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 7 of 20.
“Sir, Mr de Souza himself said in his speech, that Mr Tharman has a mind of his own, I am just paraphrasing him. He said, but Mr Tharman has been on these Boards in his official capacity all this time. Deputy Prime Minister Wong has confirmed that all these positions that he is currently on, are in his official capacity and he has been speaking his mind all this time. So, what is wrong with that?”
“I thank the Member, Mr de Souza, for responding to my speech. I think Mr de Souza is making a strawman argument. He is arguing that the WP does not think that our President and Ministers should sit on international boards. This is not what I said. What I did say is, I accept that the President may sometimes take up roles in international organisations in his official capacity, in order to advance Singapore's international standing and advance our national interests. We have no issue with him taking up these roles in his official capacity. What we disagree with him, is him taking up these roles in his private capacity. I think Mr de Souza has not addressed that in his speech. In fact, the Deputy Prime Minister already clarified that these international organisations are happy to have our President and Ministers in their official capacity. So, I do not see what the issue is.”
“How will the Government ensure that the President, when acting in his private capacity, follows the Cabinet's advice about what to say or do in his role, since many of these organisations hold their meetings behind closed doors in foreign countries? The Deputy Prime Minister said just now that international organisations would want our President to continue in his official role. They also want their appointees to contribute independently. But if the Cabinet can instruct the President what to say or not to say, how is that contributing independently? Invoking the "national interest" cannot grant the Government unrestricted authority to pursue its every desire. There are varying degrees of national interest. Is there any objective test that the Cabinet will employ to assess the degree of national interest of the President taking up foreign or international roles? Mr Speaker, I accept that the President may sometimes take up roles in international organisations in his official capacity, in order to enhance Singapore's international standing and advance our national interests. However, Singaporeans justifiably expect him to wholeheartedly dedicate his time and energy to fulfil his national responsibilities. Allowing the President to take up external appointments in his private capacity could detract from his substantial public duties. For this reason, the Workers' Party (WP) will vote against this Bill.”
“During his inauguration, he committed to using his mandate to strengthen multiracialism and enhance respect among communities. His plans include promoting interaction between different communities, ensuring cultural vibrancy and fostering inclusivity through active community participation, civil society and support for the arts and sports. These are substantial commitments that will demand a significant investment of the President's time and effort. All of us – including the President – have only 24 hours each day. Any time he spends serving private interests will be time taken away from his national duties to his constituents – who are the people of Singapore. Surely, the role of the President is significant enough to merit his undivided attention. The President also draws a salary of $1.57 million a year. If we include his entertainment allowance, the salaries of his personal staff and other expenses, the total budgeted expenditure of the President's office in the current financial year is over $12 million. This is a substantial amount of taxpayer money. It is only reasonable for Singaporeans to expect that he dedicates all his time and energy in his official capacity to meeting his promises to the people. The Government may argue that the President serves Singapore by accepting these key positions in international organisations. However, we must note that the proposed Article 22Q specifies that he will act in his “private capacity”, not in the exercise of his functions under the Constitution. We must more closely examine how these private roles, separate from official duties, genuinely advance Singapore's national interests.”
“The presence of currently serving Senior Public Officials in international organisations has led to controversies in the past. In 2018, the European Union Ombudsman called on the then-European Central Bank (ECB) President Mario Draghi to resign from the G30, the same organisation whose Board of Trustees President Tharman is now Chairing. She said, "Mr Draghi's membership of the G30 could give rise to a public perception that the independence of the ECB could be compromised". Adding that, "For the ECB to allow this perception to arise over several years constitutes mal-administration on its part." The PMO stated that, from time to time, the President or Ministers are invited to take up key positions in foreign and international organisations. Prior to this, did any of our past Presidents assume positions in foreign organisations in their private capacities while they were still in office, or is Mr Tharman the first? Additionally, have there been other invitations extended to the President for positions in foreign and international organisations that he has not yet accepted? Could the Deputy Prime Minister provide the House a comprehensive list of his external commitments, both present and potential, so that Parliament can ascertain the extent of the President's involvement in these organisations and his expected annual time commitments for these roles? Prior to his election, Mr Tharman articulated his vision for the presidency, emphasising the need for a different character to the Presidency in Singapore's next phase of development. He underscored the role of the President in checking the governance system, fostering unity and evolving Singapore's norms and culture.”
“Mr Speaker, this constitutional amendment Bill provides for the President and Ministers to accept appointments in foreign and international organisations in their private capacities, if it serves the national interest. The PMO asserts that such appointments can enhance Singapore's international standing and help to advance our national interest. President Tharman Shanmugaratnam currently holds several international appointments, including Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the G30, Co-chair of the advisory board of the UN Human Development Report (UNHDR), Co-chair of the Global Commission on the Economics of Water (GCEW) and a member of the Board of Trustees of the World Economic Forum (WEF). The Deputy Prime Minister said in his Second Reading speech that he is on all these boards in his official capacity. Internationally, it is a common practice for political office holders to resign from their private positions before being sworn into office. Recently, Mr David Cameron resigned from various business and charitable positions, including as president of Alzheimer’s Research UK, when he made a comeback to government, saying, "I have one job – to be foreign secretary and work with the prime minister for the UK to be as secure and prosperous as possible in a difficult and dangerous world." Conversely, there are many examples of former politicians who are now leading high profile international bodies, but only started serving in these organisations after their political tenure in their home countries. Examples include Mr Antonio Guterres, the current Secretary-General of the United Nations, who was a former prime minister of Portugal, and Mr Charles Michel, who became the President of the European Council after stepping down as the Belgian prime minister.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I thank the Senior Minister of State for his reply. I just heard the Senior Minister of State say that learners can use the SkillsFuture Credit to claim for Udemy courses. But the last time I checked on the SkillsFuture website, Udemy courses are not available. It used to be, a long time ago, but it was discontinued for some time already. And, as far as I know, there is only one online course provided called eCornell. So, can the Senior Minister of State confirm that what he said just now is still accurate?”
“In fact, I think they are doing a fantastic job in terms of keeping our public transport system working. What I was talking about was the public transport model, not the workers.”
“Sir, I thank Senior Minister of State for responding to my proposals. I wish to, first, make a correction to one of the figures I cited in my speech earlier. I said between 2011 and 2022, SMRT and SBS Transit together posted profits averaging $55 million a year and reaching $110 million in the last financial year. The $55 million figure is incorrect. For that date range, it should actually be $74.6 million. So, the sentence, should read, "Between 2011 and 2022, SMRT and SBS Transit have together posted profits averaging $74.6 million a year, reaching $110 million in the last financial year." These numbers are from two companies' financial statements. Sir, just some clarifications on Senior Minister of State's response just now. I am surprised that the Senior Minister of State is saying that setting KPIs does not work and he cited the Soviets. Surely, he is aware that setting individual and team KPIs is an established practice in many organisations. Even the Ministerial salary framework includes KPIs. But my point was that tying an executive's salary to their achievement of performance targets is a better motivator of that executive's performance than a company's profitability. It is also more aligned with commuters' interests. Next, the Senior Minister of State said that with our NTC, there is no guarantee that it will get better outcomes. But what we are seeing now is a public transport model that is sucking up Government subsidies while still posting million-dollar profits which benefit shareholders, not the commuters. Can the Senior Minister of State then assure us that the current model is fiscally sustainable and will produce better outcomes in the long run? Finally, just one last point. I was not criticising the public transport workers in any way.”
“Seventh, the NTC would yield economies of scale in procurement, staff allocation and technological infrastructure, leading to further savings that benefit commuters. Eighth, the NTC would assume operational responsibilities currently held by the LTA, allowing the LTA to focus solely on its regulatory role, eliminating potential conflicts of interest from being both a regulator and an operator. Lastly, the NTC would be given the freedom to experiment with and spearhead land transport solutions and position Singapore at the vanguard of global transport innovations. This could pave the way for Singapore to be an earlier adopter of advancements like autonomous buses or eco-friendly hydrogen-powered vehicles. Sir, the NTC is a rethink of Singapore's public transport model. It shifts us away from public transport companies that profit from Government subsidies to a non-profit, unified provider that will be more efficient and affordable for both commuters and taxpayers. This new model will place the needs and well-being of our commuters at the heart of our transport policy. It will not only address the immediate cost concerns of Singaporeans, but also steer Singapore's public transport into the future. Sir, I support the Motion standing in the name of my hon friends, the Leader of the Opposition and Member for Aljunied, Mr Pritam Singh and the Member for Sengkang, Mr Louis Chua.”
“Third, the NTC could manage bus interchanges, MRT and LRT stations and their associated linkways, leveraging the rent from these prime retail and commercial areas to support its operations. This will help moderate fare increases and the need for ever growing Government subsidies. Fourth, the NTC could hire top transport engineers and managers, both locally and globally, based on their expertise, track records and commitment to public service. Companies are fuelled by their people. Profit motives are not the sole drivers of efficiency and productivity improvements. By setting stringent key performance indicators (KPIs) and empowering these professionals, the NTC can continually improve service standards. In contrast, the current penalties for PTOs' service disruptions are trivial compared to their profits and do not directly affect executive pay. The NTC's approach will see a marked improvement in performance management. Fifth, for transparency and accountability, the NTC should disclose its executive salaries, primary profit sources and major cost drivers, enabling the Parliament and the public to examine its financial health and hold relevant parties accountable. Sixth, a unified transport entity like the NTC would ensure more uniform service standards, enhanced service integration and comprehensive access to data for service improvement. Utilising a vast array of commuter data, the NTC can employ artificial intelligence (AI) to forecast travel trends, dynamically directing buses and trains where they are most required. Improvement suggested by commuters in one region of Singapore could be applied island-wide.”
“In the past three years, about 30 bus services have been shortened or removed. Such changes have affected my residents in Bedok Reservoir who continue to voice their concerns to me about long wait times and crowded feeder bus rides to the Bedok Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) station. Elderly commuters who favour direct trunk services, which facilitate shorter walking distances for the commute, are also affected by these changes. As the Leader of the Opposition said when moving his Motion, we need to move beyond one-time fiscal handouts and explore possible structural changes to existing policies to reduce cost of living expenses for Singaporeans. It is therefore timely to revisit the proposal to establish a National Transport Corporation (NTC). This was first proposed by the WP in 2006. We envisaged the NTC as a publicly owned, nonprofit, multimodal land transport entity which will oversee the planning and operation of all MRT, Light Rapid Transit (LRT) and truck bus services in Singapore. The NTC offers many benefits over the current public transport model. First, under the NTC, the substantial profits which go to PTOs and their shareholders could instead be redirected to benefit commuters. Such revenue could mitigate fare increases and subsidise transport for the elderly, people with disabilities and low-income households, directly addressing concerns about the cost of living. Second, with full access to the NTC's financial records, the Government could set fares just high enough to ensure the NTC's fiscal sustainability, without overly burdening commuters. The complex fare adjustment formula can be done away with. Fare adjustments could be introduced progressively, avoiding abrupt changes during times of economic hardship.”
“This is particularly jarring against the backdrop of increasing fares and Government subsidies. The PTOs and our current public transport model face little competition with each other because they operate different transport routes across the island. Even duplications of the same routes for different transport modes are slowly being eliminated as bus services running parallel to new MRT lines are removed. These prompt questions about the efficacy of the current fare adjustment formula and a broader discussion around the sustainability of Singapore's public transport model. The current model consists of a mix of Government ownership of transport assets and operating contracts carved out among multiple profit-oriented PTOs. The model is inching more towards nationalisation than the Government would like to admit. Starting in 2010, all real assets were transferred to the Government. The year 2012 saw the introduction of the $1.1 billion Bus Service Enhancement Plan. In 2013, the Bus Contracting Model saw bus services in certain areas tendered out to PTOs. This was completed in 2016. The Land Transport Authority (LTA) now owns bus assets and pays the PTOs an operating fee while collecting all fare revenue and setting the service levels. The Government is now subsidising public transport services to the tune of $2 billion a year – or $1 for every journey. This mesh of responsibilities involving the operators, the regulator and the Government potentially introduces inefficiencies and additional costs. These will eventually trickle down to commuters and taxpayers, manifesting in either increased fares, higher Government subsidies, lower service coverage or all of the above. Some service coverage is already being reduced.”
“Mr Speaker, Singapore faces an undeniable upward trend in cost of living, driven by factors such as global inflation, supply chain disruptions, escalating energy prices and labour shortages. However, contrary to what the Member for Bukit Panjang seems to imply in his amendments to the Motion, domestic policy decisions like the hike in the GST, increases in water and electricity tariffs and rises in public transport fares, coupled with the skyrocketing cost of COEs, also contribute to the increase in the cost of living that Singaporeans are experiencing. Blackbox Research's recent SensingSG survey found that 59% of Singapore residents highlighted cost of living among the two most important national and community issues. Public transport costs are also a contributor to the cost of living in Singapore, making up 2.5% of MAS' core inflation basket. Over the last 10 years, the rate of increase in bus and train fares has been faster than that of core inflation. In the 2023 Fare Review Exercise, the Public Transport Council (PTC)'s fare adjustment formula produced a whopping 22.6% fare increase, although the PTC chose to cap it at 7%. This decision, though, led to the Government providing an additional subsidy to public transport operators, to the tune of about $300 million in 2023 – up from $200 million a year before. This subsidy still does not eliminate the remaining 15.6% of fare increase, which the PTC has deferred to future reviews. In the meantime, public transport operators (PTOs) have continued to post eye watering profits. Between 2011 and 2022, SMRT and SBS Transit have together posted profits averaging $55 million a year, reaching $110 million in the last financial year.”
“I thank the Senior Minister of State for his reply. Could I just clarify then that there is no whole-of-Government plan to develop indigenous AI FMs in Singapore? I am asking this because many other countries, including the United Kingdom, Japan, Korea, even Saudi Arabia and the UAE, are committing to ambitious programmes to develop their own indigenous FMs. On the other hand, Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong said last month, during his trip to the United States that Singapore is not at the cutting edge of ITS. The latest ideas and innovations will still come from American universities and companies, but that we can be a fast adopter. So, can I clarify that the approach for Singapore is that we are going to be a fast adopter and not going to lead in the building of FMs? Secondly, does the Government see any long-term risks in outsourcing the development of FM research and development? And lastly, when using the large language models (LLMs) developed by foreign companies, how does it ensure that the confidential data is not disclosed?”
“This will not only provide young people with a platform to voice their perspectives and express their frustrations with the situation but also encourage them to respect different viewpoints. With teachers or facilitators guiding these discussions, the conversations will be kept balanced and will avoid becoming overly contentious. In our era, where information is widely accessible, there is no excuse for not acquiring a basic grasp of this important issue. Despite its complexity, it is essential for each of us to make the effort to understand its nuances so as to foster rational and informed public discussions. Mr Speaker, in summary, the WP calls for an immediate humanitarian truce, the protection of civilians and aid workers, direct humanitarian access, the swift release of hostages and a return to negotiations towards a two-state solution to the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians, in line with the United Nations General Assembly Resolution ES10/21.”
“As Singaporeans, it is imperative that we individually take the initiative to guard against the spread of misinformation and disinformation. We should not look to the Government to censor fake news for us. As an article on the website, Vox, advised, if a video, photo or post about the war makes you immediately furious or upset, refrain from instantly sharing it. Check the source by reviewing the account and its past posts and cross-reference it with reliable news outlets. This will help keep our discourse on this issue rational and focused on what is the most important – the welfare of innocent civilians in Israel and Palestine. Political debate occurring within Parliament, in classrooms or at the Speakers' Corner provides Singaporeans with a safe avenue to express their views and engage in discussions about international conflicts, including about the Israel-Palestine situation. They also provide a crucial pressure release valve for discontent, helping to prevent individuals from becoming overly influenced by extreme rhetoric from foreign sources. Suppressing political debates does not prevent extremism. Rather, it could lead to the debate being driven into radicalised corners of the Internet, which is where the real danger lies. Arguments against greater public debate have often cited concerns about a general lack of understanding surrounding the complex Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This raises two critical questions. What active steps are being taken to deepen Singaporeans' understanding of the conflict? Are we, as individuals, proactively seeking to educate ourselves on this topic? Schools and Institutions of Higher Education should more actively promote classroom discussions on this topic.”
“We should seek opportunities to facilitate greater dialogue among all stakeholders, including hosting high-level summits between Israeli and Palestinian leaders. Singapore could provide a neutral venue for peace talks, away from the conflict zone. This potential peacemaking role is consistent with past initiatives. In 2018, Singapore was the backdrop for the first-ever summit between the leaders of the US and North Korea. Before that, in 2015, we facilitated the landmark meeting between the presidents of China and Taiwan. Lastly, our thinktanks, like the Middle East Institute, could play host to more Track 2 economic exchanges and business forums between the Israelis and Palestinians. These less formal dialogues are essential in building understanding and sharing Singapore's experiences in nation-building. Mr Speaker, I wish to express my heartfelt thanks to Singaporeans, especially residents of Aljunied, Hougang and Sengkang, who have actively engaged with WP Members of Parliament on this issue. Your passion, concern and call for a more balanced, humane approach have been instrumental in shaping our collective voice on this matter. Let us unite in supporting efforts that foster peace, dialogue and understanding. I am mindful of the potential influence of misinformation surrounding this conflict. There have been various reports of supposed atrocities committed by both sides. Many such reports remain contested and lack independent verification. It is important to acknowledge that there is a possibility that some information might be a product of war propaganda. There are significant challenges faced by journalists in independently confirming these allegations, given the hazards of reporting from a conflict zone.”
“For example, in education, public housing, urban planning, water management and tackling corruption. Under the auspices of the Singapore Cooperation Programme, Singapore has provided training for many Palestinian officials. In 2016, Singapore pledged a double, the enhanced technical assistance package for Palestinian officials to the quantum of $10 million. We must follow through with this pledge, as this technical assistance will be needed more than ever during the reconstruction following the war. Our long-standing ties with Israel go back to our early days of Independence and National Service. Singapore also has good relations with the Palestinians and with influential Muslim-majority countries such as Egypt, Jordan, Türkyie, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Bahrain, Morocco, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, some of which have established diplomatic relations with Israel. Our longstanding ties with Israel go back to our early days of Independence and National Service. Singapore also has good relations with the Palestinians and with influential Muslim-majority countries, such as Egypt, Jordan, Turkey, the UAE, Bahrain, Morocco, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, some of which have established diplomatic relations with Israel. Singapore was also the first country to sign a free trade agreement with the Gulf Cooperation Council. Singapore's diplomatic standing and trade relations with these nations place us in a position to play a constructive role towards pushing for a long-term solution for peace in the region. We should work with like-minded partners to help establish the foundations for enduring peace between the Israelis and Palestinians and advocate for the implementation of the two-state solution.”
“Israel must recognise that executing this asymmetric response will only breed further hatred of it among the Palestinian population and provide fuel for extremists both in Gaza and around the world, perpetrating the cycle of violence and suffering. Former US President Barack Obama said that upholding international law and avoiding to every extent possible the death or suffering of civilian populations is, "vital for building alliances and shaping international opinion, all of which are critical for Israel's long-term security." Israel therefore, must adhere strictly to the laws of war not only for the sake of the suffering Palestinians but also for its own security. Proportionality, distinction and necessity must guide its military actions. Hamas must also immediately and unconditionally release all Israeli and foreign hostages. Failure to do so will only prolong this war and lead to a greater loss of life and hardening of hearts on both sides. The WP supports Singapore's vote on the resolution at the UN General Assembly on 26 October which among other things, call for an immediate durable and sustained humanitarian truce leading to cessation of hostilities, as well as the immediate and unconditional release of all civilians being illegally held captive. Singapore may be a small country, but we must do everything within our capacity working alongside countries in the region and international agencies to deliver essential humanitarian aid to the suffering people of Gaza during this current conflict. Our assistance must go beyond alleviating immediate suffering for the Palestinians. We can also contribute to post-conflict reconstruction and development by offering more technical assistance to the Palestinians.”
“Mr Speaker, at the outset, I would like to affirm the WP support for Israel's statehood and for the creation of a viable Palestinian State side-by-side in peace and security with Israel through a negotiated two-state solution, in line with the relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions. The killing of 1,400 people, most of them civilians in Israel and the taking of over 240 hostages by Hamas on 7 October 2023 cannot be justified and must be unequivocally condemned. However, the ensuing retaliation by Israel in the Gaza Strip over the past month demands critical scrutiny and a response from the International Community including Singapore. Since 7 October, more than 9,770 people in Gaza including thousands of children have been killed according to the health officials in Gaza. More than 1.5 million people have been internally displaced and Northern Gaza has been laid siege by Israel. Israel said it dropped 6,000 bombs on the Gaza Strip in just the first week of the war. This number is surely much higher now topping the record number of bombs the US dropped in Afghanistan in the whole of 2019. The WP supports Israel's right to defend itself. However, this right must be wielded within the bounds of international humanitarian law, ensuring that the sanctity of human life particularly that of civilians and children is upheld even in the midst of a war. Israel was successful in securing its border with Gaza within days of the assault but it continues to destroy civilian infrastructure, displace hundreds of thousands of people and cut off supplies of water and electricity in the Gaza Strip.”
“Mr Speaker, I thank the Minister of State for her detailed responses to my questions and for citing a real example where an applicant wrongly classified their route and ROS moved it to the Normal Route. Does this example not show that it is already possible for ROS to change the route of registration without this amendment to the Act? Secondly, the Automatic Route was introduced by the Government in 2004. The Remaking Singapore Committee chaired by Dr Vivian Balakrishnan proposed this idea in 2003. Why was it deemed okay then but not now? And would the Minister of State agree that this is a reversal of some of the liberalisations introduced in 2004? 5.05 pm”
“Can the Minister of State assure the House that genuine applications under the Automatic Route will not face longer waiting periods for approval than under the current regime? Finally, why do societies discussing issues related to civil or political rights, or the governance of Singapore society remain listed in the Schedule? The inclusion of these types of societies in the Schedule means that they cannot be registered under the Automatic Route. Assoc Prof Ho Peng Kee said in 2004 that "such groups, which aim to promote a particular cause, can potentially give rise to law and order problems if they engage actively in pushing their agenda, without due regard for those who may not agree with their cause." Is this still the Government's position and, more importantly, is that the only reason? I look forward to the Minister of State's answers to my questions.”
“What instances were there of registrations of non-specified societies that posed a national security threat and should not have been registered and how did the Registrar deal with those cases? How many applications to form societies were rejected or refused registration by the Registrar in the past five years and what were the reasons for their rejection or refusal of registration? Since 2004, we have seen a proliferation of access to the worldwide web, social media, smartphones and artificial intelligence. There is no shortage of data for the authorities to conduct background checks on applicants, even without asking them for more information. Additionally, questionnaires can be built into the online application form and the applicants' answers to these questions could be used to flag out societies that are not eligible for the automatic registration route. The applicant can then be immediately notified to select the normal registration route before submitting their application. If all these gates fail and the society gets registered through misrepresentation, the Minister can dissolve the society under section 24(1). Groups nowadays can easily organise themselves over closed chatgroups and will likely avoid going through the hassle of registering a society if it is made more onerous. It will impose a greater burden on law-abiding groups who diligently register their societies. By placing more hurdles for groups seeking to organise formally, the unintended effect could be to drive them and their activities underground. When this happens, the Registry of Societies will lose regulatory oversight of their financial conduct, which is one area where regulation is necessary in the public interest.”
“The Bill also allows the Registrar to reject an application submitted via the Automatic Route if the Registrar is satisfied that the society, if registered, is likely to be used for unlawful purposes or for purposes prejudicial to public peace, welfare or good order in Singapore or would be contrary to Singapore's national interests or security. This effectively removes the automatic registration process in all but name, as every registration, even for societies that are not specified in the Schedule, will, henceforth, be subject to additional scrutiny. Thus, if the 2004 amendments were a "forward-looking approach", this Bill appears to be a backward-looking approach. Why are the amendments to the automatic registration route now necessary? What has changed between 2004, when they were introduced, and now? Section 24(1) of the Act already empowers the Minister to dissolve a society if it had secured automatic registration through false declaration or misrepresentation of its objects and activities at the point of registration. If there is need for an addition to the list of specified societies listed in the Schedule, the Minister is already empowered under section 33A to amend the Schedule by notification in the Gazette. If the society engages in illegal activities, it can be dealt with through a whole host of laws to safeguard national security and racial and religious harmony. The Minister of State has cited hypothetical examples. Does she have real examples of society applications submitted since 2004 under the Automatic Route where one or both of the "two gaps" she mentioned were breached?”
“Mr Speaker, the automatic registration regime was the main amendment introduced in the Societies (Amendment) Bill in 2004. That was, in turn, derived from a recommendation by the Remaking Singapore Committee, chaired by then Minister of State for National Development, Dr Vivian Balakrishnan, to adopt a differentiated approach by listing down explicitly the types of societies that would require prior approval. Those outside the list would be "automatically" approved and registered. The Committee added a caveat that the registrations of such societies could still be revoked if they were subsequently found to use the society for unlawful purposes. MHA then consulted the public on this and public feedback was generally supportive. MHA then finetuned the feedback received and finalised the scheme. Under the 2004 Societies (Amendment) Bill, the "automatic regime" required the Registrar of Societies to register these societies on the date the application is received without making further inquiries, as long as the payment of the prescribed fee and other formalities are met. During the Second Reading of the Bill in 2004, the then Senior Minister of State for Home Affairs, Assoc Prof Ho Peng Kee, said that the amendments would "make it easier for many societies to be registered" and that "the changes are in line with the Government's move to loosen up restrictions to encourage greater social entrepreneurship." He called this automatic regime a "forward-looking approach". The Bill before us today reverses some of the liberalisations to the Societies Act in 2004. It seeks to allow the Registrar to require further information to ascertain whether the society does, indeed, qualify for registration via the Automatic Route.”
“Sir, could I just request the Second Minister again to answer my question about how many STRs were filed with regard to property transactions?”
“Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think my PQ was not fully answered. I will just repeat the salient points of it. I asked in each of the last three years how many STRs were filed with regard to property transactions and how many of such property transactions were later found to be involved in AML/CTF activities, and lastly, how many individuals were prosecuted for a failure to file STRs when they should have? And I have some further clarifications for Second Minister Indranee. Sir, real estate formed a large proportion of the $2.8 billion in assets seized in the operations. However, property agents tell me they often do not have many tools other than a Google search engine to conduct CDD. Can property agents access detailed background information on foreign individuals, including their businesses, wealth sources and red flags from the 43,000 STRs. If not, can MAS grant them limited access to COSMIC, RTIG or another similar portal for better due diligence? And I note that the Second Minister said the CEA is developing a one-stop webpage. What will this webpage provide and when will it be ready?”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. Sir, the Acting Minister has responded to two of my Parliamentary Questions, so, I have several supplementary questions to ask related to them. Sir, the $50 PTV provides less than two weeks of travel for a family of four, and larger households will deplete it even more quickly. Even for workers and the WTCS, the PTV covers less than half a month's public transport expenses per worker. Given this, what is the rationale for setting the PTV quantum at $50 and can this be increased further? Second, many families have multiple family members working or schooling, and each of them may need help to cover the cost of public transport. Can the PTVs be provided on an individual basis rather than per household to help larger families that are working hard to make ends meet? Next, one of commuters' bugbears is that despite increases in bus fares, bus routes – especially trunk services which are popular among the elderly – continue to be rationalised. While this boosts operator profits and Government savings, it diminishes service quality for the affected commuters. Even to this day, my residents in Bedok Reservoir still complain to me about reduced bus services and request for the return of bus services 66 and 506. Will LTA continue to rationalise bus services despite this increase in bus fares? And lastly, the public transport fare hikes coincide with record-high COE prices and increases in fares and fees for taxis and private hire vehicles in July. Singaporeans cannot help but feel squeezed no matter which mode of transport they take. Did the PTC consider the recent increases in private transport costs when approving the public transport fare hike and its impact on Singapore's plans to become a car-lite city?”
“I thank the Minister for her detailed replies to my questions. I have just two clarifications to seek. I think I heard the Minister say that for security reasons, the sharing of Singaporean passengers' biometric data with foreign governments is not on the cards yet. This suggests that it may be on the cards in future. Can I ask if the Government will seek Parliament's approval before the sharing of such personal data with foreign governments in the future? And secondly, regarding providing the reasons for rejections of immigration passes, can ICA minimally share the broad criteria that is already been shared in Parliament in their standard rejection letters to applicants so that applicants can figure out on their own where they fell short? Without this, the applicants will tend to just keep trying to apply with the same information and not really realising why is it they cannot make the cut.”
“The Bill removes the statutory right of appeal to the Minister on the decisions made by ICA on granting, revoking and varying conditions attached to PRs' permits. I have no objection to the removal of this right. I agree that foreigners have no right to demand to enter or stay in Singapore. And I note from MHA's statement that PR applicants and PRs may seek ICA's reconsideration of its decisions, particularly if there are new facts that were not previously submitted to ICA. However, when searching the ICA website, I could not find much information on submitting appeals for failed LTVP or PR applications. The website only states that failed PR applicants may submit a fresh application if there are changes to their circumstances. Anecdotally, residents often tell me that they were advised by ICA officers to make an appeal through their Member of Parliament. While I am grateful for the chance to engage more of my residents at my Meet-the-People Sessions, submitting appeals through one's Member of Parliament should not be the default means of communication between citizens and the Government. An accessible, self-service channel should be made available, particularly for appeals with a substantial volume. A secure online form should be made available on the ICA website for all immigration appeals, with clear instructions guiding appellants to submit new facts that were not previously submitted or provided in their earlier application. Mr Speaker, I believe these proposals will provide a balance between the Government's prerogatives and the needs of Singaporean families while upholding our national interests. They could lessen the anxiety and frustration that Singaporeans with foreign spouses, children and parents experience with the immigration process.”
“However, in presenting the COMPASS framework, which is used to evaluate foreigners' employment passes and went live this month, the Government emphasised that it brings benefits like transparency, clarity and predictability for businesses. COMPASS provides a points system, specific benchmarks for salaries and diversity and employs objective data so that firms can actually assess where they stand. Indeed, the COMPASS criteria spell out in no uncertain terms how many points are awarded for various factors, like salary, qualifications and improving diversity. If the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) is comfortable with the disclosure and transparency in the COMPASS framework in order to provide businesses with clarity and predictability for manpower planning, then surely, ICA can also extend these same principles to Singaporeans and their foreign spouses, children or parents who need the same clarity and predictability for their family planning. The Minister also said that the reasons for rejection may be used to arouse negative sentiments in other countries and that this may create bilateral sensitivities and is not in Singapore's interest. Sir, it is a universally accepted principle that countries have the right to make their own decisions on immigration. In any case, ICA does not need to tell the applicant that they were rejected because they were from a particular country or a particular race. If there are reasons for rejection that may conceivably cause diplomatic friction, those need not be shared with the applicant. However, the vast majority of reasons for immigration rejections are not going to sour relations with other country. Let us not throw out the baby with the bath water. Lastly, ICA should provide clearer channels for immigration appeals.”
“They do not have an easy option to settle in another country if their spouse is not given permission to live with them in Singapore for the long term, especially if they are from a lower-income group. When rejections happen without a reason, the Singaporean spouse can feel disconnected from their own nation. I have seen this in the eyes of my constituents who sought appeals for immigration applications for their spouses. Second, where mitigation paths for future applications can be furnished, ICA should do so. For example, if an applicant was rejected because their economic contributions were not deemed sufficient, they should be informed of this so that they can take steps to enter the workforce, upskill themselves and strive to perform better at work so as to earn promotions and salary increments. This is preferable over an opaque dead end. Third, ICA should provide more criteria transparency in the immigration framework similar to the Complementarity Assessment (COMPASS) framework for employment passes. Previous answers by Ministers in this House have revealed the range of factors that are considered for LTVP, PR and citizenship applications. Why not list all these criteria clearly on the ICA website and on application forms instead of expecting applicants to comb through the Parliament Hansard? Applicants meeting these criteria should get fast-track approval with discretionary rejections allowed on a case-by-case basis. The Minister told this House in 2018 that ICA does not share the specific criteria or grounds for rejecting applications due to concerns that information about detailed assessment criteria can be abused to inflate an undeserving applicant's chances of success and that some people could then try to game the system.”
“However, is this highlighted to the couple in person before the marriage registration process, keeping in mind that many of these couples may not be proficient in reading English? Furthermore, even passing the PMLA is not a guarantee of obtaining an LTVP after marriage. In another reply to me last month, the Minister revealed that only 1,900, out of the 3,000 foreigners issued with letters of LTVP eligibility, were eventually granted LTVP or LTVP-Plus status, which means 37% were not. The Minister explained that not every person who has obtained a letter of LTVP eligibility goes on to apply for an LTVP. But it is unclear if this fully accounts for the 37% gap. The Minister has stated in this House that ICA generally does not disclose the reasons for unsuccessful applications for immigration facilities. This lack of transparency is out of step with the practices in some other developed countries. In Canada, for spouse sponsorship applications that are refused, their government provides reasons for refusal in writing. Similarly, Australia's Department of Home Affairs explicitly states that if a partner's visa application is refused, the department will provide information on why the visa was refused. I wish to propose four approaches that could improve ICA's immigration process for the immediate family members of Singaporeans. First, there should be disclosure of the broad reasons for rejection of LTVP, PR and citizenship applications by foreign spouses, children and parents of Singaporeans. Singapore does not permit dual citizenship. So, this is our citizens' only homeland.”
“Sir, parents and siblings are not the only pillar of support for ex-offenders. Many may be estranged from their existing families or may have suffered divorce while incarcerated and are starting anew. In fact, having a spouse provides stability and an added incentive for them to remain crime-free. We should not deny ex-offenders who have served out their prison sentence the right to get married to anyone they choose to. Similarly, once they are married, it would be most unfair for the state to deny or delay a foreign spouse's long-term residency on account of the ex-offender's past conviction. This could put a strain on their marriage and finances and keep the ex-offender "locked" in a second prison. The Government should not make it difficult for a married couple to stay together by denying an LTVP to a foreign spouse or child of a Singaporean. Family formation is one of the core social values in Singapore and our immigration policy must support it. In 2015, ICA introduced the Pre-Marriage Long-Term Visit Pass Assessment or PMLA to give prospective cross-national couples an indication that the foreign spouse is likely to qualify for an LTVP after the marriage. However, since the PMLA was introduced, out of an annual average of 7,200 LTVP applications, only 3,000 applicants or less than half had completed the PMLA prior to applying for the LTVP, according to a reply by the Minister to my question last month. In my conversations with residents who face difficulty getting an LTVP for their foreign spouses, most were unaware of the PMLA before they tied the knot. Does the Registry of Marriages (ROM) and the Registry of Muslim Marriages advise cross-national couples to complete the PMLA before getting married? I am aware that the ROM website advises them to undergo a PMLA.”
“For foreign spouses who hold university degrees and draw high salaries, obtaining a LTVP, PR and even citizenship is usually not difficult since their income and skills add great weight to their applications. But those with low educational qualifications and incomes face far greater challenges in obtaining long-term residency. At my Meet-the-People Sessions, which are attended mainly by residents in the lower-income groups, about a fifth of cases involve immigration matters. The Singaporean residents who approached me are usually disappointed that their foreign spouses' LTVP or PR applications were unsuccessful and want me to make appeals for them. Some shared with me their deep longing to start a family but their hesitation due to their spouses' uncertain immigration status. Most do not understand why the applications were rejected because no reasons are provided by ICA. During a 2012 parliamentary exchange between Ms Indranee Rajah and the then-Minister of State Mr Masago Zulkifli, Ms Rajah highlighted three cases of Singaporeans with prior convictions who are facing difficulties getting their foreign spouses' LTVP approved. Mr Masagos agreed with Ms Rajah that families are the pillar of support for ex-offenders but clarified that family, in this case, referred to an existing family unit, not a new family unit formed when an ex-offender got married soon after his release. He added that an offender just out of prison has many issues to deal with and an environment he is not familiar with anymore. He further stated that should a marriage not work out or the husband re-offend, the spouse, who is a foreigner, will not have relatives in Singapore to turn to nor jobs to sustain herself or her children as many are, generally, low-skilled.”
“Second, I note that the Bill empowers the Minister to authorise the disclosure of passenger information to the airport operator for specific uses. Does this airport operator refer to only the Changi Airport operator or also operators of foreign airports? Do the specific uses include sharing of Singaporeans' biometric data? What enhanced safeguards are in place to ensure data security, particularly if Singaporeans' data will be shared with third-party vendors or foreign governments over which we have little control? And third, I note that Singapore is one of the first countries in the world to implement NCC-type capabilities. As shared by Minister of State Faishal in April, some of these capabilities will be implemented in a form and manner not used or tested elsewhere. I also recall that the four-and-a-half-hour disruption to immigration systems on 31 March was caused by a failed upgrade to the multimodal biometric system (MMBS). May I ask the MMBS has since been fully upgraded? What additional contingency plans will ICA put in place to ensure that the upgrade to the NCC will not cause immigration disruptions of that scale or worse? Another key area of amendments in the Bill is to enable ICA to more efficiently administer immigration passes and permits issued to foreigners and PRs. Cross-national marriages between a Singaporean and a foreigner make up about a quarter of all marriages in Singapore. Foreign spouses face many challenges settling down in Singapore, the chief of which is obtaining permission from the Government to remain in Singapore for a long term. This can be achieved first through securing a Long-Term Visit Pass or LTVP and, subsequently, a PR.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I would be addressing two areas of amendments in the Immigration (Amendment) Bill, namely, digitalising and automating immigration processes and the administration of immigration passes and permits. The Bill will introduce provisions to support ICA's new clearance concept to further automate immigration clearance. I appreciate that ICA is in the forefront of immigration technology. But I have three concerns to highlight regarding the rollout of the NCC. First, Minister of State Faishal told the House on 21 April that under the NCC, all manual counters and automated lanes will be replaced in phases with the next generation automated border clearance system gates. Does this mean that once the NCC is fully rolled out, the use of manual counters will no longer be an option for Singaporean travellers? Some categories of travellers frequently face difficulties in the process of clearing immigration. For example, some elderly citizens are unable to provide usable fingerprints due to their dry skin. Wheelchair users may have difficulty getting their irises scanned due to the height and angle of the scanners. Iris recognition systems could become prone to error as people's irises change with age or after cataract surgery and the biometrics of young children are still developing and may change over time. Will the NCC include reasonable accommodations, like wider gates for wheelchair users and adjustable scanners that can capture biometrics from travellers who cannot hold their head up for long? Most importantly, will special assistance lanes which are manned by ICA officers continue to be provided at the passenger halls of Changi Airport and all land and sea checkpoints and will they be easily accessible by all travellers with special needs?”
“Sir, I would like to ask my question again because it was not fully answered and I also have one supplementary question. Can ECDA require all preschools to adopt a child protection policy and provide a template to all preschools to customise to their own needs? A child protection policy will articulate the minimum standards laid out in Government regulations and may also include additional safeguarding commitments that are tailored to the school's unique circumstances. It will help all stakeholders to live and breathe child safety, as Minister of State Sun has said just now. My supplementary question is: is the Minister of State aware that a child protection policy not only protects children but also protects teachers and schools from unwarranted accusations by parents and students by setting clearer boundaries for all parties in their interactions with each other?”
“I thank the Minister for her replies. I note the Minister said that the discharge of wastewater is unlikely to impact the waters around Singapore. But can I ask the Minister if NEA or SFA is monitoring whether the water around the areas where our sources of seafood come from is being monitored to assess whether or not it will impact Singapore?”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, the Prime Minister said just now that CPIB informed him on 29 May 2023 that they came across information concerning Minister Iswaran that merited investigation. After the receipt of this information, did the Prime Minister allow Minister Iswaran to continue his normal duties as Minister for Transport and MP for West Coast GRC? It appears that the investigation on this case involving Minister Iswaran started some time before July, when the formal investigation was started. This formal investigation was started in July. Can I ask what is the difference between an investigation and a formal investigation by CPIB and when is this threshold crossed? Concerning the vacation of the seat of the former Speaker, can I ask the Prime Minister, did the Parliamentary seat of the former Speaker become vacant in February 2023 when he offered his resignation to the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister accepted his resignation? Lastly, the Speaker of Parliament is supposed to be impartial towards all MPs. Can I ask the Prime Minister did a conflict of interest occur due to the extramarital affair between the former Speaker and an MP when this information was not revealed to the House earlier on? Lastly, sorry, I think Minister Chan did not answer part (d) of my Question No 14, which was how many declarations of meals were made in the past year and what was the total value of these declarations?”
“I have outlined four suggestions aimed at improving Singapore's sporting ecosystem to build a stronger and more sustainable pipeline of high-performance athletes in Singapore. This will help us take steps towards realising our goals for sporting success over the coming decades and for many decades to come. I strongly support the Motion standing in the names of my hon friends Assoc Prof Jamus Lim and Mr Muhamad Faisal Abdul Manap.”
“My fourth and final suggestion is to parents of athletes and the athletes themselves. Parents have an out-sized influence on their children's sporting ambitions and progress, from a very young age through their growing years. If you are a parent of a talented and athletic youngster, do take the time to listen to and understand your child's motivations and dreams, assess whether they truly love their sport and do not push them to excel in a sport just to "DSA" into a good school or, worse, live your own dreams vicariously through them. I say this as a reminder to myself, too. Most athletes will only have the intrinsic motivation to push themselves to reach the pinnacle of their arena if they genuinely enjoy participating in the sport. Your child must know that you love them, regardless of their results on the field. If your child has aspirations to become a world-class athlete, encourage them to pursue their dreams, take the time to find out the available pathways and support them within your means. The path will be less well-trodden than the ones most of their peers are taking and there is no guarantee of success. It is, therefore, important to focus on enjoying the journey, not just the destination. In conclusion, Madam, sport has the potential to rally our nation together behind a common cause. When Singaporeans cheer in support of our sportsmen and women, listen to Majulah Singapura playing at the podium or see Singaporean athletes giving their all on the field, in the pool or on the court, we all feel an immense rush of pride in our nation. Yet, for a nation as wealthy and as diverse as Singapore, our record of performance in sports on the world stage leaves much to be desired.”
“It could also invite the high-performing athletes in primary schools for holiday camps at the Sports School during the school holidays. These will enable the young athletes and parents to better understand and familiarise themselves with the Sports School. The Sports School will then be able to better attract a critical mass of students in each sport that will, in turn, make the school more attractive to prospective students. Third, despite interest in sports, the local media should play a bigger role in featuring local athletes in international competitions. When Singaporeans turn on their television sets to watch sports, they seldom see their compatriots competing. In fact, it is so rare to see Singaporeans in world-class sports competitions that when it does happen, like when Loh Kean Yew won the badminton world championships in 2021, many of us specifically tuned in to watch them. Unfortunately, in the case of Loh Kean Yew's amazing win, it was so unexpected that even our public broadcaster did not make preparations to broadcast the final match live to Singaporeans. Matches featuring local athletes in the advanced stages of international competitions should be telecast live on free-to-air television or live-streamed online. During major games, all the matches and races where Team Singapore athletes are competing in should be uploaded to an online video platform like MeWatch or YouTube. There should not just be a daily highlights programme which features a few athletes in action. The media features could include interviews with high-performance athletes sharing their insights about their day-to-day schedules and training. All these will spark interest in the various sports among athletes, fans and commercial sponsors.”
“Even those who do not ultimately make it into an American university, the disciplined focus in both academics and sports through the secondary school years will better prepare student athletes to enter our local polytechnics and universities. Athletes are also much sought after by many companies after they graduate because many employers recognise that athletes' discipline, drive and good time management skills are among the many valuable skills that they bring to the workplace. Despite the attractiveness of the college pathway, there appears to be a lack of awareness about it among many student athletes and their parents about the steps they need to take to pursue it. SportSG, NSAs, sports academies, schools and coaches should conduct more sharing sessions and provide more guidance for athletes and their parents on the college pathway. This will allow parents and athletes to make considered plans in developing their proficiency in their sport. The college pathway could provide a stronger pipeline of athletes in several sports that Singapore has potential to excel in, at major games. My second suggestion is that the Singapore Sports School should expand its enrolment of students beyond the nine "academy sports" and provide a study-and-train environment for more student athletes who can demonstrate their interest and potential to compete at an international level in their sport. To make this successful, the Sports School and SportSG need to better market the benefits of their sports and academic programmes to prospective students. The Sports School can arrange more sharing sessions at various primary schools nationwide, in addition to the existing Sports School open house.”
“The University of Southern California, for example, had 65 past, present or incoming student athletes competing in the 2020 Tokyo Olympics, compared to 23 from Singapore. USC athletes collectively won 11 gold medals in those games. Many of the top performing universities in inter-collegiate sports are also top-ranked academic institutions. They include Stanford UC Berkeley, Duke University of Michigan, UCLA and USC. Harvard, Princeton, UPenn and other Ivy League universities are also NCAA Division I members. In fact, the Ivy league is a Collegiate Athletic Conference comprising eight schools in northeastern US, although it is more commonly used to refer to academically elite American universities. Division I athletes are sometimes offered "full-ride" athletics scholarships. These can cover tuition fees, housing, meals, transport, apparel, equipment coaching, sports science expertise and even academic tutoring for the athletes. By pursuing the college pathway, more Singaporean student athletes can have the opportunity to benefit from the best of both worlds, a top-quality university education and elite level competition in their sport. College sports can be a springboard to the professional leagues after graduation. Several Singaporeans who competed for US colleges returned to represent Singapore in major games. These include swimmer Joseph Schooling who graduated from the University of Texas at Austin; golfer Hailey Loh, who is studying in California Baptist University and our Parliamentary colleague, the hon Member Mark Chay, who graduated from Brigham Young University.”
“I would like to offer some suggestions for MCCY, SportSG, NSAs, coaches, schools, parents and student athletes to consider. First, given how important academics are to Singaporeans, it is not fruitful to try to persuade them to choose sports over studies. We should, therefore, explore pathways that allow student athletes to pursue both their studies and sports at the highest level. This is possible through what is known as the college pathway. Most universities in the United States are members of the National Collegiate Athletic Association, or NCAA. There are three divisions in these sports. The top tier, known as Division I, runs inter-collegiate championships in 13 male and 13 female sports, including swimming, soccer, track and field, tennis, golf, water polo, field hockey, basketball, volleyball and diving. Many of these are popular sports in Singapore which our athletes compete in during major games, like the SEA Games, Asian Games and the Olympics. College sports is huge in the US and has a television audience comparable to the top professional team sports. This popularity attracts commercial sponsors and television licensing rights and is a huge revenue earner for some universities to the tune of some US$30 million a year. The quality of college sports in the US is so high that many of the best junior athletes from all over the world, including Europe, Australia and China, vie for the opportunity to study in these universities on full athletics scholarships while competing in their sport. Many of these universities have students that win more international championships than many small nations.”
“In lower-paying sports, athletes must depend on salaries paid by their clubs or NSAs to cover their expenses. It is a tough life. Despite the desire for sports champions in Singapore, pragmatism often leads parents to view pursuing a professional sports career as impractical for their children. Consequently, many talented student athletes choose to enter top mainstream secondary schools through the Direct School Admission programme rather than attending the specialised Singapore Sports School. This is despite the fact that the latter often offers a more favourable environment for balancing both sports and studies. However, student athletes enrol in mainstream schools encounter constraints when compared to their peers in the Sports School. The fixed timetables in mainstream schools do not cater specifically to athletes, making it difficult for them to undergo long hours of training and overseas competition. While some mainstream schools offer limited flexibility on an individual basis, such as permitting athletes to skip a week of school for international competitions, the time away from lessons eventually takes a toll on their studies. With this reality in play, we should not be surprised that we continue to have a narrow pipeline of world-class athletes. The "academics-first" approach is one that most Singaporeans have chosen over the years and will continue to choose in the years to come. Given that many high-performance athletes are of school-going age, if nothing is done to shift the youth sports development paradigm, we will continue to see many budding sports stars eventually fizzle out after they complete secondary school. How do we shift this paradigm?”
“Athletes need to travel overseas, usually during the school term, to take part in tournaments which are necessary for gaining competition experience and earning ranking points. It is extremely challenging for a secondary school student in a mainstream local school to balance this heavy load of training, travel and competition with their studies without burning themselves out physically, mentally and emotionally. An exception is found in the Singapore Sports School where academic schedules are customised to accommodate the student athletes' training and competition commitments. The hon Member Poh Li San shared about this earlier, too. The Sports School has produced some very successful graduates, including badminton player Loh Kean Yew and table tennis player Clarence Chew, who have both won gold for our nation at international competitions. This leads me to my next point: the Singaporean outlook towards the nexus of sports and studies. In Singapore, the well-established route for young individuals to achieve a comfortable income and provide for their family involved completing their education, graduating from either a polytechnic or university and securing a professional position, preferably in a bank, tech company or law firm. Becoming a professional athlete, on the other hand, is probably one of the most difficult paths a Singaporean can choose. It is not a ticket out of poverty in Singapore as it is in some countries. Even if we look at some of the highest paying sports like golf and tennis, only athletes ranked in the top 150 or so in the world earn enough prize money to support themselves. Those outside these rankings may struggle to even cover their expenses, which include travel, accommodation, coaching and physiotherapy fees.”
“This does not even take into account the quality of their training and their innate talent, which are important factors for their future success. In fact, many world-class athletes today started training in the high-performance environment from as young an age as five. Many were handpicked while they were still learning to walk, often by their own parents. In his autobiography, "Black and White", Richard Williams describes how he came up with the plan to train his two daughters to become tennis champions before they were even born. We all know how successful Venus and Serena Williams became. There are also many other instances of fraught relationships between parents and their child athletes, even to the point of abuse. And I am not suggesting that Richard Williams' approach is right for every athlete. However, this is the nature of an international competition young athletes are up against. For most sports, in order to become a world-class athlete, the period of very high intensity training often starts from the age of 12 or even younger. This coincides with the time Singaporean students are the busiest, preparing for their PSLE, "O" and "A" levels. Training for just a few hours a week with the school's co-curricular activity (CCA) sports team is not high-performance training and this pace of training will generally limit the students' success in their sport to inter-school sports competitions. High-performance athletes are generally expected to put in between 12 hours and 30 hours of high-intensity training each week, with the number of hours increasing with age. One local national sports association (NSA) provides a training volume guideline of 28 hours a week and 27 tournaments a year for 16-year-old male athletes in their sport.”