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 [(proc text) Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.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 [(proc text) Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.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 7 of 8.
“Thank you. Mr Deputy Speaker, I have already, with the permission of Mr Speaker, addressed these amendments during my debate at the Second Reading of the Bill earlier. Let me just round it up. We welcome the Minister's assurances that the amendments put forth will be addressed in subsidiary legislation because these assurances were not demonstrated in the Bill when it was tabled. However, our stance is unchanged and we maintain that these amendments to the primary legislation is necessary to ensure that any future Minister and/or Government would have to first change the primary legislation, that is, tabling it in Parliament, and, therefore, a higher barrier to clear. Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move the amendments* standing in my name as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement. [(proc text) *The amendments, 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 20, lines 25 and 26: to leave out "identify the subject statement in sufficient detail.", 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 amendments negatived. (proc text)]”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, may I take this opportunity to clarify my earlier statement? The proposed amendments were vetted by the Parliament Secretariat on procedure. Mr Deputy Speaker, may I seek your permission for the debate to range over clauses 13 and 25 as they are similar amendments?”
“I thank the Minister for agreeing with our intent for this amendment. Mr Speaker, what we are proposing here is certainly not new. We have similar legislative precedents for guiding principles on implementation and administration in the Mental Capacity and Vulnerable Adults Act. Assoc Prof Walter Theseira will elaborate further on this proposed amendment in his speech. The Government has explicitly assured the public that this Bill is not intended to stifle or chill free speech, debate and criticism, and, in fact, aims to ensure such debate can occur without the corrosive presence of online falsehoods. However, the Bill, as written, when tabled, does not contain such assurances that limit how the Bill's powers can be used.”
“For instance, the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) has issued a total of 21 newsroom releases of a corrective nature that it refers to as "Fact Checks" since September 2017. Eighteen of those 21 "fact-checking" press releases, addressed NGO-published content about MOM's priorities, processes and practice. Many of these may technically be considered as opinions to most rather than facts, yet MOM presents these instances as a "fact check", and formats these refutations with author's "claim" which is then countered by MOM's "fact". Let me share another illustration that is not entirely hypothetical. A sexual assault victim might feel uncomfortable sharing the full details of his/her assault experience with the Police but might later disclose important details to case workers, counsellors and researchers. If the NGO grounds its recommendations to legislation on evidence from such accounts, would the Government reject the basis for such recommendations because the accounts do not align with their official records of those cases? Would the findings of the NGO be invalidated if they conflict with what the Government has on record as the “facts” of the case? Besides the ordinary citizen and civil society, Mr Speaker, the concern with the definition of "fact" and "false" as drafted is also shared by the arts and media practitioners, academics and researchers. To mitigate this definitional concern and without meddling with matters of jurisprudence, we propose that a new section called the Principles of the Act be included in the body of the Bill. One of the proposed clauses in this section states explicitly that the Bill targets materially false statements and does not apply to "opinions, comments, critiques, satire, parody, generalisations or statements of experiences".”
“For any avoidance of doubt, I want to state plainly that my debate here is once again not about "why" we have this Bill – I reiterate that I agree online falsehoods should be legislated – but about how the Bill can realise its full function with these amendments. A major area of contention that the House has heard is the definition of "fact" and "falsehood" under the Bill. A statement of fact is defined as "a statement which a reasonable person seeing, hearing or otherwise perceiving it would consider to be a representation of fact" while a statement is false "if it is false and misleading, whether wholly or in part, and whether on its own or in the context in which it appears". I understand that the use of the phrase "a reasonable person" is common in legalese and is used as shorthand for a hypothetical individual who exercises average care, skill and judgement in conduct, and who serves as a comparative standard for determining liability. In the eyes of the Court, this "reasonable person test" is one that is objective. However, it appears broad, imprecise and highly subjective to the ordinary citizen who would rightly be concerned with the chilling fear that giving an opinion could be wrongly construed as a false statement of fact. Many non-governmental organisations (NGOs) are also understandably concerned with such an unclear definition because it is common for NGOs to rely on firsthand accounts of the individuals they represent. They often craft reports, public awareness campaigns and make recommendations on issues with these accounts as the primary source material. However, these accounts may conflict with official interpretations of data by policymakers or are challenged as inaccurate, especially with the information asymmetry.”
“Thank you. First, please let me thank Minister Shanmugam for his comprehensive reminder of the legislative intent of this Bill. I wish to state plainly that I support the legislative intent of the Bill because I agree that online falsehoods can distort and demean public debate in our secular democracy by inciting polarisation and populism for all the reasons that the Minister has outlined yesterday. I also agree and appreciate that the Government has a responsibility to protect harmony, social cohesion and the integrity of public institutions and political processes against online falsehoods. Singapore joins robust democracies like Australia, France, Germany, New Zealand and the United Kingdom (UK) seeking to use legislative measures to curb online falsehoods. This Bill has added first-in-the-world features, such has Correction Directions. However, the Bill currently grants far-reaching powers to the Government on online communications which raises significant concerns across different segments of our society that these tools may be used, intentionally or otherwise, to suppress or chill debate for political purposes. Assoc Prof Walter Theseira, Ms Irene Quay and I submitted a Motion of amendment to this Bill as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement. The proposed amendments seek to mitigate these concerns by ensuring there is discipline in the way the Act would be utilised while ensuring that the Government has the ability to deal with the full range of threats posed by deliberate online falsehoods. The proposed amendments were, as part of our robust Parliamentary process, vetted by the Attorney-General's Chambers. Mr Speaker, I will now address specific issues of concerns and corresponding proposed amendments.”
“Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to address the amendments standing in my name indicated in the Order Paper Supplement with this Second Reading debate, please?”
“I thank the Minister of State for the response. I understand that a labour task force actually found that there is a third category of workers called the dependent workers. This would be workers who the Ministry cannot correctly categorise as either employees or self-employed persons. Examples of such dependent workers are typically the ones who actually choose to sell their services only to one company, the likes of Grab drivers and Deliveroo deliveryman. How are we supporting this group of dependent workers?”
“The Senior Parliamentary Secretary earlier mentioned that a centre will be set up for employees to report cases of sexual harassment at the workplace. That is not coming yet, that is actually in the pipeline. Could the Senior Parliamentary Secretary share more of that and what is the process for employees to come forward if they want to report cases at the centre?”
“The changes made in this Bill are driven by key principles that should be celebrated, especially in the clear commitment towards protecting and supporting the most vulnerable amongst us. Yet, Mr Speaker, we must remember that legislative changes cannot be the end of the process of change. I hope that the Ministry spares no effort in education and awareness efforts with schools, IHLs, workplaces and communities so that every member of our society knows not just what their rights are but also how to activate these rights in the face of bullying and harassment. Social support must be enhanced to ensure victims have an accessible and holistic process of recovery from these traumas. And more importantly, we must continue to spare no effort at every level to build a society with values of respect and inclusivity that will discourage these crimes against the vulnerable in the first place. Because a society that has more justice and compassion needs less charity. And our great hope in such a society is in individual character. Notwithstanding the above clarifications, Mr Speaker, I support this Bill.”
“Improving the chances of securing convictions will do more to promote deterrence than imposing harsh penalties. In 2017, the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women Committee (CEDAW) made a similar recommendation. CEDAW suggested that Singapore prioritises gender sensitisation training in the criminal justice system, not increasing punishments, as a way to strengthen protection for women against gender-based violence. I also urge the Government to consider and look into the deterrent effects of other measures like community service and restorative justice measures as restitutionary agreements. Mr Speaker, I applaud the Government for extending the recourse available under POHA to entities that are victims of harassment in section 11. However, I would like to clarify if the protection that is now available to entities also creates an equal responsibility for them to exercise reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly any harassing behaviour, failing which, they would be held liable for their employees’ actions. The sexual voyeurism case I mentioned at the start of my speech raises questions about organisational investigation processes, support offered to complainants, and helpful prevention programmes. Although not legally enforceable, the Tripartite Advisory on Managing Workplace Harassment provides important guidelines on these issues but it is unclear if the Advisory covers institutes of higher learning (IHLs). If they are not covered, I strongly urge the Government to consider establishing a mandatory code on sexual and other forms of harassment that can hold IHLs accountable when they do not handle student complaints promptly and fairly.”
“Extensive studies reflect that enhanced punishments do not necessarily create a greater deterrent effect and may, in fact, be counter-productive. Research done by the Centre for Criminal Justice Studies in Canada has shown that longer sentences and harsher punishments do not reduce the rates of sexual crimes. Instead, the reverse may be observed, where longer sentences increased recidivism due to a lack of repentance for the initial crime, as reported by the National Research Council in the United States. Moreover, enhanced punishments may even counter-productively discourage the victim from reporting instances of harassment. In eight out of 10 cases that AWARE’s Sexual Assault Care Centre sees, survivors know or are close to their perpetrators. In some cases, especially when the perpetrator is a family member, enhanced punishments may heighten the fears of destroying the perpetrator’s life, deterring survivors from reporting. Jenny, for example, shared that even if the perpetrator, her father, was jailed for the maximum period of time, he would never feel the fear, shame, terror and disgust that she has had to deal with throughout her childhood and into adulthood. She also shared that her mother would not be able bear the guilt and it would devastate her, I quote, "so punishing him even for the longest time would only bring more pain", unquote. Harsh punishments are not necessarily an effective deterrent nor do they serve survivors better. Instead, increasing victim support and making reporting and prosecution processes trauma-informed and more victim-friendly would go a long way in ensuring that survivors will come forward and sustain their involvement all the way to conviction.”
“If need be, we could appoint social workers or Court counsellors to support applications in place of the survivor’s parents or guardian. We need to be cognisant of the social pressures that survivors might face and understand that some may not be ready to involve their family. The other significant change introduced in section 8 of the Bill is close to my heart, namely, enhanced penalties for perpetrators for crimes against vulnerable persons. The Bill defines these vulnerable persons as those with mental, physical disabilities and victims in an intimate relationship with the perpetrator. These changes recognise that these persons are especially vulnerable to being targeted for harassment, potentially face greater psychological and physical damage from such harassment, and are less able to defend themselves or prevent such harassment. I have heard many bullying and harassment stories from just amongst my deaf friends and persons with mental health conditions whom I work with. These extra consideration and attention are definitely a progressive yet necessary step forward. But I cannot emphasise enough that the protection of the differently-abled must not only come from the law. The continued harassment of these individuals originates from a deeper prejudice within our society. We must continue our whole-of-society efforts to tackle the root of this stigma and establish a widespread agreement to care and support the differently-abled. Mr Speaker, I must, at the same time, urge caution when pursuing the strategy of enhanced punishments. There are valid concerns to be raised on the effectiveness of enhanced punishments in administering two key areas of justice, namely, deterrence and retribution.”
“Though not provided for in the primary legislation, the Minister has assured us in his statements to the media that the subsidiary legislation will stipulate that an EPO application under POHA could be granted within 48 to 72 hours. If there is actual violence or risk of violence, an EPO could be granted within 24 hours. I think a $200 fee has also been cited. I seek the Minister’s clarification on this. Mr Speaker, at this juncture, I would like to highlight another obstacle that remains which may impede a survivor's access to help. Young adults under the age of 21 cannot seek POs under POHA unless a guardian makes the application on their behalf. This can be a deterrent from seeking legal redress for intimate partner violence and sexual harassment, even if social service agencies or law firms are involved. Tina, not her real name, was 20 when she approached the Association of Women for Action and Research (AWARE) about a blackmail case. The perpetrator was threatening to leak explicit photos and videos of her if she did not continue to send him more. Despite the mental and emotional distress she was going through, she insisted on not involving her parents because she believed they would react "badly". In fact, she preferred waiting a whole year to turn 21 so that she could go to the Court alone. Tina’s concerns are echoed by many, and they reflect a gap in the current system. Tina’s story is not the only one I know. The 18-year-old student I was mentoring a few years back was sexually harassed by her best friend’s brother and did not seek protection either because she did not want to let her parents know or they still do not till today. I hope that barriers for 16- to 21-year-olds can be removed.”
“Mr Speaker, I would like to express my support for this amendment Bill. It reflects a deeper commitment to the protection and support for the vulnerable amongst us. We are also debating this Bill at a time when a case of sexual voyeurism on university grounds has raised important and pressing questions about legal protection and institutional support for survivors. We must use the current focus on harassment to have a meaningful national conversation on how we can create a society that does not tolerate any form of harassment, one where bystanders feel equipped to intervene and survivors feel empowered to seek justice. Otherwise, these amendments will not fulfil their mission. One major change introduced is streamlining the process for applying and obtaining POHA orders in section 17 of the Bill. Currently, applicants need a lawyer to assist in the preparation and submission of documents and subsequent proceedings and this can be financially prohibitive. It typically costs between $5,000 and $8,000 leading up to mediation, and significantly higher if mediation fails and the matter goes to Court. I commend this amendment to make the process expeditious as well as more economical and accessible, which helps to make the ordeal less alienating and intimidating for the applicant. Lina is a survivor who did not submit her case to Court because the process is currently complicated and costly. In her words, I quote, "I’m still struggling to rebuild my life…. [there was] so much paperwork, and I [would] need to take leave to go down to the Court so many times… It was too much for me." These changes will help individuals like Lina seek justice against their perpetrators.”
“Actually, my concern is not so much the help that the person is getting but the support that we give to employers, which is really what the SEC and ODP are about. This comes from my personal experience. I am involved in the social enterprise Hush where we employ persons in recovery and with mental conditions. The effort has not been a walk in the park. A lot of effort needs to be put in. So, I am wondering if there is any support, very similar to SEC and ODP, for employers who want to take the journey in employing more persons with mental health conditions. We understand that amongst the differently-abled groups in Singapore, persons with mental health conditions actually face the highest unemployment rate.”
“I thank the Minister of State for the response. Can I just ask what is actually stopping us from using the SEC and ODP to include persons with mental health conditions?”
“I thank the Minister for the clarification. I have some additional questions. Can I please ask what happens when the youths cross over to young working adults? Is the Ministry also engaging with workplaces to continue to support them? The other question is: what metrics will be used for measuring the impact of the efforts that the Minister just shared with the House?”
“However, I am concerned that this repeal is not supported with a clear post-decriminalisation strategy, including enhanced psychosocial first-aid training for the Police and Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) officers; coordination between the Police, SCDF, the Institute of Mental Health and support agencies, including tracking and monitoring of suicide attempts and support structures, to course-correct should suicides go up after decriminalisation. With the rising number of suicides with our young and our elderly, decriminalisation of suicide must not be done without reviewing and rebuilding our systemic response towards suicide attempts. We must do more to raise awareness of suicide risk factors, shift perceptions on mental health and deepen community-based efforts in active monitoring, reporting and help-seeking. We must do more to counter the threats of rising suicides amongst our young and elderly. The latter is likely to rise with our ageing population whilst the former is also predicted to escalate with the unrelenting pace of a fast-changing digital-dominant future. In conclusion, Mr Speaker, the proposed amendments in this Criminal Law Reform Bill demonstrate to a large extent that our laws are keeping apace with our aspirations of being a more inclusive society, especially in the greater protection given to the vulnerable, such as minors, persons with mental or physical disabilities, domestic workers and sexual assault victims. However, we can and must continue to do more for other minority groups that are still stigmatised by our laws, such as 377A, because, through history, we have never made or changed laws only for the majority within our society, including this Bill. Notwithstanding the above clarifications, Mr Speaker, I support the Bill.”
“But in response to a Parliamentary Question raised in 2015, MSF reported that there were about 1,000 cases of attempted suicide each year between 2010 and 2014. Because suicide is a crime under section 309, reporting of suicide attempts is mandatory as provided for in the CPC. This will not be required with the repeal. The World Health Organization (WHO) urges society and the individuals themselves not to associate suicide with immorality but to approach it with compassion, which I completely agree. It also said that decriminalisation reduces suicide rates. Yet, there have also been studies of seven nations, namely, Canada, England and Wales, Finland, Hong Kong, Ireland, New Zealand and Sweden, that present a contradicting conclusion where suicide rates were actually higher after decriminalisation. So, I reluctantly did a dip test with those around me who have contemplated or attempted suicide. None knew that committing suicide was a crime in Singapore at that point of their attempt and most added that it would not have deterred them even if they had known it was. Therefore, I am also not convinced of the deterrent effect of section 309 in preventing suicides. In addition, we know that only 0.6% of reported cases of attempted suicide resulted in prosecution each year between 2013 and 2015 which, I surmise, at least in recent years, our Police officers have been taking a compassionate approach in practice anyway, despite suicide being a crime. Mr Speaker, I think we all agree that a person in distress and attempting suicide should not be treated like a criminal and must be shown care and compassion with the necessary professional and psychosocial support. The repeal of section 309 to decriminalise suicide most definitely helps to destigmatise suicide.”
“Because these escalating statistics across all ages of our population are telling us we must: children aged five to nine calling the Samaritans of Singapore hotline increased by more than 500% in less than three years. Suicide is the leading cause of death for those aged 10 to 29. The number of elderly aged 60 and above who took their own lives peaked in 2017, the highest since suicide tracking started in 1991. First, Mr Speaker, we must delink the convenient and linear association between suicide and mental illness. Many studies have conclusively absolved mental illness as the only cause of suicide. Research has shown that mental illness is associated with 62% of all suicides in Singapore. There are two other risk factors that make up the other 38%. First, for the young, life events like relationships, academic stress, National Service; for the elderly – bereavement, debt, feeling lonely and fear of being a burden; and for working adults – marital, financial, problems like unemployment or failed business, as well as legal problems. The second risk factor is physical illness, another risk factor which means that suicides associated with physical illness, not unexpectedly, increase with age. I wish to, therefore, express my concern that the Police referring a person attempting suicide to a medical practitioner may inadvertently categorise all suicide attempters as having mental illness who need a medical “solution” and, as such, not be given the optimal and multifactorial approach he/she needs at that point of distress and after. There were 361 suicides in 2017 according to SOS. The latest number for attempted suicides is not available.”
“Two, where the consent is given by a person who, from unsoundness of mind, mental incapacity, intoxication, or the influence of any drug or other substance, is unable to understand the nature and consequence of that to which he gives his consent. Three, where the consent is given by a person who is under 16 years of age. Four, where a person says or does something to show that they are not willing to continue an activity that has started. Five, where the accused causes or induces the complainant to participate in the activity by abusing a position of trust, power or authority. One could argue that this is already recognised in the proposed section 375(3)(c) on exploitative relationship but that is only for minors. An exploitative relationship can also be a superior coercing his subordinate at the workplace into sexual activity. Six, where the consent is expressed or implied by the words or conduct of a person other than the complainant. This scenario would be applied to situations that SACC has come across where a wife’s consent is assumed if her husband told another man that he can have sex with her. Mr Speaker, I urge for more to be done on public education, including comprehensive sex education in schools, to improve the public’s understanding of consent. Sex education programmes need to explicitly discuss the meaning of consent and what it means in practice. Lastly, I would like to comment on the decriminalisation of suicide, an issue very close to my heart, given the people I know around me, far and near, who have contemplated and attempted suicide. Suicide is a taboo topic in Singapore. This Bill offers us, as a society, an opportunity to break the stigma by having a national conversation about it so that more can come forward to seek help.”
“This discouraged her from formally making a report as she felt she had no case, which was inconsistent with the precedents set by case law. Case law presents a different, yet more straightforward, definition of consent compared to what is currently defined in the Penal Code. It covers a number of situations where consent is negated. However, the definition of consent as developed by case law is not codified nor easily accessible. I recommend that we adapt Ratanlal and Dhirajlal's definition of consent, which was referred to in Pram Nair v PP (2017). For ease of reference, the proposed specific definition of consent for sexual activity should be created under "Sexual Offences" of chapter 16 in the Code and should be defined as, I quote: "Consent is the free, informed and voluntary participation in the sexual activity in question. Lack of resistance and submission to sexual activity, in itself, is not consent as a matter of law." This encompasses the elements of free exercise of choice, voluntary participation and the exercise of choice based on the knowledge of the significance and moral quality of the act. I also propose that the Government include a section to set out six specific situations where either there is no consent in law, or no consent is obtained. Situation one, where the consent to participate is expressed under fear of injury or wrongful restraint to the person, or to some other person, including the accused. I would like to bring particular attention to the addition of the words “including the accused” to account for the type of situations that SACC has come across where the accused threatens to harm himself if the complainant does not comply with his demands for sexual intercourse.”
“This is a significant change because it acknowledges that men can be the victims of sexual harassment and assault, too. Not only will male survivors be able to seek legal remedy under this new definition, but this also implicitly acknowledges the unique struggles and social stigmas that male survivors face. As a society, we should move towards destigmatising issues related to sexual assault and provide more support to all survivors, regardless of gender. Mr Speaker, even though the legal barriers for reporting rape are now reduced, there still exists other barriers that discourage rape survivors from actually making a report. For a start, there is an immense informational gap in the definition of "consent" in our laws versus the laypersons' understanding of the same. I strongly urge for a clear and positive definition of consent for the purposes of judicial review and public education. The PCRC decided against making changes to section 90, citing its general ease of application in Court. I understand the Committee's concerns and acknowledge from the briefing notes on this Bill that the Government intends to create a new section to set out types of misconceptions of acts that will vitiate consent. However, I am concerned that these measures might be insufficient in addressing the problem at hand. For example, I know of such a case cited by the Association of Women for Action and Research's (AWARE's) SACC. A survivor initially consented to have sex but later withdrew her consent when she realised that the man was too drunk and was being verbally abusive. However, he threatened to hurt her. So, she eventually complied with his demands for her own safety. When she went to the Police, she was told multiple times, and I quote, "(but) you did consent initially".”
“One employer was charged last year for having punched her domestic worker so much over the course of a two-year period such that the latter had become blind in her left eye in addition to suffering from an injured right eye. It is not difficult to imagine a similarly abusive employer, in an attempt to avoid being sentenced with enhanced punishments, citing the exception provided in the proposed subsection 73(2) and claiming that the mere fact of employment did not adversely affect the domestic helper's ability to raise her arm to stop the punching. I, therefore, urge the Ministry that the abovementioned sections be supplemented with illustrations to clarify the scope and limits of the new provision, if the provision is not omitted altogether. I do, however, believe that this should be removed as it inadvertently leads to harsh scrutiny of a victim's actions which encourages a culture of victim-blaming. My Speaker, equally important to the continued protection of vulnerable persons and groups are that of education and raising awareness. I would like the Minister to clarify on the Ministry's efforts to work with relevant community partners, such as schools, employment agencies and family service centres, to train and raise awareness on the new laws and the additional protection offered to the vulnerable that they support. Next, on rape. I would like to express my full support for the amendment to abolish marital rape immunity. We are sending a strong signal on where we stand as a society with protecting and advancing women's rights. Mr Speaker, let me also take this opportunity to commend the expanded legal definition of rape which now uses gender-neutral terms and incorporates many more exploitative scenarios.”
“Mr Speaker, I welcome the Criminal Law Reform Bill. As Thomas Jefferson said, "Laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind". I will be addressing three areas of the law reform today. First, enhanced punishments; second, the abolishment of marital rape immunity and changes in the definition of rape and consent; and third, the decriminalisation of suicide. First, enhanced punishments. I wish to commend the Government on its acceptance of the Penal Code Review Committee's recommendations relating to the extension of enhanced penalties for offences committed against the vulnerable amongst us, namely, domestic helpers, vulnerable persons, persons below 14 years of age, victims in intimate relationships and victims in close relationships. The purpose of these sections is clearly to recognise the systemic vulnerability of certain victims and, therefore, the need for commensurate enhanced punishment. However, Mr Speaker, I am confounded by the incongruence between the policy basis underlying the enhanced penalty regime acknowledging an inherent power asymmetry versus the newly proposed subsection 73(2) in clause 15. This subsection renders the section setting out enhanced punishments inapplicable where the accused person is able to prove that his/her relationship with the victim did not adversely affect the victim's ability to protect themselves from harm. Similar wordings appear in the proposed subsections 74A(2A), 74B(3), 74C(3) and 74D(3) found in clause 18 of the Bill In practice, this provision could potentially require the victim to prove that he/she could not have done more to protect himself/herself. There are sadly enough cases of domestic worker abuse.”
“Can I ask the Minister, given that this is happening across all the AUs and maybe other IHLs, are we looking to introduce codes and standards to universities and IHLs to help them prevent and manage sexual harassment on campus? The second question is, are we considering, given the numbers that the Minister has shared, a kind of cross-campus body that would help to manage such incidents? I am wondering because a student does not stay in a university if he has been found to have committed a misconduct or act. Would he then go to another university? And so, is there this cross-campus sharing of information and, therefore, that warrants a body to be set up?”
“I just want to ask, considering the number of cases that SMC has to deal with, are we also looking upstream into the medical education in terms of getting them to know it while they are actually being trained to be doctors, instead of looking at it now at the SMC level? Both are important. But I am just wondering whether you are also looking upstream.”
“Chairman, I would like to ask the Ministry regarding BCF. I understand, in terms of implementation and governance, that we focus on the IPCs. The Senior Minister of State said that there are about 600 IPCs in Singapore. But we also know that there are many, many more registered charities that are not IPCs, the smaller organisations as well as the ground-ups and social enterprises, that, in my view, should also be enfolded into this Bicentennial commemoration and to support them. Can the Senior Minister of State share what else we can do to support these other organisations that are not IPCs, because it clearly disadvantages them? Because any time there is a matching grant – when I was President of Women's Initiative for Ageing Successfully – for SG50 Care and Share, a lot of funds do go to the IPCs, away from the other non-IPCs.”
“Mr Chairman, could I ask Senior Minister of State Sim Ann this: there have been a lot of Government-driven efforts in community-building and there are also a lot of ground-up initiatives. How can we deepen these communities by encouraging both of these communities to come together to collaborate so that we do not actually build siloed communities as an unintended consequence?”
“Mr Chairman, the additional funding from the Long-Term Care Support Fund and Home Caregiving Grant is likely to boost the use of formal home- and centre-based services. There is a need, therefore, to improve the regulatory framework for homecare and daycare services. The Lien Foundation reported that, as of 2018, only two out of 60 such private providers were receiving subsidies which came with mandatory minimum requirements by MOH. Perhaps it is time to consolidate existing healthcare legislation into a holistic framework that covers the whole care spectrum. A strong regulatory framework should have at least three components: legislation, care quality auditing, and feedback and disputes. Independent bodies and a rating system could be set up for these purposes. What plans does MOH have to regulate private homecare and centre-based services? Given the absence of mandatory minimum service standards, what is being done to ensure the quality and effectiveness of these services? Ageing Meaningfully”
“I thank Minister Chan for giving the assurance to all that the practice of the declaration of medical history, including mental health condition, is not one that is exclusive, but one that is inclusive. However, in the job market, generally, that is being seen as discriminating to a large extent. It is both coming from a stigma that is in society as well, to self-stigma of the individual. Would Minister Chan be open to considering not having a practice as such but, once a candidate or applicant is employed, to then have the human resource (HR) team work with the person to give him or her support once he or she comes forward to declare their conditions?”
“Mr Speaker, Minister Chan earlier mentioned that he did not actually have the information on persons recovering from mental health conditions within the Public Service. I may be wrong and I stand corrected. I understand that the Public Service still requests for a declaration of medical history which includes mental health conditions. I wonder if that could also be a reason why that information is not known and whether the Public Service is also looking to prohibit that practice if it is actually still going on. Can I also take this opportunity to formally apologise for being late to the Speaker and also to Senior Parliamentary Secretary Faishal. Sorry.”
“Speaker, I thank the Minister for the clarification. I am very heartened to hear that we have 300 differently-abled persons within the Public Service. Can the Minister share a little bit about some of the challenges that the Public Service may face in having more of such differently-abled persons to join the service? Because I understand that the Service is 170,000 strong and 300 is an amazing effort. But I am wondering if there are challenges that are preventing the Service from bringing in more. That is one. The other question is whether the Minister could share some of the successes. So, success stories of working with the differently-abled within the Service, so that the other employers can also take heed.”
“Mr Chairman, children from low-income families, like all other children, deserve access to high-quality formal childcare services and early childhood education. Though their parents could pay as low as $5 a month in childcare fees, they face multiple hurdles in accessing the maximum level of subsidies, including having to meet certain requirements for work. Also, those in informal or ad hoc jobs may have difficulty meeting and/or producing proof of work due to the sporadic nature of their jobs. The current subsidy system incurs a high administrative cost. A significant amount of paperwork and back-and-forth between childcare operators, MSF, parents and social workers are involved in appealing for the maximum level of further subsidies. The extra paperwork involved is often a disincentive for operators to enrol low-income children. Whether these children from low-income families can access such childcare services should not be dependent on the employment status of their parents. Can the Ministry allow all parents who earn less than $2,500 or per capita income of less than $650 access subsidised childcare for free, regardless of the mother’s employment status? Childcare Subsidies for Non-working Moms”
“Chairman, I thank the Minister. I am very heartened to see that more efforts are being made by MOM to promote more workplace well-being, like increasing the Work-Life Grant from S$30 million to S$100 million, and also the increased adoption of FWA. All these contribute to, obviously, employee well-being. This may be more a question of updating our workplace health and safety to embrace total health and safety that includes psychosocial well-being because we are already doing it. But the WSH Act is still very much skewed towards physical health and safety. Could the Minister please give clarification on that? 6.00 pm”
“Each group is vulnerable to different work conditions connected to greater psychological hazards which include discrimination, higher risk of physical injury and challenges in social integration. Will the Ministry allocate budget and manpower to look into the increased mental health risks present in such segments of our job market? Non-discrimination in Employment”
“What is perhaps most striking is that even as 72% of employers in Singapore consider stress and mental health an issue which affects productivity, only 51% have emotional and psychosocial programmes in place. Members have now heard me share the above in this House that MOM’s intent to recognise and promote employee well-being can be further served by enacting clear and deliberate provisions that are upstream and preventive in nature. I would like to take this opportunity to flesh out some recommendations I made previously and make some additional recommendations. First, that the definition of "well-being" in all statutes, regulations and policies pertaining to employment in Singapore must expressly include not only physical but also psychosocial well-being. Accordingly, the relevant provisions in the WSH Act, as well as subsidiary legislation, must provide for the psychosocial health and safety of employees at the workplace. Second, workplace well-being begins with destigmatising mental health conditions and conversations. In positive language, this means that we must foster inclusive employment practices. Such measures include prohibiting discriminatory employment practices, such as compulsory declaration of medical history, especially for mental health conditions. That is, of course, until such information no longer prejudices a potential candidate. Ultimately, we are aiming for an employment climate that does not harbour misconceptions and prejudgments about applicants with mental health experiences. Finally, I wish to address segments of the employment market which are more exposed to mental health risks, namely, our differently-abled employees, low-skilled workers and migrant workers.”
“Regulating foreign employment agents (EAs) remains a challenge. Some local employers purportedly take a cut of recruitment fees which incentivises them to hire new workers instead of retaining foreign workers already in Singapore. This means that workers who have gained skills and experience and are better socialised to our society are sent home, thus lost to our economy in favour of a continuous influx of inexperienced and low-skilled foreign labour. The problem is compounded by the short window period of 14 days to seek re-employment. Has the Ministry considered giving unemployed foreign workers who are already in Singapore an advantage for re-employment? Further, does the Ministry plan to take more resolute action against employers taking kickbacks from workers, whether transacted in Singapore or abroad? Finally, will MOM extend its regulatory reach abroad by introducing preferential processing and approval of Work Permit applications made by local EAs who have foreign tie-ups operate abroad and, more importantly, can demonstrate "clean" recruitment? Workplace and Employee Well-being A recent 2018 Institute of Mental Health (IMH) study showed that one in seven Singaporeans experience a mental health condition in their lifetime. This means that an increasing segment of our workforce will have to grapple with mental health conditions while under employment. Ninety percent of psychological conditions in Singaporean adults have their root cause in workplace stress. Yet, studies have shown that an overwhelming 86.5% of those employed do not seek help for their mental health difficulties.”
“Mr Chairman, I have two cuts. Can I take both?”
“Of course, we also engage the parents along the way. Many of our schools have Peer Support Programmes. We see the benefits of having peers looking out for one another. I, for one, have come across situations whereby peers were supporting one another, peers informing the educators about some of the issues faced by their own classmates, and the issues are being resolved not only by one person but together as a community. So, as I have said earlier, it takes a many-hands approach whereby we want to see how we can enhance the education journey of a child, regardless of where they come from and regardless of the experience that they have, so that they continue to be socially and emotionally resilient and able to have a fulfilling and meaningful educational journey here in Singapore. 1.30 pm”
“Mr Chairman, I thank Senior Parliamentary Secretary Faishal Ibrahim for giving a direct response to my cut. I appreciate it. I have two clarifications, one to the Senior Parliamentary Secretary and the other to Minister Ong, please. The first is that I absolutely agree about the programmes that you have started to support the psychosocial well-being of our students. May I ask how widespread is the implementation of these initiatives like Peer Support Programmes in our schools and IHLs, and what sort of results are we seeing so far? The second question is to Minister Ong. We all agree that there is no health without mental health. I also agree that mental health is complex and multifaceted and, therefore, there is not one clear solution. But I wonder if a good way to start is to reframe the way we see health education in schools. Right now, we know that health education is compulsory but it is confined to physical health education. Will we be looking at mandating mental health education as part of health education requirement in schools, so that our children know from a young age that both aspects of their well-being are equally important? Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: I thank the Member for the supplementary question. Indeed, we look at mental health as something that we want, to build the socio-emotional competency of our children, as well as build the resilience in the programmes that they undertake. So, in essence, we start at a very early stage of their education at primary school level, whereby all these values, experiences and components where a child can develop himself or herself emotionally, socially and that resilience in all the programmes that we undertake. We take on an approach of prevention, early detection and intervention.”
“We can do more beyond the occasional assembly talks on mental health, optional enrichment classes on wellness and offers of counselling as interventions for behaviour modification, often construed as punishment by students. We can teach the recovery language and encourage dialogue to dissolve stigma. Our children and youths can be the mental health first-aiders of every household. Mandating mental health education in our schools and IHLs is the surest signal to normalise mental health, together with providing support structures for parents and families to be equipped with emotional management skills, coping mechanisms and problem-solving skills to help our children and youths better navigate stress. Partnering social service agencies and mental health professionals in the curriculum curation and provision of mental health education in all schools must be the way forward. How does the Ministry plan to make mental health education accessible for all, whether students, teachers, administrators, parents and caregivers? Bilingual and Bicultural Talents”
“Mr Chairman, there was one to two suicides a month in 2016 among those aged 10 to 19. The number of young Singaporeans seeking help for mental health issues jumped by 190% in 2018. Depression affects up to 18% of youths in Singapore. Almost half of the teenagers polled in a local research attached negative labels to people with mental health issues. Fifty percent of mental health conditions develop in children aged 14 or below, according to global studies. The Minister agrees in his response to my recent Parliamentary Question (PQ) that "mental health is an issue to be taken seriously". Stigma poses a huge barrier to seeking help. With greater awareness, more people are stepping forward to seek help. Encouragingly, the 2016 Singapore Mental Health Study found a narrowing in the treatment gap, noting a decrease in the percentage of those not seeking help from 82.1% in 2010 to 78.4% in 2016. Mental health education plays a big role in re-scripting public narrative and understanding of mental health. Our current vocabulary of mental health is heavily influenced by the medical model which can pathologise human experiences. Increasingly, we have been moving towards a recovery-oriented culture. This demands a new language to be taught. The recovery language and one anchored upon strengths and resilience must be learnt and permeate our vernacular. Mental health literacy is not a frivolity but a necessity, in the absence of which, we find rampant misconceptions that mental illness is “contagious,” “weakness”, and unfairly engage in victim-blaming. With greater understanding and support, help-seeking need not be shrouded in secrecy or looked upon as being shameful.”
“Chairman, could I ask a question and that is not on the Rohingya crisis? May I ask the Foreign Minister if there has been an assessment on whether there is support among the member states in terms of the review of the non-interference policy within ASEAN? I appreciate that this is a foundational principle of ASEAN when we were founded, but I would just like to get a sense from the Minister if there is an assessment on the support amongst the other countries.”
“Mr Chairman, the Rohingya crisis is a full-blown humanitarian crisis with regional consequences. Voluntary repatriation is not seen as a viable solution by many given that the root cause of citizenship that results in the discrimination and abuse, as well as guaranteed safety, of the returnees, has yet to be resolved. The crisis is a sobering reminder that domestic issues can quickly become transnational ones overnight. Can I please ask the Minister to provide insights on the following: (a) Is the passive non-interference policy of ASEAN still relevant in today’s globalised context? (b) Will ASEAN develop a refugee and asylum policy that includes guidance for action to be taken when a member state’s internal issues cause people to flee to neighbouring states? (c) Will the ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights be further strengthened for conflicts to be escalated to? (d) And will there be a Human Rights Court set up to interpret and enforce the ASEAN Human Rights Declaration?”
“Mr Chairman, can I kindly request for Minister Chan to further expand on my question on how or what specific measures or steps is the Government taking to restore confidence in the Public Service?”
“Mr Chairman, I am heartened that Budget 2019 acknowledges climate change as a strategic challenge for Singapore. The financial sector’s role in allocating capital for a climate-safe future across generations is a significant one that we must include in our strategic plan for climate change action. As a leading financial hub, Singapore’s banking and asset management industry must rise to this challenge. How we lend is a reflection of our values and principles. For example, civil society recently called out our banks for continuing to fund coal-fired power. As of September 2018, 17 banks have committed to stop financing coal-fired power. The Governor of the Bank of England is reported to be open to increased regulatory requirements for "brown" investments. What regulatory and supervisory mechanisms are being developed so that banks in Singapore will: (a) actively implement existing green standards, like the Association of Banks in Singapore's (ABS’) Haze Diagnostic Kit, into their lending policy frameworks; and (b) proactively work with civil society and experts to identify other critical industries, like energy, where green standards should be developed and implemented? Our asset management industry currently manages US$2.4 trillion. Can we allocate funds to support our asset management industry to develop stronger stewardship principles and use the tools available in the market to help us safeguard our future, one that is climate-safe? For example, the Government Pension Investment Fund of Japan allocates close to 10% of its investments into funds using sustainability indices. Two pension funds in Korea have gone even further and stepped away from future coal investments.”
“Trust, as they say, is built in drops and lost in buckets. The recent spate of service lapses has contributed to an increasing sense of uncertainty about the robustness of the Public Service. Minister Heng Swee Keat, in response to the Zaobao commentary that alleged complacency, said "We would not flinch from taking a hard look at ourselves each time there is a failure and doing whatever is necessary to put things right." I am heartened by Minister Heng's conviction and commitment. Indeed, a string of events of such significance happening so fast and furiously offers more than a glimpse of possible fault lines within the system, not just in isolated Ministries or with certain officers. Might having an open conversation on these fault lines restore trust? What specific steps are being taken by the Government to restore public confidence? Additionally, how does the Public Service Division (PSD) ensure a culture of accountability, transparency and empathy? With increased public scrutiny and expectations, how is the Civil Service College (CSC) training public officers to understand subjective well-being beyond material well-being and how are they trained to formulate better policies that address citizens' well-being in ways that also increase public trust in public institutions? Lastly, how can Public Service Cares, announced in Budget 2019, be more than just a volunteering programme for public officers, but be embodied as an ethos? Notwithstanding my clarifications, I want to take this opportunity to express my appreciation for every Public Service officer in the service who serves sincerely and wholeheartedly.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I urge the Government to enshrine mental health as a longer-term challenge in Budget 2019 which Minister Heng Swee Keat has presented as a strategic plan and to allocate the necessary resources to address this challenge. It is time for the Government to recognise, acknowledge and understand the complexity of mental health, and to create opportunities and solutions to improve the lives of our people, especially our children and youths. It is time to redefine our values as a nation as we cherish every individual’s subjective well-being, dreams and aspirations beyond just their material and economic achievements. It can be done and it must be done because mental health is what makes us human. And this, surely, is what a strong, united Singapore must first and foremost always be. Mr Deputy Speaker, notwithstanding my requests and clarifications above, I support Budget 2019.”