Gerald Giam Yean Song
Singapore
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. The focus of my supplementary question will be on the film classification guidelines, which currently state that, quote, "Chinese films meant for theatrical release should generally be in Mandarin, in line with the Speak Mandarin Campaign.”
“Mr Speaker, we cannot allow physical infrastructure expansion to blind us to the shifting digital geography of global trade nor should we allow frontier technology to reduce the economic agency of our transport workers.”
“Sir, I thank the Minister for his replies. I understand the difficulty in getting the exact numbers. But is there an order of magnitude that the Government can provide as to how many such fees were collected and what is the total quantum? Just an order of magnitude, does not have to be an exact number.”
“Sir, I thank Mr Ng Chee Meng for acknowledging my OJT proposal. I am aware of the work of CTCs, but my proposal goes beyond what the CTCs currently provide. First is the depth of the wage support, and second is the structural design of OJT.”
“I thank the Minister for responding to my question just now. I am glad to hear that there will be more precise matching with the help of SWDA's the integrated intelligence function. But can I ask if this function will be provided to all jobseekers who approach SWDA or its agencies, like e2i, to seek for job assistance?”
“Sir, can the Minister elaborate a bit more about how SWDA will enhance the job search assistance programme? Specifically, will career counsellors move beyond basic resume editing and portal referrals to leverage real time vacancy data for proactive matching and advocate for candidates?”
The complete record
Every one of 984 lines we hold for Gerald Giam Yean Song, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 4 of 20.
“Sir, I have questions for Minister Josephine Teo and Minister Indranee. First, for Minister Josephine Teo, how long has the Government known that organisations, including those in the public sector, have been using NRIC numbers as an authentication factor and why did it not prohibit its use long before December 2024? Up to December, large regulated organisations like insurers were reportedly still using NRIC numbers as default passwords. I note the Minister said earlier that the organisations should stop doing so as soon as possible. Will the Government legally prohibit Government agencies and organisations from using NRIC numbers as authenticators and do so by a certain deadline? Secondly, I note that Minister Josephine Teo replied to me earlier that the risks do not arise directly from the structure of the NRIC number. However, my question about this alternative NRIC structure arises because a masked NRIC number can still be reverse engineered due to the algorithm and checksum that it follows. While this algorithm is not officially published, it is widely known. My question is: what prevents the NRIC number from being randomly generated, moving forward, instead of relying on an algorithm? If the concern is that businesses need to check the validity of an NRIC number provided, I would highlight that many NRIC generators online can already produce numbers that pass this checksum. And to Minister Indranee: business owners and corporate secretaries have reported that many share transfers and annual returns could not be submitted on the new Bizfile portal after it was launched. These are basic functions that every business owner uses. Was sufficient user acceptance testing conducted and signed off by ACRA before the launch of the new portal?”
“It was to seek a response to the proposal about sharing data between the banks, social media companies and the Police – so, consolidating all that crowd-sourced data to be able to prevent scams from taking place in real-time.”
“Sir, can I seek some clarifications from the Minister of State? I thank her for responding to some of my proposals just now. The Minister of State mentioned that the Police expect to issue five to 10 ROs a month. So, that is about 60 to 120 a year, but this is negligible compared to the approximately 50,000 scam cases reported annually. Does the Minister of State agree that this Bill will have limited impact on combating scams overall and that more systemic safeguards are needed? Secondly, I thank the Minister of State for responding to my proposals on sharing between the Police and the banks and social media platforms. However, I was not proposing just the sharing of best practices but sharing and collecting data from these social media platforms and requiring them to use that data to prevent scams from taking place in the first place. So, is that something that the Police are prepared to do?”
“This Bill takes an important step forward with its focus on "emergency brakes" to mitigate harm in individual cases. However, its scope remains narrow. To effectively combat scams, we need more systemic safeguards that address root causes and build resilience across platforms. These systemic safeguards include, deploying real-time fraud detection for digital wallet transactions, enhancing Know Your Payee mechanisms to flag suspicious payees and creating a centralised scam database accessible to banks, telecommunications companies and social media companies for real-time monitoring and blocking. Together, these measures will ensure more robust prevention, swift enforcement and shared responsibility in protecting Singaporeans from scams. Sir, I support this Bill but urge the Government to consider these proposals and look forward to the Minister of State's responses to them.”
“Many platforms, including social media, email and messaging services, as well as telecommunications companies and mobile handsets already offer mechanisms to block and report suspected scams. However, these reports are often siloed, remaining on the user's device or with the platform concerned. There is no centralised scam database to consolidate and share this information. Currently, many scam reports only enter the scam database managed by the Singapore Police Force (SPF) if the user installs the ScamShield app and submits a scam through it. This approach is insufficient to crowdsource the collective knowledge of a broader pool of users to identify and report scams as they emerge. To address this, the scam database currently managed by the Police, should be allowed to receive real-time updates from the banks, telecommunications companies, social media platforms and messaging providers based on user reports, while incorporating robust safeguards to protect privacy. These platforms should then use this shared data for monitoring and proactively blocking scams on their own platforms. MAS and the Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) should assess and rate financial institutions, telecommunications companies, social media companies and messaging platforms on the robustness of their anti-scam measures and their implementation of the systemic safeguards mentioned earlier. To promote accountability and incentivise improvements, these ratings should be clear, fair and standardised, with transparency to consumers. However, vulnerabilities identified during the assessment should not be publicly disclosed until the entities have had a reasonable opportunity to address them to ensure security is not compromised. Mr Speaker, scams are an evolving threat.”
“While multi-factor authentication is typically required during set-up, scammers exploit social engineering techniques to manipulate victims into unknowingly approving the setup. Once the wallet is linked, subsequent payments often bypass additional authentication, allowing scammers to rapidly deplete funds without further victim involvement. This highlights several possible vulnerabilities in the current system. First, the reliance on multi-factor authentication alone is insufficient when victims are tricked into authorising fraudulent setups. Second, once the digital wallet is authorised, there is a lack of effective monitoring to detect and flag suspicious transactions. Third, the absence of clear accountability between banks and digital wallet providers exacerbates the issue, leaving victims with little recourse. To address this gap, banks must be required to work with digital wallet providers to deploy real-time fraud detection algorithms that monitor all digital wallet transactions for anomalies, including transactions that occur after the initial digital wallet set-up. These algorithms should integrate behavioural analysis, such as device changes, unusual transaction patterns or foreign Internal Protocol (IP) addresses, to flag high-risk activities. This will enable proactive intervention to block unauthorised activities before the funds are lost. Bank should be held liable for losses if they fail to meet these duties. Financial institutions should be required by the regulator to enhance back-end fraud detection by integrating account data, behavioural analysis and anomaly detection to identify high-risk payees. These are the possible scammers or their agents. This approach minimises reliance on customers' judgement alone and strengthens fraud detection.”
“For oversight to be truly effective, these adjudicating bodies must have the authority and technical capability to directly access and verify evidence rather than depend on the banks' representations alone. Without this, the impartiality and robustness of the review process may be compromised. To address these shortcomings, an independent investigative body should be established to handle scam-related cases pertaining to banks' fulfilment of their SRF obligations. This body would examine evidence provided by the bank, the customer and any relevant third-parties to ensure impartiality and transparency. Such a body would act as a neutral arbiter, removing the inherent conflict of interest in having banks investigate cases where they are the interested party. Additionally, victims should be informed of their rights and available recourse options as part of the investigation outcome report. This includes clear guidance on how to escalate disputes to independent bodies, such as FIDReC. Providing this information upfront will ensure victims are aware of their options and are not left without avenues for redress if they disagree with the findings of the investigation. I would like to make several more proposals for regulators to require platforms to put in place enhanced protections against a wider range of scams. These complement the proposals I put forward in my speech during the Second Reading debate on the Online Criminal Harms Bill on 5 July 2023. A recurring scam that my residents have brought to my attention involves the misuse of digital wallets, like Apple Pay and Google Pay. Scammers set up a digital wallet linked to the victim's bank account.”
“This also creates a significant disadvantage for scam victims who lack access to key evidence, such as system logs or fraud detection records and often do not have the expertise to effectively challenge the bank's findings. Consider this scenario: a bank customer falls victim to a phishing scam, where their funds are fraudulently transferred out of their account. The customer raises a claim under SRF, asserting that the bank failed to meet its obligations, such as sending real-time notifications or flagging a suspicious transaction through its fraud detection systems. The bank conducts the initial investigation and concludes that it fulfilled all its duties under SRF, including providing the required alerts and adhering to the cooling-off period. It informs the customer of its findings and denies reliability for the losses. The customer, lacking access to system logs or detailed evidence of the bank's actions, is unable to independently verify whether these obligations were indeed fulfilled. Although the customer has the option to escalate the matter to the Financial Industry Disputes Resolution Centre (FIDReC) or the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS), these bodies may also face limitations in their ability to access critical evidence. If these bodies are called upon to adjudicate disputes or review banks' investigations under SRF, do they have direct access to the necessary evidence, such as system logs, fraud detection records and notification timestamps? If these bodies rely solely on banks to supply this evidence, there is a risk that the information provided may be selective or incomplete, especially when the findings could impact the bank's liability.”
“May I ask the Minister of State, based on the scam cases that came to the attention of the Police over the past year, has the Ministry modelled how many ROs would have been issued if this Bill had already been in effect? To better combat scams, we need more systemic safeguards that stop scams before they start, hold financial institutions, telecommunications companies, social media companies and messaging providers more accountable in preventing scams from taking place on their platforms and compensate victims if they fail to put in place adequate measures. Some safeguards are captured in the Shared Responsibility Framework (SRF), which took effect on 16 December 2024. However, SRF focuses solely on phishing scams that lead to unauthorised transactions. It assigns a few specific duties to banks and telecommunications companies to mitigate such scams and requires compensation for victims when these duties are not fulfilled. While SRF improves protections against phishing-related threats, it does not cover the full range of scams affecting consumers today. Many scams, such as investment scams or romance scams, rely on social engineering to deceive victims into authorising payments under false pretences. Unlike phishing scams, these involve victims being misled about the purpose of the transaction, rather than unauthorised access. Addressing such scams requires tailored strategies and frameworks, which I will come back to later. I am concerned about the SRF's reliance on banks to conduct the initial investigation into scams, including assessing whether they have fulfilled their responsibilities. This presents an inherent conflict of interest, as banks are both the investigator and an interested party with a financial incentive to conclude that they met their obligations.”
“Mr Speaker, scams are wreaking havoc on lives and the life savings of many Singaporeans. In just the first half of 2024, 26,587 scam cases were reported, with losses exceeding $385.6 million. Behind some of these numbers are residents of Aljunied Group Representation Constituency, a number of whom have sought my help to recover their hard-earned money. Sadly, in most cases I have seen, recovery has been minimal as the funds have been transferred out of Singapore and the burden of preventing scams still rests heavily on the shoulders of the end-users. The Protection from Scams Bill is an important step forward towards combating this scourge. However, it introduces a significant change to the legal relationship between banks and their customers. Traditionally, banks have acted as fiduciaries with a singular duty of loyalty to their customers, including following specific instructions for financial transactions. This Bill, however, empowers the Police to issue Restriction Orders to banks, enabling them to temporarily restrict an individual's banking transactions if there is a reasonable belief that the customer is about to transfer money to a scammer. I believe that this is a justifiable shift, given the grave risks posed by scams, including the potential for victims to lose their life savings. However, its effectiveness is contingent upon timely identification and intervention by the authorities, which may not be feasible in all cases. Many scams are executed within minutes, even seconds, leaving no time for third parties to intervene. This makes the Bill less effective in these increasingly common high-speed scenarios.”
“Mr Speaker, I thank the Minister for his reply. Sir, as of December 2023, the private sector had employed 75% more PwDs as a proportion of the total employment compared to the public sector. I understand that the Minister said that is not meaningful to compare. I would just like more clarification on why he thinks that is not meaningful, apart from the fact that the Singapore Armed Forces and the Home Team may not be able to hire as many PwDs in combat positions. As the largest employer in Singapore, does the Minister agree that the Government bears a greater responsibility to set a positive hiring example in inclusive hiring? Ideally, the public sector should lead the hiring of PwDs, rather than lagging behind. Secondly, could the Minister share if there are concrete targets for PwD employment in the public sector over the next five years and, if so, what strategies are in place to ensure that these targets are achieved?”
“Sir, I thank the Minister of State for his reply. Could the Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) lean more on these large e-commerce platforms to enforce fairer prompt payment terms, specifically for smaller merchants, so as to ease their cash flow challenges? These small merchants have limited negotiating power and lack the financial resources and access to financing of larger firms. Secondly, what immediate support options beyond long-term digital grants can be offered to smaller merchants to mitigate cash flow gaps caused by delayed payments on major platforms?”
“I thank the Minister of State for responding to my questions. I just have two main clarifications. First, the Minister of State assured us earlier that no one would lose MediShield Life coverage due to an inability to pay premiums. How about policyholders who miss payments for reasons such as ineligibility for premium support despite appeals, missed reminders or other issues. Are there any circumstances under which they could lose MediShield Life coverage due to a failure to pay premiums? Secondly, does the Bill allow the Minister to designate TCM providers as approved providers for the purpose of MediShield Life claims if they need accreditation criteria for TCM practitioners, which I understand from the Minister this morning during Question Time will be ready next year? I know the Minister of State provided a list of conditions in her response just now, but it is not clear if it potentially includes TCM.”
“However, policyholders who are less comfortable with digital platforms might miss important updates, potentially leading to unintended coverage lapses or penalties. Does the Government offer additional communication methods, such as phone calls or in-person notifications, to ensure all policyholders receive and understand crucial information? Mr Deputy Speaker, this Bill seeks to enhance the MediShield Life framework, but these changes must not place unnecessary burdens on those who rely on the scheme the most. For low-income households, I urge MOH to review the use of AV as a criterion for means testing, so that retirees and those with limited cash flow can receive subsidies based on their actual financial need. Sir, I support the Bill, but I look forward to the Minister of State's responses to my questions.”
“Additionally, does this amendment allow the Minister to designate Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) and other traditional medical practices as approved medical treatments in the future? Many Singaporeans rely on TCM and other traditional practices for managing chronic conditions and maintaining overall health. Clause 6 broadens the scope of offences related to false or misleading information in health declarations, means declarations or claims. This amendment aims to deter fraud, but it may disproportionately impact elderly or less tech-savvy policyholders who may make honest mistakes in their submissions. What are the provisions for rectifying minor or first-time errors, especially for vulnerable groups? Establishing a grace period or correction mechanism would prevent harsh penalties for honest mistakes, particularly for seniors unfamiliar with digital processes. Clause 9 allows the Government to use means information to assess eligibility and support recovery actions for outstanding premiums. Although this approach may ensure targeted resource allocation, it could place additional pressure on low-income policyholders. Aggressive recovery actions, if based primarily on financial data, could create financial stress for households already struggling to meet healthcare costs. Will the Government provide safeguards like automatic premium loans or deferred payment options to protect financially vulnerable policyholders and help them maintain coverage without incurring penalties? Will these policyholders lose coverage if they still fail to pay their premiums? Clause 10 introduces electronic methods for serving official documents, including email, which may improve efficiency.”
“Minimally, those with AVs above $25,000 should still be allowed to apply for premium subsidies, and a holistic and transparent assessment should be made based on their individual circumstances. This approach would allow the scheme to target subsidies more effectively towards those who genuinely lack cash flow for their healthcare needs. Clause 5 grants the Minister flexibility to set premium rates through prescribed means, possibly via online publications. Although this change could streamline the process, I have some concerns about the stability and predictability of premium rates. Policyholders, especially those with lower incomes, rely on consistent healthcare costs to plan their finances. Frequent premium adjustments could challenge their ability to budget effectively. Will the Government establish a regular schedule for premium adjustments, and if not, how much advance notice will policyholders receive to prepare for changes? This will provide policyholders with more transparency and predictability regarding their healthcare expenses. Clause 4 grants the Minister discretion to approve medical institutions and the treatments they offer as eligible for MediShield Life claims. Although this change may help manage costs, it could also limit access to necessary care if certain treatments or institutions do not receive approval. Unapproved services might force policyholders to pay out-of-pocket, discouraging them from seeking essential treatment. Could the Minister of State clarify if the criteria for approving medical services, and a complete list of approved services and institutions will be published regularly? This will help policyholders to make informed healthcare choices and avoid unexpected costs.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, the MediShield Life Scheme (Amendment) Bill 2024 introduces several changes to the MediShield Life framework to adjust premium structures, enhance administrative powers and improve affordability of healthcare coverage. I would like to seek some clarifications on several areas that may impact Singaporeans financially and administratively. Clause 11 amends section 34 of the Act, which grants the Minister broad powers to make regulations, including determining premium rates for different classes of insured persons. MediShield Life premium subsidies now consider both per capita household income (PCHI) and the AV of one's residence. The AV tiers provide the highest subsidy to lower income insured persons living in properties with AVs of up to $21,000 and a reduced subsidy for AVs between $21,000 and $25,000, while AVs above $25,000 receive no subsidy, unless they are from the Pioneer or Merdeka Generation. This criterion could present a financial challenge for some low or no-income households, particularly retirees living in private property and are born in 1960 or later. These individuals may face rising medical bills yet do not qualify for premium subsidies due to the property they live in. Many of these elderly Singaporeans are unlikely to downsize their homes, especially if they are currently suffering from serious illnesses. The physical and emotional disruption of relocating during a vulnerable period is impractical and could worsen their health conditions. For retirees and other low-income households, I urge the Government to consider removing AV as a means-testing criterion.”
“Mr Speaker, I thank the Minister for his reply. Sir, in addition to the elderly citizens who are consulting TCM practitioners, anecdotally, I know that not just senior citizens, but also younger Singaporeans, many non-Chinese residents and even competitive athletes are consulting TCM practitioners. So, when will the accreditation framework be in place to identify qualified TCM practitioners within Healthier SG? Will employers be required to accept medical certificates (MCs) from these accredited practitioners? Because this could assure Singaporeans who prefer using TCM, that their medical choices will be recognised and respected. Can patients be given more flexibility to combine TCM and Western treatments, especially for chronic conditions, and receive government subsidies or use MediSave for both treatments? This could allow the preventive and lifestyle-focused approach of TCM to complement Western interventions. Lastly, could MOH facilitate opportunities for TCM practitioners and Western-trained doctors to receive some cross-disciplinary exposure and training in each other's medical principles, as is done in places, like China and Taiwan? This could foster mutual respect, encourage collaboration and strengthen confidence in each other's standards.”
“Mr Speaker, I thank the Minister for his reply. Sir, how sustainable is the Government's stance of not taking sides in an increasingly polarised world, where more and more countries in our region are doing exactly that? How does the Government ensure that Singapore does not become isolated in a world of rival alignments strongly opposed to each other? Sir, there is a tendency for some countries to dismiss certain international norms and laws, often because they were set by strategic competitors or do not serve their interests. These laws are also unenforceable because we do not have a global policeman. Is the Minister concerned that international law maybe diminishing in reliability as a tool to protect our economic and security interests? And finally, Sir, the Prime Minister recently said that we have to work harder to strengthen our network of friends and partners, to work with like-minded countries to shape international norms and rules, and to find common ground on issues of shared concerns. Can the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) make it clearer in its outreach to Singaporeans, including new citizens, which these like-minded countries are, in order to build a stronger understanding of Singapore's strategic interests, especially when external actors may be sowing doubt among our population?”
“Sir, I think I heard the Minister say that if a candidate writes a speech and uses AI to deliver it, such a practice will be prohibited under the legislation. However, does not this AI still present the candidate communicating the message as they intended? Will it be prohibited if it does not misrepresent a candidate's words or actions? It could be argued that a television image is also a virtual image and is not a real person yet, no one is suggesting that that should be prohibited. To cite a real example, would the AI-generated video that the Minister played at the start of her speech be prohibited during elections?”
“Mr Speaker, I too would like to express my deep appreciation to the rail workers who put in many days, nights and weekends and over time to restore train services for commuters. Sir, given the higher maintenance costs and failure rates of the first-generation trains, can the Minister explain why they were not replaced earlier and what factors delayed the replacement process? For example, were any of the new trains delivered but not immediately put into service? Secondly, the Minister has declined my suggestion to link fare adjustments to service reliability. How then will commuters be assured that fare increases will lead to tangible improvements in service reliability? For example, how much of the fare revenue increased is allocated specifically towards improving service reliability?”
“Sir, I thank the Minister of State for her reply to my supplementary question. I have two more questions. The Minister of State said that many progressive employers have implemented caregiving leave. So, why not legislate it, so that all employers, whether progressive or less progressive, will provide caregiving leave for their employees? In the meantime, can the Government provide more financial and non-financial incentives to employers who provide caregiving leave for their employees? And secondly, can the Minister of State provide any details on any plans or initiatives by MOM to assist individuals who have taken on unpaid caregiving responsibilities and now ready to reintegrate into the workforce once their caregiving responsibilities are over?”
“I thank the Minister of State for the reply. Has the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) conducted any studies regarding the impact on the productivity and long-term competitiveness of our workforce, when an increasing number of residents need to quit full-time work or reduce working hours in order to perform unpaid caregiving for their loved ones? What measures have been considered to mitigate these effects on workers and the economy, including allocating more resources to paid caregiving? And on that note, will the Ministry consider establishing a paid family care leave scheme, modelled after the childcare leave scheme, to provide caregiving leave to employees who are the primary caregivers for elderly parents or family members with disabilities? For example, the first three days could be paid for by employers and the remaining three days paid for by the Government. This will go some way to help improve the quality of life, economic security and productivity of working caregivers.”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Sir, I am very surprised to hear this announcement by the Government today when it had defended the sale of Income Insurance to Allianz so strongly during the 6 August Sitting of Parliament. I think I heard Minister Tong say earlier that MCCY was concerned that there were no structural protections in the deal to ensure that Income could continue its social mission. But the fact that Allianz would have a majority stake in Income Insurance under the proposed deal was known at least since 17 July 2024, when Income first made its public announcement. Was this not a concern to MCCY in August? Be that as it may, what structural protections does MCCY expect to be put in place in order for any sale of a co-op or social enterprise to proceed? For example, will it be the case that co-ops or social enterprises will not be allowed to sell a majority stake in their shares to an entity that does not have an explicit social mission?”
“Sir, I thank the Minister for his replies. Will MOE consider implementing nationwide school programmes that encourage and guide students who witness bullying to not just be bystanders, but upstanders, where students learn ways to identify, intervene and support peers who are being bullied and report the bullying? This could shift the peer culture by making it clear to the bullies that they do not have the approval of their peers and assuring the victims that they are not alone. Secondly, does MOE have clear baseline anti-bullying policies across all schools and IHLs, and do these policies spell out actions that should be taken in response to reports of bullying and measures to protect both victims and upstanders from retaliation?”
“Sir, I will be quick. When I say "tether" or "untether", what I mean is that NTUC and PAP should be separate, independent organisations and should not be pledging symbiosis to each other – that is all I mean. And what he says about it not being a subordinate relationship, can I ask the Member why is there then a need for the platform work associations to have a council of advisors which has the power to dismiss the executive council? Why are these council advisors appointed by the NTUC and why do they all happen to be PAP members or PAP MPs even?”
“Sir, I think the Senior Minister of State is having difficulty seeing anything between the dichotomy of full symbiosis and full confrontation with unions. We are calling for a third way, which is independent unions with tripartite dialogue, to work towards achieving win-win outcomes for both workers and employers. So, it is this approach that we are trying to take. We are not trying to say that we do not work with unions at all or we are in full relationship and symbiosis with unions. There is a third way in between.”
“Sir, I reiterate once again what I said yesterday that I appreciate the hard work that many unionists are putting in to try and speak up for workers. But what I am talking about is not so much that the unionists are not speaking up. What I am saying is that there are institutional constraints on them that prevent them from being able to really push forward a lot of the policies. Because if in the current set-up where the unions are, what I feel, subordinate to the PAP, the unions will only be able to push through their policies if their policies align with the PAP's priorities. They will not be able to override what the PAP wants to do. And can I ask the Senior Minister of State whether he can cite any instance where the NTUC has taken a public position that is contrary to the Government policy in recent times?”
“Mr Speaker, Senior Minister of State Koh just now said that if the WP comes to power, we will not form any relationship with any union. This is not true and it is ridiculous for any governing party to not seek good relations with unions, when it is crucial for any government to work with unions and employers for the good of workers and the economy. What we are calling for is a key reform to untether the NTUC from the PAP and free up unionists to be independent advocates for workers in Singapore. An independent NTUC will be a stronger voice for workers as they will be better able to fight for workers' rights without fear or favour. I call for independent unions, not mindlessly confrontational unions. It is important for unions to work with the government of the day, but they should maintain their independence from the Government and should not be subordinated to it. This will benefit Singaporean workers and strengthen our country's institutions regardless of the political situation. This is not about politics. It is about getting the best possible deal for Singaporean workers and for Singapore. And lastly, Senior Minister of State Koh mentioned ILO. ILO's Convention No 87 on freedom of association and protection of the right to organise, stresses that workers and employer organisations must be independent from public authorities, meaning the government, and free from government control or interference. This is found in Article 3(1), Article 3(2), Article 5, Article 8(2) and Article 11. Instead of having a symbiotic relationship with the PAP, the NTUC should declare a symbiotic relationship with the people of Singapore.”
“Sir, our students take examinations very seriously and an erasure of years of study notes on the eve of an examination date must have been horrifying for so many of them. Because the Mobile Guardian has full control over the devices, including to remote wipe the device, it is more akin to a corporate managed device which should be regularly backed up by MOE in case of a malicious data attack. Did MOE take back-ups of the data on student devices during the time that Mobile Guardian was installed? Secondly, the Minister mentioned that there was a Vulnerability Assessment and Penetration Test (VAPT) conducted on 30 June, after the vulnerabilities were reported by the member of the public. Was this a full VAPT and were all the vulnerabilities discovered patched before the August cyber attack? And was there a VAPT conducted on Mobile Guardian before it was first rolled out?”
“Sir, most importantly, we have supported this Bill. So, we are not putting the platform workers in any disadvantaged position by opposing this Bill. We are supporting this Bill. On the point that the Leader raises that it would be up to the NTUC or the workers of that day which party they want to support – how can that be? Because the NTUC has embedded its party members in different areas of the unions! How would they be able to change that if the PAP is so deeply embedded inside the unions? In any case, I think the whole thrust of what the Leader, Senior Minister of State Koh and Mr Yam had said earlier on is that the NTUC is aligned to the PAP and there is nothing usual in the world. So, we expect that the NTUC would continue to be aligned with the PAP, even after the PAP loses power. It is not an issue of just theoretical grandstanding but this is an issue of institutional continuity – are we going to have a situation where any new government that comes to power is completely jammed up?”
“Sir, I thank the Senior Minister of State for that information. Can I assume that taking the statements of the Leader of the House, Senior Minister of State Koh and Mr Alex Yam together, that if the PAP were to ever lose power, the NTUC would therefore become an instrument of opposition against the new government?”
“Sir, I thank Senior Minister of State Heng for his heartfelt exposition. And I did acknowledge the hard work of unionists at both the start and the end of my speech. And I am not questioning the commitment or the work of unionists, but I am addressing the systemic constraints that they face. I believe that many unionists are trying their level best to be able to advocate for workers that they represent, but they face many restrictions in doing so because of the controls that the Government, through the NTUC and other legislations, place on the unions. So, I believe that my proposals for union independence are meant to empower unionists and platform work association leaders to act freely in the best interests of their workers. And I would just like to address a point that Mr Christopher de Souza kept bringing up, that the first part of my speech was irrelevant. I hope that after listening to the rest of my speech, he would acknowledge that the first part of my speech was an important preamble to what I was going to explain in the later part of my speech. I believe it was a policy point that I was putting forward on behalf of the WP. And I just wonder why is it that every time the WP brings up a valid policy point, or very often when the WP brings up a valid policy point, we are accused of politicking and making political speeches. Whereas when the PAP talks about something different, it becomes a relevant policy point. I think that there is a need to be fair as well to us.”
“By ensuring that unions and platform work associations are not beholden to any political party or the Government, unionists will have the autonomy to fully pursue the interests of their members, challenge government policies that do not align with workers' needs and introduce innovative solutions to improve wages and working conditions. Ultimately, an independent union movement will not only strengthen the Labour Movement but also create a dynamic and resilient workforce for Singapore's future. [Applause.] 7.25 pm”
“In 2004, Mr Low Thia Khiang opposed amendments to the Trade Unions Act that allowed union leaders to conclude collective agreements with employers without seeking union members' ratification. That amendment was eventually passed by Parliament and the same provision is now mirrored in the Platform Workers Bill, raising similar concerns about the erosion of workers' rights to have a direct say in agreements that affect them. The Bill also requires platform companies to contribute employers' CPF payments to their workers. This is a positive step towards improving platform workers' long-term financial security. I support the PCTS scheme, which will cushion the effects of CPF deductions from workers' earnings. However, there is a risk that platform companies might reduce their overall payments to compensate for the increased CPF contributions. This could result in workers being worse off salary-wise. This is a concern highlighted by the Leader of the Opposition earlier as well. It is important that the Government monitors this closely and ensures that safeguards are in place to prevent such unintended consequences so that the platform workers truly benefit from the CPF contributions without suffering a reduction in take-home pay. Before I conclude, Mr Speaker, I would like to once again acknowledge the efforts of unionists who have dedicated themselves to advancing the rights and welfare of workers in Singapore. My proposals to ensure the independence of workers and platform work associations are not aimed at diminishing their work, but rather to enhance their ability to advocate freely for the workers they represent.”
“Of course. Furthermore, the registrar of platform work association has the authority to refuse registration of a new platform work association if there is already an existing one for that platform service or even to cancel the registration of an existing platform work association under similar conditions. Given that NTUC-affiliated platform work associations are likely to be registered first, this could limit the formation of alternative platform work associations, thereby restricting workers' choices. Platform workers should instead have the freedom to choose to join or form the association that best represents their interests. The Bill proposes that recognition of a platform work association would require a majority vote from platform workers eligible to participate in the recognition process. However, I am concerned that in some cases, the percentage of workers voting could be low and a platform work association might gain recognition even with limited support from the overall workforce. This could result in representation that does not fully reflect the will of the majority of platform workers in the sector. Clause 40 of the Bill allows the platform work association's executive committee to bind all members to a collective agreement without the need for ratification by the members. This could result in workers being bound by agreements negotiated by representatives chosen by only a small fraction of their peers. We must ask whether this truly serves the interests of the workers or simply expedites the process at the cost of their collective voice. The WP has long opposed moves to make unions less independent.”
“Sir, the Leader raises this point about unions and their affiliation with political parties. I have studied about what the situation is in the UK, to some degree. Indeed, many unions in the UK support the Labour Party, but it is not the same as them being symbiotic with the Labour Party. They reserve the right to state their own positions and there are times when they have their own different positions from the party, including in their public statements. So, it is not the same degree of symbiotic relationship as what NTUC has with the PAP. I wanted to come to this point later, but since the Leader has brought this up, I would like to state for the record that the WP supports the tripartite dialogue between employers, unions and the government of the day, but not with any particular political party, not an explicit alignment with any political party. I believe that unions must be independent and non-partisan. They must represent their workers without fear or favour in front of their employers, the government and the ruling party. I believe that unions which are independent from political parties will be in a better position to negotiate for their workers regardless of the political situation. Sir, if I may continue with my speech, please?”
“To answer the Leader, yes, exactly, that is what I will be coming to. So, I would really appeal to both the Leader and Mr de Souza to listen to the rest of my speech because the first part of my speech is a preamble to what I am going to be talking about and it is relevant to what I will be talking about in a while.”
“In fact, yes. Sorry, Mr Speaker, with your permission?”
“Certainly, Mr Speaker. As I said earlier, Sir, the first part of my speech is relevant to what I am going to be talking about in the Bill. I think it is important to set the background for why I am going to argue some of the points that I will be talking about in a while.”
“Sir, it is in relation to the provisions in the Bill, which you will understand why when I explain further.”
“These workers form a growing segment of our economy and their voices must be heard. However, the Bill imports many of the regulatory restrictions currently faced by unions. The platform work associations, much like NTUC-affiliated unions, already operate under significant NTUC control. The National Taxi Association, the National Private Hire Vehicles Association and the National Delivery Champions Association, all have current or former PAP MPs as advisers. Their constitutions grant NTUC the power to appoint members of the Council of Advisers, who play a key role in overseeing the actions of the Executive Committees. The Council of Advisers has the authority to suspend the Executive Committees elected by members. This mirrors the power the NTUC exerts over many of the affiliated unions, limiting their independence. Furthermore, the Registrar of platform work associations —”
“Such a situation would lead to a loss of dynamism in labour policy-making, reducing the possibility of new and better approaches from emerging. The risk of this alignment may be particularly pronounced in the event of a significant political shift in Singapore. If the PAP were to lose power, unions aligned with the PAP might struggle to work with the new Government. Additionally, these politically aligned unions may lose the support of workers who voted for the new administration, potentially weakening their effectiveness. It is crucial that key institutions in Singapore, including the trade union movement, are not beholden to one political party. Conversely, it will be equally undesirable for 95% of unions to become instruments of opposition against a newly-elected government, as this could undermine its ability to govern effectively and act in the best interests of workers and citizens alike. The International Labour Organization (ILO), which supports tripartite cooperation between governments, employers and workers, insists that unions must maintain independence to effectively represent their members' interests. ILO's Convention No 87, on Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise, which the Singapore Government has not ratified, stresses that workers and employers organisations must be independent from public authorities and free from government control or interference. While collaboration with the government can be beneficial, unions must have the freedom to challenge policies that do not serve workers' best interests, without fear of political repercussions. Turning to the Platform Workers Bill, Mr Speaker, I support this legislation, which seeks to enhance the representation of private hire drivers and delivery riders.”
“Many unions affiliated to the NTUC have a council of advisers, which for several industry unions also has the power to suspend the Executive Committee. PAP leaders frequently argue that this symbiotic relationship has helped Singapore navigate crises and build a nation. However, this close alignment also presents significant challenges to the independence of unions. The primary mission of unions is to advocate for workers' rights, ensure fair treatment and negotiate for better working conditions. Yet when union leaders are also PAP members, a potential conflict of interest arises. Can they fully advocate for workers' interests when those interests may conflict with their Government policies or the PAP's political agenda? They may feel pressured to support the policy, even if they sincerely believe that it compromises the needs of the workers they represent. This could lead to a muted union advocacy, where political alignment takes precedence over workers' rights. Over time, the deep entrenchment of PAP influence within unions could lead to the perception that unions are not independent bodies representing workers, but extensions of the PAP's political machinery. If workers believe their interests are being subordinated to the political interests of the PAP, or the political objectives of the PAP, unions may lose their ability to effectively mobilise and advocate for workers. Furthermore, an overly-close relationship between the PAP and unions risks creating groupthink, where union leaders are less inclined to challenge prevailing policies or explore alternative solutions. This may limit unions' ability to openly express workers' grievances or discuss innovative policies that could benefit workers, employers and the economy.”
“Mr Speaker, my speech today will focus on strengthening workers' rights in Singapore, particularly with regard to trade unions, platform work associations and the representation framework for ride-hailing and delivery service workers introduced in the Platform Workers Bill. Sir, unions in Singapore play an important role in advocating for the interests of workers. I would like to acknowledge the many unionists who work hard advocating for fair treatment, better working conditions and improved wages for their members. Over 99% of trade union members in Singapore are represented through the NTUC and its affiliates; and 58 out of 61, or 95% of employee trade unions in Singapore are affiliated with NTUC, underscoring the near total monopoly that the NTUC has over the Labour Movement in Singapore. The NTUC has declared that they have a symbiotic relationship with the PAP. This relationship is frequently highlighted during union meetings and rallies. The NTUC May Day Rally in 2024, for example, included a chant led by NTUC President, which concluded with, "Majulah NTUC, Majulah PAP, Majulah Singapura". The NTUC Secretary-General and many PAP leaders, including the Prime Minister and Senior Minister, joined in this chant on the big stage, pumping their fists in the air. Many PAP Members of Parliament (MPs) and PAP branch chairpersons serve as advisers to NTUC-affiliated unions. The NTUC announced in 2017 that, where possible, all PAP MPs, which include Cabinet Ministers, would be appointed as advisers in the unions, professional associations and guilds under NTUC. As at 2017, there were 71 PAP MPs who were advisers to unions. It should be noted that many union advisers are there not only in an advisory capacity, but are involved in the governance of the union.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. Sir, I understand the SkillsFuture JobSeeker Support Scheme is expected to cost $200 million yearly. How will this be funded? For example, will any tax increases be needed for this? Did the Government consider making this an unemployment insurance scheme so that it is more fiscally sustainable over the long term? That is what the Workers' Party (WP) proposed in our version of the redundancy insurance scheme.”
“Sir, I do not believe that the Minister of State has answered my question regarding the average load factor of the bus service since it started. This is important in determining whether the service is being properly utilised. Secondly, why are the Grassroots Advisors who are also People's Action Party Members of Parliament fronting this service, for example, having their caricatures painted on the side of the buses and an article published in the petir.sg website, when public transport is something that should be provided by the Government through LTA and its public transport operators to all residents of Singapore?”
“Sir, I have two supplementary questions for the Minister. Sir, much of the legislation introduced recently covers cybersecurity risks. However, as this major outage caused by CrowdStrike was not a cybersecurity attack but a supply chain failure, specifically, a bug in the software update from the vendor, does the current legislation adequately address the risks posed by supply chain failures in digital infrastructure? And would the impending Digital Infrastructure Act have mitigated the impact of the outage caused by CrowdStrike? Secondly, this incident also highlighted the risk of a single point of failure having widespread impact on digital infrastructure. A similar issue was observed with the Mobile Guardian mobile device management software used in schools which have affected thousands of students, many of whom discovered to their horror that they lost their study notes just before their weighted assessments. Is the Government looking at encouraging or even mandating operators of CII to review their IT procurement practices and diversify their sources of vendors so that no one software can bring down an entire system?”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. Given that the Minister has said that Singapore has access to many of the parties on all sides of the conflict, does Singapore have any plans to play some role to bring together the different sides, even in some small way?”
“Thank you, Sir, for your indulgence. Can I confirm that the Minister said just now, in response to my supplementary question, that the purpose of the containment boom around the damaged vessel is not meant to try to catch the oil that has already been spilt into the sea and that it is not the correct response to try and use the containment booms to fence in the oil around the damaged vessel? If so, what is the purpose of deploying containment booms? The Minister said that, how we respond to oil spills can make a difference to our reputation around the world. Does the Minister not agree that the earlier the booms are deployed, the better? Because even if the booms cannot completely fence in the oil, they can prevent a large amount of the oil from spreading faster and this would reduce the amount and cost of the clean-up needed. So, are we looking to increasing our capacity for faster boom deployment in future oil spills?”