Foo Cexiang
Singapore
“Thank you, Speaker. And I thank the Minister. We celebrate Mother's Day over the weekend. I said it once and I will say it again – our parents of adopted children are super parents and the moms are certainly super moms.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Senior Minister of State for her answer. With the expansion of the licensing regime for the MEA, can I also confirm that the considerations she has just described, in terms of Police screening, will also apply to the new category of MEs which, today, they are not licensed under the Act?”
“With a great number of residents involved, much more could have gone. What expectations would they have? Would a vocal minority dominate the room? Would they be able to agree on the process to find a way forward? I thought about each and every one of these concerns and decided to proceed. Not because I had all the answers.”
“I declare that I work in the logistics arm of the port. I have two clarifications. First, will the measures to support the domestic transport and critical sector extend to the logistics and supply chain sector, such as the hauliers, as well as the port, because this is certainly a critical sector during this period?”
“Where heritage is lived and shared, it will become a bridge between the past and the present and the future generations – and together, we will achieve my vision for Tanjong Pagar, Tiong Bahru, to be a living community where every generation finds its place in the Singapore story.”
“However, there will be many Singaporeans who do not live to 95 years, perhaps even more so than those who do. So, my question is, will MND consider a scheme for these seniors, which allows them to purchase a short-term 2-room Flexi flat with minimum lease term that covers the youngest owner up to age 85?”
The complete record
Every one of 82 lines we hold for Foo Cexiang, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 2.
“Thank you, Speaker. My clarification for the Senior Minister of State is this: I thank him for his response that there will be about 1,000 RVMs set up country-wide, with an aim to increase to about 2,000. But in context, there are about 15,000 vending machines in Singapore and I believe a significant number of them are vending drinks. So, in comparison, the ratio is about 1,000:15,000. Given that everyone who buys a can will have to return the can to the vending machine to get back to 10 cents, do we anticipate queues and long waiting periods at the RVMs? And also, have we taken into consideration of the logistical arrangements in terms of malfunctions or that sort of operational challenges with the RVMs?”
“Thank you, Speaker. I have two clarifications for the Minister. First, given that the Government already intends to issue a Preservation Order to gazette 38 Oxley Road as a National Monument, why is there still a need for the Government to acquire the site? Second clarification, can I seek confirmation from the Minister, point blank, that the paramount reason for the Preservation Order is not because the site is the family home of Mr Lee Kuan Yew, but because it is a historical site where political meetings, activities, decisions which led to the establishment of Independent Singapore, that that was where it took place? In other words, it is not about the private life of Mr Lee Kuan Yew, but about the fight for independence of our people.”
“Thank you, Speaker. Sir, my question to the Senior Minister of State is this: given the stockpile's aim is to be able to provide for the entire nation, I can imagine that the volume of food that is stored is significant. I note the Senior Minister of State's assurances that there is zero food wastage, but he also shared that there is churn to make sure that the food is kept fresh and suitable for consumption. So, my question is whether he can share a little bit more in terms of what are the strategies to ensure zero food wastage? Because we do not want to also impact the market; so, are the food used for community purposes, for example?”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, I would indeed like to reply. I think the hon Member brought up the issue or the case of two different groups of bickering online influencers. And I would put it to the hon Member that, in such instances, where it is a bickering that is made out in the public, online world, the Commissioner and all the officers in the OSC will have access to this information, they will be able to come to their own judgment, whether or not there are reasonable grounds to suspect online harm.”
“Yes, pardon my haste. I wanted to clarify that, indeed, and this is why I mentioned that there are strong safeguards within the current framework of the Bill, because if it is indeed found that the purported victim had submitted false information to the Commissioner, that matter will be dealt with in the Courts and the punishments are severe. And for that, I refer to clause 69 of the Bill.”
“Yes, I would. I would just like to clarify that I do not think the order that is prescribed by the Commissioner presumes guilt. There is no judgment on whether somebody is guilty. In fact, that is why it allows the reconsideration of the order and upon thereafter, an appeal as well. So, the orders serve that function. As for the second clarification that the Member made was how would you come to the conclusion that there is something to suspect vis-a-vis reasonable grounds to believe. And I think that is something that the Commissioner will need to take judgment of, based on the facts available to him or her. Because for them to have reasonable grounds to suspect, and I do not want to prejudge what the Commissioner's decision will be, there must be information that is provided from the victim, admittedly, but it will also be based on actions that has been done by the perpetrator.”
“The risk of involvement of organised or syndicated crime groups could further significantly enhance the scale of harm. Identity protection tools such as the Virtual Privacy Network (VPN) will add a layer of complexity to detection and investigation, enforcement efforts. To be clear, I am not proposing the policing of private conversations. However, we ought to do our best to eliminate or reduce the gaps where they are. Sir, my final point is on the resourcing of the OSC. Several Members have made the same point. Has MDDI formulated a projection of OSC's workload? As a to-be newly established agency, the OSC will have to deal with multiple issues on various fronts, besides the core work itself, including administrative matters, logistics, human resource and financing. How will MDDI ensure that OSC will be endowed with sufficient resources to meet its core mission? Also, has MDDI considered if OSC’s officers will require enhanced powers, including possibly such as those under the Criminal Procedure Code to be more effective in its investigation and enforcement? Sir, the OSC has a heavy and urgent task ahead of it. And in this starting phase, my view is that its focus should be on getting its effectiveness on the ground to stop cases of online harm. This is also why, while I understand WP's proposal for annual reporting to Parliament, I am not supportive of the proposed amendment to this effect at this point, given the administrative load it will add to the OSC in its current phase of development. Mr Deputy Speaker, notwithstanding my clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill. 6.16 pm”
“Because as a general principle, Parliamentary intent is key in the application of the law, and we should, as far as possible, make it clear for the purposes of administration of justice. Next, I touch on the extra-territorial aspect of the offences under consideration. Clause 78 would empower our courts legally to deal with offences under the Bill which are committed outside Singapore, but the courts’ ability to deal with such offences would be contingent on the OSC’s efficacy in detecting the wrongdoing, getting the wrongdoers who are located overseas to comply with the directives and apprehending them if they do not. Operationally and practically speaking, will the OSC’s arm of the law be long enough to reach the wrongdoers who may be located overseas? Who will be our key regional and international partners? Will the overseas Internet service providers and app distribution services comply with OSC’s order? Relatedly, does the Bill contemplate online harms perpetuated by foreign actors, perhaps as a means of foreign interference? Sir, I now move on to the issue of less conventional means of disseminating malicious content. Like the non-digital world, the Internet comprises dark and less overt corners as well. So, while the Bill provides a comprehensive framework to deal with offences committed through the mainstream channels, are there sufficient and effective safeguards and capabilities against circulation by dark social media, dark traffic or perhaps even the dark web? For the membership or following of certain obscure forums can far outnumber groups on more familiar platforms such as Instagram or TikTok. Members of this House will know that SG Nasi Lemak Telegram chatgroup at its peak had more than 44,000 members.”
“I agree with Mr Andre Low that we need institutional safeguards to ensure fairness for all parties, but I would argue these safeguards have already been provided for in the Bill. Clause 58 provides for the application for reconsideration of the Commissioner's decision. Clause 63 provides for the appeal against the Commissioner's reconsidered decision by the appeals board. And further, clause 69 makes the provision of false information an offence to be dealt with in the courts. So, what these institutional safeguards mean is that the Commissioner can act swiftly to protect the purported victims while also injecting urgency on the part of the accused to clarify, seek reconsideration, make an appeal if they feel that the order was not the right one or if it was made with incomplete facts but it gives them urgency to do so and gives the victim justice. So, given the rapid and exponential impact of online harms, this approach strikes the right balance. However, this Bill alone is not a silver bullet to the threat of online harms, nothing can be given the complexity of it and we will require the enforcement capabilities, as well as local and international partnerships to implement the Bill effectively. So, I hope you can allow me to raise a few points and clarifications for the Minister. First, given the severe mental and emotional distress online harms have caused, I would like to ask Minister whether the prescribed penalties of a fine of up to $20,000 and a jail term not exceeding 12 months for the failure to comply with OSC’s direction is adequate to serve as a deterrent to stop the offending actions promptly. Also, is the Minister able to provide any guidance on how the courts should calibrate the penalties to be meted out?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, the Internet has become the space where many Singaporeans spend most of our time on any given day. It is where we work, socialise, play, engage services, amongst many other things. Unfortunately, "online" has also become "where" and "how" malicious actors inflict harm on others. And the harm inflicted in the virtual world has far-reaching and deep implications in the physical world because they tend to permeate the very being of the individual victim and our communities, with potentially long-lasting damage. A resident teenager came to my meet-the-people session recently. She shared with me the daily fear she lives under, being subjected to online harassment from a perpetrator based overseas, and who has been able to somehow gain access to her private online accounts to blackmail her and even threaten others, her friends in her social network. She yearns for effective enforcement action that can stop the perpetrator quickly and decisively. Sir, this landmark Bill could not have come sooner for my resident and many others in Singapore. It reflects the Government’s commitment towards providing swift and decisive recourse to victims of online harms. This is why I cannot agree with the amendments proposed by the WP to raise the threshold for the Commissioner of the OSC to give directions from "reason to suspect" to "reasonable grounds to believe". As Mr Andre Low says, "this is not mere semantics". The higher threshold proposed by the WP will mean that the Commissioner will need to take more time to put together the "reasonable grounds to believe" before giving directions, during which the victim continues to suffer in silence.”
“Thank you, Speaker. Sir, I welcome the formation of the new social services coordination centre, but for each specific case on the ground, it is really the child protection officer who will need to coordinate across the different agencies, and a good one will be able to think of and think for the activities of many different stakeholders. So, I remember the Minister mentioned earlier that the number of cases per officer has been reduced from 40 to 35, if I recall correctly. My question is whether the Ministry has a target to reduce this even further, quite substantively to, for example, 25 or even 20. And the reason I ask is because: the actual case load is to manage the child, but because of the coordination work that is required, because of the mind space that officer will need to have, I believe that the number of cases is still too high at 35.”
“I would argue that we need both effective enforcement and deterrent in the form of caning to deal with the scourge of scams. I will go further to say that we are able to remove mandatory caning for vandalism today and discussing it in this Bill because we have successfully deterred the act of vandalism from taking root in society in Singapore where there was a very threat several decades ago. So, we should do the same now for scams and if we are similarly successful as we were or we are with vandalism, we can review this in the future as well. Mr Speaker, the amendments in this Bill demonstrate the Government's practical and hard-nosed approach to be more effective in protecting our people while also reviewing policies in keeping with the times. We enact harsh laws but not after deep and careful consideration to protect the everyday Singaporean – honest, hardworking, resilient and really just doing his or her best for their families. So, Mr Speaker, notwithstanding my clarifications, I support of the Bill.”
“Because Mr Speaker, scammers, members and recruiters of scam syndicates and the scam mules, all these participants are essential to the operations of the scam enterprise. So, what is the rationale for such a distinction between caning to be meted out to these various players in the ecosystem? Third, impersonation of public officials. SPF's Mid-Year Scam and Cybercrime Brief 2025 also reported that "Government officials impersonation scams have almost tripled" in the first six months of 2025. And recently, on 26 October 2025, the Police shared that they had arrested 24 persons, investigating another nine for their suspected involvement in a case of government officials' impersonation scam. The impersonation of government officials is probably the most deplorable of the various types of scams we have discussed today because it carries the very real danger of also undermining the public's confidence in the Government and the integrity and security of our services. We have all heard feedback that in a bid to avoid scammers, many Singaporeans have chosen either not to answer any calls from unknown or private numbers. When they receive SMS-es that are sent by official sources, they read it with apprehension and suspicion. So, the fear of being scammed has affected us all. In this vein, would the Ministry consider imposing even more severe penalties for scam-related offences, when there is an element of Government impersonation, such as by doubling the mandatory number of strokes, for example? Mr Speaker, I heard Mr Fadli Fawzi's concern earlier with the use of caning as a punishment and he raised how we are moving away from mandatory caning for vandalism offences in this same Bill. Instead, he suggested that we strengthen enforcement bite to be more effective.”
“With this as context, I would like to raise several points and clarifications for the Senior Minister of State's response. First, clause 63 of the Bill inserts a new section 416B in the Penal Code. In this new section, with respect to the element of deceit by way of remote communications, the operative threshold is "mainly", mainly via digital or remote means. But in this current day and age, almost all our daily communications are arguably "mainly" done through digital and remote means, whether it is emails, social media, text messaging. So, I want to find out what is the rationale for this statutory requirement and how should the word "mainly" be legally interpreted? Second, the Bill introduces "mandatory" and "discretionary" caning. Scammers, members and recruiters of scam syndicates will face mandatory caning of at least six strokes, while scam mules who enable scammers in certain ways will face discretionary caning of up to 12 strokes. Recently, in The Straits Times, 17 July 2025, 15 people were reportedly being investigated for sharing their Singpass credentials, some used to open bank accounts and register for mobile phone lines for scam purposes. Over the weekend, CNA also reported that the Police had arrested 38 people acting as money mules for scammers, having sold or rented their YouTrip accounts for monetary gains. The same article also reports a "surge in such scam cases" in the months of September and October. So, in light of what I have shared, my question is: why is caning not made mandatory for scam mules as well, in particular, the mules who know that they are enabling or likely to enable scrams?”
“He then told her to lock herself in the room as he guided her through the process via video call and he told her many times not to let anyone know in the family. So, flustered and helpless, my family member ended up spending several hours on the call with this scammer. And in this time, she set up a crypto-currency account, she has never learned about crypto before. She terminated an investment savings account and transferred the funds from the investment savings account to her savings account. But fortunately for her, she informed my wife after the call, who then informed me and we were able to stop any losses in time. But this is a very common modus operandi of scammers now. They get into the minds of their victims by first sending them into a panic mode and then, assure them that they can help by impersonating themselves as public officials. Very sinister. And I told my family member: I said when they told you to lock yourself in a room and not tell anyone, alarm bells should have started ringing in your head! But she told me that during the entire process she was almost in a trance-like state. I think similar to what some of the other Members have shared. So, my family member was fortunate to have family members around. But I worry very much for my residents who are seniors, who stay alone and I have also met residents who are even younger than me all preyed to the similar tactics that I have just shared. So, no condemnation leveled against scams and scammers to me would be considered unjust. And clearly, the existing sanctions are not adequate and do not effectively deter scammers and potential scammers. So, it is, therefore, timely that this Bill seeks to enhance the penalties for scams offences.”
“Mr Speaker, my speech will focus on the introduction of caning for scams-related offences. It is an understatement today that scams are the scourge of societies. According to the SPF's Mid-Year Scam and Cybercrime Brief 2025, there were 22,476 scam and cybercrime cases from January to June this year and the amount lost to scams was about $456 million. So, to put this into perspective, this averages out to be about more than 120 of such cases each day, more than five cases an hour. In terms of losses, an average of $2.5 million lost each day to scams. These figures are astonishing to say the least. In fact, the monies lost to scams are not representative of the entire cost of such criminal enterprises for society because if we tabulate the man-hours and other valuable resources deployed to combat scams, then the total amount would be many times that, just the loss quantum. The motivation of scammers is clear, their ill-gotten rewards are enormous, vis-à-vis the risks. All these, at the expense of their victims. I believe all of us have met scam victims at our meet-the-people sessions and have heard their pleas for help, as many Members have pointed out. It is heartbreaking to hear of Singaporeans having their honest and hard-earned monies despicably stolen from them. In fact, just two weeks ago, a family member of mine almost fell victim to one such scam. I do not know whether the scammer knew that I was going to make a speech in Parliament so soon. So, she received a call from someone claiming to be a Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) officer, who told her that her bank account had been compromised for illegal transactions and then, assured her that he would help her to resolve the issue.”
“Speaker, Sir, I grew up watching Channel 8 and Channel 5, as did many of my classmates. These were hot discussion topics during lunch, but most importantly, these were core common memories grounded in the local culture and community. I think it is absolutely critical that we continue to have this for future generations. I understand the challenges of growing demands and competition, such as Netflix, but in particular, there were three developments recently that left me very encouraged. Mediacorp's Emerald Hill, the Little Nyonya story, I note, was Singapore's most watched series on Netflix, even overtaking hot K-dramas starring starring IU when it first debuted. It had more than 1.67 million views on meWATCH and Channel 8, and it is going to premiere on Chinese streaming platform Tencent at the end of this year. We have had many actors, local actors, nominated for Best Actor/Actresses at the Golden Horse Awards, and I am also looking forward to the return of Xie Shaoguang to the silver screen later. So, contrary to what naysayers say, I think the future is bright and we have to give this a further boost. Therefore, my question for the Minister is: is the Government prepared to support Mediacorp, our local broadcaster, in more collaborations with international platforms, such as Netflix and Tencent, so that our local produced dramas and shows will have a reach both local and overseas?”
“" Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Bill.”
“And based on current science, SAF is the most viable pathway to do so in the short and medium term. Members have highlighted that Singapore's approach to introducing SAF is novel. We are the first country to introduce a levy rather than a mandate. CAAS’ intent is to fix the cost of using greener jet fuel so that travellers have certainty. CAAS will also manage costs by procuring sustainable fuel centrally on behalf of carriers, reaping economies of scale. Some Members asked: would it be better to charge the airlines instead? But I am of the view that having a transparent charge to the travellers avoids the risk of airlines using this as a reason to inject further upward pressure on prices because of a lack of transparency. So, Sir, this approach protects both the environment and the competitiveness of Singapore’s air hub, a major economic sector for us. It has at its heart the interests of both the current generation and future generations. It may not have as ambitious a target as some other countries, but it is a target backed up by a robust plan as the Bill shows, implementable, deliverable, not just for show. And may I add, while it is important that we understand, consider and assess the strategies taken by other countries, there must be occasions where our convictions give us the strength to take our own path. And this is something that this Government has never shied away from. In conclusion, Singapore’s SAF levy may not move the global needle on climate change. But it is a commitment by all Singaporeans and all travellers who come through our airports to give hope to our future generations. In the words of Dr Jane Goodall: "And even today, when the planet is dark, there is still hope. Don’t lose hope. If you lose hope, you become apathetic and do nothing.”
“They may quote regions like the EU, which I understand has agreed to rules mandating 6% in 2030, rising to 70% in 2050 and countries like Japan, which aims to have SAF account for 10% of its aviation fuel supply by 2030. I note that the hon Member Mr Dennis Tan too, had asked last year if the Government will study plans by other countries with higher SAF targets such as Britain, Japan and the EU to raise our projected targets even further. But today I heard he also said that he was conscious of the financial impact to travellers. So, perhaps we would invite him to clarify whether he is of the view where we should have higher targets and therefore higher levy on travellers or has he changed his mind with the concern of the financial impact on travellers today? Sir, I speak as someone who has benefited from and believes in the potential of air travel. It connected me to people and cultures worldwide, to develop friendships which I know will last a lifetime. It opened my mind to new sights, sounds and perspectives. It further anchored my sense of multi-culturalism. I hope that many more in our current generation and future generations in Singapore and beyond Singapore will also be able to benefit from air travel. Aviation is responsible for about 2.5% of global carbon emissions. However, estimates are that 80% of the global population, about 5 to 6 billion people worldwide, have never taken an air flight – and there will be some in Singapore as well. Imagine if everyone took just one flight. The aviation related emissions will skyrocket. The impact on the environment will be immense, and this may then severely constrain the options for future generations. This is why I believe we need to reduce emissions from air travel.”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. "The greatest con job ever perpetrated on the world." This was how President Donald Trump described climate change just last month when he addressed the United Nations General Assembly. And he went on, "All of these predictions made by the United Nations and many others, often for bad reasons, were wrong. They were made by stupid people. But of course, their countries' fortunes, and given those same countries, no chance for success. If you do not get away from this green scam, your country is going to fail." Given President Trump’s remarks and in the current context where cost-of-living continues to be of high concern, it may be attractive for countries worldwide to abandon our climate change strategies. After all, if even the second largest emitter of carbon dioxide has decided to rubbish the endeavour, none of us alone will be able to move the needle – certainly not Singapore. The SAF levy which this Bill provides for is one of Singapore’s policies that will contribute towards the global climate change mitigation effort. It will mean that from 2026, travellers flying out of Singapore will pay slightly higher airfares. Previous preliminary estimates from CAAS suggest that economy-class passengers may incur an additional $3 levy for flights to Bangkok, $6 for flights to Tokyo, $16 for flights to London. The levy will be used to purchase SAF in bulk to achieve our target of 1% of all jet fuel used at Changi Airport and Seletar Airport in 2026. Should we abandon this policy? On the other hand, there are some who say that our target is not ambitious enough.”
“Thank you, Speaker, I thank the Member as well. But I guess the root of the question I am asking is that, in his view, there are governments in the region that will be able to partner us meaningfully in such an endeavour. The level of the region, where they are, the resources that they have, the manpower they have, the skills that they have, there will be a meaningful collaboration that we can have with them. That is the question I have for the Member.”
“Thank you, Speaker. I thank the Member for his clarifications as well. Could I just venture a step further to ask the Member whether he could share with us some of the countries or governments he has in mind that, in his view, we should be collaborating with in terms of some of the sectors that he has raised?”
“Yes, thank you, Mr Speaker. I have a clarification to make with regard to the hon Member Mr Kenneth Tiong's speech. Two quick clarifications just to make sure I do not mischaracterise what he has shared. The first, is he suggesting that the Singapore Government should be entering a domain or a partnership with some of our regional Governments in partnership to develop as what he described, a similar model of whatever was the collaboration between the English and the French? So, the first is he suggesting that the Singapore Government collaborate with governments in the region to develop an industry? The second one and he also made this point quite clearly that the Government should not crowd out the space for SMEs. But at the same time he also shared that for this initial project, the Government must play an important role and then develop the system of SMEs, the ecosystem of SMEs underneath it. So, maybe for me to understand better, what is this sector that he has in mind? That the Government will not play a role whereby it oversteps the role of SMEs, but is able to create an ecosystem for SMEs in collaboration with governments in the region?”
“I constantly remind our Chinese residents one thing, when non-Chinese residents participate so enthusiastically in community activities despite not knowing Chinese, it demonstrates their commitment and contribution to our multicultural and multiracial society. It is a good example for all of us. We must never take this for granted. Therefore, at these occasions, I make it a point to speak in English as well. When singing, I would also encourage them to sing English and Malay songs. I hope that our activities will be welcomed by all our citizens. After all, Singapore is founded on a multicultural society. Today, many Singaporeans are inevitably influenced by geopolitics and the outside world, leading to divisions between groups holding different ideologies. Furthermore, people spend long times on social media, reducing face-to-face communication, easily forming echo chambers, reduce interaction between those holding different viewpoints, which naturally leads social divisions. Therefore, our goal is to bring everyone together through implementing policies and making good use of our public facilities and community activities, so that we can deepen the understanding between and feelings for each other. (In English): Sir, let me return to where I started. The Singapore I want to build is one where every little child grows up, knowing and feeling that they can be who they are, in every setting and season of life. The Singapore I want to build is an orchestra of different musical instruments: we look different, we sound different, we have different ranges, but when we work together in harmony, we create the most magical and timeless symphonies. Mr Speaker, I support the Motion. [Applause.]”
“It must be the quality of the relationships forged, that we aspire towards. Third, we need to reimagine our public spaces. These spaces must be the heart of our communities – where we come together to partake in common interests, but also where we come to embrace our differences. We do not have to be limited to conventional spaces, such as the community centres or the basketball courts, if that is not what interests our youths. We can invite ground-up proposals for other state buildings or land that aim to strengthen our multicultural community, facilitate these with funding support. We can also open up a much wider drawing canvas for our residents to design their neighbourhoods. I hope these initiatives will excite our youths to come forward and have a larger stake in community building. And I aim to do so in Tanjong Pagar-Tiong Bahru. Sir, in Mandarin, please. (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, Sir, in the five months since I entered politics, my happiest times have been participating in community activities with my Tiong Bahru residents from Tanjong Pagar. Through singing, exercising and dancing, I have been able to better understand my residents, especially the elderly. They are active in a community, which is beneficial for both physical and mental health, so I strongly advocate for this. I notice that quite a number of community activities are conducted in Chinese. This is because many elderly Chinese residents only understand Mandarin or dialects. I can understand this. However, I am most pleased to see that many of our non-Chinese residents also participate in these activities. They even sing "The Moon Represents My Heart" (月亮代表我的心) and "Ai Piah Cia Eh Yia" (爱拼才会赢), or "Fight to Win". This is very commendable.”
“Yet, amidst the storm, these are also the best of times where our multiculturalism can shine as Singapore's superpower, because bridge-builders can bring light to a fragmented and dark world. All of us who grow up in a multicultural environment and can build connections across cultures are strongly positioned to seize and grow opportunities in this global future. Companies worldwide will want talent who can build trust and thrive in multicultural teams. AI cannot replace this. So, Singapore's multiculturalism is no longer just a social imperative. It is an economic one as well. But we will need to re-evaluate our levers and be bold to make changes so that they can be more effective. And let me share a few quick suggestions. First, instead of focusing only on our common values, which certainly continues to be important, we need to make much more effort to understand our differences. The more we are inundated with views similar to our own, the more we must seek out alternative, even opposing viewpoints, resolve ourselves to hearing them out and understand where they come from. Because with deeper understanding of each other, we can eventually still agree to disagree, but we will do so holding hands and not coming to blows. Second, let us take a hard look at our policies that seek to foster multiculturalism and consider if they are achieving their objectives. For example, instead of setting limits on the proportions of each race in each block, could EIP be more effective, if we were to give priority to applicants of different ethnic backgrounds who pair up and apply to be neighbours together? Now I know that this will require further studies, but my larger point, really, is that it cannot just be the numbers that we seek.”
“It requires a lot of effort and heart to understand and then to embrace our differences, so that everyone feels appreciated being who we are – "same same but different". This is why it will always be a work-in-progress. It may not be apparent to many, I believe that we are facing a grave threat to our multicultural endeavour. Global forces are pushing us away from understanding and embracing our differences. I worry when I see what is happening in Gaza. We do not want our people to let external developments affect our social cohesion. But it is hard not to have strong emotions when we see grave atrocities. There are other areas, the political contestation between the United States (US) and China, the cultural wars between the conservatives and the liberals. These all evoke emotions amongst segments within our population and they often come with an inclination to choose sides. And then, I worry whenever I scroll Instagram. The algorithm will keep on feeding us videos which confirm, double confirm, triple confirm our own worldview, and then it whips us into a frenzy with this strong sense of injustice against every other worldview that appears to lay siege against ours. It is, frankly, the most influential echo chamber ever invented. And I worry when I meet residents who do not know their neighbours are or have not spoken to them in several years. And I ask, how effective is the Ethnic Integration Policy (EIP) if neighbours are not speaking to one another, much less building relationships? I worry when our youths tell me that they seldom hang out in public spaces like the community centres and basketball courts now, unlike maybe for my generation. How effective are these spaces as well, if they do not foster engagement?”
“Mr Speaker, I rise in support of the Motion. Sir, I went to Red Swastika School for my primary education. It is a Special Assistance Plan (SAP) school. Almost all my schoolmates were Chinese. However, I did have one Malay classmate in Primary 1, his name was Hamzah. I remember him to be rather cheeky, but other than that, I saw him as one of us classmates and did not think much more then. Many years later, I went to Cardiff University in the United Kingdom (UK) and I was the only non-British student in my programme. It was not easy for me in the beginning. It was clear I was different. I felt awkward being myself. However, several classmates started conversations with me, they took an interest in who I was, where I came from and invited me for gatherings, and over time, we became good friends. In fact, three of them flew to Singapore for my wedding. Two of them were part of my "brothers" gang and they braved the gatecrashing with me, undergoing "酸甜苦辣", or joys and sorrows. And I would have actually flown to Cardiff for one of their weddings earlier this month, but it coincided with the official Opening of Parliament. But I think Dewi and Sophie will appreciate this quick mention in my speech. Having gone through my experience in Cardiff, there are times when I think back to Hamzah. How had he felt being a minority in school? It could not have been easy. We may have treated him as one of us, but had we embraced him for who he was? Did he feel he could be himself? Sir, we pride ourselves as a multicultural society, but it is much more than a concept or a statistic that there are people of different cultures here in Singapore.”
“Thank you, Speaker. I thank Senior Parliamentary Secretary for her very comprehensive reply as well. I have three supplementary questions. The first, how do the average independently assessed value rents, which the SEHCs rentals are kept at, compare against that of NEA's own-managed hawker centres? The second, while the Senior Parliamentary Secretary has mentioned the intent is that stallholders are not expected to make losses from selling the value meals, has NEA conducted a survey to understand if that is how indeed all hawkers understand the policy intent and have implemented it in such a way? I ask because I would expect there to be a wide variation in the practices on the ground, because there are some food types like "cai png" or economy rice, where this would be much more easily implementable as compared to say, Japanese food, where the base of the food cost is already higher. My third clarification is, I understand that the discounts that the operators have on their apps for loyal customers can benefit the stallholders, but I would argue that they certainly would benefit the operators as much, if not more. So, my question is, does NEA know the proportion of the costs being borne by both sides? Is it the operators that bear the bulk of the cost, or is it the hawkers? I would argue that the operators should bear the bulk of the cost, because if indeed, it is for attracting footfall to the hawkers, then we can leave it to the hawkers themselves to implement their own discounts, rather than having one centralised and imposed on them.”
“Thank you, Speaker. My view is that indeed we should not create a lottery effect with the implementation of VERS. I am also glad that the hon Member, Mr Andre Low, has also agreed that it should not be a wealth-generating tool. In fact, Mr Low has also raised important points that the Minister has agreed should be considered. I have two further clarifications, I think they elucidate the complexity of the issue. First, the Minister has shared that the intent of VERS is to ensure an orderly redevelopment. At the same time, because it is going to be voluntary, it is going to be subject to voting. My question is what levers do we have to ensure that there will be a certain amount of success in the voting process? If not, then, how does the orderly redevelopment take place. My second clarification is, to ensure that VERS does not become a lottery, indeed, as the Minister said, to ensure that we have homes for life, it means that the alternatives to ensure that all our Singaporeans have homes that are good and fit for accommodation for the entire duration of the tenures, will need to be important. So, NRP, HIP II – these are important programmes. However, the more attractive these programmes are, HIP II and NRP, the less likely you may have residents who will vote for VERS. Therein the inherent complexities of this. So, it is not an enviable task that the Ministry and the Minister has to deal with. I fully appreciate the challenges. My question is, will we look at VERS together with HIP II and NRP, weigh the considerations in the implementation?”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to ask the Minister whether in view of the lapses, whether the Ministry has considered if the workload of the officers is a contributing factor to the lapses. As we understand it, the number of contracts that each officer does have to deal with could be very copious, so I would like to check the Minister's response.”