Alex Yam
Singapore
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I know the Minister of State indicated that while it is still undergoing investigation, we should not speculate. I know also from her reply that they have removed the wrong classification of our trade deficit with the US.”
“Thank you, Speaker. Building on the point that the Minister-in-charge of energy had raised earlier about fixed rates. There is concern amongst consumers that the gencos and the electricity suppliers may, at some point, invoke a force majeure, and that would affect the supply contracts that are signed with consumers.”
“Chairman, therefore, I look forward to hearing how MCCY intends to further embed the ethos of "we first" across multiple aspects of society so that our national identity is formed through participation, not just persuasion.”
“Thank you, Chairman, 41 questions and 330 minutes later, I certainly think the Ministry deserves the $100 back. So, I seek leave to withdraw my amendment. [(proc text) Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. (proc text)] [(proc text) The sum of $2,407,711,100 for Head X ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates.”
“Thank you, Chairman. The Minister updated the House earlier about the importance of keeping pace with technological advancements as well as hybrid threats, especially in the cyber domain.”
“If we are intentional in leveraging the reach and influence of institutions like SAFRA, we can ensure that Total Defence can remain a lived national commitment and not confined to the uniformed services or to our schools.”
The complete record
Every one of 592 lines we hold for Alex Yam, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 5 of 12.
“This is a hallmark of stability and a responsible Government. There are not many governments that can do this. We only need to look around us and observe how things can go wrong. Getting our politics right is key. Looking north in the last few days, we are lucky to be spared the intrigue and drama in our system. Perhaps we should be thankful to the late Tengku Abdul Rahman that we are no longer party to this. We wish our northern neighbour well but we also wish that such distractions may never plague us. In fact, despite the major interruption posed by COVID-19, we have not allowed ourselves to be distracted. While responding to the crisis decisively, this Government has also not shifted focus. With an eye on the future, SkillsFuture prepares us as a people for future challenges, gives us both the resources and also encourages personal responsibility. However, we also need to be mindful of how we implement the schemes. I heard feedback from SkillsFuture Workforce Skills Qualifications (WSQ) course providers of the challenges they face in claims, especially when participants do not complete or fail their course. Many end up not being able to pay and providers cannot claim. Some providers have also been told that if a trainee does not complete, they should factor the trainees as part of attrition or bad debts to be written off. We are all in this together. Honest course providers commit resources to develop and maintain these courses and hope to be reimbursed in a timely manner. I hope that while we care for our workers and help them upgrade, that course providers, being mostly SMEs, are also aptly protected for playing their part and not to be left without recourse or assistance.”
“6 billion Care and Support Package not only provides a leg up but also goes towards, hopefully, stimulating the economy through spending. There are not many governments that can do this and do this quickly, and be so detailed in its response to a crisis. Yet, questions remain. One, is it enough? Two, can we do more? And three, when will we do more? MTI has downgraded the 2020 economic growth forecast, projected between -0.5% and 1.5% on the impact of COVID-19, just slightly better than Hong Kong’s projected -1.5% to 0.5%. According to Standard and Poor's (S&P) Dow Jones, the S&P 500 has wiped out $2.138 trillion since last Wednesday with $1.737 trillion or 63% loss in two days of trade since the start of the week. And this is just on fear of COVID-19 impacting the American economy. We need, therefore, to buffer ourselves against a potential recession. The two packages are significant, but how much will the needle move? How much does the Government expect the worst downside to be? Are we able and prepared to do more? Can we still be as responsive as we are currently? People are worried for their livelihoods. They have taken to heart what this Budget has provided. But it may take more than care, support and stabilisation to shore up, if this drags on. During the Ministerial Statement on COVID-19, I asked if more can be done quicker. I am heartened by the Budget announcements but urge more haste and more heart for those who are affected. And I hope the Deputy Prime Minister can provide further reassurance on this. While we need to be responsive, we also need to be responsible. We expect to run an overall Budget deficit of $10.95 billion. This is about 2.1% of our gross domestic product (GDP). Yet, our fiscal prudence means we will not be drawing on Past Reserves.”
“Mr Speaker, this is a responsive, responsible and remarkable Budget. Responsive because it addresses an immediate crisis, responsible because it remains fiscally sound, and remarkable because it took all of a few weeks to prepare. This is a Budget for extraordinary times. That we are facing potential global financial instability is moot. What we face is not just an invisible enemy but also the real visible damage it causes to the economy. Last Sunday, I stopped by Marina Square at about 1.20 pm between my events. I wanted to pick up some things from a maternity shop. I was somewhat apprehensive because I knew how crowded Marina Square can be on weekends. Yet, I entered a car park that was sparse. From the car park to the shop, I consciously counted a total of only 38 shoppers. At one of the empty children's playgrounds in the shopping centre, I saw the counter staff staring blankly into space because there was never one shadow of a child within the space. At Jewel, outlets famous for their long queues were momentarily famous for non-existent queues. Although the crowds and confidence have returned in the last week, the damage has been done. Heartland malls have fared a little bit better but still report lower numbers than usual. People are taking precautions. Food and grocery delivery services perhaps have benefited most from this crisis. But tourism and service sectors hit directly will take time to recover. This is also no longer a regional problem. It is not a regional illness anymore. It has global reach. A responsive expansionary Budget is a needed assurance. The $5.6 billion Stabilisation and Support Package, even if adjusted for inflation, far outstrips the $230 million SARS package in 2003. This is not just for business but for Singaporeans. The $1.”
“On a related point, with the Shared Mobility Enterprises Bill controlling and licensing shared mobility services, how does the Ministry intend to police the users of the shared devices, such as in ensuring that they have completed competency testing, and how will the law apply to tourists? Lastly, I wish to seek an update from the Ministry on two additional matters. First, how many summonses have been issued since the ban took effect on 1 January and how many PMDs have since been impounded? Secondly, what is the estimated number of non-compliant PMDs still not surrendered to the authorities? Let me illustrate the point by reading to Members an extract from a fire report. A fire was reported involving a PMD battery inside a living room. Battery was brought out to the corridor by the owner. Fire was extinguished by the Singapore Civil Defence Force. Walls on the corridor sustained soot damage, no evacuation was required, paramedic assessed, no conveyors. Thankfully, no one was seriously injured in this instance and the fire was not extensive. However, this is not an old report. This was dated Sunday, 2 February at 10.30 pm. And this is after our ban on non-UL2272 batteries that took effect on 1 January 2020. While I hope this is a rare occurrence since the ban was put in place, we must never leave things to chance. Mr Deputy Speaker, notwithstanding my queries and suggestions, I support both Bills.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to place on record the appreciation of many residents, especially the vulnerable, young and elderly, who have had to live with whizzing devices going around them, bearing down at them at much speed before we instituted the ban. Minister Khaw Boon Wan made the promise to return safe footpaths to Singaporeans and he delivered them. I, therefore, welcome the amendments to AMA and the incorporation of recommendations by AMAP led by Assoc Prof Faishal Ibrahim. I had on numerous occasions in this House asked the Ministry to consider the licensing of users, compulsory safety training as well as third-party liability Insurance. I am glad that AMAP has made similar recommendations which the Ministry has adopted. However, there is one area that the AMAP's proposal and mine differs and that has to do with insurance. This amendment Bill seeks to make it compulsory for third-party liability insurance (TPLI) for businesses. I have, however, called for TPLI to be made compulsory for all users. This is a point I wish to continue to push for. While it is undeniable that the vast majority of users constitute those working in the food delivery industry, the remaining number of personal users of PMDs and e-scooters is not small either. It would, therefore, be important to ensure that before the next spike in number of users occurs when shared paths are completed that comprehensive and affordable TPLI be made available and made compulsory for all users. With regard to testing, I seek the Ministry's clarification on which companies or agencies will be appointed to do the certification and when can certification begin and end.”
“Mr Speaker, I thank the two Ministers for their very comprehensive updates. I have two supplementary questions. First, could the Task Force update us on how many Singaporeans remain in China? And if there are any confirmed cases of Singaporeans remaining in China but outside of Hubei who may have contracted novel coronavirus, are there any plans for further evacuations from China? My second question relates to the state of the economy. While Minister Lawrence Wong has indicated that the Deputy Prime Minister will announce a slew of measures in the Budget Statement, however, can the Government provide an update at the moment of the scale of the impact on our economy so far and also the possible total impact for the coming financial year? And if the situation worsens, what can small and medium enterprises (SMEs) do, especially businesses which are affected at the moment by supply from China as well as their workers still being in China? What can they do in the short term?”
“Mr Speaker, one clarification and one supplementary. Mr Speaker, I agree that no country has eradicated prostitution, but we can certainly try. Because in Singapore, we do the same for the vice of drugs and we do so with much pride. Banning drugs has not meant that we have completely eradicated them from our society. But we have reduced the nefarious effects that come with these, such as violent crime, gangsterism and organised crime. Prostitution is no different, brings with it sexual violence, organised crime and other after-effects. I, therefore, ask if the Ministry would consider adopting an abolitionist route as adopted by France, Sweden and Iceland to criminalise the punters, the clients, but offer an escape route for a better life for those who are in this trade. As we have heard from many Members, many would not have willingly entered this trade. Having been involved in work in the welfare of sex workers in the region, what we can do to uplift a lot of communities is perhaps the most important part and there are a lot of levers that Singapore as a developed country can do. At the end of the day, prostitution is no more than a repetitive round of sex acts. I hope that the Ministry can consider some of these for future legislation.”
“Mr Speaker, I was hoping that, today, we will not just be making amendments to stiffen penalties against vice. I would very much like to ask that the Charter be amended to abolish prostitution from Singapore. This is an abhorrent activity and it is never a necessary evil. It is nothing but a stain upon the hard-earned rights of our Singapore women. I support the Bill's intent to strengthen the authorities’ hand in clamping down but I urge for greater bravery and gumption in eradicating the exploitation of women from our shores. It is not about management but about eradication, hopefully, soon. Mr Speaker, we have a duty and a responsibility to our daughters and our sisters that a world free from exploitation is possible, if only we dare to take that step forward. Mr Speaker, notwithstanding my concerns, I support this Bill and its intent to control vice in Singapore.”
“Held captive in a brothel far away in a neighbouring country, she serviced up to 15 clients a day. She was rescued at the age of 16 – remember this, she was sold at the age of four – but her instinct then was to try to run back to her brothel and captors because it was the only reality, the only "home" that she knew. By then, she had acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) and passed away two months after I interviewed her. Mr Speaker, this is not a life. This is a trade that we cannot and should never romanticise or glamourise. This is a cruel soulless industry. A developed nation like ours that takes pride in the progress that our women and the progress that they have made and honours our mothers, sisters and wives, cannot possibly be proud to have men treat women and their bodies as mere commodities for carnal gratification. Mr Speaker, my wife and I and our three boys are expecting a daughter and a sister soon. Many of us in this House have daughters, too. Can we imagine a world where women are allowed to be exploited and abused as the same one that we hope our own daughters and sisters will grow up, thrive and succeed in? How will we lift our heads in the future and say to them that we stood by and closed one eye to what is nothing more than the commercialised rape of women? That this safe and secure society that we take pride in – one that educates our girls, raises them up as a generation of leaders to hopefully change the world for the better and, yet, still allows dens of subjugation to exist amongst us? Yes, that is what the Charter is meant to do. But those who are in this so-called oldest of "professions", whether in Singapore or elsewhere, are but a reflection of inequality and servitude that plagues our world.”
“She could never leave her hotel room during that time, eating just instant noodles and smoking cigarettes between customers. She claims that she saved the money she had for her parents back in the village and to pay for her younger brother's education. She claimed to be doing sales overseas to her family. The money she had left over she undertook plastic surgery to become more attractive. Thinking she would benefit from a more aggressive agent who could bring in more well-paying clientele, she changed her pimp and was sent to a neighbouring resort island on the pretext of being an escort. Instead, she found herself enslaved and locked up, servicing clients who roughed her up and her own agent who raped and beat her repeatedly over the course of three months. Terrified and psychologically scarred, she has since been rescued, found it difficult to return to a normal life and also to return to her family. She fears for her life. She was all of 19 when she was freed. When I met her, she would flinch at every sound, her eyes frenzied, darting back and forth as if frightened of shadows and of doors opening. Here was a girl who might have had a future, someone's daughter, someone's sister, used, abused, left as an empty worn-out shell, her future cruelly torn from her. There are also many examples that I shared in 2014, when we debated the passing of the Prevention of Human Trafficking Bill. But the story of Mya bears repeating. I met Mya, a 21-year-old girl from Mong La, Myanmar, in 2009. Despite her youth, she had, at that time, the weight of the world on her and looked as if she was in her 40s. She was born blind and was sold by her aunt to traffickers at the age of four. Hers is a heart-wrenching story of suffering.”
“I urge that where stronger deterrents are found in our other laws, that the Charter be further strengthened to match those, and, if the Charter provides for stronger penalties, then other related Acts be amended as well. Mr Speaker, Sir, I was involved for a number of years in street missions in the region. At this point, I wish to share three stories from interviews over the years that have left me with much sorrow. The first is a girl named Pearl. Pearl is fair and of slight build, with almond-shaped eyes, she has masqueraded as a Japanese girl in Taipei. She says she taught herself Japanese and watched YouTube to learn Japanese mannerisms and, in her words, "how to be more Kawaii". She said that, in doing so, she can be a premium girl, fetching three times the price per customer than if she advertised herself as Chinese. She is what is referred to in the industry as an outcall girl, clients will call up her agent after reviewing her profile on Line or WeChat and fix a time and location which she will go to. She has been to Taiwan a few times and to Australia, too. Each trip lasts two weeks and each time she makes US$3,000 to US$4,000, a princely sum back home. When I asked her why she does it, she grins and says it is a quick way to make money at her age and she earns much much more than her peers. Yet, despite that smile, she has no joy in her eyes. The second girl is Rainbow, she hails from Thailand. I met her at a shelter. She was a regular Honey Girl in Hong Kong until she met an agent that abused her and other girls. She used to make trips out to Hong Kong and, as a Honey Girl, will be booked into hotels in tourist districts and wait for calls to service men who will look her up via online adverts and make appointments through agents.”
“The third incarnation of a well-known website from Hong Kong currently lists 399 women providing vice activities in Singapore. It is a sophisticated online advertising platform that was first founded in 2002. The site lists everything from detailed services, districts, statistics, even so called "field reports" from customers. When the Hong Kong police conducted a three-day raid on the vice ring in 2013, an estimated US$15 million in cash was seized. That alone should give us pause for thought on the value of this horrendous industry. Back then, the Hong Kong Police declared a strategic victory over this biggest online vice site. Yet, it has not gone away. Its servers are now based in the US, and it has expanded its operations to advertise in 40 other countries besides Hong Kong, from Japan to even Bangladesh. Their Hong Kong operations alone currently list 1,522 profiles across the Island, Peninsula and New Territories. In this game of cat and mouse, it is the mouse that can squirrel away easily and proliferate in various ways and forms. I, therefore, wish to ask how effective the Ministry thinks that the proposed amendments will be in rooting out the rats and clamping down on such nefarious forms of advertising. This is because while section 146A(1) will raise the penalties, the experience of Hong Kong seems to indicate that the penalties, in themselves, are not sufficient deterrence against those who seek to gain from exploiting women. The global hosting of websites as well as the dark web have proven to make law enforcement more complex than before. I wish to also ask the Ministry to clarify the penalties as amended in the Women's Charter. How do they compare to penalties in other related laws, such as in the Prevention of Human Trafficking Act?”
“In the last few years, I have also received feedback on vice activities occurring in our estates, both private and public housing. I wish to ask the Ministry to work closely with the Ministry of National Development to advise MCSTs as well as how to work with HDB to ensure that vice activities do not end up right at the doorsteps of families, as pointed out by the two previous hon Members. Sometimes, it is difficult even for the MCSTs and Managing Agents to decide how to deal with feedback and complaints of such matters. To give one specific example, a private condo in my constituency. Residents long suspected that one unit in the block was involved in illegal vice activities. However, there were very few levers available to them to try to obtain evidence despite reports to the Police. It took some time before the issue was resolved. Some of the same frustration that the hon Member Prof Fatimah Lateef's residents have gone through are the same experiences perhaps elsewhere in Singapore. How does the Ministry then plan to identify and better prevent such premises from being used for prostitution? Many, as I had previously mentioned, operate with almost brazen impunity. How many does the Ministry estimate are currently operating and how will the enforcement be done? While the amendments to section 148(4) which places the burden of proof upon owners or agents of owners to prove that they could not be ascertained that the place is used as a brothel, how will the Ministry prevent loopholes that may well allow the masterminds behind such enterprises to escape the arm of the law? I will now touch upon section 146A. Mr Speaker, a simple search online will reveal the plethora of websites peddling vice. It does not take much effort to search for such advertising.”
“Mr Speaker, I support the amendments to the Women's Charter to better deal with the issue of prostitution in Singapore. Let me begin with regard to the amendment to section 2 of the Charter. I welcome the changes to the definition of "brothel" to include what has been expressly or implicitly advertised or represented as being used for the purposes of prostitution. A cursory scan of some of our tabloids shows advertising for somewhat dubious outlets peddling health services and therapies. It does not take much to know that many health clubs and so-called massage parlours are but false fronts for vice activities. We see it in various parts of our island, especially in the heartlands. Darkened windows, heavy curtains, signages, instructions to go via the back entrance and somewhat under-dressed foreign ladies beckoning only to men to come in to relax. They are not hidden away in some private corner of our island or some back alleyway. They exist right under the noses of authorities. Some of our older malls like Chinatown and elsewhere have become centres of vice activities. To give an example, the basement of Katong Shopping Centre is a case in point – better known for chicken rice, banana pies and tailors – but also a warren of small stalls with ladies in heavy make-up cooing away at passers-by, with no regard for the sensitivities of those with younger children. Some leave little to the imagination of the services that they prefer to provide, besides the purported advertising of physical therapy or facials. These outlets are not new either. These have proliferated through the years. It is about time we take firmer action to weed them out from the heartlands and return decency to our living environments. It is not just about commercial spaces.”
“In the Asia Pacific, in which Singapore is situated, 27% or close to 30% of people, believe that they should be allowed to make inflammatory statements that are offensive to minority groups publicly. Mr Speaker, we should not allow ourselves to be polarised like that which has happened in other countries, and the amendments are much needed so that we avoid the vitriol that comes from misunderstanding, and avoid any tears that would come from our inaction, and avoid walls that may be erected to divide us because of distrust and, most of all, Sir, never allow blood to flow on our streets because we fail to confront hatred. Mr Speaker, notwithstanding the questions I have posed, I support the Bill.”
“The amendments proposed restrictions on the leadership appointments of religious organisations and donations, for example. However, the appointment of religious leaders is complex. Most religions are universal by nature, belonging to global networks, alliances and associations. Some, like particular Buddhist sects and Roman Catholicism, or different denominations in Christianity, have global leaderships. How would the Act, in practice, address the peculiarities of some leadership appointments that may involve a global or external decision? In addition, according to the Ministry, the proposed Bill would mean that out of around 2,500 religious organisations here today, about 100 will not be able to meet this requirement. Could the Minister provide examples of organisations that would be required to seek exemptions? What would happen to these organisations should the exemptions not be provided? Could the Act also become a prohibition for the entrance of new religious movements or denominations and sects if they do not already have a local presence? How would this be of impact to the constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion under Article 15 of the Constitution? Mr Speaker, Sir, we live in an increasingly polarised world. Singapore is fortunate as an example of a country that has bucked the trend of racial and religious tensions. Just looking at a recent Pew Research Centre survey makes for cold sweat. In this research, it points out the percentage of people who agree that people should be able to make statements that are offensive to minority groups publicly, and this was done in just 2015. In the US, 67% of people agree that they should be able to do so.”
“Could the Ministry share with the House how, in practice, the new powers granted would improve the effectiveness of curbing the spread of speech that would incite hatred? In addition, what recourse by which those who have been issued an RO can seek redress if they truly believe that they have expressed a legitimate view and not hate speech? With regard to POFMA, how will MRHA interface with it so that we have a seamless process to target fake news, hate speech and rumour-mongering? It is heartening that in proposing the amendments, MHA has consulted broadly, and the apex organisations of religious groups in Singapore have accepted and supported the proposals. Can I ask that the Minister share with the House what were the concerns, if any, and perhaps even objections that were raised by religious leaders who were consulted, and how those concerns were appropriately addressed? I applaud the Bill’s innovativeness, especially for the introduction of CRI. As mentioned by Minister Shanmugam earlier, it has taken fruit even before we passed this amendment, from the recent example of a young influencer who accepted the invitation of the Young Sikh Association to learn more about their faith and traditions after posting an insensitive social media comment about two Sikh men she encountered at an event. Under what circumstances would a CRI be effective and are there examples in other jurisdictions that have shown its effectiveness? Also, if the Minister does not issue a CRI, but one is undertaken independently at the initiative of both the offender and the aggrieved, will this be taken into consideration? I agree with the need to prevent foreign influence in Singapore but am cautious about how we would qualify “foreign influence” in practice.”
“In addition, while the Government is accommodatively secular, allowing religions to function and practise freely in Singapore, we cannot guarantee that a future Government will not become aggressively atheistic and, therefore, apply MRHA beyond what it was originally drafted for. What safeguards are there to prevent this? Returning to a point I made earlier about how the Act is being more responsive, as pointed out by a number of political officeholders who spoke when the Bill was introduced, the key component of the Act will now be able to respond to the alarming speed by which hate speech and fake news can spread on social media, and how something inflammatory that may have been a slow boil during the 1990s can now heat up in the web in mere minutes and translate to real, explosive tensions offline. I last spoke about how Singapore can easily be a target for disinformation operations because of our openness and connectivity during the Second Reading on POFMA. Over one third of the world is on Facebook alone. Much of how we interact with one another today is through social media. As a majority of the world moves into the unfettered online world, it also means old tropes of racism, misogyny and hate now have a free amplifier to spread and reinforce their views and perhaps even encourage others to violence. In the amendments to section 8(4), (5) and (6), the Minister can now directly and immediately issue an RO rather than the 14 days later stipulated under the current section 8(6). Speed is of the essence and, as seen in the Christchurch massacre and also in the recent Sri Lankan Buddhist-Muslim clashes, having the ability to shut down hate speech to viral is paramount. That, however, is in theory.”
“", "Aggressive atheism in disguise", "All religious heads must now be pro-Government". I must hasten to add that while these are minority views, a few come from level-headed people who I know. I would perhaps say that if not for this amendment Bill, there would be many who would not be aware of the content of MRHA to begin with. On this front, my next request is for MHA to engage more publicly with religious organisations and assist in the information dissemination process of what the amendments of the Act itself would mean or not mean for the practice of religion. What are the plans that MHA have to engage people of faith as well as the society at large? Religions like Islam and Christianity are what some would term as holistic religions, ones where adherents follow a code of life that is all-encompassing, where participation in the political life of society is informed by faith as well. Section 8(1)(b) and (d) were points of concern in 1990. It may be helpful today to state clearly what would constitute offences. Would it, therefore, be an offence if, in the event that the Government of the day enacts or proposes a law that would run counter to the core tenets or beliefs of an established religion or religions in Singapore, and religious leaders of those faiths issue a public letter to their faithful or preach a message against it, against the intent of the law, I must add, and not the Government itself? Would it constitute something that an RO will be issued against as the message – even though religious and measured in nature – may cause some members of the congregation to be dissatisfied? Would it constitute a political cause in this case?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am a practising Roman Catholic and a person of faith. When we speak of MRHA, it is oft said that its mark of success for this legislation is the fact that it has not been invoked since it was first codified into law almost 30 years ago. With revivalism of religious faith in the 1980s, the Government and society in general have been concerned with how religious fervour may prove to be fertile ground for fanaticism or radicalism. The late 1980s and the early 1990s saw numerous incidents that were cited in the Internal Security Department’s (ISD's) report that was annexed to the White Paper proposing the enactment of MRHA. Examples of aggressive and insensitive proselytisation, of intra-religious sectarianism, as well as issues of the use of faith for political ends are still as important today as they were when MRHA was first formulated. At this point, I would like to ask if the Ministry would be able to update the House that besides the reasons already publicly raised by a number of political officeholders for updating of the Act, are there any other concerns, such as those raised in the previous ISD report that have also accelerated the need to amend the Act at this point in time. Equally, the concerns on the reach of MRHA that were raised when the law took effect in 1992 also remain today and should be rightly addressed so that we are without a doubt of the pure and noble intent of this Bill, which is, to safeguard the harmony of Singapore that we have fought hard to build. Let me quote just some of the reactions I read online after this amendment Bill was presented to Parliament. They include lines such as: "Patriotic Church much like China", "Will we ban fasting, too?”
“So, for the SRP, would it not be possible to make this compulsory? And, for attendance of the course, you are granted, say, a letter or permit that would allow you to ride or purchase a PMD.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, two supplementary questions for the Senior Minister of State. The first one, UL2272. We heard the statistics that the Senior Minister of State shared earlier. We assume that there are about 81,000 PMDs out there today which are non UL2272-certified. While I do not think that 81,000 PMDs will spontaneously catch fire, if it is a safety concern, why would LTA not call for an immediate ban on its usage? We see this in other industries. In the car industry, even though it is just one or two accidents, Toyota has recalled 2.2 million cars before. Ikea – furniture malfunction – has recalled the entire range. For the food industry, even if it is not recalled internationally, when some food additives are found to be problematic, they are recalled in Singapore as well. So, if there is a safety concern, and we already see a significant number of fires that have resulted from improper usage or battery problems in the last two years, why do we not recall for that? The second supplementary question has to do with licensing of the rider or permitting the rider. A couple of hon Members have already mentioned this. But just to name some jurisdictions. Israel requires a special permit for riders who do not already have a driver’s licence. New Zealand also requires a driver’s licence, as in certain provinces in Canada. So, there are already jurisdictions that require licensing for riders. While we may not have to go that far, my understanding from the Senior Minister of State’s response earlier is "not at this point". But at what point do we start considering it? If we keep saying that it is not at this point and then two years down the road we will have to come back to the Parliament and have another Ministerial Statement on the issue.”
“We are under threat from outside actors and that is something that requires robust measures to safeguard Singapore and Singaporeans, and that is why I support this Bill.”
“Coming back to my example on the Communist threat in the early years, some younger residents that I spoke to recently asked what will be the status of academic research, for example, historians writing papers on research into Operation Coldstore, research that asks if there was ever a Communist threat, if there were ever any Communists in Singapore at all. I think these are honest questions and I am thankful that Minister Ong Ye Kung, as Minister for Education, has spoken succinctly on this, what the Bill encompasses and what it does not, especially when it comes to academia. Much has also been said about the directions by the Minister or Ministers, whether to correct or to take down. Some say that the direction is like a beheading. It serves as a tool to permanently silence the discussion. This, I think, grossly misconstrues what the directions set out to do. Far from silencing discourse, I submit that it adds to it. In fact, as it stands, even after a correction, the original poster can still comment on it. So can journalists, so can academics, so can any man in the street. When the Minister gives a correction or takedown direction, he is required to give reasons on why a statement of fact is false. So, far from reducing the discourse, it adds to it. More importantly, it certainly does not silence. In fact. after a takedown, the person is free to continue posting on any other matter. To say that the directions will silence discourse ignores that the discourse will now be more complete because it will have both viewpoints. It is up to the public to decide, with the availability of both viewpoints, what is right or what is wrong. Mr Deputy Speaker, this is an important and much needed piece of legislation.”
“While some falsehoods will require swift action, the same urgency should not extend to other kinds of falsehoods, for example, drip-feed falsehoods. But against this backdrop, the assertion that some drip-feed falsehoods should not require swift actions is misconceived. It is precisely drip-feed falsehoods that are the weapon of choice of state-linked actors today. Gradual insidious effect can take root deep in the population’s psyche. Without a speedy reaction, it can be very difficult to remedy. In this line, I wish to make a point on the final limb that is proposed in this legislation. Some have expressed concerns over this. That of undermining public confidence in the Government and other agencies and some say the definition of "public interest" is far too wide. However, given the expert evidence on disinformation operations, especially those that are already apparent in Singapore, it is clear why this ground is needed. It is important that the exercise of power remains subject to clear check and balance. I think we must accept that. But this Bill does provide for it and has been emphasised by the Minister and many others who have spoken about it. Disinformation campaigns, weaponised narratives, all served as this new front, and we must all be prepared. To better inform the public on why POFMA is of particular importance to combat such foreign campaigns, I ask that the Minister share more on how the Bill serves as a counter to state-linked campaigns run against us and to prepare and inoculate our people against such disinformation that seeks to divide our population.”
“Then what makes it so different now that we require new and robust laws? Retired US Airforce Intelligence Colonel Jon Herrmann describes what is known as the V3S3 of "weaponised narratives": vector, vulnerability and virulence; scope, speed and synergy. Traditional vectors in traditional warfare are physical weapons, but they have limitations of reach and cost. Falsehoods, however, as weaponised narratives and disinformation, are unconstrained by physical bunkers of hiding spots. It has a global blast radius that self-propagates after launch. Vulnerability traditionally meant how much of a bombardment you can take before physical resistance succumbs. Today, it is easy to get past cognitive resistance. It exploits our weaknesses and our biases. Virulence today should be no surprise as well because fake news and falsehoods spread faster and wider than any given chemical weapons. The scope and speed by which falsehoods spread (a) when digital technology costs so much less than bullets; (b) ammunition that self-replicates through bots and online armies; and what some refer to as a firehose of falsehood, the deluge that comes towards you. And, of course, synergy when disinformation builds up one on another, confusing first, confounding and then eventually convincing the population. So, even traditional disinformation campaigns have evolved. I think we can all agree that against such state-sponsored disinformation campaigns need speed, accuracy and clarity, wide distribution and inoculation to combat. And therefore, the Executive is best placed in this situation to make the call for national security. There will be some who say, why not let us take a middle ground.”
“As an example: a pro-Russian fake news site circulated an article that the press service of the Ministry of State of Security in the Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR) reported that Ukrainian forces were preparing a provocation in Donbass. This was when an EU delegation was due to visit. The DPR Ministry claims to have uncovered Ukrainian forces’ plans to use a missile to shoot down the delegation’s helicopter and blame it on the DPR's rebels. This is just one example of the daily barrage that they have to go through. The SC has reported on how falsehoods have been weaponised by some countries. The Minister, in his opening speech yesterday, spoke about "non-kinetic warfare" to harm the sovereignty and social resilience of other nation states. Dr Shashi Jayakumar of the Rajaratnam School of International Studies presented before the SC and shared on how disinformation operations involve, and I quote: "spreading rumours to discredit politicians, and playing up themes like the negative portrayal of immigration policy have been aimed at undermining public trust towards democracy, and systematically influencing populations to become less trusting of mainstream established news networks and more trusting of fringe news sources (backed by foreign powers) and conspiracy narratives." We must realise that this is not a theoretical possibility. It is not one that is far removed from our shores. The SC has received expert evidence of foreign state-linked disinformation already present in Singapore. This makes complete sense. We are a nation that is open and connected and diverse and, therefore, is the perfect target for disinformation operations as part of larger influence operations to wear down our people. I return to my earlier starting point that disinformation is not new.”
“Very soon, the fall, the riots took place. It established facts that were untrue about our leaders, it spoke about Singapore leadership intentions to oppress Malay rights. Clarifications were made by Singapore leaders, but clarifications were not published by the paper. There were further deliberate disinformation campaigns. A series of leaflets were issued calling for Chinese to be killed in Singapore. In one paragraph, it said, "We should wipe out all the Chinese from Singapore to prevent them from making fools of us." Materials like that inflamed tensions between the communities. On top of that, you have further inflammatory speeches by people, such as the Secretary-General of UMNO, Syed Jaafar Albar. One thing led to another and created a climate of fear and distrust. What would have been a small incident during the procession on Prophet Muhammed's birthday became that spark on the entire pile of tinder that exploded. Deaths, injuries, destruction, not just of lives and infrastructure but society itself. However, we survived it and we thrived. But will we be as lucky the next time? Today, this Bill gives us the capability we lacked then to put out clarifications, corrections fast, accurately and widely. We may speak philosophically about it. But when lives depend on accurate information that needs to be out there urgently, we will be and would not want to be philosophical about it. Let us look at Ukraine today. It is subjected to a daily barrage of disinformation to destabilise the country, further divide the Russian-speaking population, the minorities there, and the majority Ukrainians.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, fake news is not new. Deliberate disinformation has been part of statecraft for centuries. Singapore has experienced our own tragic effect of disinformation in our early days. And I will quote two examples. The first is the Communist threat. Early propagandists like Tan Malaka who hailed from Indonesia. He was an agent of the Comintern. Arriving in Malaya in the 1920s, he invited the Chinese Communist Party to send agents into Malaya in 1925. That marked the beginnings of the early stages of the Malayan Communist Party (CPM). The CPM grew by leaps and bounds during the Second World War. We launched the Communist struggle at the end of the Japanese Occupation and thus began the Malayan Emergency. Disinformation and propaganda of falsehoods supported by Communists in the region were widespread all the way until the 1980s. This entire experience of the Communists led to over 13,000 deaths over 12 years, ending only in 1960. Subsequently, they went underground but continued to destabilise the young nations of Malaya and Singapore. In 1964, we had the race riots. It is a tragic yet pivotal moment in our history, one seared into our psyche. Yet, though we call it a race riot, it was the weaponisation of political narrative that led to the unfortunate incidents. Its background is not unknown to us. Many have studied it, key of which was the political disagreements between the Alliance Federal government in Malaysia and the PAP Government in Singapore. The United Malays National Organisation (UMNO) at that time led the campaign through Utusan Melayu, which was a Jawi-based newspaper. Disinformation articles in Jawi manipulating the words of Singapore leaders were widespread, an example of which is this article from 17 July 1964.”
“Mr Speaker, I thank the Senior Minister of State. First off, I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State if she could provide information on part 3 of my question on the mistrust engendered by the anti-vaccination movement, a question that my hon colleague Dr Chia Shi-Lu had also raised earlier. The second follow-up question is on the numbers that the Senior Minister of State provided. She mentioned that 93% of students in the 25 schools have already opted for the vaccination; so, whether the Ministry had tracked the reasons why the 7% had decided not to. My third and final supplementary question has to do with the social effects that some parents have talked about, that the HPV vaccination would lead to promiscuous behaviour by their children because they think that, with the vaccination, they can avoid cancer. Would the Ministry be looking at how to educate parents as well as students on this?”
“Mr Speaker, I thank the Senior Minister of State for her update on Project Wolbachia in Singapore. I have three supplementary questions. Firstly, why has the study taken so long as the start of Phase 1 was in October 2016 and it has been almost three years now? Compared to many other countries, we seem to be slower in our pace of introduction of Wolbachia as a dengue and Zika suppression method. Secondly, the Senior Minister of State talked about scalability as well as sustainability of releasing male mosquitoes. My second question is: will NEA consider adopting the World Mosquito Programme's Wolbachia method, which is to release both male and female Wolbachia mosquitoes so that it is self-sustaining? This has found success in several hotspots internationally, including Australia. My third question has to do with availability of information on Project Wolbachia as well as educating the public. It seems that the public is aware of various methods but may not be so clear about the benefits of Wolbachia. In Australia, for example, they involved school students as part of the release of male Wolbachia mosquitoes so that they bring the message home to their families as well. So, will NEA consider expanding on the education and information available on this project?”
“I, therefore, believe there is fertile ground to include all child abuse material as I have described because technology will make it ever harder to distinguish real and virtual as well as the psychological correlation progressing from virtual to real consumption Although I believe that the amendments to the Penal Code as proposed under the Criminal Law Reform Bill are much needed and have been robustly discussed, I ask that my proposal to criminalise all forms of child abuse material, including NPPIC, be considered. Notwithstanding my comments and proposal, I support the Bill.”
“The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child in relation to the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography also refers to child pornography as any representation, by whatever means, of a child engaged in real or simulated explicit sexual activities or any representation of the sexual parts of a child primarily for sexual purposes. Existing legislation is not as robust. Sections 6(1) and (2) of the Undesirable Publications Act only imposes a conviction for a first offence to a fine of $2,000 to an amount not exceeding $10,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or three years. The same is so for the Films Act. The late Dr Victor Cline, who was Professor of Psychology, did an indepth research into sex addiction and pornography. He describes four stages of sexualisation – addiction, escalation, desensitisation and actualisation. His research shows those addicted to pornographic materials will want and will seek more explicit or extreme material and likely end up desiring to act out what they have seen. Just earlier this afternoon, Minister Ong Ye Kung also alluded to the normalisation of behaviour with the availability of obscene material online. Minister Shanmugam also spoke in his speech for the Second Reading of this Bill that the inclusion of materials which are indistinguishable whether the child portrayed is fictional or non-fictional is to remove the defence by any accused that the material that he or she has been caught with is fictional. Therefore, should it not be the case that all child abuse material in whatever form it takes should be criminalised?”
“The punishments are hefty, and rightfully so: a term of imprisonment which may extend to 10 years, and liable to fine and to caning for using or involving a child in the production of child abuse or producing child abuse material under 377BG (2) and 377BH (2); the term of imprisonment which may extend to seven years, and liable to fine and to caning for distributing or selling child abuse material as well as a term of imprisonment which may extend to five years, and liable to fine and to caning for advertising or seeking child abuse material. However, child abuse material should be abhorrent in whatever form it takes, whether it is non-fictional or fictional, and I would add, whether it involves a real child or a virtual one. The law seeks to recognise the special harm and depravity inherent in child abuse material and child pornography. As such, any material, in any form, should be considered equally abhorrent for its intent. Therefore, I ask that the Ministry consider including the criminalising of all fantasy or virtual child abuse material, which is what is usually termed as non-photographic pornographic images of children (NPPIC). Criminalised NPPIC should include but not be exclusive to cartoons, animations and drawings, even if they are not indistinguishable that the child portrayed is real or fictional. We will not be alone in this – sections 62-68 of the UK Coroners and Justice Act, sections 1466A(a)(1) and (2) of the US Protect Act, and section 1(17) of the Thailand Criminal Code Act.”
“In this case, she was acquitted by the High Court of six charges under section 376A(1)(b) of sexually penetrating a 13-year-old in a landmark decision. The case was subsequently heard in appeal before the Court of Three Judges. The apex Court overturned the High Court decision. The hon Chief Justice emphasised that section 376A was to be gender-neutral. While the Court has recognised the gender neutrality of section 376 as it stood at that time, I am heartened that the PCRC has also proposed amendments to sections 375 and 376, so that the definition of "rape" would include non-consensual penetration and that men can be victims of rape as well. It also expands protection to cover a victim that is an adult male who is forced to engage in penetrative sex against his will by a female perpetrator. This brings the statutes up to date and affords men, especially juveniles, protection. We do not as yet have such confusion in our laws that have led to unbelievable circumstances elsewhere, such as in the 1993 case heard before the court in Kansas in the US. Hermesmann vs Seyer was a pivotal case in the US, where a woman convicted of statutory rape of a minor and was pregnant as a result of the act, later successfully sued to claim child support from her victim. It is hoped that such a situation would never arise in Singapore. Second, with regard to Child Abuse Material, I raised a question in April 2017 to ask if the Minister for Home Affairs will introduce specific laws on child pornography. I am glad that the public consultations show broad support to criminalise non-fictional child abuse material. The new section criminalises non-fictional child abuse as well as fictional child abuse material where it is indistinguishable if the child portrayed is real or fictional.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, please allow me to first wish all our Muslim colleagues, "Selamat Berpuasa", the start of Ramadan. The Criminal Law Reform Bill seeks to amend the Penal Code and bring it up to date. The Penal Code, as mentioned by many colleagues, is an important piece of legislation in Singapore, as it consolidates laws that relate to criminal offences. First enacted as the Straits Settlements Penal Code in 1871, the Act has been reformed on numerous occasions to bring it up to date. In recent decades, in 1973, there were enhancements of punishments to curb the use of violence by criminals; in 1984, the introduction of more deterrent punishments for certain offences; in 1998, the enhanced punishments for abuse of domestic helpers; and in 2008, a decade ago, amendments to expand the scope of offences. Today, we are making important amendments to the Code. This is the result of two years of discussion by PCRC. There are 169 substantive recommendations. After the recommendations, there was engagement with more than 700 stakeholders and with submissions from over 60 individuals and organisations. I applaud the committee and the Ministry for undertaking this much needed review. There has been robust consultation, and the taking on board of suggestions and feedback. As the Bill involves many changes which many of my hon colleagues have already covered, I will confine my speech to two particular areas which I had previously raised in this House. First, on gender neutrality. In May 2016, I highlighted that our current penal code is not gender-neutral and made a request to the Ministry to consider reforming our Penal Code. This was in relation to the April 2016 case of PP vs Zunika Ahmad.”
“Mr Speaker, I thank the Second Minister for her response. With regard to the annual entry fee, I know that the Second Minister had said that most of those who are on this entry permit tend to be from higher-income groups. However, if it is a problem of problem gambling, then the factor of income should not come into play. Problem gambling, regardless of your background or your income level, should still be combated, which is why I continue to make the call to do away with the annual entry fee. Because if we acknowledge that problem gambling plagues people from all backgrounds, then having a higher disposable income should not be a criterion to keep entry permit on an annualised basis.”
“Sorry, Mr Chairman, I forgot to declare earlier my interest as the Deputy President of STTA. We receive funding from MCCY as well as having a number of spexScholars on our list. To clarify the point I made earlier, some of the athletes that I referred to are already full-time athletes. They are receiving their income through the NSA. So, it is not that they have another job that they have to give up on. So, when the spexScholarship is offered to them, there is a difference between the quantum within the spexScholarship and their current income. So, my suggestion is to take out that cash portion and to provide them with the other benefits if they are already full-time athletes.”
“Mr Chairman, building on the point that the Senior Parliamentary Secretary made earlier on the spexScholarship, there is still a difference in the level of funding between the multi-year programme as well as the spexScholarship. Perhaps, one suggestion would be to make the spexScholarship a little bit flexible because they have different elements to the spexScholarship. In certain cases, the athlete does not take up the scholarship because their current income is already higher than what the spexScholarship would provide. So, for them to take up the spexScholarship is a loss of income. However, could there be a possibility to remove that portion, allow them to continue on their current income without the cash benefit portion, but provide the rest of the benefits of the spexScholarship, including the overseas training grant, so that both the NSA would benefit as well as the athlete himself or herself?”
“Like many Singaporeans, I go to my place of worship regularly. Every Sunday, in church, I see large crowds of fellow believers gathering throughout the entire day. In our mosques, our Muslim brethrens throng for Friday prayers. Temples are packed during key festivals as well. We often go about our worship without much thought for safety or security. We take it as a given. Yet, we only need to look around us in the region to realise how starkly that religious organisations are obvious soft targets for terrorist attacks. While SGSecure has helped to raise the awareness of the need to be alert and be prepared, are our religious organisations prepared to handle such situations? And who can they turn to to seek help to develop or to strengthen their plans? We must always engage one another in dialogue. But it is in showing and experiencing our care for one another that we can truly have harmony. Integration of National Sports Systems”
“Mr Chairman, we live in a pluralistic world, and Singapore, perhaps more than any other country, defines this measure. According to the Religious Diversity Index published by the Pew Research Centre, Singapore ranks first out of 232 countries surveyed with the greatest religious diversity. With diversity comes the vibrancy of our community life – different religious groups celebrating festivals, intermingling of communities and living together in harmony. With diversity also means that fault lines are never too far from the surface, which is why Singapore has always been careful in ensuring that these fault lines do not rupture. This means much hard work. We must, first, recognise that when we talk about religious harmony in Singapore, it is not just skin deep. We have not achieved the harmony simply by talking about how similar we are. All religions, after all, aim for the good of Man, and also acknowledging that we do have differences and accepting those differences. As the society becomes more affluent, correspondingly, a sizeable number also turn to greater religious life to find meaning to their lives. We must be careful about how we balance pride in our own faith and, at the same time, not denigrate the beliefs of others in the process. I am, therefore, heartened by President Halimah's announcement of an International Conference on Social Cohesion in December 2018. Having been involved in inter-religious dialogue, I am proud that Singapore is often cited as an example of how we can be diverse, yet undivided. Could the Ministry, therefore, share more details of this conference and what it means for Singapore? How do we promote our way of religious harmony and also learn from the examples of others in challenging the issues of identity politics?”
“Mr Chairman, please allow me to thank Minister Lawrence Wong, Minister Grace Fu, Minister Desmond Lee, Minister of State Zaqy Mohamad and Senior Parliamentary Secretary Sun Xueling for listening intently to us and considering seriously our suggestions. We do wait eagerly for MND to implement promptly some of these measures. Therefore, Mr Chairman, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. [(proc text) Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. (proc text)] [(proc text) The sum of $2,494,963,300 for Head T ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. (proc text)] [(proc text) The sum of $7,848,052,800 for Head T ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. (proc text)]”
“Sorry, Chairman. If I may just repeat the question. Last night, I mentioned that I welcomed the announcement of the Home Ownership Support Team. Could the Senior Parliamentary Secretary update the House on the ambit of this Team and what are the conditions that the Team will be looking at to identify households that can potentially become home owners? Finally, what are the numbers that could potentially move towards home ownership in the next five years?”
“In terms of the Home ownership Support Team?”
“Numbers in terms of what is the main barrier to those who are emplaced but do not qualify.”
“Chairman, I have three clarifications for the Senior Parliamentary Secretary. The first is that in my speech last night, I asked for some details of the Home ownership Support Team. What are the criteria that they will be considering and what is their ambit and how many rental households could potentially move towards home ownership in the next five years? The second clarification relates to what the Senior Parliamentary Secretary shared earlier on the Fresh Start Housing Scheme. In terms of the new Fresh Start Support Programme (FSSP) and the appointment of a new service provider, how would this differ from the existing work that our Family Service Centres (FSCs) are doing on the ground because the numbers are relatively small? I note that there are some differences between those who are emplaced and those who successfully apply for a flat. What has been the main barrier to those who are emplaced but do not qualify thereafter?”
“Mr Chairman, we live in a fast-changing world. Singapore prides itself as a city that keeps pace with technology. Could the Ministry update on the plans to make our nation's built infrastructure future-ready? In doing so, can we also ensure that it continues to be a welcoming and liveable city where all Singaporeans can feel a part of? What are the challenges that lie ahead of us? Last year, I had the privilege of accompanying President Halimah on her State Visit to the Netherlands. While there, I saw for myself the Dutch living out the Polder Culture in all aspects of their lives, especially in how they build and plan their city. Like us, we are a small country surrounded by water and at risk of global warming and rising sea levels. I watched a simulation there at the Research Institute of our city centre flooded as seawaters rise. We can talk about it. But watching it really hits home quickly. The reality is that the risks are real. How can we plan in advance for this possibility and learn from the experiences of others? Singapore, ultimately, is our home. It must be one that is endearing and enduring. Our homes must be places of comfort and safety, our communities built on trust and cohesiveness, our environment green and welcoming, our nation united and strong. At the root of it all is our compact with Singaporeans, a promise that we have kept and must continue to keep – come hell or high water. [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]”
“For younger aspiring home owners as well as second-timers, the Sale of Balance Flats (SBF) Scheme and the Re-Offer of Balance Flat (ROF) Scheme are often seen as the easier and quicker option to getting keys to your own flat. But I often caution younger residents who try for SBF that they are competing for a smaller pool with a bigger crowd, and yet they still try. Therefore, I welcome the Ministry's announcement that the ROF will now be extended all year round and made available online on a first-come-first-served basis. However, I wish to ask how the Ministry intends for the system to work smoothly and avoid opportunistic applications rather than from those with genuine needs. Could the Ministry also clarify how the first-come-first-served system will be fair for all? If the ROF scheme under the new arrangement is proven to be a successful model, I would ask that the Ministry also consider extending it to the SBF scheme as well. Over the years, I have also been making an appeal for better access to housing for singles and single parents. We have made big strides for singles and the extension of grants in the last two years have been helpful for many applicants. However, one feedback I have consistently received is that while the grants are attractive, often they are hard to qualify for, such as the proximity grant when the estates that singles wish to apply for close to their parents or child are of larger flat types that they do not qualify for. For single-parents and divorcees, the waiver of the wait-out period that was announced recently is a Godsend. However, the requirement for approval of the former spouse to purchase a flat often still serves as a major barrier. Could the Ministry, therefore, consider further relaxing this requirement?”
“After the enhanced LBS was first announced by Deputy Prime Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam in 2012, fellow Members and I have pushed for greater adoption of the scheme and also for the scheme to be extended. Further improvements were then made in 2014, and I was most heartened when Minister Lawrence Wong announced after last year's National Day Rally that LBS will be extended to all flat types effective 1 January this year. I have actively promoted LBS to my older residents and, as I have a high number of larger flats, the extension is welcome news for my residents. However, I also wish to point out that there are many who are still unaware of the details and grapple with issues surrounding leaving an asset for their children or should they live beyond the period under the LBS agreement. Would the Ministry, therefore, consider better communication on the scheme and perhaps offer a customised info-kit to home owners who qualify for the scheme so that they can be better informed of their options? Related to this is, of course, diminishing lease and its impact on home prices. The Ministry had earlier indicated in August 2018 that it is studying the possibility of allowing liberalisation of the usage of Central Provident Fund (CPF) for older, shorter lease flats. I wish, therefore, to ask the Ministry for an update on the study so far and the parameters that the Ministry is looking at to make this work. I would also point out that while this will open up the market for older flats and allow younger home owners the option of purchasing an older flat using more of their CPF, we must not solve two problems and yet move the main issue of diminishing leases further down the line.”
“00 pm I am, therefore, heartened by the Senior Parliamentary Secretary's announcement of a Home Ownership Support team to provide stronger personalised help for those with potential for home ownership. The work for the new team will certainly not be easy. Could the Ministry, therefore, update the House on the ambit of this new team and what are the conditions that the team will be looking at to identify households that can potentially become home owners? Based on the understanding of these criteria, could I also ask the Ministry how many rental households today would potentially move towards home ownership in the next five years and what are the main barriers that would keep the rest from moving towards these aspirations? While we address the issue of families progressing to home ownership from rental, there is also a group which faces even greater challenges. These are our elderly poor, often single, without family support. Last year, I raised the issue of joint-singles where co-tenants are unable to get along. Would the Ministry consider having more rental flats refurbished to provide for more privacy within the flats for co-tenants to have some semblance of their own space? This reduces the disagreements that may surface. Also, I would suggest for an adjustment period to be included for the benefit of both co-tenants so that they have time to adjust to each other before committing to a full rental contract. This could be for a month and come with certain preconditions. From elders in rental flats to elderly home owners, the Ministry has provided additional options over the years. One example is the Lease Buyback Scheme (LBS).”