Hazel Poa
Singapore
“Alright. I would like to seek confirmation that the latest round of tariff is a violation of the FTA between Singapore and the US, and if so, are we contemplating any action on that front? Given that we are a small country, are we exploring joint negotiations with other countries?”
“I urge the Government to set higher outpatient withdrawal limits for older Singaporeans and adjust them annually to keep up with healthcare cost inflation. Chair, in Mandarin, please.”
“I think the Senior Minister of State for her reply. Is the Senior Minister of State able to share what steps NCS has taken to prevent a recurrence? And has there been any impact on the execution of this policy due to the implementation being earlier than planned?”
“First of all, let me clarify that PSP is not displeased with the vouchers, because we believe that they will help Singaporeans in the short term, but not over the long term. The Prime Minister has said that he has concrete plans for the future.”
“I wish to make another pitch to the Prime Minister to consider measures to lower cost of living. Does he not agree that if we lower cost of living, it will benefit all Singaporeans, whereas if we take the approach of investing in education and training, to raise wages, then, not everybody can benefit from that, especially older Singaporea…”
“Can the Minister explain the logic behind this position that it is okay to impose or to specify to EBRC that the average size of GRCs and the proportion of SMCs should be maintained at current levels, but it is overimposing on EBRC to ask them to explain the reasons for their changes?”
The complete record
Every one of 388 lines we hold for Hazel Poa, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 8.
“For commercial vehicles, we believe the current highest-bidder-wins system can be maintained, and a new COE category should be established for private hire cars. PSP proposes that instead of bidding for Categories A, B, and D using cash, for private cars and motorcycles, we create a new bidding system using "COE credits" . Under this system, the Government would distribute "COE credits” to all adult Singaporean citizens and permanent residents every month. For example, we could give 100 credits to each adult Singaporean citizen and 70 credits to each adult permanent resident. Additional credits could be given to those with young children, those over retirement age, the disabled, and those serving National Service. People can accumulate these credits, buy and sell them, and then use these credits to bid for COEs. Under our proposed COE system, people with greater need for car ownership have the opportunity to buy cars at a lower cost; those willing to wait and accumulate credits also have the chance to buy cars at a lower cost; those who choose not to buy cars can sell their credits to offset public transport costs. This will create a wealth transfer from car owners to non-car owners. We also propose issuing gift credits that can only be given away and not bought or sold, to encourage a spirit of mutual help in society. With these gift credits, even struggling families would have more opportunities and ability to give to friends. The income from COEs is a considerable sum, and abandoning it entirely would create a large fiscal gap. Therefore, we propose that in addition to bidding with credits, car owners must pay a COE base fee. We suggest two ways to set this fee. First, we can set a fixed fee based on historical COE prices for Categories A, B, and D.”
“However, PSP believes that there is a need to send a signal against the accumulation of multiple cars by ultra-wealthy households for pleasure when these scarce COEs could be more useful in the hands of another household that does not currently own a car. Thus, we continue to feel that an additional levy should be imposed on any additional car purchases by a household. However, in order to be fairer to multi-generational families residing together or larger families, exceptions can be made where the household size is such that the ratio of household members to each car is five or more before such additional purchase. Mr Speaker, in Mandarin, please. (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Singapore introduced the Certificate of Entitlement (COE) system in 1990. Over the years, while the COE system has effectively controlled the number of cars in Singapore, it has also been criticised because under the current system, the highest bidder wins. This has made car ownership a privilege of the wealthy, without considering the benefits that private cars can bring to families in need, such as those with elderly, children, or disabled members. PSP believes that public policy should not only consider economic benefits. We must consider the needs of the general public to formulate fairer and more comprehensive policies. In 2023, I called on the Government in Parliament to consider adjusting the COE system based on public needs. At that time, Transport Minister S. Iswaran rejected this proposal, citing some implementation difficulties. Therefore, today I want to propose a COE system that can consider needs and is implementable for the government's consideration.”
“First option, a flat fee of say $50,000 per Category A (Cat A) COE and $70,000 per Cat B COE. The flat fee can be determined by taking reference from historical COE prices and then indexed to inflation thereafter. The second option, a percentage of the car’s open market value, which is how the Additional Registration Fee (ARF) is calculated. This will make it more expensive to own luxury cars, while those who need a car solely for transport will find it easier to own cheaper cars. This makes for a more equitable car ownership policy. In fact, for this option, we can do it via raising the ARF to make up for the lost revenue. Even with the implementation of a base fee, there will still be some loss of revenue for the Government, as these monies are transferred from vehicle owners to public transport users instead of to the Government. PSP is thus mindful of the need to ensure prudent Government spending. It has always been a priority for PSP to ensure that the Government’s policies do not over-burden the public purse. For example, we have previously questioned the Government’s grants to Singapore Press Holdings, expenditures by the People’s Association and spending related to the Sports Hub. It is also our view that the Government needs to re-assess how we are spending or collecting money in some areas of public policy to ensure greater fairness for Singaporeans. Housing is one example. COE policy is another. In 2023, I asked the Minister for Transport in this House if the authorities would consider introducing a levy for additional vehicle purchases, similar to the Additional Buyer’s Stamp Duty, or ABSD, used in the housing market. At the time, the Minister said that high COE prices were not explained by multiple car-owning households.”
“As individuals, we are better able to see the circumstances of the people around us and make our own judgement on who has a greater need. We can transfer our Gift COE credits to those with greater needs or simply just to whoever we wish to help. For example, in addition to the 100 COE credits for each adult Singaporean, we can give 10 Gift COE credits. To prevent abuses, we can put certain safeguards in place. For example, Gift COE credits cannot be used by people who live at the same address. Also, once A has gifted B with credits, B or anyone from B's household cannot give credits to A or anyone from A’s household for the next one year. This system allows us to plug some of the gaps that is sometimes unavoidable in public policies and fosters a climate of mutual help in the community. We believe that the bonds in our community will be the stronger for it. Gifting tends to be a one-way flow from the richer to the poorer. With the gift credits, even the poorest among us will have opportunities to give something to their friends. COE is a significant revenue source for the Government, accounting for an estimated $4.66 billion in revenue in FY2023, or about 4.5% of total Government revenue. PSP is aware that if the Government foregoes all COE revenues, there will be a big hole in public revenue that will have to be filled through other means. Thus, to reduce the impact of the new COE system on Government revenue, we propose that the Government collect a base fee per COE. In other words, in order to get a COE, you will need to pay a base fee to the Government, plus COE credits, which can be accumulated for free or bought from others. We would like to suggest two ways to determine this base fee.”
“Those who want to own a vehicle can buy the COE credits from those who do not, in order to submit a higher bid. This sets up a system of transfer from vehicle owners to those using public transport. Foreigners residing in Singapore who wish to buy a car will also have to buy COE credits from Singaporeans and PRs. Under this system, unavoidably, those who are financially better off would still be better able to acquire a COE, although it is ameliorated to some extent by distributing COE credits based on needs factors. It is also accompanied by a redistribution of wealth from vehicle owners to non-car owners and from foreigners to Singaporeans and PRs. It is thus not only a tool for controlling the number of vehicles, but also a tool for redistribution that is self-adjusting based on different economic conditions. For example, when the economic gap between the upper segments and the rest widens, the transfers automatically increase with the additional purchasing power of the top, and vice-versa. The intention of PSP’s proposed system is to: one, lower the cost for those with greater need compared to those with less; two, lower the cost for those willing to wait and accumulate their COE credits as compared to those who are less patient; and three, reward those who choose not to own a car and help them better cope with the rising cost of public transportation. In addition to the normal COE credits, we propose the introduction of Gift COE credits, which can only be gifted to others, not sold. While we try to formulate public policies to cater to different circumstances as best as we can, it is not practical to expect all scenarios to be covered.”
“However, then-Minister for Transport S Iswaran cited various practical difficulties incorporating needs into the system. Therefore, today I would like to propose a feasible COE system that takes into account needs factors for the Government's consideration. We propose that instead of bidding for Categories A, B and D COEs using cash, bids should be placed using COE credits. What are COE credits and how do we get them? COE credits will be distributed by Government to adult Singapore Citizens and Permanent Residents (PRs) each month. The number of COE credits received by each person will depend on various factors, such as nationality, the number of children, age, disability and so forth. For illustration purposes, let me give some examples of how we can distribute the COE credits. For example, we can distribute 100 credits to each adult Singapore Citizen and 70 to each adult PR. Those with children aged 12 or below get an additional 200 credits per child who is a Singaporean Citizen; and 140 per child who is a PR. Senior citizens above the retirement age gets an additional 100 credits. Those who have mobility impairment, such as those who qualify for Class 1 or Class 2 car park labels for the disabled, can get an additional 200 credits. In recognition of the contributions of those who served National Service (NS), we can also distribute additional credits to them. These examples given are not exhaustive, but serve to illustrate how we can use this system to take into account needs and social contributions and make it less costly for those with greater need to own a vehicle. These COE credits will be transferable. Families can pool their COE credits together to bid for a vehicle. Larger families will, thus, find it less costly to get a car. COE credits can also be traded.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Certificate of Entitlement, or COE, system was introduced in 1990 to manage the growth of the car population in Singapore. It does so by allocating a limited supply of COEs via a bidding system. Those with the highest bid win the right to own a vehicle in Singapore. The COE system currently is based on purely economic considerations, on the belief that economic efficiency is optimised by allocating resources to those most willing and able to pay. This has meant that car ownership has also become a goal that is only achievable by the wealthy, without regard for who has a greater need for a car. The Progress Singapore Party (PSP) is of the view that public policies should not be based on economic optimisation alone. Social considerations must also be taken into account for fairer and more holistic policies. In the case of commercial vehicles, PSP has no objection to the current system of allocating based on those most willing and able to pay. However, for private vehicles, PSP believes that even though not everyone in Singapore will be able to own a car, we should also consider the needs of certain groups in society in deciding who gets to own a car. We would, therefore, like to propose a hybrid COE system that takes into account both economic and social factors in the allocation of private vehicles, which will only apply to Categories A, B and D COEs. This also means that PSP will support the creation of a separate COE category for private hire cars (PHCs). We look forward to the Transport Minister sharing an update on this during the Budget debate in February. In 2023, I urged the Government to consider adjusting our COE system to take into consideration needs factors, such as families with persons with disabilities (PwDs) or children.”
“I thank the Minister of State for answering my questions. I asked for an example of actual cases where the accident resulted in death and MHA felt that the penalty was too harsh and the reply was no. So, the reason for removing the mandatory minimum penalties was for judicial discretion. Given that the mandatory minimum penalties were introduced in 2019, I would like to ask what has changed. Why was judicial discretion not an issue in 2019 but is now an issue in 2025? Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: I thank the Member for the clarification. As I shared earlier, we review our law from time to time. From 2019 to now, the Traffic Police, as well as the agencies have been working together and also there have been cases whereby, as I shared in my answer, where the current amendment that we are proposing would provide a better option, more flexibility as well as avenues for a fairer sentence regime than what it is available today. I also want to assure the Member that even though we will remove the minimum element of it, the Court will look at the facts of the case and it will enable more flexibility and a fairer outcome in the judgment. [(proc text) Question, "That the Bill be read a Second time", put. (proc text)]”
“She also said to make our roads safer we need to strengthen deterrence against irresponsible driving behaviour. So, why is the Government now reducing the deterrence effect of this policy at the time when our road safety is in fact deteriorating? PSP opposes this amendment. (In English): Madam, we oppose the Bill in its current form, but will support the Bill if amendments are made to retain the current mandatory penalties for reckless or dangerous driving leading to death.”
“By retaining mandatory minimum jail terms, we send a clear message to motorists that they have the responsibility for helping to keep other road users safe and there would be serious consequences should they wilfully fail to do so. We support the other amendments in the Bill, which include, streamlining the commencement dates of disqualification periods and strengthening the Traffic Police's suspension powers. However, PSP cannot support the amendment to remove mandatory minimum sentence and mandatory minimum disqualification periods for first-time offenders at a time of rising traffic fatalities and fatal speeding accidents. We urge the Government to maintain the current mandatory penalties in cases of reckless or dangerous driving leading to death. Mdm Deputy Speaker, in Mandarin, please. (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill being read for the Second time today seeks to remove the mandatory minimum jail term and mandatory minimum disqualification period for first-time offenders who commit dangerous or reckless driving leading to death or grievous hurt. PSP cannot support this change. According to Police data, there has been a significant increase of fatal traffic accidents from 2020 to 2023. If you compare the first half of 2024 to the first half of 2023, the number of fatalities from traffic accidents increased by 2.8% while fatal speeding accidents nearly doubled from 13 to 25 cases. Many citizens are, therefore deeply concerned about road safety. In 2019, the Government implemented mandatory minimum sentences for reckless driving behaviour. Then Second Minister for Home Affairs Josephine Teo said that drivers who blatantly disregard the safety of other road users should be severely punished.”
“Their lives came to a tragic end because of irresponsible driving. Strong deterrence is needed against irresponsible driving behaviours leading to death, which is irreversible. In 2019, Mrs Teo said, "motorists who have a blatant disregard for the safety of other road users should be severely punished" and "to make our roads safer, we need stronger deterrence against irresponsible driving". So, why is there an apparent policy U-turn by the Government today with the removal of mandatory minimum jail terms for first-time offenders even in cases of reckless or dangerous driving leading to death? Based on figures from the Singapore Police Force (SPF), the number of fatal accidents dropped in 2020 when compared to 2019, but thereafter increased every year from 2021 to 2023. In its mid-year report in August 2024, it was revealed that when comparing the first half of 2024 with the first half of 2023, the number of traffic accident fatalities increased by 2.8% and the number of fatal speeding accidents almost doubled from 13 to 25. Last year, we debated the issue of dangerous driving in this House after the six-vehicle crash in Tampines on 22 April 2024 where a driver sped, ran a red light and caused the tragic deaths of two persons. At the time, the Government rejected calls to consider introducing stiffer penalties for road traffic offences. Now, we hear that the Government is, in fact, going to do the opposite, by removing the mandatory minimum penalties for first-time offenders. As we work towards a car-lite society, where the privilege of owning and driving a car is for the minority, we must consider the interests of road users who are not motorists.”
“Will the Minister be able to share with this House some recent cases of dangerous driving leading to death where they believe the mandated minimum jail term of two years was too harsh? Many Singaporeans are baffled by the timing of this decision to do away with mandatory minimum penalties. Online and offline, many members of the public have shared that the proposed changes would make the roads feel less safe for themselves, especially pedestrians and cyclists, and are concerned that the change would lead to a rise in the number of dangerous driving cases. These concerns are understandable given that there has been an increasing trend in the number of fatal accidents in recent years. The mandatory minimum sentences for dangerous driving causing death or grievous hurt had been introduced in 2019 in order to increase the sentencing norms for irresponsible driving offences and to avoid manifestly inadequate jail sentences for egregious offences. During the Second Reading debate, then Second Minister for Home Affairs, Mrs Josephine Teo, said that irresponsible driving remained a big concern. She said, "Why is this a problem? Because irresponsible driving can have deadly consequences. Even if victims survive the accident, they or their families may suffer long-term problems – sometimes, medical, sometimes, permanent disabilities." From time to time, we hear of terrible tragedies on the road. Last year, on 22 April, a driver sped and ran a red light in Tampines. Six vehicles were involved in the accident and two people died. Mdm Norzihan Juwahib had just bought a new flat and celebrated Hari Raya there the day before the accident. Afifah Munirah Muhammad Azril was a 17-year-old student at Temasek Junior College who was described as a high flier in school.”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, road traffic regulations play a very important role in protecting the safety and well-being of our vulnerable road users in our neighbourhoods, including the elderly and young children. As such, the Progress Singapore Party (PSP) has some concerns with the proposed amendments to the Road Traffic Act that we hope the Government can address today. Members of the public have expressed concern about the removal of the mandatory minimum jail term and mandatory minimum disqualification period for first-time offenders, even in cases of reckless or dangerous driving leading to death. PSP agrees with these concerns. The Government's justification for making these amendments is that the current mandated minimums are too harsh and may cause some drivers to be overly punished as a result. However, it is important to note that section 64 on reckless and dangerous driving already carries a higher level of culpability than driving without due care and attention in section 65. Drivers who run red lights or drive recklessly at dangerous speeds are knowingly and wilfully putting other road users at risk. In justifying the amendment, MHA have shared several examples where the current laws as applied would be too harsh. Two can be found in Annex A from MHA's press release on the Bill published on 11 November 2024. Another can be found in MHA's response on 29 November 2024 to letters from the public on The Straits Times Forum. As it is currently not clear if these cases are purely hypothetical or based on actual cases, can the Minister clarify whether these examples are based on actual cases? Furthermore, none of these cases mentioned involved fatalities as a result of dangerous or careless driving.”
“We hope that after this Bill is enacted, we will be able to prevent more victims from voluntarily transferring funds to scammers, which will hopefully reduce the attractiveness of Singapore as a target for scammers. Sir, notwithstanding my clarifications, PSP supports the Bill.”
“An important principle of private property rights is that users have the right to decide how to dispose of their assets. To uphold this important principle, PSP proposes that we should establish an opt- out clause, allowing bank users to opt out of this restriction. To ensure that users are not invoking this opt-out clause under the influence of scammers, we propose setting a 30-day cooling off period. The opt-out clause would only take effect 30 days after the user invokes it, during which time the Police can restrict bank accounts to prevent fraud. Furthermore, Restriction Orders (Ros) may drive some emotionally vested victims to desperation, for example, victims of romance scams who are forcibly prevented from remitting money to their lovers may make impulsive or foolish choices. These victims need emotional support. How does the Police plan to provide such support? PSP proposes that the Bill should stipulate that the Police must consider the opinions of social workers before issuing ROs. Scam victim should receive counselling from social workers who can, with the assistance of the victim's family members, determine whether the RO would cause harm to the victim. This will better help the Police decide whether the RO is beneficial for the victim. Guarding against scams is everyone's responsibility. We hope that after the implementation of this Bill, we can prevent more people from voluntarily transferring money to scammers, thereby reducing Singapore’s attractiveness to scammers. (In English): Sir, a whole-of-society effort is required to prevent the scourge of scams from spreading. The Government can only do so much to protect Singaporeans from scams. The onus is also on Singaporeans to remain vigilant and take steps to protect themselves from potential scams.”
“If so, while this may protect the other joint account holder from financial losses caused by another joint account holder who is being scammed, we must also ensure that there are mechanisms to avoid unduly inconveniencing joint account holders. During the public consultation by Reaching Everyone for Active Citizenry @ Home (REACH), members of the public suggested that individuals should be allowed to continue with General Interbank Recurring Order (GIRO) payments, including bill payments to legitimate organisations, while an RO is in force. PSP supports such a suggestion. The Government has said that the banks are unable to exempt selected transactions, such as GIRO payments and bill payments, from the RO, without significant system changes. However, a freeze on such legitimate payments may add to the inconvenience and confusion faced by scam victims during an already difficult time. In addition, they may face financial penalties for any late or unsuccessful payment. We urge the Government to work with the banks to set up the system changes and enact this suggestion as soon as possible. Mr Speaker, in Mandarin, please. (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, Sir, the Protection from Scams Bill being read the second time today is an unprecedented piece of legislation. Once passed, we may become the first country in the world to allow the Police, under reasonable circumstances, to restrict bank transactions to prevent fraud. PSP believes that the intention behind this Bill is good. In recent years, scam cases have been on the rise and it is necessary for us to take to strong measures to protect our citizens from the threats posed by scams. However, PSP also believes that the money in the bank accounts belongs to the users as their assets.”
“The Progress Singapore Party's (PSP) suggestion is for an explicit provision to be added to clause 4(b) that the Police must take into account the views of a social worker before issuing the RO. Scam victims should be counselled by a social worker and be provided mental health support. With the assistance of family members, the social worker can determine whether an RO would be to the victim's benefit or might instead cause harm. This would better help the Police decide whether an RO would benefit the victim. PSP would like to raise several further clarifications about the Bill. The Government has said that it will put in place a mechanism for an individual who is the subject of an RO to have access to his monies for legitimate reasons, such as sustaining daily living and paying bills. Will this mechanism be extended to all RO subjects automatically, or will they have to submit appeals to withdraw monies for legitimate reasons? If it is the latter, can the Police consider streamlining the mechanism, because it is likely that almost all RO subjects will submit such an appeal? RO subjects may face significant hardship if they are unable to access their money for legitimate reasons for an extended period. Additionally, how will the Police determine the quantum of these withdrawals? How much proof will the Police require the individual to show? Will the Police also subject these monies to restrictions or monitor whether individuals are also sending these withdrawals to scammers? Next, will the RO extend to joint accounts owned by the individual?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, scams have proliferated in recent years and appear to be increasing in number. In the first six months of 2024, scam victims in Singapore lost a record high of over $385.6 million. The Bill we are debating today is a groundbreaking one. If passed, we could be the first country in the world to allow the Police to restrict bank accounts and an individual's banking transactions, if there is reasonable belief that the individual will make money transfers to a scammer. The Bill is well-intentioned. Eighty-six percent of scams in the first half of 2024 involved the voluntary transfer of monies by the victim to the scammer. By allowing the Police to restrict a potential victim's bank account for 30 days in the first instance and up to 180 days in total, we will provide the Police, banks or family members with more time to convince potential scam victims that they may be at risk of being manipulated into sending money to scammers. That being said, the money in the bank accounts belong to the account holders and to uphold the principle that they have the right to determine its use. We suggest introducing a provision for individuals to opt out, subject to some safeguards. These safeguards can include a 30-day period before the opting out takes effect, the opting out must be done in person and after a compulsory counselling session. Additionally, an RO may run the risk of pushing emotionally-vested victims into desperation. For example, a victim of a romance scam may be emotionally devastated if they are prevented from sending money to the scammer, who has also become their lover. Such victims may need emotional support. How does the Police intend to support such victims?”
“The NEA guidelines on contract terms, whether there is any legal force behind it and what are the consequences for deviating from those guidelines?”
“Allow me to first correct a misunderstanding by Senior Minister of State Koh. He mentioned that there is an inconsistency in our proposals for rent between mine and Mr Leong Mun Wai's. I just want to clarify that there is no inconsistency. In my speech, I used the term pre-determined rent, not fixed rent. So, pre-determined is either a fixed rent of $500 per month or 3% of gross revenue. In my English version, I did not go into the details because it was already covered by Mr Leong. But in my Chinese portion, I did mention this. I have two clarifications for Senior Minister of State Koh. He mentioned that the Government will ensure that the SEHC operators do not profit excessively. Can I ask how the Government does that? Do you monitor the profitability level of the operators, for example, their return on equity ratios? If so, can Senior Minister of State Koh share the data? The second clarification is: he mentioned that NEA has guidelines on rental contracts. Can I ask whether there is any legal force behind those guidelines? What are the consequences if rental contracts deviate from those guidelines?”
“We believe such provisions are unfair to hawkers and could potentially be abused for profiteering. We suggest amending the Code of Conduct for Leases of Retail Premises to prohibit such practices. We believe that the six proposals we put forward today will effectively lower the cost of living for Singaporeans and strengthen the sustainability of our hawker culture. We hope the Government will seriously consider implementing the recommendations we have proposed today. (In English): Mr Speaker, Sir, PSP understands that many Singaporeans, especially the lower income and the elderly are extremely concerned about the cost of living. Over the years, affordable hawker food has been one of the major ways through which the cost of living has been kept in check for Singaporeans. We recognise the importance of this. As circumstances change, we need to adjust our policies to ensure that hawker food remains affordable in a sustainable way. We believe that our six proposals will substantially help lower the cost of living for Singaporeans while ensuring that being a hawker remains a viable and sustainable livelihood for Singaporeans. We hope that the Government will seriously consider these proposals.”
“We believe that under this rental model, most hawkers will pay lower rents. Lowering rents at hawker centres will also help to reduce rents at private coffee shops and food courts, thereby lowering the cost of living for all Singaporeans. If stalls are not allocated based on rent, how should they be allocated? We propose two methods. The first is random balloting. The second is through customer voting. For example, Hawker Singapore could organise tasting sessions, inviting nearby residents to sample and vote to determine the winners of stalls in neighbourhood hawker centres. Third, we propose that the Government allow hawkers to hire one Work Permit holder as a hawker assistant to alleviate manpower shortages. Fourth, in recent years, social enterprise hawker centres and HDB-leased coffee shops have successively mandated hawkers to provide "budget meals" at their own cost. PSP does not oppose budget meals, but we believe they should be funded by the Government. Many hawkers do not earn high incomes and they work hard for their money. They should not be forced to provide budget meals at their own cost. We believe a better approach would be for the Government to pay for targeted discounts or meal vouchers for those in need. Fifth, we propose that the Government establish a centralised procurement system, contracting with wholesalers to supply hawkers with commonly used ingredients such as cooking oil, rice, flour, sugar, salt and eggs at bulk prices. This will help lower the prices of cooked food, thereby reducing the cost of living for all Singaporeans. Sixth, PSP has received feedback that some operators of social enterprise hawker centres currently require hawkers to purchase gas and crockery from designated suppliers at higher prices, causing unhappiness.”
“Contracts that deviate from this must seek the tenant's agreement and be submitted to the Fair Tenancy Industry Committee, as is the existing practice. Mr Speaker, Mandarin, please. (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] For many years, hawker centres have played a crucial role in the lives of many Singaporeans, serving as places where we can obtain affordable food. In 2020, hawker culture is inscribed onto UNESCO's Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity. To ensure that hawker culture can be preserved and continue to develop, PSP puts forward a Motion on hawker culture, calling on the Government to review its policies relating to hawkers and the management of hawker centres. This is to address the various issues currently faced by hawkers, ensure that the industry can attract the next generation of Singaporeans and ensure that prices at hawker centres remain affordable for the public. To improve the prospects and livelihoods of hawkers and to ensure that hawker centres can continue to provide affordable food, PSP today proposes six recommendations. First, we propose to gradually phase out social enterprise hawker centres and centralise the management of all hawker centres under a new Government agency called Hawker Singapore. In addition to managing hawker centres nationwide, this agency will also be responsible for actively promoting hawker culture both domestically and internationally, in collaboration with other relevant agencies such as the Singapore Tourism Board and Enterprise Singapore. Second, we propose to stop the current practice of awarding stalls to the highest bidder. We suggest setting the rent at $500 per month or 3% of total turnover, whichever is higher.”
“Hawkers have the option to get their supplies through such arrangements or they could still choose to use their own suppliers if they think that it is of better quality or it gives them some other competitive advantage. Currently, we already have a company, ALPS Pte Ltd, that purchases drugs, medical and non-medical supplies and equipment, and services for Singapore’s three public healthcare clusters. Last year, PSP had called on the Government to centralise drug procurement across all public and private medical institutions and distribute drugs to public and private health facilities on a not-for-profit basis. It would not be a huge stretch to set up a similar centralised procurement system to bulk buy all the essential raw ingredients used by hawkers in Singapore. We believe that such a system would have a very substantial impact on reducing the cost of living in Singapore. I would like to emphasise that no hawker will be forced to get their supplies through PSP's proposed centralised procurement system. Additionally, the Government will not provide any subsidies to hawkers through this system. All savings will come from bulk purchasing the ingredients from wholesalers. We have received feedback that, currently, some SEHC operators require hawkers to purchase supplies, such as gas and crockery from designated suppliers. This has caused unhappiness in cases where the designated suppliers charged a higher price than free market. We believe that such provisions in the rental contracts are unfair to hawkers and provide potential for abuse and profiteering. Landlords should not be specifying who their tenants should be buying from. We propose that the Code of Conduct for Leasing of Retail Premises be revised to explicitly cover hawkers and prohibit all such practices.”
“This will provide vulnerable groups with some much-needed assistance in the short term to ensure that their meals remain affordable. This approach ensures that assistance is more targeted at the more vulnerable. The Government’s current “budget meal” approach, however, is open to all. In the past, we have argued for basic goods and services to be exempted from the Goods and Services Tax (GST). The Government’s response has always been that this would also benefit the rich, and targeted vouchers and rebates are better. Therefore, I am sure the Government can understand how the hawkers feel when they see customers visibly better off than them financially, buying budget meals from them. Is this not a case of double standards? How is this fair to the hawkers? Secondly, PSP’s approach ensures greater fairness to all vulnerable Singaporeans, not just those staying near the social enterprise hawker centres or rental HDB coffee shops. Thirdly, our proposal is more sustainable because it will be funded by the Government instead of the hawkers themselves. As my colleague Mr Leong Mun Wai has explained, the “budget meal” initiative is being paid for by hawkers themselves, but many of them are themselves lower-income Singaporeans who are not in a good position to pay for such initiatives. I would like to share another proposal by PSP to lower costs for hawkers and keep hawker food affordable for Singaporeans. We can set up a centralised procurement system where the new agency, Hawker Singapore, can contract with wholesalers to supply hawkers with ingredients that are commonly used by hawkers, such as cooking oil, rice, flour, sugar, salt and eggs, at lower prices through bulk purchasing.”
“We have therefore proposed that the allocation of hawker stalls should not be based on highest rent tendered. Instead, we propose a pre-determined rent structure to keep rental cost under control. We believe that this proposal will be a game-changer for hawkers. A reduction in rents in hawker centres will also have an anchoring effect on rents in privately-operated food courts and coffee shops. This will benefit all Singaporeans. If rent is not the mechanism used to allocate hawker stalls, how should they be allocated? We have said earlier that one way to do so is by random ballot. Another possible way is to allow the customers to decide. For example, for hawker centres located near HDB flats, let the residents living nearby vote for their desired stalls through a small food fair or competition. Hawker Singapore will ensure that the stalls that are chosen can still meet the needs of different ethnic groups. PSP believes that getting the stakeholders involved in the decision-making will lead to a more optimal outcome. We can first implement this on a trial basis at a few hawker centres to determine its feasibility before extending it to all hawker centres. Next, I want to reiterate that PSP firmly believes that it should be the Government’s responsibility to ensure that food remains affordable, not the hawkers'. We therefore propose that, instead of compelling hawkers to offer budget meals to everyone at their own cost, the Government should pay for targeted food discounts at hawker centres for Pioneer, Merdeka and CHAS cardholders, and lower-income households. The Government can also provide lower-income households with more CDC Vouchers to pay for their hawker meals.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Motion raised by my colleague Mr Leong Mun Wai. Many Singaporeans are extremely concerned about the cost of living. The cost of food, including hawker food, is a big part of such concerns. Out of the hundreds of complaints about price increases received by the Committee Against Profiteering, most are about food prices. For generations, hawker centres have been an essential place for working-class families to access delicious and affordable food in Singapore, and we should keep it that way. To do that, not only do we need to keep the cost of hawker food under control, we also need to ensure that the overall hawker industry remains vibrant and being a hawker is a viable and sustainable livelihood for Singaporeans. That is why in our Motion statement today, we have emphasised that we must improve the prospects of hawkers so that we can sustain and grow our hawker culture and continue to enjoy good and affordable food. The policies we propose today will improve the prospects and livelihoods of our hawkers and ensure that hawker food remains affordable for Singaporeans in the longer term. Take for example our proposal of a fixed rental structure. Currently, stalls are allocated to the highest bidders in tender exercises. This is generally held to be the economically efficient approach. However, PSP believes that the allocation of essential goods and services needs to account for other non-economic factors. The subsidising of public housing, public transport and healthcare are examples of considering both social and economic factors in essential goods and services. We believe that hawker food qualifies as another case deserving special consideration.”
“We believe that if our country wants to further increase the willingness of citizens to have children, the Government must address the issue of high living costs and consider adopting measures to encourage employers to create a more pro-family work culture for their employees. (In English): Mr Speaker, PSP supports the Bill.”
“In totality, moving towards more parental leave and the gradual equalisation of maternity and paternity leave are both beneficial to building stronger marriages and families, and PSP appreciates the Government's efforts thus far to work with tripartite partners to establish the norms of fathers taking leave to care for and bond with their infants. We also believe that it is important for the Government to address the high cost of living in Singapore and consider employer incentives to create a more conducive work culture, as these also affect the ability and willingness of Singaporeans to start a family and have children. Mr Speaker, Mandarin please. (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, Sir, PSP supports the CDCA Bill to provide four weeks of statutory paternal leave for working fathers as well as to establish a new shared parental leave mechanism. Research has shown that fathers not only have a significant impact on the health of newborns and subsequent child development but are also important to the mothers' postpartum health. PSP therefore supports the Government's implementation of these policy changes to support fathers in playing their crucial role in the parenting process. The issue of low fertility rates has troubled our country for many years. PSP believes that, in addition to the duration of paid parental leave, there are many factors affecting the ability and willingness of our citizens to have children. These include the cost of living, such as housing, healthcare and education, as well as job security and the employment environment.”
“A mother who is both mentally and physically healthy is, in turn, better able to provide optimum care for the child. Indeed, a longitudinal study conducted in Singapore found that fathers who were involved in their infant's birth were more actively involved in infant care at six months postpartum, highlighting how active participation from the start carries forward to the later periods in the child's life. Fathers also play a unique and critical role in the different stages of childhood development, affecting the socio-emotional and cognitive development of their children. It is, therefore, heartening to see that the Government is implementing policy changes to help fathers fulfil their important role in parenting. Besides the duration of paid parental leave, we believe that there are many other factors at play which affect the ability and willingness of Singaporeans to have children. In our view, these other factors include the cost of living, especially the cost of housing, healthcare and education, as well as employment policies that have an impact on job security, the rates of unemployment and underemployment. In this regard, PSP strongly supports the introduction through this Bill of protection for fathers against a notice of dismissal during paid paternity leave, which is similar to the current provisions for mothers. As our cost of living continues to rise, job security is ever more important, especially to a couple who are contemplating on starting a new family and having children.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Progress Singapore Party (PSP) supports the CDCA Bill. This Bill seeks to amend the CDCA for several purposes, including providing for new SPL, doubling the total period of paid paternity leave to four weeks, and introducing protection for fathers against a notice of dismissal during paid paternity leave. These changes had been announced during the National Day Rally. In my response to the National Day Rally, I had stated that PSP supported these changes to uplift Singapore's low TFR, which fell to 0.97 in 2023. Although more parental leave alone might not necessarily have an immediate significant effect on our TFR, we believe it will create a positive effect as it gives potential parents peace of mind to take time off work to build secure and strong relationships with their newborn children, setting an important foundation for the long journey ahead. We support the amendments to increase mandatory paid paternity leave and introduce protection for fathers against a notice of dismissal during paid paternity leave, which is similar to the current protection mothers have during paid maternity leave. These amendments send an important message that both parents are co-partners in a marriage and in starting a new family, and provide the crucial opportunity for both parents to be physically present to take on child-minding responsibilities. Research has uncovered evidence pointing to the crucial role played by fathers in affecting not just newborn health and the subsequent development of a child, but also maternal health, postpartum and beyond. A father who is involved from the very start in the caring of a child provides important support to the mother, especially during the immediate postpartum period when mothers face the risk of postpartum depression.”
“I would appreciate if the Minister could provide examples of such cases or include more detailed descriptions of these terms in subsidiary legislation. Will there be appropriate legal training for CDRT officers to make such determinations? Furthermore, when such complaints are dismissed, does the complainant have any recourse? If not, what safeguards are in place against possible abuse by CDRT officers? Finally, Mr Speaker, the new section 18A requiring parties to go to the CMC before the CDRT is, in our view, a good one. It encourages a more conciliatory approach before invoking the powers of the Tribunal. It is also important for the CDRT to put in place systems to avoid or minimise situations where CROs handling these cases happen to live in the same block or nearby blocks and may know the parties involved. This could potentially create situations of perceived bias, especially given the limited ability to appeal many classes of orders. In closing, while this Bill is tough, it provides necessary measures to tackle issues that have disrupted the lives of many residents. It gives voice and power to those who have suffered at the hands of recalcitrant neighbours. However, the use of severe measures must always be tempered with fairness and sensitivity to the unique circumstances of each case. As such, I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity to clarify some of the points that I have raised and provide the necessary assurances that these new powers will be exercised judiciously and with due respect to all parties involved.”
“Based on HDB, CMC and CDRT's analysis of past cases, how many cases of compulsory flat acquisition can we expect in a given year? Under clause 36 of the Bill, compulsory acquisition is only allowed if the owner or occupier has been convicted of at least two abatement offences or exclusion offences, or had at least one other abatement offence or exclusion offence which was either compounded or taken into consideration for sentencing. But what if both offences were met in relation to the same incident? If the flat is compulsorily acquired in such a scenario, the offender may not have been given sufficient latitude to fully appreciate the gravity of their offence under the law. I seek more clarifications from the Minister on how this provision will be judiciously enforced, especially in cases where the root of the issue may lie in a lack of understanding of the law due to educational or mental health challenges. Next, the Progress Singapore Party would like to seek assurances from HDB on the formula for compensation. In a Parliamentary reply in October 2022, Minister Desmond Lee told the House that "HDB's compensation policy for flats that are compulsorily acquired takes into account various factors, including the severity of the infringement and the circumstances of the case, as well as the administrative and holding costs in acquiring the flat. The policy also ensures that flat owners who infringe the rules will not enjoy undue financial gains." Would compensation for flats compulsorily acquired under clause 36 of the Bill be similarly determined? I would also like to highlight the provisions in the new section 13K, which empowers the CDRT to dismiss complaints deemed vexatious or made in bad faith.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise today in support of the Community Disputes Resolution (Amendment) Bill, which addresses longstanding issues arising from neighbourly disputes. Intransigent neighbours who engage in abusive behaviour, littering, hoarding, vandalism and noise pollution have long been a serious issue at the municipal level. Even if such cases are relatively few in numbers, they have a profound impact on victims. Affected neighbours may feel an overwhelming and deep sense of helplessness at their neighbours who are engaging in ungracious behaviour. Since 2015, we have established the CDRTs to create a specialised process to resolve community disputes. CDRTs are used as a measure of last resort to resolve community disputes. However, some will choose to ignore or flout CDRT orders. The enhancements made in this Bill can help to address some of these concerns, as it seeks to tighten the Act and provide more effective tools for dispute resolution. One of the most significant and attention-grabbing provisions in this Bill are in Part 3, which grants HDB new powers to compulsorily acquire a flat if the owner, or a specified authorised occupier, has, amongst other requirements, been convicted of an abatement offence or exclusion offence under the Community Disputes Resolution Act. This new provision is drastic but necessary to enforce compliance. It underscores the importance that we place on good neighbourliness and harmonious community relations in a densely populated society. While we support this provision as an absolute last resort, we would seek clarifications from the Government to ensure that there will be appropriate checks and balances in the enforcement of this provision.”
“I have a supplementary question for Minister of State Sun. How many people use the alternative SMS numbers 70999 and 70995 to contact the emergency services? And are other plans to raise awareness of these alternatives?”
“I thank Senior Minister of State Amy Khor for her reply. She mentioned that there are regular inspections of the equipment. Can I clarify, what frequency that would be? Secondly, it was announced that researchers will be conducting a 15-month plan to monitor the impact of the 14 June oil spill on biodiversity in the intertidal areas. Will this plan now be extended to cover the recent oil spills in October?”
“I would just like to clarify that my point was not that the capital resilience after the sale is misleading. If I misunderstood the Minister earlier, I apologise. My point has always been that presenting improving capital resilience as the reason for the sale is misleading, because we now see that the capital resilience is improved through re-insurance, not through the sale to Allianz.”
“I thank Minister Chee Hong Tat for his reply on sections 26 and 27. I agree that there are no specific provisions at the moment to take into account MCCY's views, but at the same time, the existing legislation does not prohibit MAS from taking into account those views. It is actually left open. So, why are sections 26 and 27 not sufficient? My second clarification is referring to Minister Edwin Tong's reply that the capital resilience can be improved by re-insuring. My point was that the reason for this sale of Income Insurance was presented as the need to improve capital resilience. But if the capital resilience is actually improved through re-insurance, then it has nothing to do with this acquisition by Allianz. So, why is that presented as the reason?”
“In our view, sections 26 and 27 of the Insurance Act already gives the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) sufficient discretion to reject this deal based on factors beyond financial prudence. Therefore, PSP hopes that the Government can provide a more detailed explanation of the necessairty of this Bill today. (In English): In closing, PSP agrees with the Government that it would be in the public interest to stop the deal from proceeding in its current form. Therefore, despite our reservations about this urgent Bill, we will support this Bill if it is necessary to stop the deal.”
“If Minister Edwin Tong still feels that there has been no misleading, I think we will have to agree to disagree and let the public form their own opinion. If, however, the Government agrees that the communications have been misleading, I hope it will send a message that this is not acceptable by holding those responsible to account. This episode has thrown up another issue of concern. The ties between NTUC and the PAP Government are very strong. In the past, many Secretary-Generals of NTUC are concurrently Cabinet Ministers. Minister of State Alvin Tan himself said so on 6 August, "many of us here are advisors to NTUC unions, we have worked very closely with them. I work very closely with my unions, Singapore Industrial and Services Employees' Union (SISEU). I work very closely with the co-ops under SNCF. I meet them very regularly." This close relationship is a double-edged sword. While there are circumstances when this is an advantage, I believe this episode has reminded us to be careful lest the close relationship affect the Government in its regulatory role. Deputy Speaker, Mandarin, please. (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Deputy Speaker, PSP is relieved that the Government has blocked the acquisition of Income by Allianz. Right from the beginning, PSP has not been in favour of this deal. However, we also have some reservations about amedning the Bill in a hurry in order to block the deal, because this sets an unsettling precedent. We believe that the Government should, as much as possible, use the existing provisions and laws to assess whether or not a transaction can be approved. Only then can both investors from Singapore and abroad have confidence in the stability of our regulatory framework.”
“At the Parliamentary Sitting on 6 August 2024, Minister of State Alvin Tan while answering Parliamentary Questions on this deal repeated the need for capital a few times. He said: “NTUC has explained the reasons for the deal with Allianz. Let me briefly reiterate the points that NTUC has made. The current situation for Income cannot be sustained and Income's capital buffers have repeatedly come under pressure.” In response to Mr Liang Eng Hwa’s supplementary question, he again said: “I think if we take a step back, the reasons why Income has gone into this proposed deal is well laid out. There are realities on the ground – competitive, Government stepping in to provide that social assurance, as well as the capital requirements. The capital buffers, for example, were under pressure. So, that is the first principle.” In response to Mr Leong Mun Wai’s supplementary question, he said: “Time is the best judge, but let me again put it out very clearly, that number one, Income’s capital buffers have been under pressure. There is no doubt about this.” He also said: “Then, it also begs the question, could Income and NTUC Enterprise then have looked for other funding sources, which is the question on the ground. They have. In their statements, said that they have. They have looked at financial institutions and non-financial institutions, locally and foreign.” All these statements contribute to the perception that the need for more capital is the number one reason for the sale of Income Insurance. However, the plan to reduce capital by S$1.85 billion totally contradicts this argument. MAS has assessed that even after this huge capital reduction, it is still meeting capital adequacy requirements. Does this not show that the public and the Government have been misled?”
“On 14 October, during clarification time after the Ministerial Statement on this issue, Members were assured that we would have time for further debate on the sale of Income Insurance during the Second Reading of the Insurance (Amendment) Bill. I shall now proceed to do that. I had during that session raised the point that communications on the reasons for the sale of Income Insurance to Allianz had been misleading. Minister Edwin Tong disagreed and said there was no misleading. Let me explain why I felt it had been misleading. In a joint statement from NE and Income Insurance dated 4 August 2024 to explain the need for the sale of Income Insurance, paragraphs 7 and 8 of the executive summary stated that, “In terms of NTUC Enterprise upholding Income Insurance’s social mission, capital resilience is necessary to provide affordable, inclusive insurance on a sustained basis...The circumstances between when Income Insurance was founded and today are vastly different. While the goal of providing affordable insurance remains, the competitive landscape has changed with more than 40 global, regional and local insurers vying for growth in a mature Singapore insurance market. This also makes strong and continuous capital resilience a pre-requisite for growth, which a social enterprise model alone cannot shoulder.” Does this not create the perception that the sale is necessary due to the need of Income Insurance for more capital? How can we reconcile this statement with the fact that by the time this statement was issued on 4 August, an application had already been made to MAS in July to reduce capital by S$1.85 billion and distribute this amount to the shareholders? Would not this capital reduction reduce capital resilience?”
“Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Progress Singapore Party (PSP) is heartened that the Government has intervened to stop the proposed deal to sell a majority stake in Income Insurance to Allianz. PSP had not been in favour of this deal. In July, Dr Tan Cheng Bock had written on his Facebook page asking for the reasons for breaking a promise. And in a Facebook post after the 6 August Sitting, my colleague, Mr Leong Mun Wai, had expressed his hope that the deal would be restructured. While we support the decision to stop this deal, we have concerns about the act of amending the Insurance Act in a hurry in order to block it. This approach sets a somewhat unsettling precedent. Sir, as far as possible, the Government should rely on existing laws when assessing deals for regulatory approval. This provides confidence to investors, here and abroad, that our regulatory framework is stable. Even though the Bill we are debating today is tightly scoped, the fact that we are amending the law today so that a specific pending acquisition application can be blocked may be unsettling to investors. Under existing law, sections 26 and 27 of the Insurance Act 1966 require the approval of MAS for any application to obtain effective control or become a substantial shareholder of a licensed insurer. Some conditions were listed under which MAS may grant approval. As the words used in sections 26 and 27 is “may approve” and not “shall approve”, it appears to us MAS already has the discretion not to approve the application. Can the Government clarify why it is necessary to amend the Insurance Act to stop this transaction instead of relying on existing provisions?”
“Earlier, the Minister mentioned that the percentage of Singaporeans engaged in sports at least once a week has improved significantly. I believe it was from over 50% to over 70%. I would like to ask the Minister whether our sports facilities have been increased proportionately. For example, I have heard from many friends and relatives that it is practically impossible to book a badminton court under ActiveSG.”
“Meanwhile, we also recognise the tireless efforts of the coaches, support staff and families behind the scenes, without which Team Singapore's success would not have been possible. (In English): Sir, the 2024 Paris Olympic and Paralympic Games have left an indelible mark on our nation. Let us continue to support our athletes, nurture their talent and build a sporting culture that empowers every Singaporean to dream big and pursue excellence. Thank you, Team Singapore, for flying our flag high. By giving your best in Paris, you have made our nation proud, and we look forward to your future endeavours with great excitement and confidence. May your success continue to inspire Singaporeans across generations. Sir, I support the Motion.”
“Her achievements have inspired a nation and raised the profile of disabled athletes in our country. She has demonstrated that with hard work and determination, Singaporeans can excel globally and her success reminds us that there is no limit to what can be achieved when one dares to dream. As we celebrate the achievements of our Olympians and Paralympians, I hope the House will also join me in recognising the tireless efforts of the coaches, support staff and families who have contributed to their success. Their sacrifices have helped shaped our champions. Mr Speaker, in Mandarin, please. (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, on behalf of PSP, I would like to congratulate our Team Singapore Olympians and Paralympians for their outstanding achievements at the 2024 Paris Olympic and Paralympic Games. They exemplify the spirit of tenacity and the grace to both celebrate victories and confront setbacks. Their participation in the Games has inspired an entire nation and showcased the best of the Singapore spirit – courage, discipline and teamwork. Here, I would like to pay my highest tribute to Team Singapore. This year, we are also proud to recognise three medallists, Jeralyn Tan, Maximilian Maeder and Yip Pin Xiu. Ms Jeralyn Tan has devoted many years to Boccia and did very well at this year's Paralympics by clinching Singapore's first medal in Boccia. Maximilian Maeder achieved a bronze medal in kitefoiling at just 17 years of age and he will have a bright future in this sport. Yip Pin Xiu won two gold medals in the women's 50m and 100m S2 backstroke events. She is also the world record holder for both of these events, making her one of the most outstanding performers in Paralympics. Team Singapore's success deserves our praise.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, on behalf of the Progress Singapore Party, I would like to congratulate our Team Singapore Olympians and Paralympians for their outstanding achievements at the 2024 Paris Olympic and Paralympic Games. I am sure the whole House will agree with me that success is not defined solely by the medals our athletes and para athletes have won. It is defined by their courage to step up, their tenacity to compete and their grace to both celebrate victories and confront setbacks. Our Team Singapore athletes have shown exemplary dedication, perseverance, resilience and commitment to their sports. Their participation in the Games has inspired an entire nation and showcased the best of the Singapore spirit, courage, discipline and teamwork. This year, we are proud to recognise three medallists, Ms Jeralyn Tan, Mr Maximilian Maeder and Ms Yip Pin Xiu. Ms Jeralyn Tan became only our fourth Paralympic medallist when she clinched Singapore's first medal in boccia this year. The medal is a crowning achievement for her long career in boccia. She has worked hard at the sport since 2008 when she picked it up at the Cerebral Palsy Alliance Singapore School. Mr Max Maeder has achieved a bronze medal in kitefoiling at just 17 years of age. He showed us skill, agility and calm under pressure against the world's best at the kitefoiling finals. These are qualities that will undoubtedly serve him well as he continues to rise in the sport. Since the Olympics, he has already gone on to clinch three championships in a row. We look forward to witnessing further sporting success from him in the coming years. Finally, Ms Yip Pin Xiu is our most decorated Paralympian with seven gold medals and one silver medal to her name at this point. She has been a true trailblazer.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker, this is a follow-up on my earlier supplementary question on COI. I was given to understand that under a COI, it allows for the public hearing of inputs from experts, rather than reading about it in a summarised version in a report. So, would the Minister consider allowing such public hearings, because the transparency will be helpful towards building and maintaining public trust and confidence.”
“I thank the Minister for his reply to my question. I have two supplementary questions. Firstly, can the Minister explain what the difference is between the approach to investigation that LTA has chosen versus that via a Committee of Inquiry? And secondly, with respect to the damage caused by the fallen axle, such a degree of damage could not have been done silently. There must have been quite a bit of noise. So, can the Minister shed light on why it was not discovered earlier but instead allowed to drag on for over two kilometres of the track?”
“The additional tax revenue can also provide resources for the Government to take measures to help businesses reduce operating costs, help Singaporeans reduce living costs, and continue to attract foreign investment at a lower cost. In particular, the rise in property prices and rents needs urgent attention. PSP sincerely hopes that our fourth-generation leaders will use this opportunity to reshape our economic structure, renew our social contract and create a better living environment for Singaporeans. (In English): This Bill presents us with an opportunity to reshape our economic structure and refresh our social compact, instead of using it towards the same economic playbook that has been used for decades. PSP hopes that the 4G leadership will make full use of this opportunity. PSP supports the Bill.”