Derrick Goh
Singapore
“Are there plans to tighten regulations on the sale and use of non-compliant or non-original AMD batteries, which are key contributors to the risk? How can enforcement and inspection measures at retail points and online marketplaces be strengthened to deter the sale of unsafe devices and components?”
“Mr Speaker, the question to the Minister to State would be in two parts. The first question is, although the numbers may not be significant, would the Minister of State clarify if, in dollar terms, the Bill would have a significant impact and therefore, reduction to the current scams amount that happens every year?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, my question to the Minister of State is on his point relating to the considerations of stronger regulations by MAS. Would those considerations include requiring BNPL players to report to the Credit Bureau for data so that all players, including banks and financial institutions, could use those data?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I welcome Minister's Statement on blocking the proposed deal and the Government's emphasis that at the heart of this decision is about NTUC Income being able to serve its social mission.”
“Thirdly, whether we can build a more comprehensive support ecosystem for SMEs, such as by (a) synergising the roles of SME Centres and TACs with the enhanced Partnerships for Capability Transformation Scheme for SMEs to connect more easily to learn digital and green strategies; (b) deepening collaborations with Institutes of Higher Learni…”
“Two, how can MHA be even more proactive in leveraging trends and insights for smarter deployment of anti-scam resources, to pre-empt and mitigate exploitative scam types?”
The complete record
Every one of 171 lines we hold for Derrick Goh, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 4.
“Sir, a defining characteristic of Singapore’s success has been its progressive attitude towards leveraging new ideas. I note this Bill introduces new provisions to support the use of new technologies and innovation to tackle an evolving security landscape. It takes into account learnings from the recent pandemic, factored use of digital technologies to improve both effectiveness and efficiency of border operations. Singapore was early in reopening our boarders in 2022. Given the rebound of travel, it is timely for this Bill to be put before this House. These amendments will not only enable ICA to strengthen immigration controls but also help in its delivery of a more seamless checkpoint experience for residents and tourists. These steps will also help upkeep Singapore as a globally reputed transport and tourism hub. As such, I support this Bill but would like to seek some clarifications. The Bill introduces provisions to support ICA’s new procedures. This includes streamlining the clearance experience at Changi Airport, where a person’s biometric and flight information will be processed backend using a unique digital token at the various automated touchpoints. With technology being at the core of this new operating model, any disruption to this critical system, will have considerable risk and costs that include security, reputational and financial. Given the technology risk around resiliency, can the Minister elaborate on the measures and safeguards to ensure service availability and the expected system uptime? As system outages can be expected, can Minister also clarify the plans for redundancy and recoverability?”
“Regarding data confidentiality, MAS has clarified that within the Government, only authorised officers from MAS and the Suspicious Transactions Reporting Office in the CAD will be able to directly access and use information from COSMIC. Clause 28K of the Bill sets out conditions for onward disclosure of information and Clause 28I accords statutory protection for FIs against civil liabilities. Further to the provisions, can the Minister clarify if MAS or CAD may use information in COSMIC to assess, and/or subsequently, penalise a participating FI for any ML/TF/PF control lapse? Madam, in concluding, I am reminded of the parable of the blind men and an elephant, where each feels a different part of an animal, resulting in limited and inaccurate perspectives of what the animal is really like. It is only through the sharing of experiences by everyone that a clearer picture is formed. COSMIC can indeed help us piece together the clearer picture of financial crimes. Greater collaboration between FIs and authorities is fostered, so that as sophisticated as criminal operations may be, they can be quickly unravelled and have fewer places to hide. This will further strengthen the oversight of Singapore's reputation as a global financial centre. Madam, I support the Bill.”
“Typically, scam proceeds are swiftly dissipated across different local and foreign bank accounts as part of a broad and organised money laundering network, which makes it challenging for authorities to trace and recover assets. Close to S$1.3 billion have been lost to scams over the last two years, despite the best efforts of authorities and private sector entities. Given significant impact, can the Minister clarify if and how COSMIC can help to stem this facilitation of scams? Madam, I will now turn to cybersecurity risks and data confidentiality. With financial intelligence on companies, individuals and their related parties shared on a larger database used by multiple FIs and authorities, I am glad that the Bill has factored safeguards to ensure cybersecurity and data confidentiality. Regarding cybersecurity, COSMIC is required to comply with the Government's security standards and have features like user authentication and data encryption. FIs must also implement controls to complement MAS' efforts in preventing information security breaches. For clearer accountability, can the Minister clarify the roles and responsibilities of the participating FI who provides the information, vis-à-vis MAS as the owner of the COSMIC platform, in the unfortunate event of a cybersecurity incident or breach? As participating members, the effectiveness of each FI's controls will be crucial to uphold the security of the entire network. To this end, can the Minister share if there will be periodic reviews or audits conducted by MAS on the robustness of FI controls relevant to COSMIC?”
“Relevant to this, I understand that the initial phase is planned to be approximately two years starting from second half of 2024, during which information is shared by the six banks only on a voluntary basis as the Minister had mentioned. Considering that innovations in financial crime are rapidly evolving, it is crucial for COSMIC's implementation to be swift and effective. To this end, can the Minister explain how MAS will review and shorten this period, including mandating information sharing earlier if the platform proves to be stable and effective? Digital financial services are also developing very, very quickly and as compared with traditional banks, regulations in this space are still maturing, which could encourage their usage as vectors for crime. Against this backdrop, can the Minister elaborate on the plans for COSMIC to include fintech, payments and other virtual asset service providers? Clause 28G of the Bill states that MAS will be issuing threshold criteria and high-risk indicators to participating FIs, which when met, mandates FIs to request, provide and publish risk information on COSMIC, under clauses 28D to F respectively. The criteria are confidential to avoid circumvention by bad actors. Understandably, risk processes vary across sub-sectors and the different FIs have different risk appetites, some of which may be more conservative than COSMIC's. As COSMIC scales, can the Minister explain if FIs are able to leverage on COSMIC's information to meet their tighter risk standards than the required baseline, as stipulated in COSMIC's implementation? Also, as we discuss this Bill, the exponential increase in scam cases comes to mind as was discussed in the earlier Bill, just a while ago.”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, Singapore must uphold its status as a trusted global financial centre, as criminal networks leverage on the dynamic financial and technological landscape to commit more sophisticated commercial crimes, like in the areas of ML, TF and PF. While our defences against ML/TF/PF have strengthened over the years, MAS must continue in its commitment to refresh traditional policies, as we cannot combat new criminal typologies with old methods. A notable way in which ML/TF/PF crimes are perpetrated is by creating a web of individual accounts or through accounts of shell companies opened across different FIs to facilitate illicit fund flows. This capitalises on the limited ability of FIs to share and piece information together, in part due to the FIs' compliance with well-intentioned client confidentiality obligations as well as banking secrecy regulations. We need to overcome this, and I believe the new digital COSMIC platform paves the way forward for stronger public-private partnerships, for authorities and FIs to assess risks more holistically and disrupt financial crime more effectively. That said, I would like to seek some clarifications on this Bill and will start with COSMIC's coverage and implementation. While we welcome the inclusion of six major banks as a start, can the Minister clarify the expected effectiveness of COSMIC? For example, assuming COSMIC had been rolled out in the past year, how many more material cases of ML/TF/PF would be detected in this back test? I ask, as this would enable a clearer understanding of COSMIC's effectiveness with the six banks participating at onset, and to calibrate how fast it should scale to achieve a meaningful impact.”
“I am convinced we can surmount the challenges and capture the opportunities that lie ahead if we come together as one Singapore because we are, Stronger Together! Sir, I support the Motion.”
“Ultimately, while the Government can steer through sound policies, it is for our businesses, community partners, families and individuals to take their respective steps towards building a better Singapore. In overcoming the crisis of a generation, we have seen first-hand how a formidable force is built from everyone playing a role, as well as from the partnership and trust between the Government and its people. It is also heartening to see that within our towering metropolis and residences, the kampung spirit of old is well and alive. I encourage all of us to uphold this sense of personal and collective responsibility, as well as to continue to look beyond personal interests, so we contribute to building a caring and more resilient society where no one is left behind. The Forward Singapore exercise, aimed at renewing our social compact, encapsulates this ideal best. This social compact is an implicit agreement across Government, individuals, families, community and businesses on what kind of society we want to live in and what each of us are willing to give – and give up – for one another. It aptly circles back to recognising trade-offs and requires all of us to answer, given constraints, what we desire to build and what we are willing to do more together with the Government for a better Singapore. Sir, we now live in a world characterised by volatility; and where our long-held notions of geopolitical peace, globalisation and trade flows, and economic stability are challenged. I started today’s speech on how the responsibility to bring Singapore forward now rest upon our shoulders. As we forge ahead in the new normal with cautious optimism, we ask not for a lighter load, but for greater strength.”
“It is challenging, but I can see that our Government is dedicated to doing its best; and better relative to many other countries including the ones where I lived in, which is why I chose to return to Singapore; in fact, it is exactly because our Government sensibly acknowledges costs and trade-offs that it is able to prioritise well and work hard so that our citizens benefit. A microcosm of this is reflected in my own constituency at Nee Soon Link, that has many new Housing and Development Board (HDB) Build-To-Order (BTO) precincts. I have worked with many agencies to initiate and improve amenities, including launching a new bus service and building many new bus stops when none were earlier catered for. And I am thankful to my residents who had moved in earlier for exercising patience, as we appealed successfully to improve the frequency of bus services when more residents settled into the estate. It is from this perspective that I can attest to the dedication of our Government agencies towards serving our residents, demonstrating empathy and flexibility in calibrating public resources to meet needs on the ground, while ensuring value for money. Sir, an effective Parliament and dedicated Government are essential; but both by themselves cannot ensure Singapore’s progress. The final theme of my speech is how we all need to be hands on; for all of us, citizens to play our part. In my maiden speech in this House, I spoke about how effective governance is not just about good policies but also about good execution. Through the various Ministries’ addenda to the President’s Address, I am heartened to learn about the strong reaffirmation and refresh of their plans to take Singapore forward.”
“If we were to spend more from the NIRC now, it must mean that we leave behind less for our next generation. Should we take this path, I worry that our children will be the ones to bear the costs of a much bigger fiscal burden to fund future expenditures. The WP is entitled to a different view, and I respect that. However, they need to be honest about the full implications and costs of their proposals for current and future generations. We should guard against short-sighted policies that go against our values and principles of how we uphold fiscal prudence. If we do not manage this carefully, the trust in our fiscal stability, that we have painstakingly built over the years can be destroyed overnight. In its manifesto and in this debate, the WP has put forward many proposals, all of which will require more spending. In the coming session of Parliament, I look forward to hearing more from them the details of how the proposals will be funded, especially without GST. In our debates, there will be some areas where we agree and some that we do not, like in the use of Reserves. I am confident we will highlight our arguments and debate robustly about these issues. It will then be for Singaporeans to judge which is the more responsible and better approach to take Singapore forward. In the end, it is not a battle between political parties. This is all about us, Singaporeans. How successful we will be depends on how we approach these conundrums and trade-offs to make balanced policy choices for our society and for our society to see them as fair.”
“However, it is simply not possible for everyone to be availed a Housing and Development Board (HDB) flat in a mature estate as space in such areas are finite. The key question will then be how to allocate them. And in terms of affordability, how should the Government balance between buyers desiring lower prices and sellers expecting higher valuations? An even broader example concerns Singapore’s finances. The Ministry of Finance (MOF) has already stated that Singapore’s expenditures will increase and is projected to rise to 20% of gross domestic product (GDP) by 2030. The many calls for the Government to do more will mean that spending can easily increase beyond 20%. It is important for us to address transparently, how we are going to fund these increases without kicking the can down the road. I listened carefully to the Workers’ Party’s (WP) position on this. They oppose not just the GST increase but also the overall GST system, that today contributes $17 billion to our revenues. The WP has offered some policy alternatives, such as to spend more from our Net Investment Returns Contribution (NIRC) framework. However, the proposals are not viable to address funding shortfalls. I said, at the GST Bill debate, that to spend more from our investment returns and to save less is an attractive but not a responsible approach. Singapore’s Reserves serve as a strategic asset and insurance to support us during crises and provide us a long-term, recurring and growing annuity to fund our rising national expenditures. MOF has projected that NIRC contributions will be maintained at about the same percentage of GDP over the coming years; and we all know that norms in the economic and investment climate have turned to be more challenging.”
“And in increasing the Goods and Services Tax (GST) rate, we bravely acknowledged the need for fiscal sustainability and prudence to support higher and longer-term expenditures, yet effectively transformed what is a potentially regressive tax regime into a holistic and progressive system through the innovative use of enhanced GST Vouchers and the Assurance Package, so that those who are vulnerable are protected, while those who are more well-off contribute more. In these examples and others, considerations and trade-offs were put forth openly, so we could debate these robustly and transparently. As we look forward to the second session of the 14th Parliament, it is imperative that we continue to uphold the effectiveness, leadership and public confidence of this House. Sir, this brings me to the second theme of my speech – that is of clearly recognising the costs, trade-offs and constraints in the debates we make. Failure to recognise these “costs” defies the fundamental concept of scarcity in economics and could leave room for populist politics which will mislead and polarise our society. Singapore has enjoyed remarkable growth and development. While we continue to cheer and enable every citizen to maximise their potential and lift their ambitions, the hard truth is that it is impractical for our Government to fulfil all desires. Matching limited resources to meet ever-increasing and sometimes near-infinite expectations is an equation that cannot be solved by any government. Hence, this requires us to make choices and strike a balance for our policies to be sustainable. For example, in debating housing accessibility, we all fully agree with younger Singaporeans’ aspirations towards convenience and proximity to their parents' home.”
“We should be careful not to follow the path of some parliaments in the world, where divisive politics and appealing rhetoric cloud genuine debates, such that they are not effective in making sound decisions and they confuse the people they serve. In an effective Parliament, the responsibility also lies with all of us to be courageous in tackling difficult and potentially unpopular issues, and to make tough decisions for the benefit of Singaporeans. Looking back at the first session of this parliament, I believe this House has done well and demonstrated decisive leadership. I had the opportunity to participate in many of these debates. In passing the multiple Budgets through COVID-19, we have protected lives and livelihoods, averting an economic meltdown; and even though we fared better and emerged stronger compared to many other countries, this House did not shy away from debating on how else we could have done better and how to proactively draw learnings from our experience to ready ourselves for future threats. In the repeal of section 377A, we tackled this important topic even though we could have dealt with this further down the road. Importantly, we did not push the responsibility to the Courts to decide what is good for our society. We debated this issue sensitively with maturity and empathy, and we arrived at a balanced and win-win outcome.”
“Sir, Singapore’s growth from third world to first within a generation has been nothing short of remarkable. Through the triumphs and tribulations, our forefathers have forged a nation not just through resilience but also unity. The responsibility to bring Singapore forward now lies upon our shoulders. We face challenges and opportunities like our forefathers, though of a different nature amid evolving ideologies and complexities. The popular saying is that it is easier to grow an organisation but always harder to keep up its successes. So, it is, all the more, that we must be alert not to succumb to complacency. For me, the prorogation and our President’s Address provided valuable opportunities for introspection as a first-term Member of Parliament (MP); and today, I summarise my reflections in three key themes. The first is the importance of an effective Parliament. In an age of flux and dynamism, policy considerations are seldom linear and there may not be past blueprints and playbooks to rely on. In most solutions, society is overall better off but there is often a cost where a segment may not benefit, and this is where different views expressed during a debate is important for the clarity and transparency of all. In such situations where we articulate different perspectives, I would like to echo Mdm President’s message that our conversations must be constructive, respectful and responsible, so that we draw strength from our diversity. To uphold trust in the effectiveness of Parliament, we must conduct ourselves with integrity and civility, with truth and logic as the bedrock of what we say; so that at the end of the day, we galvanise our citizens towards a common direction. Like Singapore’s progress, we cannot take the effectiveness of our Parliament for granted.”
“As such, I seek the Minister's clarification on the plan to better equip and educate the public on NPS, like how to spot them, so that they too can notify enforcement agencies and amplify efforts to combat the scourge of new forms of drugs. Lastly, the Minister, earlier, shared statistics on the increased use of NPS. As a matter of record, can he also provide the equivalent number used by our youths, in relation to NPS? These statistics and trends, I believe, may also assist the public engagement effort by driving home the message that NPS are posing a real and credible threat within our society. In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill and its tabled amendments. They are necessary to keep Singapore crime rates low and help minimise the impact to the lives of Singaporeans that have been marred by drug abuse.”
“Therefore, I seek the Minister's explanation on the robustness and frequency of reviews of the First and Fifth Schedules, to ensure both remain updated for our drug control approach that impedes our scientific and medical research initiatives, yet did not play catch-up with the ever-evolving drug variants. Next, the Bill provides for an accused to be able to invoke a defence by proving that he/she intended or believed that the psychoactive substance would be used for a legitimate purpose, other than for human consumption. Notwithstanding that the burden of proof is on the defendant, can the Minister clarify if and/or how agencies' resources will be expended in the validation of such claims by accused persons in such a defence, as well as the safeguards against attempts to frustrate justice? As with all policies, it is imperative for legislation to be coupled with effective implementation to achieve intended outcomes. So, beyond the Bill, what is equally important is to continue strengthening our agencies' detective and intervention capabilities against substance abuse. On this note, I was glad to hear about the new saliva test kit for drugs, as shared by Minister of State Faishal at MHA's Committee of Supply (COS) debate and its deployment at checkpoints and roadblocks. Can the Minister clarify if the new saliva test kit can detect NPS consumption? If not, are there plans to explore having similar efficient testing methods for NPS, to enhance on-ground detection as well as deterrence? In addition, a public that is aware of the harms of drugs and NPS remains our first line of defence.”
“Sir, Singapore has been steadfast in its zero-tolerance approach towards drugs. This contrasts with the increasingly softer approach taken by more and more countries globally and in the region, including our neighbours in ASEAN, where Thailand has decriminalised and legalised cannabis. Media reports have highlighted that Malaysia is also aiming to learn from Thailand's cannabis policy. I read the UNODC report in June 2022. What drew my attention was that the legalisation of cannabis in North America had led to increased tax revenues and fewer arrests. What was even alarming for me was that cannabis use, particularly by the young, increased and co-related with psychiatric disorders, suicides and hospitalisation. It appears that they have traded short-term gains for negative longer-term impact on their society. This is a path we cannot afford to take. So, I am heartened by MHA's commitment to ensure our drug policies are robust and relevant to deal with evolving trends, such as the advent of NPS, especially given the reopening of borders and the rebound of overseas travel. That said, I seek several clarifications. Firstly, the Bill seeks to criminalise dealing and consumption of NPS, unless they are listed in the re-enacted Fifth Schedule as having legitimate uses or controlled under other regulatory frameworks. Given that NPSs are inherently new, can the Minister share what safeguards are in place to ensure that any newly discovered NPS is thoroughly examined before its inclusion or exclusion in the Fifth Schedule? I raised this as Singapore adopts an evidence-based approach and has allowed the use of cannabis-derived medication in exceptional cases of drug-resistant epilepsy. There have also been efforts to develop synthetic cannabinoids for medical use.”
“Chairman, I thank both the Ministers and both the Ministers of State for their clear speeches. Indeed, I am encouraged to hear the continued push by MTI for SMEs to digitise. Two quick clarifications. One is for the Minister of State's clarification on – and their assessment of the successes of the state of digitisation of our SMEs, given that there are very big ones, there are medium ones and there are small ones. Second clarification for the Minister of State is, if there can be more proactive engagement with smaller SMEs, especially those who are keen to digitise but do not know how or where to, beyond the mere availing of portals as well as SME centres, can there be a more proactive push given that as SMEs do compete with each other too and may not be most keen to help each other in this regard.”
“In a nascent and growing market where standards have yet to achieve global consensus, there are opportunities for Singapore and our businesses to lead in the development of a credible regulatory framework and standards for carbon credits. These efforts will help establish Singapore as a growing and leading green hub, leveraging on and furthering our status as a trusted international centre for professional services. To this end, can MTI share more on how businesses, including SMEs and the service sector, can play an expanded role, as part of plans to establish Singapore as an international green hub? Green Economy – Opportunities and Risks”
“I mentioned during the Budget debate that I am glad that the Government continues to encourage SMEs to look towards the longer term to transform and capture opportunities in the new economy, even as they are focused on overcoming near-term challenges. A key thrust I raised was about helping our SMEs develop Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) capabilities. SMEs must adopt greener practices in their service and products, as well as measure, track and report their own carbon footprint. Such measurement is not easy to do but is essential to stay relevant in tomorrow's green supply chain. Beyond internal transformation, SMEs should venture out to pursue green prospects. For example, countries in the region are boosting electric vehicle (EV) initiatives. This means opportunities for Singapore SMEs with capital and know-how. to help fellow businesses in the region to accelerate their green transition. As transformation requires not just a push factor like carbon tax, can MTI further explain the pull factors that will be put in place to encourage and help SMEs in their green transition so that they can stay relevant and capture opportunities in the green economy? I am glad that existing schemes, such as the Energy Efficiency Grant for the food and retail sectors, are retained. Nonetheless, while these two sectors presumably consume more energy, I hope more SMEs across sectors can be included as all local businesses should be brought onto the green journey. The reality is that SMEs, especially smaller ones, may not know how or where to start. On this note, can MTI consider expanding the scope of current schemes and grants to spur our SMEs in more sectors?”
“Sir, the pandemic has accelerated digitalisation and transformed the way business is done. Budget 2022 provided a big push for our SMEs in their digitalisation journey, with $200 million to enhance schemes for them to build digital capabilities. While this is gaining momentum, in tandem also with the commendable efforts in digitalising our heartland merchants and residents by the SG Digital Office, little has been said specifically on SME digitalisation in Budget 2023. Given this, what is MTI's assessment of the digitalisation progress of our SMEs so far? The need for SMEs to embark on or continue their digitalisation journey is an urgent one. What initiatives and measures is the Minister considering to further accelerate the digitalisation of SMEs in this Budget? Transition to Low-carbon Future”
“Chairman, our SMEs continue to navigate a challenging environment including rising costs. Financial markets are currently pricing the US Federal Funds Rate to reach 5.25%, reinforcing the view that interest rates will remain higher for longer. The interest burden for businesses are expected to at least be double compared to last year. Locally, the GST increase would also impact smaller SMEs who are not GST-registered and a higher CPF salary ceiling announced in this Budget will add further pressures to businesses. In this regard, what further measures will MTI provide to support SMEs and encourage them to adapt in such a challenging environment? Generally, SMEs are vulnerable to interest rate hikes and are keen to know if MTI will consider continued interest rate subsidies under the Enterprise Financing Scheme before they decide on whether to take more risk to pursue growth opportunities? I have received feedback from SMEs welcoming Deputy Prime Minister’s response during the Budget debate, where he said that agencies will continue to streamline and improve the application process for Government assistance schemes, balancing convenience and accountability. On this point, can MTI share more details on what refinements to the existing administrative processes for Government schemes are being considered? Will there be more forums for SMEs to provide further feedback? From "Handouts" to Sustenance”
“As such, can the Minister explain the new measures, that MinLaw is considering, to improve the civil enforcement process in Singapore?”
“Thus, the introduction of a regime of trained on-the-ground councillors to actively engage parties involved in a community dispute at an early stage might facilitate the CDRT process. In this regard, will MinLaw consider reviewing the existing framework to facilitate the use of persons with specialised knowledge to manage community disputes? Reinvigorate Civil Enforcement Framework Mdm Chair, Singapore has experienced robust growth and recognition as a reliable centre that is business-friendly and with a legal jurisdiction not just locally, but also on the international front. This has led to the in-flight of high-value multinational enterprises (MNEs) to establish their presence or headquarters in Singapore. This is key for Singapore's long-term growth and global presence. Singapore has become the choice jurisdiction for many, for the conduct of complex and high-value litigations and dispute resolution for MNEs and high net worth individuals. It is, therefore, key for businesses and individuals to be able to rely on Singapore's legal system, not just for swift justice, but also effective justice. In this regard, there is scope for improvements in our legal enforcement framework. At the end of a civil litigation proceeding, it is usual for the Court to issue an Order or Judgment, for which it often involves a monetary sum known as the judgement sum. This judgement sum is often not easy to enforce. Therefore, it is not uncommon to hear corporates, as well as individuals, having trouble in enforcing these monies, which if not paid, makes this a paper judgement. I recognise that the Singapore Courts has in recent years, improved the judicial process related to civil procedures to facilitate access to justice.”
“Thank you. Mdm Chair, high-density living is part and parcel of life in Singapore. Inevitably, there are cases where neighbours misunderstand each other and end up in disputes. In Singapore, I recognise that we have adopted both a legal and community solution. On the legal front, we have the CDRT and CMC. Notwithstanding our efforts, the feedback I have received from residents in such situations is that the current community dispute resolution framework is not effective. They shared that errant neighbours do not comply with the orders of the CDRT or flout a mediation agreement. This is where our framework needs to have more bite to encourage compliance with the relevant orders and agreements. In a recent engagement with Dr William Wan, Chairperson of the Community Advisory Panel on Neighbourhood Noise, what he told me echoed the need for more legal teeth, such as requiring mandatory attendance at mediations and to strengthen the enforcement of agreements between disputing neighbours. He highlighted the Government's successful implementation of table littering rules at hawker centres, noting the high compliance by individuals given the threat of a fine. This example illustrates that a behavioural incentive model underpinned by legal sanctions can drive positive behaviour, leading to social benefits. As MinLaw is uniquely positioned to consider the introduction of stricter enforcement within the community disputes framework, will the Minister review the prevailing policy to increase compliance of individuals with orders and agreements, and also provide us an update on the inter-Ministry review of the community dispute framework he mentioned last year? Separately, I also believe that the key to an effective implementation is by taking a more proactive stance.”
“Mdm Chairman, can I take cuts (c) and (d) together?”
“This will become important as recent trends show that while the number of scams have increased, the amount lost per transaction is smaller on average. This trend is expected to worsen as frictionless payments increase along with more cross-border linkages, such as the link-up of Singapore's PayNow with Thailand's PromptPay and, as announced last week, India's UPI. We are an international and well-digitalised financial centre. This makes us inevitably prone to cybercrimes. There is a pressing need for us to swiftly and resolutely act against scams to uphold public trust, as the digital world becomes more complex with greater cybersecurity risks. Singapore has often been lauded as one of the safest cities in the world, and we should uphold this standing in the digital sphere too.”
“Stepping Up Efforts to Combat Scams Despite the increased and commendable efforts by MHA and its partners, the scourge of scams remains unabated and continues to evolve. The year 2022 saw both a record 34,000 cases and a loss of well over S$660 million. This means that in the past two years, close to over S$1.3 billion has been lost to scams. A discerning public is our first line of defence. MHA has been strengthening public education efforts, through the ACT Against Scams campaign and by encouraging residents to download the ScamShield app. The Anti-Scam Command has also done well, partnering local banks to freeze more than 16,700 bank accounts and telcos to terminate more than 6,500 lines, thereby preventing a further loss of about S$146 million in 2022. Noteworthy, is the step up in anti-scam enforcements, such as the recent island-wide operation in February, where over 500 scammers and money mules were arrested. Unlike physical crimes, scams are perpetrated by highly organised transnational syndicates and conducted swiftly in the digital space; and experts have also spoken about sophisticated operations that are aided by AI. Combatting scams, hence, requires a concerted "all-hands-on-deck" response. MHA should build upon its success to further deepen international co-operation with foreign law enforcement agencies, and partnerships with stakeholders like, for example, platform providers, communication and social media firms, as well as e-commerce players in the digital value chain. To be effective, these stakeholders, who themselves benefit and profit from the digital ecosystem, need to do more and have accountability clearly assigned, to drive more proactive upstream prevention of scams.”
“Chairman, I mentioned in our Budget debate about the worrying trend we are seeing, where youths perpetuating crimes is on the increase. On the scams front, SPF reported that a majority of those arrested for e-commerce scams were youths. For first half of 2022, almost 60% of arrestees for e-commerce scams were aged below 29. 4.00 pm While Singapore has been steadfast in its zero-tolerance approach towards drugs, even amid more liberal attitudes towards the use of drugs both internationally and in the region, such as in Thailand, CNB has also highlighted a worrying trend of more youths abusing cannabis. While the drug situation in Singapore remains largely curbed, CNB reported that cannabis abusers arrested in 2022 climbed 71% to 236. Worryingly, over 60% of arrestees were aged below 30, and some even as young as 14. This is complicated by the continued emergence of new psychoactive substances and a quadrupling of vaping cases from 2020 to 2022. Such illicit habits appeal more to the youth and could be gateways to other forms of harder substance abuse, as well as give rise to other social ills and offences. Moreover, accessibility to these harms is easily facilitated in the digital space, where youths can deal anonymously, which could be challenging for our agencies to detect. What is equally concerning is that in most cases, parents did not seem to be aware of their child's involvement with such harms. Can MHA explain its plans on how it can deepen engagement with all stakeholders in the ecosystem – parents, schools, youth groups, media platforms, and so on, to identify at-risk youths for more timely and effective intervention? What further measures will MHA take to address this worrying trend of youth perpetrating crimes?”
“Some abusers were even as young as 14 years old. Our youths are the future of Singapore. I hope that MHA can continue to engage with all in the ecosystem – schools, parents, youth groups, media and so on – for swifter intervention so that their lives will not be marred by crime. Finally, overcoming the crisis of our generation has taught us that our most formidable reserves lie not in our financial strength but in the unity and resilience of our people. We therefore need to keep investing and working on improving our social harmony as attitudes and norms evolve. One significant way our lifestyles have changed is with hybrid working. Many continue to work and learn from home, which inadvertently results in more friction in our high-density heartlands, particularly regarding noise. I raised this point at last year's debate and want to again highlight the need for a better framework to manage and resolve community disputes. In my recent engagement with Dr William Wan, Chairperson of the Community Advisory Panel on Neighbourhood Noise, he too echoed the need for more legal teeth to make attending mediation and to strengthen the enforcement of agreements between quarrelling neighbours. Residents have also provided feedback that the current framework remains cumbersome and hence ineffective. I look forward to the Government's consideration of the Panel's proposals as well as other measures for more proactive engagement by agencies, for quicker and more effective dispute resolution. Sir, in conclusion, I would describe this Budget as big-hearted and forward-looking. I support the Budget and am confident that it can move Singapore and Singaporeans forward in a new era.”
“Nonetheless, I hope the Deputy Prime Minister can clarify the Government's commitment to local businesses in this Budget debate so that we can achieve a vibrant and growing SME and startup landscape, which can offer good jobs and opportunities for Singaporeans. Sir, of equal importance to economic progress is the continued assurance of the safety and security of our people as well as the strengthening of social bonds. I welcome Budget 2023's estimates for the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA)'s expenditure to increase by 4% compared to a 1.8% increase last year, which I previously said seemed low. I hope this represents the re-doubling of efforts to tackle some worrying trends such as scams as well as youth crimes. Despite commendable efforts by MHA and its partners, scams remain unabated and continue to evolve. Year 2022 saw both record cases and losses of $660 million. So far, close to $1.3 billion has been lost to scams in the past two years. A further $146 million would have been lost last year had our Anti-Scam Command not partnered banks and telecommunications companies or telcos for a swift intervention. I look forward to hearing more details of MHA's plans in terms of resources and capabilities to fight scams with a concerted all-hands-on-deck strategy, through deeper partnerships with entities in the digital value chain. Singapore has often been lauded as one of the safest cities in the world and we should extend this standing into the digital sphere. Our youths, our perpetuating crimes are also under the spotlight. The Singapore Police Force (SPF) reported that the majority of those arrested for e-commerce scams were youths and the Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB) also highlighted a worrying trend of more youths abusing cannabis.”
“Our SMEs must therefore adopt greener practices in their delivery of services and products. They too must apply the mind-boggling methods to measure, track and report their own carbon footprint. Otherwise, they could risk being disregarded as a preferred supplier or worse, being entirely left out of tomorrow's greener supply chain. Beyond internal transformation, SMEs who are more advanced in their green transition should venture out and capitalise on regional prospects such as helping businesses in the region to accelerate their sustainability efforts. Businesses should also be encouraged to co-create and contribute to the establishment of a sound classification and regulatory framework for voluntary carbon credits in Singapore to develop a transparent, liquid and scalable market. These efforts will help establish Singapore as a growing and leading green hub, leveraging on and furthering our status as a trusted international centre for finance, consulting and legal services. In a nascent and growing market, it is not size but trust, credibility and speed that are fundamental, which we should capitalise as our competitive advantage. Like ESG, not much was discussed specific to digitalisation in the 85-page Budget speech, so I hope that the Government can re-emphasise the continued measures to encourage SMEs on their digitalisation journey, which is difficult but also very rewarding. To SMEs who may give Budget 2023 a B or C grade, I would encourage them to adopt a holistic view and factor the generous support measures provided by the Government over the last few years.”
“Hopefully, more incentives can be considered for SMEs to take a chance to hire them to fill the vacancies and help improve the mismatch between labour supply and demand. I also hope that the administrative journey for grants and support schemes can be made more seamless. This will improve accessibility for more SMEs to benefit swiftly and minimise the need for intermediaries and documentation. This view is echoed by the industry such as the Association of Trade and Commerce, from which I had earlier received feedback. Beyond the tactical aspects of the above schemes and from a strategic perspective, I wonder if these business initiatives, including the innovation grants, are enough to help our local businesses and SMEs capture new opportunities in the longer term. Globally, the green movement is gathering momentum. For Singapore, we progressed with our Singapore Green Plan 2030 and committed to net-zero by 2050 alongside many countries. Our SMEs must hence: one, boost efforts to reduce carbon footprint and two, be ready to capture new business opportunities. Little has been said in this Budget specifically about SMEs strengthening capabilities in Environment, Social and Governance (ESG). I am glad that Budget 2023 retains existing measures such as the Resource Efficiency Grant for Energy as well as the Enterprise Sustainability Programme by Enterprise Singapore. However, I am uncertain if these are enough to help push our SMEs to step up their game sufficiently and in time as changes in the ESG space are rapid and exponential. Notably, MNEs are focusing on ESG to meet demands from regulators, investors, lenders and consumers. They in turn expect their SME suppliers to be ESG-compliant.”
“5%, down from 3.6% last year. Our SMEs continue to navigate a challenging environment with many forces beyond their control. Higher business costs are being driven by higher energy prices, wages and a tight labour market where vacancies are hard to fill. The interest cost businesses will shoulder will easily be twice given that rates are expected to be higher for longer, while revenue growth are less certain despite some bright spots, like China’s early reopening. Given the above, some local businesses have given feedback that Budget 2023 seems to be pro-distribution and seemingly a shift away from pro-business growth. They wonder if this means that they should fend more for themselves and expect less help going forward. If indeed Budget 2023 is being rated by many as an A-grade for families and individuals, I suppose SMEs would score this Budget as a B or even a C! Nonetheless, while much has been said about more support being provided to families, individuals and vulnerable households, I do note that Budget 2023 has also factored some help for our SMEs. I welcome the extension of the Enterprise Financing Scheme and the Energy Efficiency Grant and am also glad to see the Government attempt a new initiative to address the jobs and skills mismatch through the Jobs-Skills Integrators. While I look forward to more details, I hope this can benefit SMEs, particularly smaller ones lacking a full HR function, through more relevant training with a targeted outcome to improve productivity. Crucially, better training and job-matching will give residents who are unemployed opportunities to learn by doing and gain confidence to re-enter the workforce.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, we ended 2022 and emerged stronger from COVID-19, demonstrating resilience and trust between our people and the Government. However, Singapore and the world entered 2023 facing a confluence of continued geopolitical tensions and slower economic growth alongside persistent inflation and higher interest rates. We therefore cannot take our past successes for granted. Notably, Budget 2023’s expenditure is 2.6% lower than last year, although higher than prior Budgets before the pandemic. To me, this signals the balance of fiscal prudence along with continued support to Singaporeans to overcome near-term challenges and secure long-term prospects. Last year, during the GST debate, I expressed my concerns from my Yishun residents about the impact of a GST increase to the cost of living, so I am heartened by Budget 2023, given the improvements to the Assurance Package and further enhancements to the Permanent GST Voucher scheme. Evidently, the Government has followed through on its commitment to make a regressive GST increase even more progressive, when taken as a whole. The pandemic has changed the way we live significantly. As such, it is critical for the Budget to continue focusing on how we can move Singapore forward to increase our standard of living and strengthen our social fabric. There are three areas I would like to highlight: one, strengthening our economy and workers by better supporting and transforming our SMEs; two, enhancing the safety and security of Singapore by boosting efforts to tackle worrying crime trends, particularly scams and youth crimes; thirdly, fostering greater social harmony by improving the way we manage community disputes. The Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) forecasted our economic growth to be between 0.5% and 2.”
“More importantly, from the national conversations, we can see that Singapore has gained maturity to discuss sensitive issues and find a balance. I think this is the unique Singapore spirit. I hope that we can continue to seek common ground while preserving differences and make better decisions for our society. (In English): Sir, in our Singapore Pledge, we committed ourselves to build a democratic society based on justice and equality. For me, this process of stakeholder engagements leading to this debate has, I believe, enabled all of us to better understand what our pledge really means. Our Government has demonstrated its even-handed approach and the two Bills placed before us are well-balanced and are steps forward in the right direction. It recognises that there is a place for everyone, factoring majority preferences and protecting the dignity of our gay community. We are all together better off. Singapore has always prided itself as a melting pot of cultures, races and religions. In navigating and not avoiding this issue, we have grown together as a nation and I am confident that we can continue to find strength and harmony in diversity as we continue to write our Singapore story. I support in support of these two Bills.”
“As the premise for the repeal of section 377A is that what happens in private should not be criminalised, the concern of the community is that this could be incorrectly viewed as a signal for stronger public advocacy of gay relationships. We need to remember that the debate will not make this issue any less divisive. We should expect diverse and passionate views from different stakeholders in society to carry on after today. As such, we will need to continue to ensure a safe space for healthy and civil conversations, just as we did over the last many months so that our society evolves peacefully. On this note, can the Minister explain his thoughts on further mechanisms that the Government will put in place to promote genuine, healthy engagements? Will surveys be done regularly and discussed over national conversations? In some ways, this can guide the discourse moving forward, monitor fault lines and potentially reduce harassment or discrimination of pro-gay groups or those who do not agree with them, especially in secular spaces such as schools and workplaces. Currently, some multinational companies offer family benefits to their gay staff, like those for traditional couples. Can the Government explain if it supports such arrangements and its position if gay couples were to push for more workplace benefits? Sir, in Mandarin. (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, with regards to section 377A, over the past few months, we have held discussions with grassroots leaders, residents and religious groups at some of our activities in Nee Soon. I have covered their questions in my English speech and look forward to the answers.”
“We did so in a cool-headed manner and I have to say, the discussions we had with a lot of understanding and empathy. It was way calmer than I earlier expected as this issue is an especially difficult one for all of us to speak on. This topic affects many in the community who are our friends, relatives and colleagues from both gay and traditional families. While majority of Singaporeans do not want to criminalise sex between gay men, residents I spoke to are concerned whether the repeal of section 377A will lead to an erosion of the protection for marriage, family and children and if the underlying motives of past legal challenges go beyond mere removal of stigma and criminalisation. I note that the Constitution (Amendment) Bill, which safeguards the definition of marriage without tying the hands of future generations, is a balanced approach to allow the Government of the day to consider prevailing societal attitudes. On this premise, my community at Nee Soon welcomes Prime Minister Lee and Deputy Prime Minister Wong's assurance that the definition of marriage will not change under their watch and the PAP Government's stance on the traditional family as a basic building block of our society will be strengthened while also respecting the dignity and place of gays in our community. On this point, it is my hope that on this basis, our Government will continue to find ways to further strengthen the structure of marriage and family in our current policies. Sir, as we debate the repeal of section 377A and the safeguards put in place, we should also be clear of any impact to the way of life as we know in Singapore and the measures necessary to guide the way forward.”
“Sir, during the Committee of Supply debate in March this year, I asked the Government to clarify its position on the Court of Appeal's ruling on the constitutional challenge to section 377A of the Penal Code since it was last debated in 2007. Given proactive steps taken by the Government on stakeholder engagements, including the Minister's explanation yesterday on the historical context of relevant laws, I fully understand the implications of the Court's rulings and judgments. I welcome the Government's clear explanation of the legal risk that the colonial-era 377A faces and the potential domino impact on other parts of our legislation and related policies. I accept Minister Shanmugam's interpretation on this issue. I also fully agree that it is the responsibility of our Government and this House to address this issue head on. We cannot cop out and pass this uncomfortable duty to the judiciary. Both Minister Masagos and Minister Shanmugam spoke of the perils of court-led decisions, where the US Supreme Court controversially reversed 50 years of federal abortion rights. The US media noted the chaos brought about by the court judgment to a great nation already split by deep political divide. Singapore cannot afford to take this path. As the debate on this topic can be divisive, I am glad that our Government has taken accountability and has taken steps to help us navigate this complex matter in an inclusive and transparent way, where views from different segments of our society are heard. I, too, can attest to this process, where after the National Day Rally Speech, we discussed this issue at Nee Soon's events with our grassroots leaders, residents and religious organisations.”
“At the heart of the GST Bill is the broader theme about caring for our people, for not just the short but also, importantly, to fund the long-term needs of Singapore and Singaporeans. Taken in totality, the GST system, with targeted support packages, is part of an inclusive and resilient fiscal structure. It funds our expenditures while providing support for the lower- and middle-income segment at the same time. The challenges ahead require us to make this difficult but responsible decision to secure the well-being of all Singaporeans for the longer term.”
“It can help to address the challenges faced by Singapore in a more practical manner while taking care of the needs of Singaporeans at the same time. Nevertheless, to Singaporeans, the burden of the cost of living is already very heavy now. I can understand their concerns about raising GST at this juncture. I am very glad that the Government has done its part to help Singaporeans when it is needed as they have promised to do so. For example, the two additional Assistance Packages announced in June and October this year will help Singaporeans cope with the rising cost of living. The Deputy Prime Minister has also just announced that the Government will announce the updated Assurance Package next year. I hope that the Deputy Prime Minister will provide more details so that residents can have a greater peace of mind and that Singaporeans will know that the Government will continue to do its utmost to help them, especially those who need help most. Lastly, I hope that the Government can further help local SMEs. Some small business operators will also face pressures because of the increase in GST as their costs will go up. However, they are also worried that if they raise their prices, they will be seen as profiteering and that their old customers will not accept the new prices. I believe that the Government will not forget our SMEs. (In English): Sir, in conclusion, I support this GST Bill because of the holistic nature of how it is being executed. While I have some queries, I am also glad that the Government has tabled this Bill to discuss openly this inconvenient truth about funding for Singapore’s future. It is an easy thing to speak about spending more but a lot harder to find the means to fund the spend.”
“Shifting to the focus on businesses, I understand through the Association of Trade and Commerce the concerns expressed by smaller SMEs. They, generally, worry about cost increases. In particular, those who are non-GST-registered cannot claim GST expenses paid to GST-registered suppliers. Some considered voluntary GST registration but find it difficult to comply with the requirements due to limited resources. Against this, can the Deputy Prime Minister share if there will be further support for smaller SMEs to better navigate the GST rate change? In the longer term, should economic uncertainties persist and result in lower tax receipts even after the GST increase, can the Deputy Prime Minister share what are other potential levers to ensure we can keep up with our long-term expenditure needs? Can the Government assure us that the GST rate will not increase beyond 9% in the near term? Mr Speaker, Sir, in Mandarin. (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, as our society spends more and more, it is necessary to raise the GST. However, with inflation and cost of living rising, I am worried that residents will not be able to bear the cost. Therefore, I have examined our GST system very carefully. If we include the GST and the various assistance packages such as the $6.6 billion Assurance Package and the annual GST Vouchers, it is estimated that the actual GST paid by the low-income and retirees is between 0% to 3% and that for the middle-income is 4% to 7%. Only those high-income earners will have to pay 7% to 9% GST. I believe that Singapore's GST system, with its unique design, is more in depth and layered.”
“In the prospective regime, the lower-income, including retirees, continue to pay an effective GST rate of zero to 3%, the middle segment or those with per capita household income from $2,000 to $4,000 will pay around four to 7%, of which 7% is already the existing GST rate. It is actually the higher income who will pay closer to the new headline rate of 9%. There were suggestions in this House to consider further increasing taxes paid by those in the higher income segment, in place of this proposed GST Bill. However, this proposed GST system, when taken holistically, in fact, taxes those in the higher income significantly more, not only at a higher effective rate, but also because of their relatively higher consumption and, therefore, significantly more spending on luxury goods. As mentioned, what weighed on my mind was my residents’ and the broader population’s concerns on the GST hike coming at a time of high global inflation, geopolitical tensions and a deteriorating global economic landscape, which all seem like a perfect storm. Most recently, MOM reported that Singapore’s job market showed signs of slowing momentum, with an uptick in retrenchments. Amidst rising cost of living, job loss worries will weigh on the minds of residents. Relating to the high inflation and the cost of living, I am heartened that the Government has responded decisively in addressing cost of living concerns, with two $1.5 billion Cost of Living packages that were first announced in June and then in October this year, which is on top of the Household Support Package. I also welcome the Deputy Prime Minister's announcement today on updating the GST Assurance Package and his continued assurance on further updates to account for further hikes in expected inflation when it happens.”
“This context is relevant when we apply our minds and talk about the NIRC framework. As this framework allows the Government to spend up to half of the long-term expected real returns on invested net assets, can the Deputy Prime Minister clarify if MOF has factored the known macroeconomic headwinds into the long-run expected returns and, if so, does MOF expect lower funding available for our upcoming Budget? Also, given the challenging investment environment, what are the plans to steadily grow our reserves, to increase the dollar returns available for higher expenditures in the longer term? The backdrop of the current investment climate calls for the need to uphold prudence and discipline in NIRC, so that the returns from our reserves can continue to be a key source of funding proportionate to the higher expected expenditures that are to come. Sir, no one aspires to pay more taxes. While I am convinced that the GST increase is required to support higher expenditure, I am also concerned about its impact on my residents and fellow Singaporeans, given inflationary pressures which are driving up higher costs of living. On this basis, I reflected on the GST implementation and design. A simplistic GST system is, by nature, regressive. However, factoring the GST Assurance Package and the Permanent GST Voucher scheme that have been in place since 2012, the net effect is one where the impact of the GST increase is different across the different income segments of our population. What is salient and is key is that, taken holistically, the support packages transform the GST scheme into a tiered consumption tax system.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, a cornerstone of Singapore’s progress from Third World to First World has been our fiscal strength. This has enabled us to overcome challenges and pursue opportunities with confidence. Much has been said of our fight with the COVID-19 pandemic. It was a similar case with the financial pandemic in 2009 during the Global Financial Crisis where we were able to muster financial resources to protect lives and livelihoods through the $4.5 billion Jobs Credit Scheme and skills upgrading programme. In both situations, Singapore was able to land safely due to our Government’s fiscal prudence and decisive actions. While we have emerged from COVID-19 better than many countries, many challenges lie ahead. Our nation’s expenditures are projected to grow to meet rising needs. These must be financed by tax receipts which are impacted by an increasingly gloomy economic outlook. The Net Investment Returns Contribution (NIRC) framework is being debated in this House. I want to add my piece to say that I caution against the seemingly attractive suggestion to spend more from our investment returns and save less. This easy way out is not a solution to this GST Bill proposed. The real economy is slowing globally. Investment experts have highlighted the declining trade liberalisation, increasing geopolitical uncertainties, along with the unwinding of a decade-long quantitative easing. The era of cheap money for borrowing is over. If one borrows to invest, one also needs to price in the higher risks. In other words, businesses and investors are faced potentially with lower returns, on average, on a risk-adjusted basis. The world has changed dramatically in the recent past. As such, we need to take heed that “past returns are not a guarantee of future performance”.”
“In this case, as the Minister of State has earlier mentioned, complaints against debt collection companies will also be taken into account in the measurement of their behaviour. Lastly, as communications and collection strategies shift to the digital realm, can the Minister explain if the Bill will regulate undesirable debt collection activities conducted on online platforms, such as through messaging or social media? What are other levers available to counter online harassment by debt collectors to ensure that such digital means will not be exploited as a regulatory gap for harassment of debtors? Sir, in conclusion, I believe the regulatory framework introduced by this Bill will better address the law and order concerns, protect the general public as well as to professionalise the debt collection industry in the long run. I support this Bill.”
“This is so that it will be consistent with the principle that all ex-offenders deserve a second chance, as championed by Yellow Ribbon Singapore as well as Members in this House. Referencing the security industry, I have engaged with my residents at the Meet-the People sessions, who were keen to be security officers but were repeatedly rejected by SPF in their application for a licence. One claimed to have had a dated conviction of 15 years ago, has since stayed crime-free and has been proactive in equipping himself with the relevant skills but still was not successful in getting a licence. Therefore, can the Minister clarify whether ex-offenders who have turned over a new leaf will be given a chance to work as security officers and, specifically to this Bill, as debt collectors in this new regime? If so, can the Minister be clear on the parameters of what turning over a new leaf means, that they can be reconsidered to work in such jobs? Moving on, in recognising that debt collection is a legitimate activity, I am also cognisant that some debtors can make malicious or frivolous complaints against well-behaved debt collectors to frustrate the debt collection process. However, the truth of each complaint can only be established after investigation, which draws on Police resources and potentially allows the debtor to delay the fulfilment of his or her financial obligations. Can the Minister share if there would be further safeguards against such complaints, in addition to levers in the Penal Code relating to the provision of false information, to be fair to debt collection companies or collectors who conduct themselves well?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, against the backdrop of debt collection harassment as a cause for concern, this Debt Collection Bill is apt and timely. I would, first, like to commend how MHA has considered debt collection to be a legitimate activity that facilitates the fulfilment of financial obligations. The proposed regulatory framework, in my opinion, achieves a fair balance between stemming undesirable conduct and avoiding being overly burdensome for the debt collection industry. It is on this premise that I have some comments and clarifications. Firstly, I welcome the class licensing regime set out in clause 14 of this Bill, which minimises the regulatory conditions on lower-risk groups. However, the group of businesses under the class licensing regime is a very large category with organisations which vary in terms of their sophistication and debt collection processes. This category includes banks or credit card companies at one end and moneylenders or the smaller outfits on the other. Given that moneylenders are, generally, less sophisticated, with fewer resources than banks, which are highly regulated, will MHA consider differentiating the class licences, for example, between the institutions that are MAS-regulated versus those that are not, so that licensing conditions are appropriate to the risk profile of the two groups? Next, as part of the approval regime under clause 20 of this Bill, prospective debt collectors for licensed debt collection companies will have to undergo a fit and proper assessment by the Police. While criminal records are a relevant factor, it is also a vital information for the debarment tenure to be well-calibrated.”
“Going forward, the world is seeing more cybersecurity threats which are also becoming increasingly sophisticated. So, as we continue to build our capabilities, we must be wary that what has happened can occur again. DNA samples, I understand, are collected on blotter cards, but the data analysed are stored on computer databases, which can be subject to the cybersecurity threats I have mentioned earlier. Given this, can the Minister of State clarify the existing data security safeguards, their effectiveness and proposed enhancements that are implemented and, therefore, to be put in place to provide greater public assurance? Without being overly technical, will measures recommended by our Public Sector Data Security Review Committee, such as digital watermarking, encryption, tokenisation and multi-party authorisation, be deployed or further enhanced to strengthen cybersecurity? Mdm Deputy Speaker, in conclusion, data is the new currency in this day and age. Through the use of data, our LEAs must send the message to potential criminals that they will be caught. But it is also critical that we must balance the expanded collection, retention and usage of personal information with safeguards in data privacy and security. In this way, public trust amongst our LEAs can be upheld. I am confident that this Bill will enable our officers to continue keeping Singapore safe and secure and I stand in support of this Bill.”
“Notwithstanding, can the Minister of State explain what are "other purposes" under clause 32(h) that may be prescribed? The Bill also proposes the sharing of DNA results of convicted criminals with foreign LEAs when assessed necessary. This expands the current regime where registrable information, such as fingerprints, are already shared. As a safeguard, the foreign LEA will need to provide an undertaking to safekeep the data, limit its uses and destroy it upon conclusion. Notwithstanding that these persons have been convicted, given that DNA information is more sensitive compared to fingerprints, can the Minister of State clarify if criteria to assess necessity for sharing will be made more stringent than currently? Also, considering varying levels of cybersecurity infrastructure across jurisdictions, as well as difficulties of monitoring foreign LEAs, can the Minister of State share how compliance with the undertaking by foreign counterparts will be ensured? The Bill also introduces a new category of "eligible crimes", expanding the current scope of crimes eligible for information to be collected. Per clause 2(d) of the Bill, these are defined as any offence punishable with imprisonment, except those compoundable. With the foreseeable increase in the size and sensitivity of data collected, retained and used, I am encouraged that the Bill will also legislate safeguards for the handling of information, such as having persons accessing the databases to be screened and authorised by the Police. It follows that with greater powers come greater responsibilities to further strengthen trust in our LEAs. Some of our agencies have, unfortunately, been impacted by data leakage due to cybersecurity attacks.”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, Singapore is widely regarded as one of the safest cities in the world because of the relentless efforts of our law enforcement agencies (LEAs). Amongst other capabilities, investigation plays a key role in solving crimes and upholding public confidence. We must continue to support our officers with the right investigation capabilities and legal framework, so that they remain effective in keeping Singapore safe. On this basis, I believe the amendments in this Bill on the collection, use and storage of information from case persons are well-intentioned and sound. Nonetheless, I would like to seek some clarifications. A key amendment is to allow Police officers to instruct a suspect to provide blood samples to collect DNA, without the need for a Magistrate's order. While this will boost timeliness of collection, as a safeguard, can the Minister of State share if this process will be authorised and supervised by an officer who is appropriately trained and qualified? Greater assurance could, for example, be achieved by requiring officers of a minimum rank, similar to the requirement stated in the Criminal Procedure Code. Regarding the retention of information, as the intent of this Bill is to collect more data to improve investigations, can the Minister of State clarify the rationale for the default expungement of suspects' information in cases of No Further Action under clause 35(3)? I ask this as the clause appears to be counter-intuitive since volunteers, who have a weaker connection to a case compared to suspects, are required to apply to the Police for removal of their data under clause 37(2). I note that clause 32 sets out the usage of DNA information for limited purposes.”