Anthea Ong
Singapore
“Hence, I recommend that the Government reduce the required period for involuntary no pay leave or duration of income loss from three consecutive months to one month and allow individuals with no bank account and daily-rated or ad hoc workers to be eligible for CSG.”
“Mr Chairman, I thank Senior Parliamentary Secretary Low for her response. I would like to ask if the Senior Parliamentary Secretary could answer my question. Should there be a mechanism to make companies that are unaffected by or even profiting from the crisis return their JSS payouts? That is one.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Senior Minister of State for the response. Could I then ask if MOH has the intention to increase funding for these community health organisations?”
“Thank you, Mr Chairman. I thank the Senior Minister of State for the response. I am very happy to hear that we will be co-investing in these start-ups. Could I ask the Senior Minister of State if there is a plan in this co-investing to take equity or is that in the form of grants?”
“Mr Chairman, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. [(proc text) Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. (proc text)] [(proc text) The sum of $1,851,670,000 for Head V ordered to stand part of the Second Supplementary Main Estimates.(proc text)] [(proc text) The sum of $1,710,800,000 for Head V ordered to stand part of the Second Supplementary De…”
“Thank you, Senior Parliamentary Secretary, for your response. Mr Chairman, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. [(proc text) Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. (proc text)] [(proc text) The sum of $1,063,442,000 for Head I ordered to stand part of the Second Supplementary Main Estimates. (proc text)]”
The complete record
Every one of 393 lines we hold for Anthea Ong, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 6 of 8.
“In the eyes of our system and policies, Marcus will be considered to be moderately disabled rather than severely disabled, and the result is that he will lose out on close to $1,250 worth of support, which would have been a lifesaver financially, as that would allow him to consider a broader range of options like employing a helper or engaging private nursing services that will enable him to pass away at home peacefully with dignity as he would have preferred. Instead of enjoying support, Marcus had to agonise over the financial difficulties, which creates stress and anxiety which adds to his mental health condition. For both Marcus, who is already suffering from multiple conditions, and his caregiver, their journey in seeking care and support in his last days was unnecessarily difficult. When we adopt such an extreme definition of severe disability, we inevitably exclude and prevent support from reaching those with more moderate or milder forms of disabilities who are inadequately covered in terms of financial support. An ongoing research conducted by the Association of Women for Action and Research (AWARE) of family caregivers reveals that their care recipients who are moderately rather than severely disabled, could spend close to $866 after subsidies, or 22% of their monthly household income, on average, on care-related expenses. This is 35% more than what the average household in Singapore spends on similar items, according to data from the 2017/2018 Household Expenditure Survey. I am concerned how this may affect retirement adequacy of family caregivers, or foster inter-generational transfers of long-term care costs.”
“We should consider how specific mental health conditions that are highly prevalent are recognised and supported by other long-term care schemes, eventually moving to a more universal and explicit recognition of all mental health conditions in our long-term care policies. A critical start could be in how we explicitly consider mental health conditions when defining and assessing disabilities. For instance, we can include assessment of equally critical but non-physical ADLs like cognitive ADLs in functional assessments, or as doctors have advocated for regarding disability assessments, assess and score what patient actually does rather than what patients can do. This important differentiation between capacity and performance is crucial because it is what we do which actually determines care needs and, hence, caregiver burden. Currently, multiple schemes ranging from IDAPE, Pioneer Generation Disability Assistance scheme, FDW or its replacement Home Caregiving Grant, ElderShield or its replacement CareShield Life, withdrawal of MediSave savings and ElderFund require severe disabilities in its eligibility criteria for people to benefit from it. Take, for example, an elderly who lives alone in a rental flat – I will call him Marcus. He is terminally ill and unable to perform two physical ADLs, on top of his mental health condition which affects his cognitive ADLs. Despite his condition, Marcus will not be eligible for this network of schemes designed to support people like him.”
“These are numbers specifically for this age group and only counts Singaporeans who suffer from minor mental health conditions. According to the Institute of Mental Health's latest nationwide study, "One in seven people in Singapore has experienced a mental disorder in their lifetime". Given the number of Singaporeans who will be affected, there is an urgent need to examine how long-term care costs for people with mental health conditions are supported. While people with mental health conditions may be able to perform the physical ADLs, our current policies fail to recognise that they may struggle with other ADLs which are just as essential to everyday life. These may include cognitive ADLs like communication or simple problem-solving, aspects which are not recognised within our current definition but are captured in internationally-recognised assessment tools like the Functional Independence Measure Instrument. Furthermore, there is already precedence in our public policy which considers the impact of mental health conditions on daily living, like how the intake assessment for nursing home residents includes aspects of psychiatric conditions, thereby recognising that people with mental health conditions may require support as much as those who have physical disabilities. I, therefore, urge the Government to take a more inclusive approach in the definition of disabilities, both nationally and in this Bill. To be inclusive, we should ensure our policies and schemes provide coverage and support for long-term care for people with mental health conditions, and we can start doing so with CareShield Life.”
“Mr Speaker, with our ageing population, long-term care support cannot be just a luxury for some; it is a must for all. When our loved ones are cared for well, we enjoy the peace of mind to contribute productively to the economy and country. However, this Bill must not leave out or undervalue significant groups of people as that would go against its policy intent of being universal and inclusive. Besides urging for a critical change in how we define disability as I have in the past, I would also like to highlight the need to better support our younger Singaporeans who may have disabilities or are in need of long-term care, and also how the current policies discriminate against women. This Bill can and must go further to strengthen our social fabric and safety nets so that we truly walk the talk of being an inclusive society. The Bill defines "severe disability" as when an individual is unable to perform three or more of the following physical ADLs: washing, dressing, feeding, toileting, walking and transferring. I commend the ElderShield Review Committee in recommending that the impact of cognitive impairments on functional ability be explicitly considered in the disability assessment framework for claims, and am glad that MOH has accepted this recommendation. However, "severe disability" remains too narrowly defined, as it excludes people with mental health conditions. This is especially troubling as MOH has announced that in financial year (FY) 2017, we have 12.4% of Singaporeans aged 18-74 who suffer from minor psychiatric morbidity, for example, anxiety, depression and related disorders, which is estimated to rise to close to 14%, or about 315,000 Singaporeans in FY2019.”
“I thank the Minister of State. I have two questions. The first is, we have tracked the number of differently abled people who are employed. Do we know how long these employed people are in their employment? My personal experience is that I almost get a request for employment every other day at Hush TeaBar from the deaf community. I am wondering, as much as they are employed, how long do they actually stay in employment. The second question is, do we have any plans to commit to a national target? I want to qualify that I am not asking for an employment quota for employers, but I am asking if we, as a country, is committing to a national target in terms of inclusive employment, particularly for PwDs.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Senior Minister of State for the response. Could I ride on this opportunity and ask if the Senior Minister of State would, together with the two Senior Minister of States from MOH and MSF, look at starting an inter-agency workgroup or task force to look at the issues that I have mentioned in the fragmentation, availability and accessibility issues for our vulnerable groups?”
“Those with access needs can choose among different travel options, thereby affording them more convenience and bringing their options closer to the rest of the population because we must change the focus from mobility to accessibility. Last but not least, we simply must use every opportunity we have to shape green habits in our people. Almost everything we do emits carbon. Instituting carbon emission-based pricing for our P2P passenger transport services further reinforces our commitment to integrate climate change measures into national strategies and policies. Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Bill.”
“Singapore has pledged to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by 16% below business-as-usual (BAU) levels in 2020, and made a further commitment to reduce our emissions intensity by 36% from 2005 levels by 2030, and stabilise our greenhouse gas emissions with the aim of peaking around 2030. We could consider tier-pricing according to the carbon emission of the vehicles. This way, passengers could be nudged to consider the ecological footprint of one's transportation choices in their daily commute. A framework to follow could be the Vehicular Emissions Scheme that takes into consideration a vehicle's emissions of four pollutants and the vehicle's carbon dioxide emissions. Another pricing structure for PHCs could be based on electric, petrol-electric hybrid, compressed natural gas (CNG), bi-fuel (CNG/petrol) vehicles. This will not only push passengers and drivers to opt for more environmentally-conscious options, but will also increase the environmental consciousness of our population. Singapore's pledge to reduce greenhouse gases will require the population's recognition of the severity of the climate crisis, in order for various corporate and civil society stakeholders to resolve the issue in unison. In conclusion, Mr Deputy Speaker, LTMP 2040, which brings Singapore together clearly ensures that Singapore's transport system is inclusive through priority cabins, Hearts Zone initiative, making public sector infrastructure barrier-free. Making our taxis and PHCs more accessible will allow the burden to be shared between the private sector and our SSAs.”
“I would like to also ask the Government to: (a) look at streamlining these support schemes to make them more accessible to the very people who will be using them, as well as the care workers supporting them, be it social workers and/or community volunteers. The MET scheme is clearly one that will see an increase in demand with our ageing population and, therefore, needs an urgent review; and (b) to consider broadening the qualifying criteria for these schemes to include those with severe mental illness or low cognitive functioning, given their challenges with taking public transport as well as expand the Taxi Subsidy Scheme to include trips to and from medical appointments. Improving accessibility will require drivers to be sensitive to the needs of passengers with access needs. Currently, there are some schemes in place. I mentioned ComfortDelGro's collaboration with HWA earlier. Grab has a Grab Assist option where drivers are trained by AIC to offer additional assistance to seniors and PWDs. I ask that the Government look into broadening these schemes to include more ride-hail and street-hail drivers and providers, so that we can meet the access needs of our society with more frequency and consistency. A possibility could be requiring ride-hail and street-hail providers to have all or at least a certain substantial percentage of drivers trained in providing for passengers with disabilities through a Code of Practice, under clause 30 of the Bill. Mr Deputy Speaker, let me switch now to our climate change responsibility as a nation and the opportunity this Bill affords us to do so.”
“We all know how our lives have changed with the ability to just tap for a Grab or GoJek on our phones and knowing that a driver with a car will be at our doorstep in no time. Would not this P2P convenience mean even more for vulnerable persons in our midst who are already struggling with the challenges of money, illness and disabilities? Given the growing accessibility needs and existing challenges with availability and responsiveness, I would like to urge the Government to consider partnering the private sector, with their existing technology and drivers, to address this challenge at a national level as part of our Smart Nation vision. Even for a lay person like me – although I did invent a technology product in a past life – it seems completely conceivable that there could be a special button on the booking apps visible only to those who are eligible for the subsidy schemes to access the very same underlying booking platform that will ping to hundreds of drivers out there who are trained and available to come to them within minutes or on advanced booking. Some may even be trained to be medical escorts. The financial process is automated and electronic, relieving the community service providers to provide more high value add services to their clients. On a side note, there is no reason why Meals on Wheels cannot do the same, too, with the food delivery apps. It is not so simple as I have described, I understand of course, but it is definitely not impossible. This can truly be the kind of socially innovative 3P partnership that we want to see more of for a Smart Nation and as a caring and inclusive society.”
“In his late 70s and living with dementia, Steven, not his real name, was referred to the MET service after his discharge from the hospital because he had lost his mobility. The service provider took some time to admit him into the service and, even after being accepted as a client, they could not serve him for his post-discharge appointments because they were all fully booked. The same happened to Simon, too. The service could not support on short notice but as his condition deteriorated, there were many appointments that he needed to go for urgently. If you think that the numbers accessing these P2P transport schemes are negligible, I am here to disappoint you with just these two sets of numbers that I managed to find. MOH is on track to meet targets with 6,200 daycare places, 10,000 home care places and 17,000 nursing home beds by 2020. The Agency for Integrated Care (AIC) reported that a projected 60% of these clients will need some form of transport. HWA provided more than 77,000 trips in financial year (FY) 2017 for rides catered to medical consultations, rehabilitation sessions, recreational activities, ferrying children with disabilities to and from schools. They do this through Handicare Cab Scheme, a collaboration with ComfortDelGro to provide wheelchair-bound persons a guaranteed cab during rush hour driven by a specially-trained cabby. MET services also provide Taxi Subsidy Scheme, amongst others. Mr Deputy Speaker, I am determined that we have and must take this opportunity with this Bill to call for a whole-of-Government action and out-of-the-box approach to address the above challenges.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I then got confused because I can clearly see it is entirely plausible that an individual may need to tap on multiple transport services, but how would this individual, already dealing with challenging circumstances, manage that with the way the schemes are now organised? It looks like he would need to apply to one organisation for help to his medical appointment under MET service and another to bring him to day rehab under the VWO transport subsidy scheme. From what I understand, only a handful of organisations like HWA and Red Cross can provide a one-stop shop for all these services. In addition to the perplexing fragmentation, there is also the unnecessary exclusion of debilitating conditions from the above schemes. Simon, not his real name, in his late 50s, was diagnosed with terminal stage cancer. He needed to go for chemotherapy and subsequently palliative radiotherapy plus several other medical appointments regularly. Apparently, the MET scheme does not cover trips for chemotherapy, so he was rejected. Thankfully, the Singapore Cancer Society stepped in to support him. Mr Deputy Speaker, this was a dying man who was not literate, had little family support and yet had to face all these accessibility challenges in his last days. Thankfully, a group of volunteers were there to hold his hand and help him navigate through all this. He passed on earlier this year. I also know of people with severe mental health conditions who clearly cannot manage taking the public transport being rejected by these schemes, too. In addition to the fragmentation and accessibility issues, there is also the issue of availability.”
“First, we have the Medical Escort and Transport (MET) services, funded by MOH for community providers to provide transportation and/or someone to accompany their vulnerable clients to travel to and from their homes for medical appointments and treatments, for example, at hospitals, specialist outpatient clinics or polyclinics. It is for those who need help to move around and have no caregiver or whose caregiver is unable to provide support because of their own health and physical conditions. There are currently nine community providers, including Handicapped Welfare Association (HWA), Red Cross and others, which provide the service via specialised vans. They now make about 2,000 such trips monthly. Second, we have the Taxi Subsidy Scheme (TSS) funded by the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) which specifically targets people with disabilities. The scheme only covers school, work or training supported by SG Enable. The scheme reimbursed qualified beneficiaries 35% to 80% of their monthly taxi fares, including from PHCs registered with LTA, like Grab. MSF expects the number of beneficiaries on TSS to grow to 300 by 2021. Lastly, we have the voluntary welfare organisation (VWO) Transport Subsidy Scheme also funded by MSF which, I guess, should be now called SSA Transport Subsidy Scheme since we have now officially dropped the "VWO" for Social Service Agencies (SSAs). This scheme supports PWDs who are attending Early Intervention Programme for Infants and Children (EIPIC), Day Activity Centres, Sheltered Workshops or Special Education (SPED) schools.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I stand in support of the Bill. Regulating PHC ride fares will benefit the population at large. Stipulating the Codes of Practice gives a common framework of standards for the different players in the ride-hail and street-hail services to provide a consistent experience for passengers while ensuring their safety and comfort. I am decidedly pleased that sections 2f and 3f of clause 30 of the Codes of Practice explicitly specify measures to facilitate access to, and use of, the ride-hail and street-hail services by individuals with disabilities. Indeed, I would like to ride on this Bill and the recent announcement of the SG Cares-GoJek Medical Transport Subsidy Scheme in Kembangan-Chai Chee by none other than our dear Speaker himself to discuss how we can push the envelope further for a people, private and public (3P) partnership to support the P2P transportation needs of vulnerable groups in our community as part of our Smart Nation vision. To support this accessibility, we must also look at how we can train current and potential drivers. Finally, I would like to discuss how the fair pricing policy is a way for us to account for carbon emissions as we continue to be a good steward for the environment. Mr Deputy Speaker, while writing this speech and gathering ground feedback from community practitioners who work with our vulnerable seniors, PWDs and low-income communities, I went from feeling informed to confused to determined. Please let me elaborate. Where I was informed is the spread of P2P transport schemes that are currently available for our vulnerable groups.”
“Can I ask when we are expecting the 100,000 lamp posts to be smartened up? I know the contract was already awarded last year. So, could the Minister share with the House when we are expecting all our lamp posts to be watching us?”
“The report of this body should be made public to ensure state accountability and to also demonstrate the respect that the Government has on data privacy. In conclusion, Mr Speaker, it is clear that AI, robotics, IOT and 5G will change and are changing the face of law enforcement. It is tempting to brush off the concerns shared above with the rhetoric of "it's better to be safe than sorry" or "if you have nothing to hide, it won't affect you". However, we must ask ourselves what is the kind of society we want Singapore to become. Do we want to build a psychologically resilient and informed citizenry that will also be the ears and eyes for one another in these times of increasing security threats, or a people that depends completely on these ubiquitous electronic eyes on every lamp post and leaving security entirely to the responsibility of the state? Do we want to build a culture of respect for privacy, starting with the Government setting an example for transparency and accountability that provides the bedrock of our social compact where there is trust between people and faith in the Government, or a culture of fear and distrust that may impede creativity and innovation? Mr Speaker, answering these questions will help us fortify the Social and Psychological Defence pillars of our Total Defence for a strong and united Singapore, one that is built in partnership between the Government and the people.”
“It has found that there are varying levels of training on data protection in the public sector and that many data incidents have previously been the result of human error. Furthermore, it is not just the Government systems that are at risk but also the ecosystem with which our citizens' data interacts with. And, given the recent data breaches, we need to ensure high data protection standards by third parties. I understand that the Public Sector Data Security Review Committee has until 30 November to submit its findings and recommendations to the Prime Minister. In the meantime, I would like to urge the Government to consider constituting an independent oversight body that will evaluate, on an annual basis, whether various forms of personal data, collected through forms or surveillance, has been legally and properly collected and managed by the public officers. This would include reviewing cases of misuse, the public organisation's data management culture and whether any changes have to be made to prevent future cases of misuse or breaches. In the United Kingdom, the Investigatory Powers Commissioner's Office (IPCO) provides independent oversight of the use of investigatory powers by intelligence agencies, police forces and other public authorities. IPCO is comprised of judicial personnel, scientific experts, inspectors, lawyers and communications experts. In the US, the US Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board reviews information-sharing practices related to terrorism protection efforts. Establishing an oversight body is important as the Government increasingly gathers massive amounts of information with new surveillance measures, including smart lamp-posts and drone cameras, being rolled out.”
“Though there may be a predominant mindset that Singaporeans are not that concerned with privacy, the fact the Personal Data Protection Commission saw over 1,600 complaints on data protection issues in 2018 alone, as mentioned by Minister Iswaran to this House, shows that privacy is valued in Singapore. Convenience cannot be the sole consideration of data collection. Citizens deserve to know the purpose and how their data is being used. Therefore, if we want to create a culture of respect for privacy, the way the Government handles individuals’ data must set the example. While the Government has in place the Public Sector (Governance) Act where Government agencies can share relevant data only when there are data sharing directions issued by relevant Ministers, citizens may not be aware of what these directions entail and how their data is being shared among agencies. When the public is aware of the efforts that the Government takes to safeguard their data, trust with the Government is built and the public live in less fear that their every action is subject to scrutiny. With transparent safeguards, the public also play the role of a compliance officer, as they can identify lapses that occur. Hence, I urge the Government to consider informing the public on what kinds of data different Government agencies are authorised to access and use and for what purposes, to build a more informed citizenry. The Public Sector Data Security Review Committee had identified technical, process and people strategies to strengthen our data security regime, given the rising complexity of our systems as our demand to use data grows in our society.”
“First, last year, Amazon’s face recognition technology falsely identified 28 members of the American Congress as people who had been arrested for crimes, disproportionately misidentifying African-Americans and Latin-Americans. This raises concerns that face surveillance used by governments can fuel discriminatory surveillance and target racial minorities. Second, these harmful effects are also already being felt in China, where facial recognition software targets the domestic minority populations, particularly the Muslim Uighur minority in China's "war on terror". "Anomalies" in their behaviour that can trigger suspicion include "dressing in an Islamic fashion and failing to attend nationalistic flag-raising ceremonies". This is worrying, as suspicion can be activated based on culture, religion and ethnicity as legitimate identifiers of threat. In Singapore’s multicultural context, inadvertent algorithmic bias can put our harmonious social fabric at risk. No community must be perceived to be singled out. Can the Second Minister please clarify the safeguards and mitigating measures we have in place to avoid such misidentifications and algorithmic biases? Last but not least, Mr Speaker, please let me share my third concern on data privacy and accountability. An article by TODAY in 2016 claimed that Singaporeans saw national security as more important than privacy. Nevertheless, this does not offset the value of privacy and the need for the Government to remain accountable to its citizens.”
“I urge the Ministry and the new agency to be mindful of the delicate balance needed between keeping our streets safe and safeguarding the psychological resilience of our people to maintain a strong social compact. I would like to ask the Minister to clarify if an additional clause can be provided in section (5)(2) of the Bill such that the agency, in performing its functions, to have regard, in addition to current provisions, for the social and psychological consequences of these scientific and technological advances on our citizens. Mr Speaker, this brings me to my second concern – unbiased policing with predictive technologies. While predictive policing through AI is the future of data-driven law enforcement because of convenience and accuracy in the face of potential threats, we cannot ignore the risks that may arise with unwarranted systemic biases that might lead to inadvertent discrimination towards some communities. Predictive policing risks reinforcing known biases in law enforcement. Bias may also lead to the over-policing of certain communities, heightening tensions, or, conversely, the under-policing of communities that may actually need law enforcement intervention but do not feel comfortable in alerting the Police. Facial recognition systems tend to disproportionately misidentify women and those from ethnic minorities. These neural networks are built on a vast number of faces from different groups. As a result, if it is trained and built for the better part on male subjects from the ethnic majority, for example, which is statistically more likely, the system will be more accurate for this group and less accurate for others. Let me share two examples, Mr Speaker.”
“We behave in a desired way just in case we are being watched. Another research by Duke University from 1966, which has been cited in numerous other articles and books on privacy even to today, showed that the shrinkage of free space where a person can be "off-stage" and simply be themselves rather than trying to be respectable under society's standards may increase the frequency of anxiety and withdrawal from social roles, which are signs of mental illness. Other studies have also argued and reported that the long-term damage on one's psyche from prolonged surveillance creates a culture of self-censorship and apprehension which clearly inhibits creativity and innovation, the very bedrock for the future of our economy and our Smart Nation vision. Mr Speaker, I may now sound like a broken tape recorder but I cannot emphasise enough the urgent need for us to make mental health a national priority, what with the upward trend of one in seven Singaporeans experiencing a mental health condition in our lifetime, according to the 2016 Singapore Mental Health Study that was published just last year. Unless the mental well-being of our citizens is the top priority in policy narratives, we may never intentionally and adequately address the tradeoffs between the security imperative and potentially suffocating psychological effects of living under the gaze of the authority. Again, let me use this example of the 100,000 Police Cameras (PolCams). How did we decide how much surveillance is enough when we currently already have a desirable low crime rate? What is truly necessary and when does it become a surveillance overreach, especially considering the financial and social costs involved?”
“Technologies that allow the Government to monitor, analyse and manage behaviour to fight crime, detect threats and keep us safe are also the same technologies that may paradoxically give us less psychological safety and have detrimental consequences on our society’s mental well-being. Let us take the example of the $7.5 million "smart" lamp post project which was awarded to ST Engineering in October last year which includes the installation of AI or AI-based facial recognition surveillance cameras on 110,000 lamp posts around Singapore, amongst other smart features. We already have an existing and extensive network of security cameras but the use of more sophisticated technologies on these cameras means information could be shared among agencies. According to a report by The Straits Times, the new camera systems can, for instance, analyse faces – down to race, gender and age – for catching speeding e-scooter riders and other purposes. With the surveillance information, Government agencies can increase their situational awareness, detect potential problems and respond quickly to incidents, such as unruly crowds, train breakdowns and traffic congestion. It has been shown that the fear and uncertainty generated by surveillance inhibit activity more than any action by the Police. This is clearly a good outcome for law and order. Yet, Mr Speaker, we must not forget that the well-being of our citizens goes beyond just physical safety and security. A 2018 study by the Digital Ethics Lab of Oxford University found that surveillance has been linked to increased levels of stress, fatigue and anxiety. This constant state of being monitored shapes an environment where one’s sense of personal control becomes greatly diminished.”
“Mr Speaker, I stand in support of this Bill. I commend the bringing together of more than 1,000 research scientists, engineers and technical staff from the Home Team departments in the setting up of the new agency to focus on developing cutting-edge technologies, such as detection and surveillance capability, forensics as well as robotics and unmanned systems, to safeguard Singapore in this digital age. However, as we continue to amass the latest and increasingly sophisticated technologies in surveillance and data analytics in our homeland security arsenal, I would like to take this opportunity to highlight three areas of concern for this House and the Ministry to consider. First, we must ask ourselves what is the impact on the society's prevailing mindset and mental health as we live under the constant gaze of surveillance with security technologies becoming more chillingly ubiquitous. Second, as we increase the use of AI and surveillance in a preventive manner, whether for criminal actions or terrorist threats, what are the implications of algorithmic biases and unwarranted systemic discrimination on our multiracial and multicultural society? How do we maintain a resilient and cohesive society with unbiased policing as we fight terrorism with new technologies? Lastly, how are we creating a culture of respect for privacy and accountability as the presence of numerous surveillance and data analytic methods by Government agencies makes it difficult for individuals to control the use of their data? Mr Speaker, the proliferation of smart technologies is a double-edged sword.”
“I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the response. Could I please follow up with two supplementary questions? The first is, I understand that in POHA, as much as entities are included, they are included insofar as they can seek protection from harassment, but they are not actually liable if they are the ones harassing. So, can the Senior Parliamentary Secretary clarify that because that is the understanding that we have of POHA? In relation to the question being specific to the employer, the concern here is about workplace harassment. So, whether the employer has the liability in addition to responsibility in maintaining a workplace that is free from harassment and violence. I would also like to understand what was the intention behind us extending POHA to include entities in terms of being protected but not in terms of them being liable as the harassing party.”
“How do we make sure that the elderly and persons with disabilities or those with mobility difficulties are provided safe evacuation routes in the event of a fire? How can the deaf or hard of hearing become cognisant of a fire if they cannot hear smoke alarms? How can persons with mobility difficulties be evacuated off a high-rise building if lifts are not to be used and they are unable to take the stairs? What more can we do for persons with dementia at home? We may not always have the right answers, but we must not stop asking the right questions. For that is the only way for us to fireproof our future as a caring and inclusive society. At this juncture, I would also like to join my fellow Members to thank the SCDF for the work they do for the country.”
“For a few hours, this neighbour and his family were able to rest in my team member’s flat to clean up and compose themselves before their friends came to take them in for the night, and then weeks after. SCDF conducted various examinations to determine the origin and cause of fire, the Police conducted their on-scene investigations, and the insurance company surveyed and assessed the fire damage. The neighbours engaged companies for the repair and restoration works, including clearing the soot from the smoke, rewiring of the house and painting. During the ordeal, the neighbour and his family felt like "refugees" for those few weeks when they had to seek refuge with their friends. Mr Deputy Speaker, there is a beautiful story of community and kinship in this heartland encounter which is most heartening. Yet the burning question in my mind when he shared the story was: did his neighbour have a fire extinguisher in his flat? He did not. The blaze was so small when it first started from the electric wire, an extinguisher would have quelled it in seconds and the trauma and anguish of many weeks could have been averted. If mandating for all is not an option, can we consider further incentivising homeowners to equip their homes with fire extinguishers and smoke alarms through offering discounts for conservancy charges or discounts for home fire insurance premiums? Can we offer schemes to subsidise such installations as mandatory for vulnerable households alongside the fire safety training I mentioned earlier? Mr Deputy Speaker, the needs of our vulnerable groups must be front and centre in policymaking alongside the rest of the population, including when it comes to fire safety.”
“Even as the national effort to install smoke detectors in all new residential flats is in place, fire extinguishers and smoke alarm installations are still only highly encouraged by SCDF, and the take-up rates remain low. Yet, they remain essential tools to stop small blazes from growing bigger. Smoke alarms decrease the probability of fatal fire incidents dramatically. In the US and Japan, after home smoke alarms were made mandatory in 1976 and 2006 respectively, the rate of fatal fire incidents have decreased by 46% in the US and 41% in Japan. Britain’s Fire Industry Association also found that 88% of fires tackled with extinguishers were put out. While having a mandatory fire extinguisher policy is believed to be difficult because of financial costs, a risk-based approach is needed. As shared earlier, fires happen more often than we think, Mr Deputy Speaker, especially in residential homes. And when they do, the cost of a fire extinguisher pales in comparison to the material and psychological damage caused. One of my team members shared this story with me as I was writing this speech. Almost a year ago, he was woken up in the middle of the night by his neighbour whose flat had caught fire from an electrical short circuit. The neighbour, despite being in a crisis himself, made sure that his daughter alerted the neighbours to leave their homes in case the fire spreads. The swift response by SCDF ensured that everything was soon under control. This neighbour and his family were not allowed to go back into their home until the investigations were over. Besides, smoke had spread throughout the flat making it unsafe to occupy.”
“As we roll out Dementia Friendly Communities, the neighbourhood is aware of issues arising from dementia and can better support these individuals who live alone. The volunteers, also known as Dementia Friends, could support persons with dementia by checking in on them regularly and advising them on minimising the risk of fire hazards. In addition, fire safety training should also be given to the caregivers of these households, designated neighbours and these Dementia Friends. Assistive technologies in the home environment, such as gas shut-off valves and sprinkler systems, are preventive measures. The Fire Code currently provides that sprinklers be placed in certain areas of HDB buildings. But in response to a Parliamentary Question posed in July 2018, the Ministry of National Development replied that “SCDF’s assessment at this point in time is that there is no need to install sprinklers within the residential units.” Is there now a new position on this by SCDF, especially considering the 54 fires involving PMDs in the first half of this year, a number that has more than doubled compared to the same period last year? While I concede that there is a significant financial consideration in installing water sprinklers in each and every household, installing sprinklers in vulnerable households where the resident does not have the ability to quell the fire on his own or evacuate quickly must be an option to be seriously considered. Would the elderly lady on a wheelchair I mentioned earlier in Bukit Panjang have lived if she had a sprinkler in her flat? Last but not least, Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to raise the issue of smoke alarms and fire extinguishers in homes.”
“As far as fire safety training is concerned, they are merely taught to inform their employer and call the emergency hotline number in times of a fire emergency. Nothing else. Aside from regular FDWs, employers also have the option of hiring pre-trained domestic workers who have undergone comprehensive training to take care of the elderly. Under the Eldercare FDW Scheme, they learn to assist them in daily activities, tend to them with medication and be trained in first aid. Again, fire safety does not feature in the training programme. The Safety Guidelines for FDWs by MOM have a singular focus on window-cleaning, following several high-rise fall incidents in the past. Employers are also encouraged to teach these helpers how to handle electrical appliances and preventive measures, such as not touching plugs when hands are wet. Again, fire safety is not included in these guidelines. In addition, Mr Deputy Speaker, our domestic helpers are also not taught how to use a fire extinguisher or the automated emergency defibrillator (AED) or how to evacuate properly in the event of an emergency. Community programmes organised by SCDF, like the Community Emergency Preparedness Programmes, focus on essential emergency procedures like fire safety and evacuation procedures among first-aid programmes as well. Mr Deputy Speaker, I think such programmes should be part of the training that our FDWs receive, particularly those working in households with vulnerable persons. We must equip them adequately so that they have the confidence to act decisively in case of fire and other emergencies which can be very valuable in saving lives, especially when caring for the young, elderly and differently-abled. Second, we must harness the power of the community.”
“08 million. This means that in three decades, 47% of Singapore's total population will be 65 years old or older. Fires are a particular risk for two vulnerable groups within the elderly segment. The first group. There are 82,000 people who live with dementia at home. This number is expected to grow beyond 100,000 by 2030. How we support them with fire safety measures could make a big difference to how long they can remain independent. The second group. There are 103,758 in 2015, approximately 10% of the population aged 65 and above who are illiterate. These seniors may not understand the fire evacuation maps even if they are prominently displayed in their blocks, in the event of a fire. Fire safety is clearly not the responsibility of SCDF alone. The responsibility is one to be shared across Ministries and the community. I would like to take this opportunity, with the debate on this Bill, to discuss how we can do more for the vulnerable groups in our community. Mr Deputy Speaker, it is safe to say that one fire that happens is one fire too many. Let us look upstream at some measures that can prevent fires from happening for our vulnerable communities. First, we should rope in our 250,000-strong foreign domestic workers (FDW) to be part of this effort because: (a) they are often caregivers to the elderly and disability populations, and children; (b) they are often at home during the day and could prove to be a valuable resource should a fire break out within the neighbourhood; and (c) they themselves are at risk in case of a fire outbreak. Currently, a FDW spends a few weeks being trained in their home country on the usual cleaning and caregiving skills.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I stand in support of the Bill. It is crucial that our fire safety laws are regularly updated to respond to the changing nature of fire safety risks and challenges, especially in light of the significant number of fires in the last month alone. I understand that the proposed amendments will attend to some 500 old buildings that are mostly commercial and industrial. However, all four fire fatalities last year took place in residential buildings. The majority of the 90 fire injuries attended to by SCDF last year involved fires also in residential buildings. In addition, a total of 2,411 fire incidents happened in 2018. In contrast, 515 fires took place in non-residential premises. I would, therefore, argue that there is also a need to update and reinforce fire safety measures in residential buildings, especially for our elderly and disability populations. In May this year, an 83-year-old woman who was also a wheelchair user was found dead in her Bukit Panjang flat from a fire sparked off by a lit joss stick. The investigation revealed that she was unlikely to have been able to evacuate on her own when the fire broke out. Her daughter, who had gone out to buy lunch, came back to find the flat on fire. Her mother, who had been diagnosed with dementia, was unable to get out of the flat, and succumbed to smoke inhalation. She was one of the four elderly who died in home fires between 2015 and 2017. A 2008 Norwegian study found that those over 70 years old are four times more vulnerable in the event of a fire. Indeed, the need to address fire safety issues within our built environment is all the more urgent, given that by 2030, one in four of our population will be aged 65 or older. That is 1.8 million people. By 2050, this number is projected to reach 3.”
“I thank the Minister for the comprehensive response. I have three supplementary questions. The first is, I understand ILO is made up of different tripartite members, but in terms of the states, there are only six states which have abstained. We are one, including countries like Russia, Kyrgyzstan, El Salvador, Malaysia and Paraguay, I think. So, pardon me if I got the countries wrong. I would like to ask, within the Singapore delegation of tripartite partners, who were the other partners and how did they vote? How many of these tripartite partners from Singapore voted for, against or also abstained, along with the Government? The second question is: I understand there are some concerns with the Convention that we have abstained from ratifying. What are we doing in the meantime to get us to be more comfortable with those terms and guidelines that we are not yet comfortable for full ratification? The third question is whether the Ministry has any plans to look at companies or employers being liable to create a workplace harassment-free environment. If companies and organisations are already liable for solvency, they are also entitled to protection against harassment in our recent Protection from Harassment Act, then I find it really difficult to see that they cannot be liable for making sure that the workplace is free from harassment and violence.”
“But this future can only be realised if and when we rigorously test and design for the diversity of user experiences and needs. We cannot neglect the discussion of fair allocation, safety and well-being. The elderly and the differently-abled must be invited and included to participate in and negotiate on their rights as users of our shared spaces, roads and pathways. Active participation at the community level will encourage grassroots and ground-up actions, including locale-specific solutions, that help to cultivate the gracious culture of space sharing that we aspire towards. Mr Deputy Speaker, our biggest challenge is not in adopting the latest mobility technologies for improved accessibility nor crafting and updating laws to protect the safety of road users like this Bill seeks to do. Our biggest challenge will be in achieving true inclusivity in urban and transport planning as well as fostering a healthy culture of sharing our limited spaces in a way that keeps one another safe as new mobility technologies emerge. This must, therefore, be our priority in our quest towards being a sustainable smart nation for all Singaporeans. Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Bill.”
“Entities involved in testing could be required to explore locations and methods to ensure the elderly are part of the testing population in future trials. While supportive of AV deployment, I cannot help but come back to the complexity around road rights. For example, should a slower-moving AV providing point-to-point service be afforded preferential road rights to other motorised vehicles? Should there be dedicated road space? Do we carve out more space from sidewalks or from motorised roadways for new pickup points? How should we make these choices? These are difficult but important questions for our society and policymakers to grapple with. Perhaps, Mr Deputy Speaker, I am pre-empting the new Point-to-Point Passenger Transport Industry Bill that has just been tabled for First Reading today. But I think it is safe to say that we must learn from what we have experienced with PMDs by involving the elderly and vulnerable populations early on with AVs. Mr Deputy Speaker, with only 700 sq km of land that is our home, truly, our challenge will always be about space. How do we share space amongst competing users, humans or otherwise, in that perennial creative tension of road rights as well as ensuring the safety of pedestrians, cyclists and motorists? Recognising the diverse needs for accessibility across all user groups, new modes of transportation should be harnessed to enable all Singaporeans to lead healthier, happier lives while protecting vulnerable road users. As much as my heart aches for the lives affected and lost through misuse and accidents from the new devices, we must not throw the baby out with the bathwater either. Diverse mobility options are clearly the future that we need to embrace.”
“Whether or not AVs bring about higher accessibility for the elderly will clearly depend on whether we have designed the vehicles, network and system to their needs and challenges. Reviewing the current use cases and testing compiled by Smart Nation SG, I have to humbly suggest that we may have to do more for our growing numbers of seniors. Mr Deputy Speaker, let me highlight the road rights and accessibility considerations relating to the elderly and AVs in two aspects: the elderly as pedestrians and the elderly as passengers. First, as pedestrians, the elderly are more likely to be at risk with AVs. Pedestrian safety studies emphasise the driver-pedestrian interaction and provisions of cues for decision-making. In the absence of a driver, the elderly pedestrian can only rely on cues from the vehicles. The elderly have slower reaction times and could require both enhanced visual and audio cues to be aware of oncoming traffic. Given our rapidly ageing population, AVs should be designed and tested with consideration to these safety needs. This could include braking reaction time, as well as exterior vehicle design and vehicle sound levels. As passengers, the elderly can benefit from the convenience and safety provided by AVs. However, familiarity with the technology, awareness of benefits and user-centric design are all critical aspects to acceptance of this technology. Testing has so far been at one-north, university campuses as well as Gardens-by-the-Bay. These are not areas where the elderly population frequent, limiting their awareness of this technology and its benefits. As always, it is better to "show them, not tell them". Providing opportunities for the elderly to experience the technology is important.”
“The physical and psychological benefits which PMDs bring cannot be underestimated. An outright ban on PMDs on footpaths or void decks may be a convenient but also a blunt solution. A more effective and calibrated approach would be to institute a different extent of regulation for different PMD user-groups as well as, perhaps more importantly, cultivating a path-sharing and safe riding culture. Mr Deputy Speaker, we also cannot have a conversation on road rights and sharing limited spaces without talking about autonomous vehicles (AVs). AVs have opened up new possibilities to meet mobility needs. And to the vulnerable segments of our population, especially the elderly, AV deployment can both be a cause for celebration and a concern. With one in four of our population being 65 and above by 2030, many who have always enjoyed the freedom of mobility are now and will be less able to. AVs can cover the short distances to visit grandchildren who live close-by without having to navigate stairs, walkways without handrails, or traffic junctions. AVs feature in our near-term future mobility plans as dynamically routed services to be piloted in Punggol, Tengah and the Jurong Innovation District by 2022, a mere three years away. LTA's vision for a car-lite Singapore includes low-speed self-driving pods for neighbourhoods. Both these initiatives can really benefit our seniors with more point-to-point, short-route services. Nevertheless, AVs are moving vehicles which pose a risk to road users and pedestrians. We must, therefore, ensure that we balance the design and deployment of AVs with safety and mobility.”
“At the risk of going off-road here, pun intended, I seek your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker, as I offer another – but important – consideration, on behalf of our elderly and persons with disabilities regarding PMDs. PMDs have grown in usage and already play an important role in the lives of people who depend on them for various forms of participation in society, especially by the elderly and differently-abled. As 76-year-old retiree Madam Angie Ng shared, the most life-changing decision was getting a motorised scooter which allows her to go out marketing, visit friends and have a meal, tasks previously virtually impossible because of her osteoporosis which made it extremely painful for her to walk. Other examples include Ms Juni Syafiqa Binte Jumat who landed a job with GrabFood with her electric wheelchair. It is clear the rapid proliferation of specific PMDs amplifies the need to develop a culture of safely sharing limited spaces among users going at different speeds. Previously, unregulated PMDs led to persistently high accident rates, with 2,500 active mobility offences recorded between May and December 2018 alone. On 28 May, a news article noted that Housing and Development Board (HDB) void deck areas were exempted from the Active Mobility Act and Town Councils can impose their own rules. Fifteen Town Councils then said that they would not rule out banning PMDs from void decks. This is despite recent regulatory reductions of the speed limit of PMDs on footpaths from 15 km/h to 10 km/h. While the Government works towards having every household within 300 metres of a Mass Rapid Transit station, the elderly and differently-abled still rely on their PMDs to enjoy the same privilege of access to public spaces and transport.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I stand in support of the proposed amendments as they are in line with protecting the rights and safety of road users. Yet, protecting the rights of all road users while continuing to enhance accessibility has increasingly come into tension. This is not unique to Singapore but certainly more challenging for us, given our high-density urban environment of 7,804 people per square (sq) km. These challenges will only exacerbate, with one in four Singaporeans to be aged 65 and above by 2030. Including persons with disabilities, this figure reaches a third of our residential population. As the amendments proposed in this Bill seek to adjust penalties and improve regulatory regimes to manage this tension, I take this opportunity to speak up for the elderly and disability population to engage in the conversation of road rights and how Singapore can best enjoy limited shared spaces in a way that protects all, especially vulnerable members of our population with greater accessibility needs. Penalties and regulations are important in ensuring the safety of all road users, but they must also be complemented by understanding and acceptance by the public, which will only be possible if we have these conversations that cultivate cultural acceptance. I acknowledge that our various public agencies recognise these needs, as reflected in the latest Land Transport Master Plan (LTMP) 2040 and URA Draft Master Plan 2019. Yet, we can, and must, do more to build an inclusive, accessible Singapore while navigating the tension between safety and accessibility. We cannot have a conversation on the tension of accessibility and safety without bringing up the PMDs.”
“(proc text)] [(proc text) (5) The Council shall publish for public viewing in connection with its functions — (proc text)] [(proc text) (a) an annual report (or more frequently as the case may be) on the activities, findings and recommendations of the Council; and (proc text)] [(proc text) (b) a report of any substantive proceedings of the Council; provided that (proc text)] [(proc text) (c) the content of any report may be minimally redacted if at the discretion of the Council it may weaken efficacy of measures to address online Falsehoods, appear to render judgment on any particular Direction, expose market-sensitive information, or expose information subject to the Official Secrets Act. (proc text)] [(proc text) (6) No suit or other legal proceedings shall lie personally against any Council member or other person acting under the direction of the Council for anything which is in good faith done or intended to be done in the execution or purported execution of this Act.”. (proc text)] [(proc text) Question put, and amendment negatived. (proc text)] Assoc Prof Walter Theseira: Chairman, we wish for our dissent to be recorded.”
“(proc text)] [(proc text) (c) to evaluate other measures taken by the Government under this Act to address online falsehoods; (proc text)] [(proc text) (d) to make recommendations to the Government on the general exercise of powers under the Act in order to strengthen efficacy and public confidence; (proc text)] [(proc text) (e) to liaise with the media, technology firms and other experts to advise on public education, ground-up initiatives, and other measures to strengthen the capacity of Singaporeans to evaluate online information and resist falsehoods; (proc text)] [(proc text) (f) to liaise with scientific, specialist and technical experts to advise the Government on examining contested facts of a specialist nature; (proc text)] [(proc text) (g) to undertake surveys or other arrangements to obtain public feedback on any matter relating to the functions of the Council; and (proc text)] [(proc text) (h) to perform such functions as the Minister may, by order published in the Gazette, assign, provided such functions do not compromise the independence of the Panel. (proc text)] [(proc text) (4) The Council shall be furnished with the resources to discharge its functions under this Act, and in particular, shall — (proc text)] [(proc text) (a) have a Secretariat appointed by the Minister subject to the concurrence of the Chairman; (proc text)] [(proc text) (b) be entitled to request information on the exercise of powers under this Act from any relevant Ministry, who shall be under a duty to provide that information; (proc text)] ([(proc text) c) have funds provided to meet any expenses incurred in carrying out its functions, provided that the funds provided during any term of Government shall not be diminished during that term except with the agreement of the Chairman.”
“(proc text)] [(proc text) (3) The functions of the Council are — (proc text)] [(proc text) (a) to evaluate the state and effects of online falsehoods communicated in Singapore, including online falsehoods not subject to Directions; (proc text)] [(proc text) (b) to evaluate Directions issued with respect to the type of online falsehoods addressed and the public interest causes of action, effects of Directions, appeals processes, and other matters as determined by the Council, provided that — (proc text)] [(proc text) (i) no Direction shall be reviewed which is sub judice or subject to an ongoing appeal at the point of review; (proc text)] [(proc text) (ii) Directions shall not be the subject of individual review except where at the discretion of the Council public confidence in the exercise of powers under the Act requires it; (proc text)] [(proc text) (iii) no review of any Direction shall be admissible as evidence of any wrongdoing or liability on the part of the Government.”
“(proc text)] [(proc text) (2) The Constitution and Proceedings of the Council shall be determined by Schedule, provided that — (proc text)] [(proc text) (a) where the appointment and tenure of office of members is concerned: (proc text)] [(proc text) (i) no member shall hold an office of profit under the Government; (proc text)] [(proc text) (ii) no member shall be a Member of Parliament or stand as a candidate for election as a Member of Parliament; (proc text)] [(proc text) (iii) no appointment of any member shall be revoked without valid cause, where such valid causes shall be limited to inability to perform the functions of the Council, dereliction of duties relating to the Council, or acts that prejudice the independent functioning of the Council; (proc text)] [(proc text) (iv) the tenure of office of all members shall be at least two years on appointment and shall be automatically extended, in the case of a general election which occurs during the tenure of office of any member, to include a term of at least one year past the date of that general election. (proc text)] [(proc text) (b) nothing shall be specified or required that prejudices the independent functioning of the Council.”
“Mr Chairman, I beg to move that the New Clause* be read a Second time. The Council will be empowered to routinely evaluate the actions taken under this Act, make recommendations to the Government and provide accountability to the public through annual reports on the Act. The Council will also oversee and support non-legislative action against online falsehood, including public education. Unlike councils stipulated in other legislation, we are proposing that Members of the Council are to be appointed by a Select Committee of Parliament and not by a Minister, ensuring that the Council stands as a separate and independent body from the Government. The Minister had shared he agreed with the intent of the independent Council. I believe that councils with such a purpose do not lead to unnecessary bureaucracy because we have numerous precedents to cite in support of this, like the National Council on Problem Gambling. [(proc text) *New Clause B, which also stood in the names of Ms Irene Quay Siew Ching and Assoc Prof Walter Theseira, read as follows: (proc text)] [(proc text) In page 67: after line 19, to insert — (proc text)] [(proc text) “PART 10 (proc text)] [(proc text) INDEPENDENT COUNCIL TO STRENGTHEN SOCIETY AGAINST ONLINE FALSEHOODS (proc text)] [(proc text) B.—(1) There is hereby established a council to be called the Independent Council Against Online Falsehoods which shall consist of – (proc text)] [(proc text) (a) a Chairman; and (proc text)] [(proc text) (b) such other members as the appointing authority may determine; (proc text)] [(proc text) (c) where the appointing authority shall be a Select Committee of Parliament.”
“Mr Chairman, I beg to introduce a New Clause entitled "Independent Council to strengthen society against online falsehoods". [(proc text) Brought up, and read the First time. (proc text)]”
“Mr Chairman, I beg to move the amendment* standing in my name as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement. [(proc text) *The amendment, which also stood in the names of Ms Irene Quay Siew Ching and Assoc Prof Walter Theseira, read as follows: (proc text)] [(proc text) In page 51: after line 12, to insert — (proc text)] [(proc text) "(11) In giving effect to this provision, the Minister shall do everything reasonable to ensure that appeals to the Minister are adjudicated without delay, that upon appeal to the High Court hearings shall commence as soon as practicable, and that costs to the appellant are minimised.” (proc text)] [(proc text) Question put, and amendment negatived. (proc text)] [(proc text) Clause 44 ordered to stand part of the Bill. (proc text)] Assoc Prof Walter Theseira: Mr Chairman, we wish for our dissent to be recorded, please.”
“Mr Chairman, I beg to move the amendment* standing in my name as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement. [(proc text) *The amendment, which also stood in the names of Ms Irene Quay Siew Ching and Assoc Prof Walter Theseira, read as follows: (proc text)] [(proc text) In page 41: after line 22, to insert — (proc text)] [(proc text) "(9) In giving effect to this provision, the Minister shall do everything reasonable to ensure that appeals to the Minister are adjudicated without delay, that upon appeal to the High Court hearings shall commence as soon as practicable, and that costs to the appellant are minimised.” (proc text)] [(proc text) Question put, and amendment negatived. (proc text)] [(proc text) Clause 35 ordered to stand part of the Bill. (proc text)] Assoc Prof Walter Theseira: Mr Chairman, we wish for our dissent to be recorded, please.”
“Mr Chairman, I beg to move the amendment* standing in my name as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement. [(proc text) *The amendment, which also stood in the names of Ms Irene Quay Siew Ching and Assoc Prof Walter Theseira, read as follows: (proc text)] [(proc text) In page 34: after line 9, to insert — (proc text)] [(proc text) "(11) In giving effect to this provision, the Minister shall do everything reasonable to ensure that appeals to the Minister are adjudicated without delay, that upon appeal to the High Court hearings shall commence as soon as practicable, and that costs to the appellant are minimised.".(proc text)] [(proc text) Question put, and amendment negatived. (proc text)] [(proc text) Clause 29 ordered to stand part of the Bill. (proc text)] Assoc Prof Walter Theseira: Mr Chairman, we wish for our dissent to be recorded.”
“Mr Chairman, I beg to move the amendment* standing in my name as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement. [(proc text) *The amendment, which also stood in the names of Ms Irene Quay Siew Ching and Assoc Prof Walter Theseira, read as follows: (proc text)] [(proc text) In page 30, lines 7 and 8: to leave out "identify in sufficient detail the subject material and the subject statement.", and insert — (proc text)] [(proc text) "— (proc text)] [(proc text) (a) identify the subject statement in sufficient detail; (proc text)] [(proc text) (b) identify the true facts and their supporting evidence, and/or the evidence demonstrating the subject statement to be false, to the extent practicable; (proc text)] [(proc text) (c) specify the public interest objects of the Direction; and (proc text)] [(proc text) (d) provide the reasons why the Direction is commensurate with and shall satisfy the public interest objects so declared.". (proc text)] [(proc text) Question put, and amendment negatived. (proc text)] [(proc text) Clause 25 ordered to stand part of the Bill. (proc text)] Assoc Prof Walter Theseira: Mr Chairman, we wish for our dissent to be recorded.”
“Mr Chairman, I beg to move the amendment* standing in my name as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement. Again, we welcome the Minister outlining the details of the subsidiary legislation that addresses these amendments in this regard yesterday. However, any future Minister and/or Government could still make changes in the subsidiary legislation to enact rules to unnecessarily delay the appeal process, obstructing appellants' access to swift judicial oversight. With this amendment, any future Minister and/or Government that attempts to delay the appeal process would have to first change the primary legislation. Again, it is a higher barrier to clear. [(proc text) *The amendment, which also stood in the names of Ms Irene Quay Siew Ching and Assoc Prof Walter Theseira, read as follows: (proc text)] [(proc text) In page 23: after line 31, to insert — (proc text)] [(proc text) "(10) In giving effect to this provision, the Minister shall do everything reasonable to ensure that appeals to the Minister are adjudicated without delay, that upon appeal to the High Court hearings shall commence as soon as practicable, and that costs to the appellant are minimised.". (proc text)] [(proc text) Question put, and amendment negatived. (proc text)] [(proc text) Clause 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill. (proc text)] Assoc Prof Walter Theseira: Mr Chairman, we wish for our dissent to be recorded, please.”
“Mr Chairman, may I have your permission for the debate to range over clauses 17, 29, 35 and 44 as they are similar amendments?”