a) \"Volume of Trade Turnover on Singapore Exchange and Measures to Make Trades on Singapore Exchange More Attractive to Foreign Investors\", Official Report, 1 November 2021, Vol 95, Issue 41; (b) \"Local Companies that List Outside of Singapore\", Official Report, 6 January 2020, Vol 94, Issue 115; and (c) \"Upgrading Plans for Local Equities and Equity Derivatives Market\", Official Report, 04 November 2019, Vol 94, Issue 113.] and MAS' media release on \"Boosting Equity Financing for High-Growth Enterprises\"3.
These recent initiatives are significant. We should give them time to bear fruit and re-evaluate the situation before considering yet more new measures.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Ernst & Young, 28 September 2022, press release on EY Global IPO Trends Q3 2022.","2 : Also found at the following links: (a) https://www.mas.gov.sg/news/parliamentary-replies/2021/reply-to-parliamentary-question-on-singapore-exchange; (b) https://www.mas.gov.sg/news/parliamentary-replies/2020/reply-to-parliamentary-question-on-listings-and-delistings-on-the-singapore-exchange; and (c) https://www.mas.gov.sg/news/parliamentary-replies/2019/reply-to-parliamentary-question-on-plans-to-re-invigorate-the-equity-markets","3 : Link to MAS media release: https://www.mas.gov.sg/news/media-releases/2021/boosting-equity-financing-for-high-growth-enterprises"],"footNoteQuestions":["1"],"questionNo":"1"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Change in Share of Private Residential Properties and HDB Flats with Outstanding Mortgage Loans Since 2008 Global Financial Crisis","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"2 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Prime Minister how has the share of private residential properties and HDB flats with outstanding mortgage loans changed since the 2008 Global Financial Crisis.
Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam (for the Prime Minister): The share of private residential property owners with outstanding mortgage loans increased from 54% to 62% between 2011 and 2013, before stabilising since. It was 62% in 2022. In comparison, those HDB flat owners with outstanding mortgage loans has decreased from 57% to 42% from 2011 to 2022.
As reported in its Financial Stability Review published on 25 November, the Monetary Authority of Singapore's stress tests show that most households are financially resilient to income and interest rate shocks, although some households would be vulnerable under a more stressed economic environment. As interest rates continue to rise, all households should prudently manage their borrowings, especially when considering new mortgage loans.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures to Support and Enhance Mental Wellness of Public Officers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"3 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Prime Minister (a) what measures are in place to support and enhance the mental wellness of public officers during the COVID-19 pandemic; (b) what has been the uptake of such mental wellness programmes and measures; and (c) what lessons have been learned about mental wellness support for public officers from the implementation of these programmes.
Mr Chan Chun Sing (for the Prime Minister): The prolonged COVID-19 fight disrupted many aspects of the Public Service's work and added significantly to the demands and stress on public officers. The Public Service has launched a suite of initiatives to better support public officers.
The Public Service Division (PSD) launched a single WOG hotline for confidential counselling services to provide all public officers a safe channel to speak to trained counsellors who can help them cope with work stressors. An average of 350 unique officers have utilised the hotline every month since its launch in March 2021.
PSD organised a range of complementary wellness activities regularly that cover topics relating to mental well-being, physical health, and nutrition. More than 28,000 officers from across agencies have attended close to 130 sessions since April 2020. A wide variety of courses related to mental well-being are also offered by the Civil Service College to public officers.
PSD worked with the Ministry of Health Office for Healthcare Transformation (MOHT) to develop mindline@work, a one-stop repository of self-help resources, to support their mental well-being. Since its launch in September 2021, more than 18,000 unique visits to the site have been recorded.
In addition, PSD has built a community of Wellness Ambassadors (WAs) across the public sector agencies, to serve as added support at the workplace. They reach out to peers and officers who feel they need a listening ear can also approach these ambassadors. The wellness ambassadors provide basic emotional support to fellow colleagues and act as ambassadors for mental well-being. There are currently about 2,000 WAs across job levels and agencies.
Beyond the provision of mental well-being resources, support from leaders and managers was key to caring for public officers' mental health. To encourage a culture of openness and emphasise the role that leaders and supervisors play, PSD actively enlists our leaders to de-stigmatise mental health issues and support the well-being of their teams. For instance, PSD launched a week-long campaign in 2021, called \"Care4U\" Week, which encouraged leaders and supervisors to adopt WOG well-being initiatives and policies in their workplaces, and equipped leaders with skills to identify signs of mental stress so that they can support officers and their peers. As we transit to the new normal, we will continue to adapt this suite of initiatives to meet the needs of public officers.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Review of Streamlined Enforcement Framework for Civil Judgments","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"4 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Law whether he can provide an update on the Ministry's review of the civil enforcement framework to make enforcement of civil judgments simpler and more streamlined.
Mr K Shanmugam: My Ministry has been working on improving various aspects of the civil enforcement framework.
Most recently, the Rules of Court 2021, which came into operation on 1 April 2022, simplified the process which applies to the enforcement of civil judgments and orders. For example, where the judgment debt is not satisfied, the party seeking to enforce the order or judgment may now make a single application requesting one or more methods of enforcement. Previously, separate applications were required for different methods of enforcement.
We are currently working with MSF on a joint Bill to introduce enhancements to the maintenance enforcement regime. These enhancements are intended to make the enforcement of maintenance orders more efficient and effective, and to minimise repeat enforcement.
We are also working with the Courts to study possible changes to make the enforcement of civil judgments more effective, efficient and simpler. These include the introduction of new powers to punish and deter non-compliance with Court orders in respect of both monetary and non-monetary judgments, and enhanced powers to track and trace the assets of the judgment debtor where the debtor fails to comply with the Court order.
We are engaging stakeholders and refining our proposals based on their feedback. We will announce more details at a later date.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Provision for Summary Determination and Disposal of Vexatious Claims under Supreme Court (Protection from Harassment) Rules 2021","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"5 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Law whether the Supreme Court (Protection from Harassment) Rules 2021 may be amended to provide for summary determination and disposal of frivolous and vexatious claims by claimants without the need to notify the respondents to reduce the risk of the Protection from Harassment Court being used by claimants against respondents for collateral purposes.
Mr K Shanmugam: Claims filed under the Protection from Harassment Act can be made through simplified or standard proceedings.
For claims filed through simplified proceedings, which form a significant majority of cases filed in the Protection from Harassment Court (PHC), the PHC has, at any time after a claim is filed, powers to make such orders and directions as it thinks fit for the just, expeditious and economic disposal of a case. The PHC therefore may, notwithstanding that the proceedings are already simplified, deal with a case which is frivolous, vexatious or otherwise an abuse of process in an appropriate way.
For claims filed through standard proceedings, which form a small minority of cases filed in the PHC, the normal procedures provided for in the Rules of Court, such as striking out, are available.
Further, in making a decision to award costs and disbursements, the PHC may take into account whether the claim was dismissed for being frivolous, vexatious or otherwise an abuse of process.
As with civil disputes in general, the PHC will usually require the Respondent's side of the story to determine whether the claim is indeed frivolous or vexatious.
The General Division of the High Court (GDHC) is also empowered to, on application by the Attorney-General or any party to a claim, make restraint orders against a claimant who has repeatedly commenced actions that are totally without merit, to restrain such a claimant from commencing actions or applications. This provides another avenue for preventing frivolous or vexatious claims.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Status of Road Noise Barrier and Low-noise Road Surfacing Trials","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"6 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Transport (a) what is the update on the status of road noise barrier and low-noise road surfacing trials; and (b) whether LTA will implement such or other measures in the future, particularly along stretches of expressways near public residential housing.
Mr S Iswaran: LTA has recently completed trials on the effectiveness of noise barriers and low-noise pavement mix. The trials showed that low-noise pavement mix for at-grade sections of expressways are more effective at reducing noise for residents than vertical noise barriers, as the former reduces the noise generated at source while the latter shields noise away from residents staying at lower floors and would not be effective for residents staying at higher floors.
LTA has been and will continue to implement measures to reduce noise along stretches of expressways near residential areas. For at-grade sections of expressways, LTA will use the low-noise pavement mix when conducting resurfacing works. For elevated sections of expressways, LTA will consider installing noise barriers where needed. In doing so, LTA considers multiple factors such as the distance between the expressways and surrounding buildings.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reports of Traffic Accidents Involving Foreign-registered Vehicles and Assistance Rendered to Drivers Who Lodged Claims against Foreign Motorists","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"7 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Transport (a) in the past five years, how many reports of traffic accidents involving foreign-registered vehicles in Singapore are filed; (b) whether the Ministry had rendered any assistance to drivers who have lodged claims against foreign motorists in those cases; (c) whether the Ministry tracks the average duration taken for the settlement of such claims and, if so, what is it currently; and (d) what recourse is available to claimants in such cases where there is inordinate delay.
Mr S Iswaran: According to the Traffic Police, from 2017 to 2021, there were over 35,000 traffic accidents resulting in casualties or deaths, of which about 5,184 involved foreign-registered vehicles.
According to the General Insurance Association of Singapore, Singaporean motorists should claim against their Singapore policies in instances of accidents with foreign motorists, if they have a comprehensive motor insurance policy. This will save them the inconvenience and longer process of making a claim against motorists from other countries. If the motorist is found not at fault in the accident, his or her No-Claim Discount may not be affected. If a Singaporean motorist wishes to make a third-party motor claim against an insurer in Malaysia instead, they are advised to approach the insurer in Malaysia with the relevant documents. Under a Special Agreement with the Motor Insurance Bureau of Singapore, Malaysian insurers are required to settle claims for their insured who get into accidents in Singapore, in accordance with Singapore legislation. As these are commercial claims, the Government does not track such claims.
8 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Transport (a) what is the colour temperature of Singapore’s street lighting; (b) whether studies have been conducted to determine the feasibility of warmer white lighting for street lamps on minor roads, in view of the potential benefits in terms of human health and light pollution; and (c) if so, what are the findings of these studies.
Mr S Iswaran: Today, most of our streetlights are LED lights, comprising a mix of warmer white light of 3,000 Kelvin (K) colour temperature, and brighter white light of 4,000 K colour temperature. LTA's research and studies of international safety standards has shown that both these lights have no adverse impact on human health as the blue light emitted is of very low intensity.
The specific type of lighting deployed will depend on the distance of the streetlight from residential areas. For minor roads, especially those in low rise residential estates, LTA will generally deploy warm white light of 3,000 K colour temperature.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Government Assistance for Ride-sharing Initiative for Commercial Vehicles","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"9 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for Transport whether the ride-sharing initiative for commercial vehicles announced by SMRT's subsidiary, EVCo, will receive any assistance from the Government.
Mr S Iswaran: The Government has implemented measures such as the Commercial Vehicle Emissions Scheme (CVES) and Early Turnover Scheme (ETS) to incentivise electric Light Goods Vehicles (e-LGV) purchases, which vehicle fleet owners like EVCo will benefit from.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Increase in Electricity and Fuel Costs for Public Transport Operators Year-to-date and Expected Proportion Offset by Subsidies","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"10 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Transport in relation to the additional $200 million in subsidies to cover the increased costs to public transport operators due to the doubling of energy prices (a) what is the increase in electricity and fuel costs for public transport operators year-to-date; and (b) what proportion of the increase in energy costs are the additional subsidies expected to offset.
Mr S Iswaran: At the 2022 Fare Review Exercise (FRE), the Public Transport Council (PTC) indicated that the maximum allowable fare adjustment quantum under the current fare formula was 13.5%. The fare formula broadly reflects the increases in public transport operating costs due to inflation, rising manpower costs and higher energy prices.
To keep fares affordable for commuters in the current economic circumstances, the PTC decided to grant a fare increase of 2.9%, with the remaining 10.6 percentage points carried over to future FREs.
The additional subsidy of about $200 million is to cover the revenue shortfall arising from this carry-over and not aimed at defraying any specific cost item. Together with the fare increases, it helps to cover various operating cost increases, including electricity costs for rail and fuel costs for buses.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Guidelines for Early-contract Termination Clauses for Taxicabs and Private Hire Cars due to Unforeseen Circumstances","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"11 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Transport whether the Ministry issues guidelines or regulates acceptable conditions for early-contract termination clauses for taxicabs and private-hire cars especially for unforeseen circumstances such as health-related causes.
Mr S Iswaran: LTA does not set guidelines on conditions for early contract termination for taxi and private hire car (PHC) rentals, which are commercially determined as part of agreements between rental companies and drivers. Taxi/PHC rental companies may offer different packages and contracts to cater to the different needs and preferences of drivers. We understand that rental companies do review early terminations on a case-by-case basis, and we encourage them to continue doing so in a compassionate manner. Drivers who need to terminate their contracts early due to unforeseen circumstances are encouraged to discuss possible options with their respective rental companies. LTA is also working with the driver associations to help drivers better understand rental contract terms and the risks involved.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Fresh Chicken Supply from Malaysia and Expected Imports from Indonesia","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"12 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) what is the Ministry's assessment and update on the fresh chicken supply from Malaysia; and (b) when does the Ministry expect imports of fresh chicken to come in from Indonesia.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Live broiler chicken imports from Malaysia have resumed since 11 October 2022 and our overall supply of chicken remains stable. The Singapore Food Agency (SFA) continues to work with the industry to open up new sources of chicken. Indonesia has been approved to export frozen and chilled chicken to Singapore since 30 June 2022 and businesses on both sides are working out the collaboration arrangements.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on Students who Sought Counselling Support from Their Schools","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"13 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Education in respect of students who have sought counselling support from their schools (a) whether the numbers of such students differ depending on their institutions; (b) if so, what are the percentages of such students respectively in (i) Polytechnics (ii) ITEs and (iii) local Universities; and (c) whether more resources will be required for such support services in the future.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: In 2021, around 50 out of every 1,000 students on average, across the Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs) received counselling support provided by their institutions. In addition, students also have access to peer support networks and community counselling resources. MOE will continue to work with the IHLs to regularly review the resourcing required to support students' counselling needs.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Criteria for Students Previously Enrolled in International Schools to Enrol in MOE Schools at a Comparable Grade Level upon Their Return","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"14 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Education whether the Ministry imposes specific performance criteria that students previously enrolled in international schools will have to meet in order to seamlessly enrol in MOE schools, upon their return, at a comparable grade level.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: MOE is committed to help Returning Singaporean (RS) students to smoothly enrol in our mainstream schools.
For RS who were previously enrolled in a mainstream school and granted Leave of Absence (LOA), they can return to the same school upon return to Singapore.
For those not on the LOA or where the LOA no longer applies, we encourage RS to apply through the Assured School Placement (ASP) service, which is available throughout the year. The ASP guarantees RS a place in a school with vacancies near the child's home. The school may conduct a placement test and interview, and review the child's school records, to determine a suitable and age-appropriate level for the child to be placed in.
Alternatively, RS can choose to participate in the centralised merit-based School Placement Exercise for Returning Singaporeans (SPERS), which is conducted twice a year. The RS will be posted to a school with vacancies, based on the child's SPERS test performance and indicated choices. If the indicated choices are not available, the child will be offered a school with vacancies near the child's home.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Statistics on Children and Young Persons who Entered a Place of Safety from 2018 to 2021 and Subsequently Entered a Boys' Home, Girls' Home or Prison","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"15 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Social and Family Development from 2018 to 2021, of children and young persons who enter a place of safety as defined under the Children and Young Persons Act 1993, what is the annual number and percentage of them who subsequently enter (i) the Singapore Boys' Home or Singapore Girls' Home or (ii) prison, respectively.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Children and young persons (CYPs) in need of care or protection may be referred by MSF or ordered by the Youth Court to reside in a place of safety. MSF Youth Homes, namely the Singapore Boys' Home and Singapore Girls' Home, are also places of safety under the Children and Young Persons Act.
Table 1 provides the breakdown of such CYPs who subsequently offended and (i) entered MSF Youth Homes, or (ii) were imprisoned.
There is a higher proportion of CYPs who entered MSF Youth Homes as a place of safety, who subsequently offended and were imprisoned, compared to those in other places of safety. This is because such CYPs have higher risks and needs, displaying behaviours that could lead to offences requiring imprisonment.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Medical Clinic Licenses Granted in Past Three Years and Making Participation in Healthier SG a Prerequisite","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"16 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Health (a) in the past three years, how many medical clinic licences have been granted; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider making participation in Healthier SG a prerequisite to grant such licences or prioritise the applications of general practitioners who wish to participate.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: From 2019 to 2021, around 1,300 medical clinic licences per year have been granted under the Private Hospitals and Medical Clinics Act.
The main objective of the Act is to safeguard patient safety and welfare. To grant a medical clinic licence, MOH key considerations are the character and fitness of the licensee, the ability of the licensee to operate a medical clinic in accordance with prescribed regulatory requirements and the suitability of the premises.
Participation in Government schemes, such as Healthier SG or the Community and Health Assist Scheme, are encourage and welcomed, but is not a prerequisite, as clinics may have different business considerations.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Consultation with User Groups when Reviewing Code on Accessibility in Built Environment","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"17 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for National Development (a) when reviewing the Code on Accessibility in the Built Environment, whether the Ministry will consult user groups such as breastfeeding mothers, differently-abled individuals and seniors in updating the Code; (b) if yes, what is the timeline for the consultations and the review; and (c) if not, why not.
Mr Desmond Lee: Since its introduction in 1990, the Code on Accessibility in the Built Environment has undergone regular reviews, with its scope progressively expanded to better meet the changing needs of the population. The Building and Construction Authority (BCA) has consulted stakeholders extensively in this process.
In the most recent review to develop the latest version of the Code in 2019, BCA formed a Code Review Committee, comprising representatives from social service agencies, trade associations and chambers, academia and Government agencies. The Committee consulted a wide range of stakeholders, including industry professionals and members of the public, and studied the needs of various segments of society and requirements in other jurisdictions. A draft version of the Code was also published for public consultation via the BCA and REACH websites.
The next review of the Code will commence next year. BCA will continue to consult various stakeholders extensively when reviewing the Code, to ensure that the needs of user groups such as persons with disabilities, seniors and nursing mothers are taken into account.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Annual Breakdown of HDB Flats Purchased by Age and Flat-type from 2010","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"18 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for National Development how many HDB flats purchased in each year from 2010 was a (i) resale flat by any owner below age 95 upon lease expiry (ii) resale flat by any owner below age 85 upon lease expiry (iii) resale flat with more than 60 years lease by any owner below age 35 (iv) resale flat with less than 60 years lease by any owner below age 35 and (v) BTO flat by any owner below age 35.
Mr Desmond Lee: The amount of CPF monies that flat buyers can use for their flat purchase, the HDB housing loan quantum and the Enhanced CPF Housing Grant (EHG) quantum, are dependent on the remaining lease of the flat and the age of the youngest flat buyer. If the remaining lease of the flat can cover the youngest buyer until at least the age of 95, the flat buyers can obtain the maximum CPF usage, HDB housing loan quantum and EHG quantum that they are eligible for. Flat buyers who do not meet this criterion will still be able to use their CPF monies, take an HDB housing loan and receive the EHG, but the amounts would be pro-rated.
In each year between 2011 and 2021, the proportion of resale flat transactions where the youngest owner would be below age 95 upon lease expiry was between 5.8% and 8.9%. The proportion of resale flat transactions where the youngest owner would be below age 85 upon lease expiry was between 0.5% and 1.2%.
Over the same period, between 40% and 62% of households with buyers below the age of 35 bought BTO flats. Among the remaining households who bought resale flats, between 94% and 97%, were for resale flats with more than 60 years of lease remaining.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Breakdown of Average Discount Applied to New HDB BTO Flats in Mature and Non-mature Estates in Last Five Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"19 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for National Development in each year over the last five years, what is the average discount applied to the market value of comparable resale HDB flats in pricing new HDB BTO flats in (i) mature estates and (ii) non-mature estates, with the respective breakdown in flat types.
Mr Desmond Lee: In pricing new Build-To-Order (BTO) flats, HDB's overriding aim is to ensure public housing is affordable to help a broad segment of Singaporeans own their own homes. This is different from private residential development where new flats are priced above development cost to achieve a certain profit margin. This flat pricing process is separate and independent from the determination of the development cost of HDB projects. Overall, the money that HDB collects from selling new flats cannot cover the total development cost incurred for these flats and HDB has been running a deficit every year for its homeownership programme since its formation.
Affordability is a function of household income and flat selling price. At the current income ceiling of $14,000, about eight in 10 Singaporeans may buy a BTO flat and HDB aims to provide affordable flats for a range of household incomes, as measured by the Mortgage Servicing ratio (MSR). BTO flats have been priced at a level where on average, first-time homebuyers generally require little or no cash outlay when servicing their mortgage payments, as it can be fully covered using their CPF contributions.
HDB first establishes the market value of the new flats by considering the prices of comparable resale flats nearby, as well as the individual attributes of the flats and prevailing market conditions. A significant subsidy is then applied to the assessed market values of the new flats to ensure affordability for flat buyers. A wide range of flat sizes and locations of new BTO flats are offered at every BTO sales launch. The market values of these flats are not the same and the flats should not be uniformly-priced. As the locations and attributes of BTO projects and the resale market conditions at each BTO launch, are different, the extent of the discounts will thus vary across different BTO projects, launches and years. This is the case because HDB's overriding objective is to ensure that BTO flats remain affordable and help protect homebuyers from price fluctuations under different market conditions.
In addition, eligible first-timer flat buyers can enjoy the Enhanced CPF Housing Grant (EHG) of up to $80,000. The EHG is means-tested and calibrated progressively by household income, providing more support to lower- and middle-income families buying their first home. It is not tied to flat type or BTO project and it is given on top of the generous market discount applied to the flat.
In sum, market subsidies vary across projects and launches because of the wide range of HDB flats on offer at every BTO sales exercise. They also vary with the prevailing resale market conditions and depend on the homebuyers' household incomes after factoring in the EHG.
For each BTO project launched, HDB provides recent transacted prices of comparable resale flats alongside the BTO flat prices. It is clear to every BTO flat applicant that there is a significant difference between HDB BTO flat prices and comparable resale flat prices. The difference in these price ranges also explains why BTO flats are highly popular and usually over-subscribed.
HDB also provides relevant price-related information for different family archetypes as well as worked illustrations of how homebuyers with different household incomes can afford the different flat types in the BTO launch materials. We also compute their corresponding MSRs to show the affordability of these new BTO flats. In fact, HDB has been providing these comparative information and affordability illustrations since December 2008. The information is made available is to guide homebuyers in their flat purchase decisions and help them choose an HDB flat that best meets their budgets and needs.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Outcome of Review of Master Developer for Kampong Bugis White Site and Expected Launch Dates of Sites at Kampong Bugis, Holland Plain and Bayshore","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"20 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for National Development (a) what is the status of the Government's review of the development staging plans for the Kampong Bugis white site; (b) whether the Government is still intending to introduce the Master Developer approach to land development; and (c) what is the expected launch dates of the Master Developer sites at Kampong Bugis, Holland Plain and Bayshore.
Mr Desmond Lee: The Master Developer approach can be considered for larger Government Land Sales sites with mixed uses, where there are benefits to giving a single developer greater flexibility to comprehensively plan and develop the site.
For such sites, the Government will adopt a Master Developer approach where it supports the planning outcomes for the area, such as the plan for a car-lite precinct at Kampong Bugis. There are no plans to adopt a Master Developer approach for Holland Plain and Bayshore.
The development staging plans for Kampong Bugis are still under review and launch dates for the three sites will be shared when ready.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Assessment of Risk and Impact of Quantum Computing Technology and Efforts to Ensure Encrypted Digital Records and Communications Networks Remain Secure","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"21 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for Communications and Information (a) whether the Government has conducted any studies on the impact of quantum computing technology; (b) if so, what is the Government's assessment of the risk and potential time horizon of quantum computing rendering contemporary traditional encryption algorithms obsolete and vulnerable; and (c) what are the Government's plans to ensure encrypted digital records and communications networks will remain secure even in the event of a breakthrough in quantum computing.
Mrs Josephine Teo: The field of quantum computing is relatively nascent. Quantum computers are expected to be able to solve certain types of complex calculations faster than conventional computers today and can benefit various sectors, including the healthcare and biomedical sector for drug development. To reap these opportunities, Singapore has made steady investments in quantum research and development over the past two decades, including the establishment of Centre for Quantum Technologies as a Research Centre of Excellence. This year, the National Quantum Office was set up in the Agency for Science, Technology and Research to further advance Singapore's quantum technologies, talent and ecosystem development.
There is growing international interest in the potential risk of quantum computing to cryptography, which would affect digital authentication and communications. The US' National Institute of Standards and Technology has been leading efforts to standardise post-quantum cryptography, which we are monitoring. In Singapore, the National Quantum-Safe Network was launched this year as a nationwide testbed to trial and assess commercial quantum-safe technologies, such as Quantum Key Distribution. Beyond that, MCI, the Cyber Security Agency of Singapore and the Information and Media Development Authority are working with other relevant agencies to develop quantum-safe approaches for the continued security of digital communications and records.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Workers with letter of Consent Employed in Jobs with Job Scope or Salary Equivalent to Pass Holders","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"22 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for Manpower what is the number of workers with a Letter of Consent who are employed in jobs with a job scope or salary equivalent to (i) Employment Pass holders (ii) S Pass holders and (iii) work permit holders.
Dr Tan See Leng: Since 1 May 2021, Dependant's Pass holders have had to obtain a relevant work pass instead of a Letter of Consent (LOC) to work in Singapore. Therefore, the majority of the LOC holders are dependants of Singapore Citizens and Permanent Residents who are holding a Long-Term Visit Pass (LTVP) or LTVP-Plus and working on either an LOC or pre-approved LOC (PLOC).
The table below provides the number of LOC holders as at June 2022, categorised by whether their salaries meet the prevailing Employment Pass (EP) and S Pass salary criteria. The prevailing EP and S Pass minimum qualifying salaries are at least $5,000 and $3,000 respectively, and increases with age. As there are no salary requirements for Work Permit holders, LOC holders with salaries below prevailing EP and S Pass criteria may include those who are taking up part-time employment.
23 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for Manpower what is the number former Employment Pass holders who have been subsequently granted an S Pass in each year since 2010.
Dr Tan See Leng: The table below provides the number of former Employment Pass (EP) holders who were subsequently granted an S Pass from 2010 to 2021.
It is the employer's decision which pass type they wish to apply for. Employers can choose to convert their EP holder to an S Pass based on their business needs. However, they will be subject to the prevailing S Pass qualifying salaries, quota and levies.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Breakdown of Employment and S Pass Holders by Occupation Classification","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"24 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for Manpower for each year since 2010, what is the number of (i) employment pass holders and (ii) S Pass holders respectively, whose occupations are classified as (i) Professionals, Managers and Executives (PMEs) (ii) Associate Professionals and Technicians (APTs) and (iii) non-PMEs and non-APTs.
Dr Tan See Leng: \tFrom 2010 to 2020, the average number of Employment Pass (EP) and S Pass holders who are Professionals, Managers and Executives1 (PMEs) is 137,600 and 56,300 respectively. The number of EP holders who are PMEs ranges from 93,300 to 153,600, while the number of S Pass holders who are PMEs ranges from 26,800 to 72,400.
From 2010 to 2020, the average number of EP and S Pass holders who are Associate Professionals and Technicians2 (APTs) is 28,100 and 62,900 respectively. The number of EP holders who are APTs ranges from 21,200 to 30,400, while the number of S Pass holders who are APTs ranges from 38,900 to 70,800.
From 2010 to 2020, the average number of EP and S Pass holders who are non-Professionals, Managers, Executives, and Technicians3 (non-PMETs) are 10,000 and 40,000 respectively. The number of EP holders who are non-PMETs ranges from 8,000 to 12,600, while the number of S Pass holders who are non-PMETs ranges from 24,800 to 54,500.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Refers to SSOC Major Groups 1 to 2.","2 : Refers to SSOC Major Groups 3.","3 : Refers to SSOC Major Groups 4 to 9, and X."],"footNoteQuestions":["24"],"questionNo":"24"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Requirement and Regulation of Food Caterers for Migrant Workers in Small Dormitories with Less Than 1,000 Beds","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"25 Miss Rachel Ong asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether there is a requirement for pre-packed food catered for migrant workers in smaller dormitories with less than 1,000 beds to be time-stamped to indicate time for safe consumption; (b) if so, how is that monitored and enforced; and (c) whether the Foreign Employee Dormitories Act will incorporate regulation of food caterers for these smaller dormitories starting from 1 April 2023.
Dr Tan See Leng: All catered food, including pre-packed meals, from catering establishments licensed under the Environmental Public Health Act are required to be time-stamped to indicate the date and time by which the food should be consumed. All operators of migrant worker dormitories, regardless of size, that provide catered food to migrant workers are required by MOM to only procure food from licensed catering establishments.
With the expansion of the coverage of the Foreign Employee Dormitories Act with effect from 1 April 2023, operators of dormitories with seven or more beds will also be required to put in place measures to protect catered food from contamination until the food is collected by dormitory residents for consumption.
MOM's Forward Assurance and Support Teams (FAST) regularly conduct inspections and engage migrant workers to identify and resolve issues of concern. If any dormitory resident faces any issue on the hygiene and quality of the catered food provided, he can approach his employer, FAST 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":"Number of Workers in Technology Sector Retrenched in 2022 and Impact of Global Layoffs on Technology Employment Landscape","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"26 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what is the number of workers in the technology sector who have been retrenched in 2022 to date; and (b) whether global layoffs by big technology firms are having an impact on Singapore's technology employment landscape.
Dr Tan See Leng: This question was previously addressed in the combined oral reply to Questions 3 to 6 on the Order Paper for 28 November 2022. [Please refer to \"Impact of Layoffs by Big Tech Companies and Support Available for Affected Employees\", Official Report, 28 November 2022, Vol 95, Issue 76, Oral Answers to Questions section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on Singaporeans and Non-Singaporeans Made Redundant from Tech Firms in 2022","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"27 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Manpower in the first 10 months of 2022 (a) whether the Government has data on the number of Singaporeans who are made redundant from tech firms such as Grab, Stripe, Meta, Shopee and SEA Limited and, if so, how many; (b) what is the median age of the affected workers; (c) what is the median salary of the tech employees who are retrenched; and (d) how many non-Singaporeans, including permanent residents, are among those laid off by the tech firms.
Dr Tan See Leng: This question was previously addressed in the combined oral reply to Questions 3 to 6 on the Order Paper for 28 November 2022. [Please refer to \"Impact of Layoffs by Big Tech Companies and Support Available for Affected Employees\", Official Report, 28 November 2022, Vol 95, Issue 76, Oral Answers to Questions section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null}],"writtenAnswersVOList":[],"writtenAnsNAVOList":[],"annexureList":[],"vernacularList":[{"vernacularID":5301,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Xie Yao Quan","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20221129/vernacular-Mr Xie Yao Quan - Constitution (Amdt) Bill - 29 Nov 22.pdf","fileName":"Mr Xie Yao Quan - Constitution (Amdt) Bill - 29 Nov 22.pdf"},{"vernacularID":5302,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20221129/vernacular-Ms Nadia Samdin - Constitution (Amdt) Bill - 29 Nov 22.pdf","fileName":"Ms Nadia Samdin - Constitution (Amdt) Bill - 29 Nov 22.pdf"},{"vernacularID":5303,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Abdul Samad","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20221129/vernacular-Mr Abdul Samad - Constitution (Amdt) Bill - 29 Nov 22.pdf","fileName":"Mr Abdul Samad - Constitution (Amdt) Bill - 29 Nov 22.pdf"},{"vernacularID":5304,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20221129/vernacular-MOS Faishal Ibrahim - Constitution (Amdt) Bill - 29 Nov 22.pdf","fileName":"MOS Faishal Ibrahim - Constitution (Amdt) Bill - 29 Nov 22.pdf"},{"vernacularID":5305,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Derrick Goh","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20221129/vernacular-Mr Derrick Goh - Constitution (Amdt) Bill - 29 Nov 22.pdf","fileName":"Mr Derrick Goh - Constitution (Amdt) Bill - 29 Nov 22.pdf"}],"onlinePDFFileName":""}