Fadli Fawzi
Singapore
“Thank you, Mr Speaker, I have three supplementary questions. Firstly, are there any other nursing homes that have been found to have significant lapses in an initial audit, similar to Windsor Convalescent Home and LC Nursing Home, but have been given the opportunity to rectify these lapses and are still being monitored by MOH?”
“As we have seen with Changi Airport, Singapore is capable of building infrastructure that both impresses the world and benefits the lives of Singaporeans. Changi drives our economic competitiveness while simultaneously being a place for Singaporeans to gather, relax, celebrate and create memories.”
“I thank the Minister for the question. I just would like to again state my concerns with the issue. Firstly, if these fees go a long way back and they affected a large number of people, because these are very routine things, then, would the Minister agree with me that there is a real risk of some kind of administrative oversight?”
“But what was the legal basis of enabling them or allowing them to understand that they were allowed to charge these administrative fees? So, again, I reiterate my second question: what legal basis did each of these agencies think that they had authority to impose these fees and charges in the first place?”
“Are there other agencies, other fee regimes or other categories of collection which the Government has reason to believe may sit on similar uncertain legal foundations? Should this House expect further validating legislation in future sessions? If no such review has been undertaking, I would be interested to know, why not?”
“I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the clarification. I just would like to make it clear. I have no problems going forward about regularising such provisions. My concern is that we have no idea about the actual numbers that are being involved and we are asked to extinguish the rights of these people to claim any monies.”
The complete record
Every one of 108 lines we hold for Fadli Fawzi, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 3.
“In fact, resource and sustainability concerns prompted the Government to issue a moratorium on data centre construction in 2019, which has been lifted in phases since 2022. In May 2024, the Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) released the Green Data Centre Roadmap, which established energy and water efficiency targets for data centres for the next 10 years. I hope that the Government is confident that we are not only on pace to meet these efficiency targets, but to also ensure that the data centres' energy and water consumption does not create upward pressure on the utility cost for households and small businesses. Sir, I highlight these issues not as a reason to abandon or shun AI, but the world is facing an existential challenge of climate change and the United Nations University Institute of Water, Environment and Health recently warned of a global water bankruptcy. Given these circumstances, it seems only pragmatic for us in this House and as a country to consider the ethical and environmental trade-offs involved as we embark on a national quest to integrate AI into our personal, social and working lives. Sir, the Prime Minister has identified the many challenges that Singapore is facing. I hope that the Government reads my remarks as I intend them to be: constructive amendments for the purpose of strengthening our civic endurance and collective resilience to navigate the challenging days ahead. [Applause.]”
“This is how we develop our sense of judgement and our capacity for creativity. I appreciate the Prime Minister's reassurance that the Government will define how AI is developed and used in Singapore, including setting out clear rules for its responsible and safe implementation. I await more clarity in this direction. One last point, Mr Speaker, I will reiterate what my WP colleague Dennis Tan raised, and his concerns about AI and the environment. We should remember that every AI query has a physical and environmental footprint. We may think of AI as performing virtual magic on our computers, giving us answers in almost an instant, or even helping us to generate pantun for Parliament. But this magic has to piggyback on a vast infrastructure of data centres that consume voracious amounts of electricity and water. Globally, data centres are straining power grids and depleting water sources. Needless to say, the energy and water demands of these data centres also have third party effects, such as increasing the utility cost for everyone else, including residents. This has become such a serious issue in the US to the extent that the New York Times reported on 15 January, that the politicians and lawmakers have started mulling over legislation to oblige tech companies to pay their fair share for electricity consumption, including paying upfront for the cost of upgrading the power grid. Locally, data centres accounted for 7% of Singapore's total energy usage in 2020. Moreover, data centres also contribute to the urban heating of our island, because for every one megawatt of heat removed from data centres by the cooling systems, 1.2 megawatt of heat is ejected into the environment.”
“The Prime Minister outlined the Government's commitment to strengthen AI literacy for our students in the institutes of higher learning (IHLs) and to help workers automate routine tasks so they can concentrate on performing higher value activities that would involve judgement, creativity and human insight. These are pragmatic measures to familiarise Singaporeans with AI and integrate its use into our daily routines. However, I wonder whether we are in danger of becoming an AI-reliant society, rather than an AI-resilient society. My worry is that such indiscriminate habituation to AI may risk undermining the very things that we want to augment. Those things that the Prime Minister talked about – judgement, creativity and human insight. Sir, human ingenuity is a precious thing, and we must not let it be the case that the more we rely on AI, the more we end up dulling our critical faculties for human ingenuity. Sir, as an undergraduate, I remember struggling through dense academic text, picking apart the writings of scholars such as Émile Durkheim, Max Weber and Karl Marx, trying to find out what their words meant and what it is they were trying to convey. Had AI been available then, it would have been convenient and very tempting for me to have ChatGPT summarise the content or generate ideas for an essay or seminar discussion. However, there is value in undertaking the sometimes slow, often uncomfortable and always arduous task of reading a text and grappling to understand it on your own terms. This is the process through which we sharpen our cognitive skills. This is how we learn to decipher and interpret the meanings of the written word, and by extension, make sense of the world, which those words reflect and shape.”
“Sir, surely any public archive deserving of its name should have its records readily available to the public without the need to seek permission from a Government agency. An automatic declassification process will make records generally available to the public by default instead of requiring interested Singaporeans and researchers to undertake an opaque approval process to gain access. I understand that a more transparent and open declassification policy may cause some anxieties. However, the Government can heed the advice of Senior Minister Lee, who once said, quote "In teaching the Singapore Story, you have to deal with delicate issues, especially race and religion, and sometimes relations with our neighbours. We must treat such issues sensitively, but we cannot gloss over them. Amnesia is not an option. We cannot pretend that incidents involving race and religion never happened. They are part of our history", end quote. Sir, a society that can collectively alter its history is one that is confident in facing the future. To future-proof Singapore, amnesia is not an option. If you want Singaporeans to be active participants in their own country, if you want our citizens to deepen their appreciation of our history and to strengthen our national identity, then the Government must believe that Singaporeans can be trusted to participate in the construction of our national history. Sir, my final topic – AI. A focal point of the Budget speech was on harnessing AI as a strategic advantage for Singapore.”
“However, was there a reason that the file was not released to the public domain in the first instance so that the wider community of scholars and the public can read, discuss, interpret and construct their understandings of a past in a more democratic and collective fashion? As the Minister for Digital Development and Information stated in her written answer on 12 January, "A deeper appreciation of our history and how we got here will strengthen our national identity." I however doubt that our more mature and discerning citizens can truly have this deeper appreciation if the Government's approach to history remains didactic, where history is meant to be consumed by the people rather than constructed by the people and for the people. Historical narratives gain resonance when it is written by the many, not dictated by the few. Sir, in the spirit of encouraging and facilitating a deeper appreciation of our history, would it not be more reasonable to have, as a default, an automatic declassification and public release of records once 25 years have elapsed? Currently, even Government documents that have been transferred as public records to the National Archives Singapore (NAS), the so called "public archives", are not easily accessible. In 2023, the then Senior Minister of State for Communications and Information mentioned that the NAS has made the metadata of around 780,000 records available to the public. However, most of these records still require permission from the originating agency before they can be read. In the Senior Minister of State's statement, it was also revealed that 68,000 filed records have been declassified and made accessible to the public.”
“The Urban Redevelopment Authority's (URA's) planning parameters for historical districts stipulate guidelines for building use. Would it not be possible to amend these parameters to ensure that heritage businesses can remain viable in the areas, such as introducing heritage business licences, specifically for historic districts? This would offer businesses some measure of protection from open market competition, as well as prevent the over-commercialisation of a historic district. Sir, I turn now to the topic of our national history. Recently, I visited the Albatross Files exhibition at the National Library, which I thought was quite remarkable, since it is not often that the state offers a revisionist account of its own historical narrative. As a student, the narrative of separation that I was taught was one of expulsion. A Straits Times report from 21 December 2025 quoting a former secondary school history teacher confirms this. That aside, the declassification of the Albatross File is a good move. Yet the existence of the file was only first revealed in 1996 by Dr Goh Keng Swee during an interview with Dr Melanie Chew. And it took another 27 years for it to be fully declassified. Must Albatross really wait for 30 years before its existence was to be publicly acknowledged and almost 60 years after Independence before its contents were to be fully revealed to the public? Even then, the declassification process of Albatross seems tightly managed. I refer to the 7 December speech by Senior Minister Lee Hsien Loong, who shared how a specific team went through the material carefully, picked out the key documents and sections, annotated them and wrote up the editorial apparatus. I do not mean to downplay the considerable work and effort of these scholars.”
“Born and raised in Kampong Kaji, my father would regale me with stories of Wak Cantuk and playing with his friends from Gedung Kuning and other parts of Kampong Glam. While he is no longer here, our conversation still lived on fondly through my memories and every time I drop by Kampong Glam. Mr Speaker, it may be said that churn and change is a constant order of the market. However, such indiscriminate churn can carelessly sever the connective threads nested in Kampong Glam that intricately links people and places, history and memory, and identity and belonging. A nasi padang stall that has operated for decades, or a textile shop that has served both grandmother and granddaughter – these are not merely commercial storefronts selling goods and services. These are also precious repositories of cultural knowledge, community relationships and public memory. These are simply gone when they are gone. And no influx of souvenir shops, photo booths and Instagram-friendly cafes can compensate for such a loss. Sir, if I may, I would like to quote a line from an essay titled "Displacing Singapore" written by Mr Peter Schoppert, which described the constant physical transformation of Singapore as such: "The past continually makes way for a future that has no time to ripen into a present." With Kampong Glam, we have the opportunity to do things differently, to let the past ripen into a present. We can still balance the forces of commerce and the imperatives of culture. This includes helping the heritage businesses that carry the memory of many generations, supporting the families who have anchored this district through the decades and taming speculation so that the cultural heritage of the district is not hollowed out.”
“I am sure that the House shares my concern about how traditional and heritage businesses often with long standing roots in Kampong Glam are finding themselves displaced by the challenging operating environment. On 12 January, a report by CNA revealed that between 2023 and 2025, the yearly median rent in Kampong Glam rose from $6.02 to $7.54 per square foot, translating to a 25% increase over two years. During our Sitting earlier this month, the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for National Development confirmed that a small proportion of tenants did face rental hikes of 25% or more in these two years. He, however, said that this involved leases for shops in high footfall streets, such as Haji and Bali Lanes. However, this is not sufficient as an assurance that Kampong Glam will remain viable for heritage businesses. High rents in Haji and Bali Lanes can easily have a spillover effect on other adjacent streets, such as Arab Street, which houses some traditional textile retailers. The disappearance of heritage businesses in Kampong Glam will be an irreversible thinning of the precinct's place meaning. We should also not understate the intimate connections between our sense of self, our sense of belonging and our sensing of the physical infrastructure. To a large degree, our identity is anchored in places. People know who they are because they know where they were, where their grandparents brought them around to run errands, where they posed with their extended family around Sultan Mosque for a Hari Raya photo, or where they socialised over teh tarik with friends or brought their partner for a date. Even when I grew older, I continued to bond with my father about Kampong Glam and our shared his interest in its history and heritage.”
“Unrelenting change, including those brought about by rampant commercialisation, can degrade our sense of who we are. Second, I will also suggest that the construction of our national history can be more democratised and inclusive. If Singaporeans are to be active participants in nation building, then we deserve to tell a Singaporean story that is brought forth by the collective memory making of the Singapore public. My final point will address the Government's focus on AI. I understand that we have to embrace advances in technology and seek to include these tools in our repertoire. My concern is specific that we do not elevate AI to such a degree that we risk undermining the very thing that we are seeking to enhance: our human ingenuity. Sir, our heritage is essential to our civic and national identity. The Government has made it a priority to renew and strengthen our Singapore spirit in this year's Budget. I especially welcome the Prime Minister's plans to strengthen our cultural and heritage institutions, which include the reopening of the revamped Malay Heritage Centre. However, even at the Istana Kampong Glam welcomes the public through its doors once more, it would be a pity if Kampong Glam itself loses its cultural character as a historical precinct which it has served and still continues to serve local communities. I spent part of my early childhood in Bussorah Street which was once known as Kampong Kaji. For me, Kampong Glam cannot be separated from the social and communal practices which are embedded within the neighbourhood. Kampong Glam thrives because the district remains a living heritage for the community who live, work and visit there.”
“Mr Speaker, this is the first Budget of the current Parliamentary term. I would like to think of this as an opportunity for us to future-proof Singapore in a world characterised by flux, we must be steadfast in holding on to who we are – our collective identity as Singaporeans are our roots, keeping us fixed and resolute as One People through disruptions and upheavals. Sir, the Budget is as much about our collective values and identity, as much as it is about dollars and cents. In his Budget speech, the Prime Minister identified that the spirit of our people is our greatest strength. He also said that Singaporeans must be active participants rather than mere spectators in our nation-building effort. I agree with this sentiment. But, Sir, participation requires agency. If the Government is sincere about the spirit of our people being our greatest strength, then it must be equally sincere about giving Singaporeans the means and the space to tend that spirit themselves. Too often, however, Singaporeans find themselves as mere spectators in the making of our national collective identity. The Government recognises the importance of nurturing the shared bonds of civic friendships among Singaporeans. I hope to, however, convince the House that our national identity and sense of solidarity is something that is best fostered organically from the ground up in ways that affirm and reflect our citizens' lived experiences. In the next few minutes, I will talk about heritage, history and human ingenuity. First, I want to suggest the importance of heritage conservation, not out of sentimentality or nostalgia, but because these places have meanings for us as Singaporeans. Places and place memories are important to our identity and belonging.”
“I have approached many asatizah and representatives or ministers of religious matters. They state that although there is diversity in our lives today, that same diversity may bring about negative aspects. However, when they look at Singapore, our diversity brings goodness and gives us strength to continue with our development. Therefore, this is an opportunity for our community to show how we can live as a multiracial society and continue to progress within Singapore's context. Hence, this is a good opportunity and I hope everyone, not just from our community, but our country, will develop this institution, because its success will bring benefits and continue to contribute to Singapore's success.”
“(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Thank you, Minister, for the reply. Mr Speaker, I have three additional questions. First, how many students does the Singapore College of Islamic Studies expect to admit each year? Second, what are the planned career pathways for the graduates of this college? And third, will this college have a dedicated professional development and career support unit for the students? Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: (In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Sir, I thank Mr Fadli. Firstly, we will provide opportunities to our madrasah students. We are planning perhaps for more than 50 students and we will expand this further. In terms of careers, as I mentioned, it will be much broader compared to what we can see today. Not just broad, we want to develop an ecosystem that equips our asatizah with competencies, where even though they can work in social organisations or jobs related to social work, we want them to obtain the highest competencies. In Singapore, we have institutions that conduct and pursue fields of study, and provide good career development for our citizens, and we do not want our asatizah, as well as those who are studying in a similar field, to be left behind. This is a good opportunity for us. Thirdly, careers or the learning process in Singapore, does not end once certificates are obtained. We want them to deepen and develop their experience. Therefore, we will conduct programmes that develop their careers year after year. Most importantly, in my opinion, is how we can establish research platforms so that we can develop a foundation that builds knowledge in Islamic studies, various aspects of Islam, as well as life in a multiracial context.”
“Thank you, Speaker. Sir, I would like to ask a few supplementary questions. Firstly, will any firms, inside or outside Singapore, be investigated under the Transboundary Haze Pollution Act of 2014, in relation to the recent pit fires in Johor that have caused Singapore to be impacted by the haze, and if not, why not? Secondly, can the Minister update this House whether there has been any prosecution brought under the Transboundary Haze Pollution Act 2014, in its 12-year history? If not, can the Minister share some of the challenges bringing these cases to Court?”
“Mr Speaker, other dense cities across the world have shown that this is possible. It requires us to fundamentally rethink how we allocate existing road space, rather than incrementally increasing cycling and non-pedestrian infrastructure at the margins. Since we expect private vehicle growth to be capped as car-lite policies take effect, the Government should seriously reconsider reclaiming road space currently dedicated to cars, including underutilised lanes and on-street parking – and repurposing them for cycling and walking infrastructure. In this way, we also make space for the safe use of mobility devices. Mr Speaker, I believe we need to address the underlying problems and develop a more compassionate vision of mobility in Singapore. We must address the structural gaps that drive people to rely on mobility devices in the first place. This means investing in better neighbourhood connectivity, more responsive public transport planning and infrastructure that reflects and facilitates how people actually move around their communities. Sir, notwithstanding these concerns, I support this Bill.”
“The service is intended to provide coverage for "short but significant" journeys around the neighbourhood. Public transport is still limited for short journeys like these. The proposed community buses should target the specific practical needs of residents and reflect how they get around their neighbourhood. This can help to reduce reliance on mobility devices. These measures can align our public transport network with the needs of senior citizens. They should view taking bus rides as something very convenient. They should not have to choose between walking or using mobility devices. And I think we are responsible for providing bus journeys free of charge to senior citizens. Sir, in London, citizens over the age of 66 enjoy free travel on public transport, except during morning peak hours. Over there, they call it the "Freedom Pass". We should provide a similar service for our senior citizens and give them a "Merdeka Pass" to travel freely on our public transport. (In English): Mr Speaker, this Bill is an opportunity to consider how different modes of mobility may necessitate the long-term transformation of our last mile connectivity infrastructure. The mobility devices that we are discussing today are here to stay. Ultimately, if pedestrian safety is our concern, this is best achieved by segregating pedestrian traffic from motor-powered mobility devices. We can achieve this by moving more decisively towards a more coherent and integrated network of dedicated cycling paths that are clearly separated from pedestrian footpaths, wherever possible and then confining the use of mobility devices to these cycling paths. Currently, this is not possible in many neighbourhoods where cycling paths share space with pedestrian footpaths.”
“As such, improving our public transport links, including boosting capacity for last mile connectivity must be a priority. Furthermore, Mr Speaker, I would encourage the Ministry to offer seed funding to pilot and test community bus shuttles in different towns, including Kaki Bukit, with the intention of providing coverage for those short but significant journeys around the neighbourhood that are currently underserved by our public transport operators. We can even call this the "we first" shuttle. These local shuttles should be targeted to the specific practical needs of residents and reflect how they actually get around the neighbourhood. This may reduce their reliance on mobility devices. These improvements would also make our public transport network more fit for purpose for our ageing population. Our elderly should find it easy and convenient to take a bus for a few stops to visit their friends or run errands in another part of the neighbourhood. They should not be faced with the choice of either walking that kilometre or two, or having to rely on a mobility device. And I believe we also owe it to them to make these bus journeys free-of-charge. Sir, in London, those over the age of 66 enjoy free travel across the public transport network at any time, save for the morning rush hour. Over there, they call it the "Freedom Pass". I see no reason why we cannot or should not do the same for our seniors and give them a Merdeka Pass to travel freely on our public transport. Mr Speaker, in Malay. (In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] We need to prioritise improvements to public transport links, including boosting capacity for last mile connectivity. I also suggest that MOT establish seed funding to study and test "community bus" services in towns like Kaki Bukit.”
“2 kilometres, which Google Maps indicate will take around 17 minutes. To reach Bedok Reservoir Park or Damai Secondary School, the resident has two options to walk – 1.9 kilometres for 26 minutes or to walk one kilometre for 14 minutes to a bus stop near along Bedok North Avenue 3; and then take a three-minute bus ride for three stops. Mr Speaker, I do not mean for these examples to be comprehensive or exhaustive. Rather, they are meant to demonstrate that for certain short but significant journeys in Kaki Bukit, there are sometimes no direct or convenient public transport options. The only realistic alternative is to walk directly from point to point. This is the healthiest option, but may be challenging for the elderly, those with mobility difficulties or parents with young children who are pressed for time – not to mention the hot and humid weather in Singapore, which does not make for a comfortable walking experience. In such circumstances, a PMA can be useful, especially for caregivers with children or working workers rushing to and from shifts. Mr Speaker, regulation without viable alternative risks deepening inequality. Transport policy should be concerned with more than efficiency and safety, but also consider equity and inclusion, especially for those with the least resources. As I mentioned earlier, the increasing reliance on AMDs is driven by practical necessity. Residents turn to these devices to cope with and adapt to what they see as gaps in our public transport network, especially when it comes to last mile connectivity or travelling to neighbourhood amenities that are just slightly too far to walk to comfortably. For such persons, mobility devices are the most viable options, after taking cost, time, convenience and accessibility into account.”
“Mr Speaker, I fully understand and acknowledge the Government's concern about the misuse of such vehicles by able-bodied individuals in ways that compromise public safety. There have been genuine incidents involving reckless riding, excessive speeds and conflicts on footpaths. These issues must be addressed, but we must be careful not to inadvertently cause hardship to Singaporeans who rely on these devices out of necessity. Many such individuals now use mobility vehicles to earn a living, including completing food and parcel deliveries for platform companies, such as Grab. For them, these vehicles are essential tools of work rather than toys for amusement or recreation. The Bill proposes to reduce the speed limit for PMAs from 10 kilometres per hour to six kilometres per hour. In an article published by Mothership on 27 January, platform workers shared that this reduction in speed limit is likely to reduce the orders they can complete by 20% to 30%, or even up to 50%. This will translate to a loss in earnings. While some workers will be able to make up for this by working longer hours, others who have caregiving needs or health problems may not be able to do so. Besides being a tool for employment, mobility vehicles can also prove to be the most convenient or practical option for some residents to get around the neighbourhood. Let me illustrate with some examples from my own ward of Kaki Bukit. Take a resident who lives at Block 530 in Bedok North Street 3, which is right next to Kaki Bukit Community Centre. To head to Red Swastika School, the resident has no direct bus route. There are indirect bus options, but this involves switching either at Bedok Interchange or at Heartbeat at Bedok. And that will take more than 35 minutes. The other option is to walk 1.”
“Mr Speaker, I have a few considerations to share on the Land Transport and Related Matters Bill. At the outset, let me state that I recognise the importance of ensuring safety and order for all users in Singapore. Our roads, footpaths and shared spaces must be safe for pedestrians, cyclists, persons with disabilities and motorists. As mobility patterns and technologies evolve, our laws must be updated to reflect these new realities on the ground. One of the most significant developments in recent years has been the rapid rise in the use of mobility devices, such as PMAs, PMDs and PABs. Their use is not limited to elderly Singaporeans or persons with visible disabilities. Even working adults, caregivers and delivery workers are using them, which reflects the last mile connectivity challenges they face. Mr Speaker, my point here is simple. The increased use of mobility vehicles by Singaporeans is more often than not driven by a practical need. Singaporeans rely on this informal low-cost mobility solution simply to get by and get on with their daily lives. With the Certificate of Entitlement prices shattering records year after year, a private car is now firmly out of reach for many working families. Even motorcycles, traditionally seen as an affordable alternative, have become significantly more expensive. Against this backdrop, it should come as no surprise that to meet their everyday transport needs, Singaporeans have turned to mobility vehicles that cost from a few hundred dollars, to $1,000 or $2,000 – just a fraction of the price of a motorcycle or a car. For many Singaporeans, these devices are the only viable way to bridge the last mile between their homes and essential destinations, such as workplaces, schools, markets and food centres.”
“Speaker, I have two supplementary questions. Firstly, if there are other further cases of gastroenteritis in schools using the Central Kitchen Meal Model, will the Government consider returning to the traditional canteen model or any other catering model for schools, such as the onsite central kitchens located within the school itself? Second, the Minister of State mentioned that challenges for traditional kitchens go beyond cost. How will the Government make the traditional canteen model more attractive for vendors?”
“Thank you, Speaker. I have three supplementary questions. Firstly, in light of the sustained increase in shophouse transactions and prices over the past years, does the Government have any plans to extend the Additional Buyer's Stamp Duty (ABSD) and Seller's Stamp Duty (SSD) to commercial properties in heritage districts, considering their limited supply and heritage value? My second supplementary question is, will the Government consider changing the way property tax is calculated for commercial purposes in heritage districts to incentivise or reward landlords who reduce the rents for their tenants and/or take steps to retain the character of their heritage district? For my third supplementary question, I refer to my written Question No 66 on the Order Paper. I asked about the number of shophouses in Kampong Gelam that are on Wakaf land. I want to ask whether MND has any plans to work with Warees Investments to protect the cultural identity and historical value of such shophouses, and if not, why not?”
“I thank the Senior Minister of State for his answer. Mr Speaker, the Senior Minister of State has mentioned that one housing monetisation option – the Lease Buyback Scheme – has been available since 2009, but yet, only about 12,700 households have taken it up, as of June 2024, which is a relatively low take-up rate. Does the Ministry interpret this as seniors not needing assistance or as seniors rejecting monetisation as a form of assistance? And if it is the latter, would the Ministry consider finding ways to encourage the take-up rate, or maybe implementing further policies to reduce the cost of living for seniors, so they can continue staying in their own homes on top of encouraging them to extract value from their homes?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, notwithstanding these clarifications, I support the Bill.”
“I would like to ask the Minister to clarify whether SportSG has previously used these powers to manufacture equipment and if not, what is the intention for SportSG to retain these powers? Traditionally, the Government procures from the private sector to stimulate the economy and benefit from market competition. Is there a specific gap in the market that SportSG is trying to fill? In addition, the new section 8(m) will allow SportSG "to establish and maintain codes of practice or conduct, guidelines or standards in relation to any equipment, items and facilities used for sports or physical fitness activities." This creates a potential conflict of interest. If SportSG is both the regulator in setting the standards and the supplier in manufacturing the equipment, how do we ensure a level playing field with the private sector? How can we avoid a situation where SportSG sets the standards that unfairly disadvantage private competitors? While I support the promotion of physical fitness, I believe the Government should be a catalyst rather than a competitor. If SportSG begins manufacturing fitness equipment at scale, it could inadvertently crowd out local retailers and manufacturers who operate on thin margins. I hope the Minister can provide assurances that these new powers will be used judiciously and only when the private sector is unable or unwilling to provide the necessary equipment. In summary, while I welcome the modernisation of SportSG's remit, we must be wary of over-extension. I hope that the Minister can clarify how the Ministry will continue to increase support for our athletes and whether leveraging private sector resources is an active consideration and explain how it intends to use SportSG's powers to regulate and manufacture sports equipment.”
“It goes without saying that athlete training is very expensive, as we can see from the experiences of our own Olympic medallists. To support Joseph Schooling's training in the United States, his parents – Colin and May Yim Schooling – had to spend more than $1 million, including selling a house in Perth and cashing out an endowment plan. Maximilian Maeder estimated that the cost of training and competing at his level to be around €250,000 a year. He was supported by a three-year sponsorship agreement with local beverage company, Yeo Hiap Seng, or better known as Yeo's, and the Ng Teng Fong Charitable Foundation, demonstrating how corporate sponsors and external partners can help to chip in to groom more elite athletes for Singapore. I hope that the Ministry and SportSG can develop comprehensive strategies to institutionalise the role of corporate sponsorship in funding athlete training and expand the Sports Excellence Programme (spex) Schemes to support high-performing athletes. We need a sustainable model where the state is not the sole benefactor but a facilitator for private sector investment in our sporting talent. In addition to the funding perspective, for e-sports specifically, the e-sport ecosystem is unique because the "arenas", namely the games themselves, are intellectual property owned by private publishers. To run programmes or tournaments, SportSG will necessitate a different level of commercial engagement than traditional sports. How does SportSG intend to navigate these proprietary hurdles? Mr Deputy Speaker, the Bill will retain section 8(k) of the principal Act as Section 8(l), which allows SportSG to "to prepare, manufacture and supply any equipment and items used for sports or physical fitness activities".”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the intent of the Bill. The sporting landscape has evolved significantly since the Act was first passed in 1973 and it is only right that our legislative framework reflects modern realities. It is a pragmatic step forward to expand the definition of "sport" to include mind sports and e-sports and explicitly incorporate physical fitness activities. However, as we expand the remit and powers of the Singapore Sports Council, which is now renamed SportSG, we must ensure that these changes are fiscally sustainable and do not inadvertently stifle the local private sector. I have two broad areas of clarification for the Minister: one related to funding dilution and alternative funding streams, and the other to the manufacture of sporting and fitness equipment. The expansion of SportSG's functions to include e-sports and mind sports is a significant undertaking. These are rapidly growing fields that require specialised infrastructure, coaching and international participation. Does the Government plan to increase SportSG's budget to account for these new categories? My concern is that if SportSG's budget remains stagnant, we risk diluting the financial support currently available to athletes involved in traditional sports. We must ensure that a "win" for e-sports does not come at the cost of a "loss" for other programmes, such as track and field or swimming. In light of this, would it be prudent to expand the scope of section 8(d) of the principal Act to explicitly allow SportSG to enter into strategic partnerships with commercial entities and other organisations? By leveraging on private sector funding, SportSG can alleviate the burden on the public purse.”
“One example of this model is non-profit Swiss cooperative MIDATA where citizens control their data and can choose to contribute it to specific research projects that they believe in. This has enabled research and tailored care plans for diseases, such as multiple sclerosis. Mr Deputy Speaker, my foregoing questions and suggestions are intended to safeguard the integrity of the NEHR to strengthen public confidence in the system. To this end, we continue to emphasise patients' privacy and patients' autonomy to ensure Singaporeans are empowered, not exposed.”
“Clause 77 identifies what is a "notifiable data breach", namely, a breach which "(a) results in, or is likely to result in, significant harm to an affected individual; or (b) is, or is likely to be, of a significant scale". Can I then ask the Minister to clarify how the Ministry intends to define "significant harm" and "significant scale” and why it has settled on such a standard? Would it not be more reasonable, not to mention the right thing to do, to notify affected individuals in any and all cases of unauthorised access to their health information? Looking ahead, the national electronic healthcare system, once it is fully up and running, our citizen's pooled health data will be a valuable goldmine for clinical researchers and pharmaceutical companies. While this can accelerate drug development and spur medical innovation, the public needs assurance that their personal health data will not be monetised for profit. Here, my question is whether the Government intends to make healthcare information in the NEHR available to the private, academic or any other sectors and whether the current Bill makes provisions to regulate such a possibility? While I am in principle not opposed to such collaborations, I hope that it can be explicitly legislated that any dataset from the NEHR must be anonymised, if this has not been done already. Moreover, if the data is used for commercial research, the Government should consider a "Social Dividend" which ensures that the benefits return to the people. Any revenue or benefits derived should be reinvested directly into patient subsidies or national health funds, ensuring that the value generated by the people's health data is returned back to the people. I would also suggest exploring the model of data cooperatives.”
“" Even then, opting out does not mean your healthcare information gets deleted from the NEHR. What happens is that healthcare providers do not get to view them. Moreover, these Access Restrictions can be, understandably, overridden in a medical emergency. I thus want to ask how the Ministry intends to implement the Access Restriction mechanisms under the Bill. Firstly, will the Ministry continue to counsel those who wish to invoke access restrictions and can we have further details about the content and duration of that counselling process? Secondly, is the Ministry considering the possibility of allowing patients to invoke or revoke these access restrictions online through HealthHub? Thirdly, is the Ministry planning to conduct regular public campaigns to educate patients about their access restriction rights? Mr Deputy Speaker, another important dimension to patient autonomy is being transparent about the who, when and why of access to our healthcare information. I understand that patients can view which healthcare providers have accessed their health records through the NEHR Access History section in HealthHub. I want to clarify with the Minister about how granular this data would be. Would the patient only be able to see which healthcare institutions have accessed their records or will it also list out the specific healthcare professionals who were accessing their records? Moreover, at GP clinics, how can patients be sure that only their doctor is able to view the health information on the NEHR and not their non-clinical staff? This relates to another question about unauthorised access to the NEHR.”
“For instance, if a substance abuser sought treatment on his own to battle his addiction, would law enforcement be able to use the NEHR records to arrest and charge him? I ask this because patients seek treatment and care with some expectation of confidentiality, that their sensitive health information will be kept private. We need to ensure that patients continue to feel comfortable to seek treatment. Mr Deputy Speaker, other than safeguarding their privacy, we need to ensure that patients are able to retain autonomy over their health information. Clauses 29 and 30 allow for access restrictions, which patients can use either to restrict all access to their information in the NEHR or to restrict access for specific users or purposes. And if I understand clause 30(7) correctly, these Class 1 and Class 2 access restrictions do not prevent or restrict the contribution of healthcare information by a medical provider. In other words, healthcare information about every medical visit and treatment in Singapore will be recorded in the NEHR, but patients can block other healthcare providers from having access to that information. Sir, these access restrictions will only work if these options can be exercised easily and in a patient-friendly manner. Currently, there is an option to opt out of the NEHR, but this involves a slightly elaborate and tedious process of making an appointment at one of the polyclinics and restructured hospitals to obtain and submit an opt-out form. Patients wishing to opt out will also be – and here I quote directly from the Synapse FAQ – they will be "counselled, to ensure that they fully understand the implications of this decision to their care as their providers will not have access to their records.”
“I also want to note that, as of 8 January, the "Frequently Asked Questions" (FAQ) on Synapxe's website – Synapxe being our national HealthTech agency responsible for running the NEHR – states that the NEHR is meant to receive and consolidate key health summary information, but "not doctor's notes". Here is a hypothetical example. Let us say a person were to meet a private psychiatrist and discuss their recent psychological difficulties, due to a recent breakdown in his or her marriage. The psychiatrist then records these details in their own doctor's notes. My first question: when contributing health information to the NEHR about the visit, is the psychiatrist mandated to include those personal and private details of the patient's life under the category of "visit diagnoses, reasons for visit or patient problem list"? My second question: if the private psychiatrist was not mandated to share their doctor's notes, can such information still be contributed to the NEHR, including without the patient's knowledge? I believe that the public will benefit from an assurance from the Ministry that the scope of health information contained in the NEHR will only relate to key health summary data and will not include "doctor’s notes", especially intimate and confidential details about a patient's personal life, even if that information were in some way medically relevant to the provision of care. Mr Deputy Speaker, the Bill also explicitly identifies certain "excluded purposes". I am sure that all patients appreciate the assurance that their healthcare information cannot be used for employment and insurance purposes. However, I want to ask the Minister whether the Police and other law enforcement agencies will be similarly barred from using information from the NEHR?”
“By patient privacy, I mean that patients must have the assurance that their confidential health data remains private and secure, with access granted only to particular persons for what is medically necessary or for public health purposes. Patient autonomy, on the other hand, means that patients should be able to meaningfully determine who has access to their data and how their data is used. In general, patients should be able to know when and why their data is accessed and by whom. I believe the Government can agree with me that the NEHR must leave patients feeling empowered, not exposed. For that to happen, we cannot compromise on either patient privacy or patient autonomy. Mr Deputy Speaker, the Bill defines a person's clinical information to include both the physical and mental health of the individual, and the diagnosis, treatment or care of the individual, while part one of the first schedule outlines the different types of health information to be contributed by specific healthcare providers. Altogether, there are 13 different types of health information, though only the providers of acute hospital service need to contribute to all 13. However, I want to focus on the category of visit diagnosis, reasons for visit, or patient problem list, which many healthcare providers are mandated to contribute. I would like to ask the Minister about this category of health information. How lengthy or extensive should the contribution pertaining to diagnosis, reasons for visit or patient problem list be for the purposes of the NEHR?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, the Bill advances necessary and timely updates to our healthcare ecosystem and I am supportive of the Bill's intentions. The Bill establishes a statutory framework to consolidate key medical data into an integrated, longitudinal view of an individual's health record. This is in line with the vision of "One Patient, One Health Record", when the NEHR commenced a decade ago. I understand that patient records from our public healthcare institutions are already in the NEHR. Let us say that you sought treatment in the Singapore General Hospital (SGH), information about your visit, such as your admission and discharge records, your laboratory test results, the procedures you did, the medication you were prescribed, are already in the NEHR. Following that, if you were to visit the Changi General Hospital (CGH), perhaps to see a specialist for a different medical issue, the CGH doctor will be able to use the NEHR to view the medical summary information of your SGH visit. However, with this Bill, private healthcare providers will now also be mandated to contribute to the NEHR. This is significant since one of the reasons why patients opt for private healthcare is so that their health information is not included in the NEHR. This is especially concerning for patients dealing with sensitive medical issues, including those related to mental health, sexual health or addiction. Sir, it is a given that a national electronic healthcare database will clearly help to optimise patient care and continuity of care. However, the success of the NEHR hinges on fostering trust that the Government can collect and consolidate our health information safely and responsibly. The trust can only exist if we keep patient privacy and patient autonomy at the forefront.”
“Thank you, Speaker. Given that one of the potential causes of the fire that the Hong Kong government is looking into was the corruption by the management of the Wang Fuk Court, will the Ministry or the Building and Construction Authority be looking into how to strengthen oversight over management councils that are conducting large-scale infrastructure repairs, whether by the Government or by the subsidiary proprietors themselves?”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. Firstly, can the Acting Minister clarify whether the difference between GIC's investment returns and the SSGS interest payments made by the Government to the CPF Board, goes directly to the Reserves? My second question is how does the Government intend to act under a scenario where GIC's returns consistently underperform SSGS interest rates? Would it then be sustainable for the Government to continue maintaining the current SSGS interest rates?”
“Thank you, Speaker, Minister. Is there sufficient surge capacity in our healthcare system to deal with more private patients coming in after this policy change, especially for smaller procedures that are under the deductible limit?”
“Thank you for the replies. I have two supplementary questions. What are the considerations taken before the construction of an ActiveSG gym is decided on? And the second one is, would the Government consider establishing ActiveSG gyms in other locations, such as shopping malls and community or community centres?”
“Thank you for the reply. Does the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) change the percentage of clearance lanes that are QR only during peak hours, or when there are a lot of travellers who may not have downloaded the MyICA Mobile app, such as leisure or elderly travellers? And what steps is the ICA taking to encourage downloading of MyICA Mobile app for QR code clearance?”
“Mr Speaker, I do not doubt that the Government sincerely wants to do the right thing for Singaporeans. I hope my reservations about caning for scam-related offences are also seen in the right way – that is, as a constructive intervention to ask whether caning is truly the most effective means of protecting Singaporeans from the scourge of scams.”
“Another possibility is to offer leniency to lower-level operatives who assist the authorities in dismantling these crime networks. Many of these lower-level operatives, including the mules, may be unwilling participants who have been, themselves, tricked into working for these criminal networks. On another note, I want to ask whether there is the possibility of the Government imposing sanctions against criminal organisations involved in scamming Singaporeans, similar to what has been done in other jurisdictions, like the United States (US). Can financial sanctions or asset confiscation be viable options to pursue with a view of, perhaps, using the recovered funds to finance a scam victim restitution fund of sorts? I am aware of the operational details of something like a victim restitution fund, would have to be worked out carefully. However, unlike caning, this offers a more tangible benefit to the victims. Mr Speaker, I wish to emphasise again that I am not speaking out of some misplaced sympathy for the potential scammers who might be caned. I fervently believe that scam victims deserve justice for the psychological and material losses they have to endure. I can also understand the appeal of bringing the full force of the law onto these scammers who have left so much misery and pain in their wake. But, Sir, the law is not a blunt instrument, but something to be used with precision. It is worth reiterating that this is not a question of whether scammers should be harshly punished; of course, they should be. However, the pertinent question is whether the marginal deterrent value of a longer prison sentence matches or even exceeds the marginal deterrent value of imposing caning as a penalty.”
“As we consider caning as punishment against scammers, I do believe the points raised in the debate on the Vandalism Act in 1966 can still be relevant. In particular, they were concerned about whether caning is an appropriate deterrence against crime. I do not wish to understate the severity of the monetary losses as a result of scams: it can run up to life-changing amounts or even the entirety of an elderly person's retirement funds. Many of us in the House, myself included, will have encountered scam victims seeking assistance at our meet-the-people sessions. The scale of their losses can be heartbreaking. The question still remains. How should we fight the hydra of these scam networks? Would caning be effective and is it appropriate? As many of us are aware, scams are now increasingly being perpetrated by organised crime networks. These groups often operate transnationally. It is quite likely that the ringleaders would be cocooned safely somewhere, far from Singapore, in countries that may not have extradition treaties with us. Meanwhile, the lower-level operatives are the ones on the frontlines and liable to be caught. Would caning the latter group of individuals cause a dent on their criminal operations? Furthermore, would introducing the prospect of being caned substantially change the calculus for the ringleaders? From the perspective of disrupting these scam operations, it may actually make more of a difference if we strengthen cross-border law enforcement cooperation and extradition arrangements. I acknowledge that this is being done by the Government. My point, however, is that we can better deter the ringleaders by increasing the likelihood of them being caught, rather than the prospect of more severe punishment.”
“On the other hand, caning has been removed or made discretionary for other offences, such as specific vandalism offences. I mentioned the Vandalism Act, in particular, because there were some disquiet, both in public and in Parliament, when caning was first mooted as a penalty. For instance, the Vandalism Act has been described by legal academic Jothie Rajah as a significant departure from penal practises in prescribing a violent punishment for a property offence when it was introduced in 1966. It is worth noting that the then-Law Minister EW Barker recognised the unique nature of Singapore's caning policy on vandalism. He said, "At the outset, it must be considered that the present day penological trends are against the infliction of caning as punishment, and that legal opinion is, in general, against the imposition of corporal punishment in cases not involving violence or brutality." In the same debate, then-People's Action Party (PAP) backbencher, Mr Tang See Chim, also warned, and here I am quoting him, "That the severity of the punishment may not, in fact, necessarily be a deterrent. The way to deter any crime, I submit, is to impress on the wrongdoer the certainty of his being found out if he commits one." Sir, we seem to have come full circle from 1966. Now, we are about to cease mandatory caning as punishment for vandalism. At the same time, however, we are introducing corporal punishment for a new class of offences related to frauds and scams. It goes without saying that we need to protect Singaporeans from scammers. Their modus operandi grows ever more sophisticated and multifarious, and it can seem as though we are trying to fight a hydra. Of course, we would want to use all the weapons we have at our disposal to confront this hydra-headed challenge.”
“Mr Speaker, I am declaring my interest as a lawyer in private practice and I have been a defence counsel in criminal cases. Sir, the Bill advances some timely updates to our criminal laws. I am supportive of the Bill's intentions, especially the changes which allow us to keep pace with the ever-evolving nature of crimes. The Bill addresses important lacunae in the law that have emerged as a result of technological advances, some of which may have extra territorial implications. For instance, I support the provisions to explicitly penalise the production of computer-generated obscene images to strengthen penalties for obscene objects involving minors below the age of 18 and to expand the scope of sexual grooming offences to cover meetings outside of Singapore. The Bill also affords public servants better protections from harassment. As an MP overseeing the running of a Town Council, I fully understand the need for these amendments. I have seen how our hardworking Town Council staff have been unfairly targeted with their names and identities spread around by some unhappy residents. The Bill provides our public servants with the necessary assurance that they can safely and securely discharge their duties without the threat of public harassment. I support how the Bill increases prison terms for causing or allowing the fatal abuse of vulnerable victims. This includes children and domestic workers who are often defenceless and cannot fight back. We are sending the right message by increasing the sentences, which can go up to 30 years or life imprisonment to ensure that the vulnerable are protected. Mr Speaker, the Bill also revises our penal policy with respect to caning. On one hand, caning has been introduced for certain categories of scam- and fraud-related offences.”
“I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for providing some clarity about the remote witnessing of LPAs. I understand that Certificate Issuers must keep records of donors making LPAs, and this must be furnished as needed in the event of a dispute. Can the Senior Parliamentary Secretary confirm whether the remote witnessing sessions must be recorded or does it only involve a written report?”
“The data says that 350,000 LPAs have been registered as of 15 August this year. However, out of the 350,000, Indian and Malay donors only accounted for 3% and 2% respectively. Hence, other than the suggestions above, could the relevant Ministries also consider more vernacular outreach, perhaps through community organisations, to help more Singaporeans to understand the benefit of LPAs? And for the Malay/Muslim community specifically, could the Majlis Ugama Islam Singapura (MUIS) play a more active role in spreading awareness of the importance of making an LPA and also organising LPA information sessions. MUIS can also collaborate with our mosques on this matter. For example, MUIS has organised similar events in October 2020, by conducting a Fatwa Seminar on LPAs and Advanced Care Planning. These should be encouraged. (In English): Sir, in conclusion, I appreciate the general trend towards conducting business and legal transactions remotely. However, I believe that, in the case of LPAs, we should go to where the people are.”
“In all likelihood, the donee might even be sitting beside the donor to guide them through the remote signing, since the donor might not be tech-savvy to do it alone. Of course, these risks can also be present with an in-person signing. My point, however, is that remote signing increases these risks. This risk is also compounded by the fact that unlike deputies appointed by the court, donees appointed by donors need not make regular reports to the OPG on the status of the donor’s assets. In an unfortunate scenario, any misuse of funds may go undetected for years. On another note, Sir, I wonder if the OPG expects a high take-up rate for remote signing. Considering that the new law will still require both the donor and the Certificate Issuer to be in Singapore, it might still be much easier and faster to arrange an in-person signing, rather than making an application for remote signing and waiting for the OPG’s approval to proceed. If the concern is to make the LPA procedures more convenient and accessible to donors, might I suggest the option of introducing more categories of Certificate Issuers be considered? In the UK, registered social workers can witness and certify LPAs. I am aware that many of our social workers have a heavy workload. But there may be some who may be interested to be Certificate Issuers. Perhaps the Government can open the option for them to receive training and accreditation from the OPG? Another option is to hold more legal clinics and roadshows on LPAs in the neighborhood. I understand this has been ongoing in many constituencies and should continue. In Malay, Sir. (In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Sir, one last point. In the previous Sitting, I filed a question about the demographic breakdown of LPA donors.”
“Practically speaking, given the workload and resources of the OPG today, does the OPG have the capacity to carefully conduct case-by-case enquiries into the family circumstances? Or would it be the case that the application process would be largely pro-forma – that so long as the documents are in order, the approval for remote signing would generally be granted? In other words, how would the OPG be able to properly determine that there is no significant risk that an intended LPA will be to the donor’s detriment? It would be beneficial to get some clarity about what we can expect from the OPG in terms of specific measures and procedures. Moreover, remote signing can also place the Certificate Issuer at a disadvantage in discharging his or her duty. The fact that the categories of Certificate Issuers involve people with medical or legal training suggests that a Certificate Issuer has to be more than a mere rubber stamp. Rather, there seems to be an implied responsibility for the Certificate Issuer to assess the competency and fitness of the donor to make an LPA. In my own experience of certifying LPAs, I have found it helpful to not only pay attention to what the donor informs me, but to also observe the dynamics between the donor and donee, through their demeanour and body language. If I believe that the donor is not able to speak freely, or the donor appears anxious or flustered, I have the option of speaking with the donor alone to confirm that the donor is not under any undue external pressure. In the case of remote signing, however, the Certificate Issuer does not have the assurance of being able to talk with the donor alone or even verifying that there is nobody hovering around the donor.”
“The first two conditions are: one, that the donor must be under 75 years of age; and two, that the proposed donees must be either a professional donee working for remuneration, or be in specific family relationships. Beyond that, the OPG also has to make an assessment that there is no significant risk in three aspects: one, that there is no significant risk of fraud or undue pressure on the donor to appoint particular donees; two, no significant risk that the donor lacks mental capacity; and three, no significant risk that the proposed donees will not act in the donor’s best interest. While I support the Bill in its intentions to make it easier to assist donors who are immobile, I wish to raise some concerns when the LPAs involve donees who are family members. It bears remembering that LPAs involve a substantial transfer of autonomy and are often done by older people. The donor is authorising a close relative to have lasting power over their personal property and also, to make personal or medical decisions, when the donor’s mental capacity is lost. There is thus always the risk that the donor's assets could be depleted by someone whom the donor is physically and emotionally dependent on. For cases involving family members, it is straightforward to determine if the donor is under 75 years old and whether the proposed donees fall within certain categories of family relationships. However, any assessment about the risks is necessarily more subjective in nature. How does the OPG determine that there is no significant risk or fraud or undue pressure, and no significant risk that the proposed donees will not act in the donor’s best interest?”
“Mr Speaker, I wish to speak about my concerns regarding clause 16 of the Bill. Before I begin, I would like to declare my interest as a lawyer in private practice who has witnessed and certified LPAs. I also conduct legal clinics on LPAs as part of my grassroots work. Clause 16 changes how LPAs can be issued by the Certificate Issuer which could either be lawyers, psychiatrists, or selected doctors accredited by the Public Guardian. Currently, it is a requirement for the person giving powers under the LPA, called the donor, to be in the physical presence of the Certificate Issuer. This Certificate Issuer must directly witness the donor using his Singpass credentials to digitally sign the document. The proposed amendment removes this requirement. The donor does not have to be in the same place as the Certificate Issuer to sign the document so long as two-way visual communication is maintained, such as through an online meeting application. I appreciate how remote signing is convenient if the donor and the Certificate Issuer cannot meet in person. This would especially help donors who have mobility difficulties, or perhaps live too far from the Certificate Issuer. Sir, I believe the relevant Ministries are aware that the remote signing of LPAs can carry some risks, which explains why the Bill introduces some safeguards. For a start, anyone who wishes to take advantage of the remote signing option will need to apply to the Office of the Public Guardian (OPG). The OPG will then consider each application on a case-by-case basis. To qualify to make an application, the Bill stipulates certain conditions.”
“Minister, 12 nations, including France and Japan, have set up an emergency coalition for the financial sustainability of the Palestinian Authority to support the effort to stabilise the Palestinian Authority's finances and ensure the continued viability of the two-state solution. In light of the Gaza Peace Plan, will Singapore now consider joining them in making financial contributions to the Palestinian Authority, and if not, why not?”