He Ting Ru
Singapore
“When our researchers develop AI system that work across Southeast Asian languages, we create tools that can be deployed in our own service sectors, our hospitals, our schools. When our companies lead in AI adoption, we generate demand for new skills, new roles and new industries that our workers can be trained into.”
“Thank you, Sir. I would like to ask the Minister for further colour about the longitudinal tracking of bullying incidents, as in my Parliamentary Question, both in terms of perpetrators and how does the Ministry actually track that.”
“Mr Speaker, while I am supportive of the Government's zero tolerance approach towards stamping out vapes, we should also be holistic and mindful of the socio-economic and even possibly psychological undercurrents that give rise to vaping.”
“With decisions like periodic increases to tobacco duties, I hope we are seeking to maximise the sin tax impact instead of considering its revenue impact. Similarly, we should be doing more to curb the health impacts of public smoking, for instance, by tackling smoking while walking.”
“Sir, I would like to once again thank our Parliamentary staff for their work in ensuring the smooth running of the various functions of our Parliament. And with that I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. [(proc text) Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“For instance, during a debate on the Online Safety Bill, we proposed that OSC submit annual reports detailing the number and categories of reports received, directions issued and findings of online harms trends.”
The complete record
Every one of 636 lines we hold for He Ting Ru, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 11 of 13.
“Turning to the structure of SGX, the listed company itself, to which this Bill and its amendments relate, I note that the company's ownership structure is highly diversified, with many international shareholders from large asset managers like BlackRock and Schroders to pension funds like the Japanese government pension fund. The largest single shareholder remains SEL Holdings Pte Ltd with around 23% of shares, although I note as well that there is a restriction on the exercise of its voting rights attached to its shares. While it is good that solid investors have indicated their willingness to invest in SGX, we must not be complacent about the competitiveness of our exchange and take this for granted. Set against this, I have a few clarifications that I wish to seek of the Minister of State. Do the amendments allow subscription offers to be made to existing SGX shareholders? If so, where will funds come from in order for SEL to subscribe for any new SGX shares? Also, what is MAS' updated position relating to allowing shareholders to increase stakes above 5% and also if an offer is made by another stock exchange to acquire or merge with SGX? While, historically, regulators have been somewhat cautious to allow super stock exchange mergers, as evidenced by, for example, the rejection of SGX's bid to acquire the Australian Stock Exchange over a decade ago, recent research into super stock exchanges appears to suggest that there need not be huge concerns about the exploitation of market power of these large exchanges. Admittedly, though, there may still be concerns of national interests when considering such merger and acquisition (M&A) activity relating to SGX itself. Next, turning to the beneficiary of the SGX shares held by SEL.”
“Mr Speaker, changes in the economies and capital markets the world over, triggered by COVID-19, have meant that stock markets, too, need to adapt to deal with disruption, and have to continually fight to stay relevant and attractive to investors. Indeed, a Business Times' article in September last year noted that in line with global trends, SGX has seen a flurry of privatisation offers in 2021. This has meant a decrease in the number of companies listed on the exchange, which is a cause for concern. To add to the picture, some commentators have opined that there is a likelihood that money will start flowing to listings in emerging markets. They predict that emerging markets themselves may even go as far as to require domestic companies to list locally and to encourage foreign companies who are trying to raise capital within their borders to also list within that jurisdiction rather than look to capital markets in the more established markets such as New York, London, Hong Kong and even Singapore. Yet, it has also not escaped the notice of many that there are growing concerns about whether SGX has become illiquid and uncompetitive, and that companies looking to widen their capital base would do better to look elsewhere. Indeed, of late, our homegrown success stories such as Grab and Razor have chosen to list oversees. All this has implications for SGX and the liquidity of our local capital markets as our success has historically relied on foreign entities being willing to fundraise by using our domestic market as a platform to access capital in the region.”
“If this is on the understanding that the member is extremely ill or incapacitated, it would mean that it would ease the financial and administrative burden on family members who might need to, otherwise, apply through the Courts or otherwise find additional funds to pay for medical bills or living expenses. Could the Minister confirm this is correct? Would the Minister also please clarify if automatic disbursements would take place in all cases when a member has a significant condition? This may not be necessarily desirable in cases where the financial circumstances of a member could mean that immediate disbursement of funds is unnecessary. Such an automatic disbursement then may deprive the member of interest on these released funds which would be challenging to obtain in other savings accounts. The final point relates to CPF nominations. The current position is that any nominations for recipients of CPF funds upon a member's death is automatically cancelled upon a member's marriage. Does this remain unchanged with the amendments being proposed? Mr Deputy Speaker, my clarifications, notwithstanding, I support the Bill.”
“It also allows the Public Trustee to pay a sum of money up to a specified limit to be released directly to a beneficiary representative for disbursement in accordance with intestacy laws. However, I would like to request the Minister to clarify what the specified limit would be and how the amount is, ultimately, to be determined. Would it be an amount that changes like the Retirement Sum Scheme? We also welcome the removal of the ceiling for voluntary contributions to MediSave. This does help to prepare us in an ageing society and gives more flexibility to those who are able to do so to better plan for retirement and care needs while still active in the workforce. However, could we please have further clarity on whether CPF Board has an estimation of how many people would be affected by this? Moving on to some of the other proposed amendments, I have further comments and would like to seek some more clarifications. First, we welcome the flexibility introduced in clause 5, allowing a member to withdraw funds from his Retirement Account, subject to the condition that they must be receiving an approved annuity stream that is outside of the CPF. However, I would like to ask for greater clarity on how such other annuity streams are assessed and, ultimately, approved. Likewise, the same clause introduces automatic withdrawals if the Board is satisfied that the member is suffering from a significant condition, without the need for the member to apply for such withdrawals. The explanatory note further clarifies that this only relates withdrawals from the Ordinary and Special Accounts and not the Retirement Account.”
“Our CPF policies have, as a response to our changing economy and society, evolved and expanded in an attempt to cover functions beyond merely a savings for retirement, to be used to pay for many of lives' expenses – from the funding of the purchase of our homes to paying for medical expenses for ourselves and our family members. Yet, at the core of it is the notion that our CPF funds must be kept locked up with a special key and that they would only be unlocked at a certain time and in a certain manner. This may be laudable but it is little wonder that many of our residents do approach us for assistance with CPF matters. I am sure that most of us here in this House have come across cases where a loved one, often the sole breadwinner of the family, either passes away unexpectedly or suffers from a condition that results in them being unable to carry on earning an income. When such unexpected events happen, family members, more often than not, struggle to process the shock and have to make changes to their daily lives. At the same time, they often find themselves having to deal with the additional stress and paperwork to unlock CPF funds to tide them through difficult times, which not all are well-equipped to tackle even when not dealing with the grief or shock that colours everything in the overwhelming aftermath of such an unfortunate event. From this perspective, the amendments proposed by clause 50 of the Bill, which allow for greater flexibility and efficiency for disbursement of unnominated monies in the event of a member's death are welcome. These changes allow the Public Trustee to reimburse reasonable funeral expenses incurred by a beneficiary out of the unnominated monies.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, retirement is a word that means so many different things to each of us. For the lucky ones amongst us, it brings with it notions of freedom and leisure, golden years where one is no longer a wage slave. On the other end of the spectrum, it brings with it negative connotations of decline, withdrawal and fears about whether the money in the bank account would be enough to stretch to the end of the month. It is to address this financing of our retirement that prompted the formation of the CPF system in the first place. Our CPF system was introduced in 1955, before the time when some of our present retirees today were born. Its official mission is to be the bedrock of our social security system, with a strong emphasis on self-reliance. This is something that we cannot disagree with and, indeed, most of the residents we do meet tell us that they would love to be in a position to help themselves and their families. Yet, over the years, the changing structure of our economy, demographics and, indeed, the world we live in has meant that many Singaporeans find themselves in a difficult position today, where no matter how hard or fast they run on the treadmill of life, they find themselves unable to keep up and end up falling off and find it next to impossible to get back on again – and not for want of trying. Our CPF system, as the expressed bedrock of our social security system, has to be sensitive and cognisant of these difficulties experienced by our fellow residents.”
“(proc text)] [(proc text) (7) The Rules of Court may provide for the manner in which and the time within which an appeal under subsection (1) may be made and the procedure for an application to stay a determination, an order or any other decision appealed against. (proc text)] [(proc text) (8) The High Court may order that the whole or any part of any appeal heard under this Act shall be dealt with in camera if it is satisfied that it is expedient in the interests of justice or of public safety or security to do so." (proc text)] [(proc text) Consequential amendments: (proc text)] [(proc text) (1) In page 20: to leave out lines 9 and 10. (proc text)] [(proc text) (2) In page 152, from line 15: to re-number clauses 105 to 127 as clauses 93 to 115, respectively. (proc text)] [(proc text) (3) In page 167: to leave out lines 25 to 29. (proc text)] [(proc text) Question put, and amendment negatived. (proc text)] [(proc text) Clause 104 ordered to stand part of the Bill. (proc text)] [(proc text) Clause 105 to 115 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. (proc text)]”
“Sir, I beg to move the amendment* to clause 104 standing in my name as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement for the reasons explained in my speech earlier. [(proc text) *The amendment reads as follows: (proc text)] [(proc text) In page 151: to leave out line 27 to the end of line 13 in page 152, and insert — (proc text)] [(proc text) "Appeals to High Court (proc text)] [(proc text) 92.— (1) Any person who is subject to a determination, order or any other decision under this Act may appeal to the High Court against such a determination, order or decision. (proc text)] [(proc text) (2) No appeal may be made to the High Court by any person unless the person has first appealed to, or sought reconsideration from the Minister or the alternate authority mentioned in section 106, made or purportedly made under this Act and the appeal is first refused whether in whole or in part. (proc text)] [(proc text) (3) An appeal may only be made to the High Court within such a period as may be prescribed by the Rules of Court. (proc text)] [(proc text) (4) The High Court must hear and determine any such appeal and may either confirm the determination, order or decision or set it aside. (proc text)] [(proc text) (5) A determination, order or any other decision that is the subject of the appeal in subsection (1) remains in effect despite the appeal, and only ceases to have effect if it is set aside by the High Court, or if it expires or is cancelled under the provisions of this Act. (proc text)] [(proc text) (6) There is such further right of appeal from a decision of the High Court under this section as exists in the case of a decision made by that Court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction.”
“Sir, I beg to move the amendment* to clauses 92 to 103 standing in my name as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement for the reasons explained in my speech earlier. [(proc text) *The amendment read as follows: (proc text)] [(proc text) In page 144: to leave out line 19, to the end of line 26 in page 151. (proc text)] [(proc text) Question put, and amendment negatived. (proc text)] [(proc text) Clauses 92 to 103 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. (proc text)] Clause 104 –”
“I shall close, Mr Speaker, with a more general reflection of what FICA could mean for a globalised city state, such as Singapore. In our Sitting just a mere three weeks ago, we spent enormous amounts of time debating on the merits of economic openness, both historically and for the future of the survival of our nation. This openness comes at a cost, of course, and it is one that we must surely manage.”
“Alternatively, examples and counter examples could be provided of businesses and political organisations that would be captured or not by said definition. Mr Speaker, up till now, the proposed amendments we have flagged speak to what we, as a party, believe to be flaws of commission, notably, instances where we believe the Bill overreaches in its attribution of perceived risk, unwarranted suspicion and intentionality behind motivations. In contrast, the amendments we have proposed for clause 120 are one of omission, namely, the fact that the law fails to incorporate public assurances by MHA. The purpose is to ensure that these assurances are actually written into the law. This is notwithstanding how clause 105(5) does provide accommodation for this by stating that competent authorities "must not exercise any power under this Act for the purpose of furthering or harming the interest of any particular political party". Yet, there is, simultaneously, language in the Bill that will criminalise the "diminution" of Government. Given how there is always, by definition, at least one political party in Government, these proposed amendments serve to clarify some of this distinction in the text of the law, not with this current administration or Minister, but, potentially, with future ones. Ensuring that political speech is legally protected goes beyond guaranteeing that citizens can speak freely about political matters that are near and dear to their hearts. As a child, I learned how "boh sompah, buay pasah". Children, evidently, intuitively, understand the importance of codification of promises. The proposed amendments to clause 120 essentially do the same for the guarantees promised by MHA rather than leaving it to the vagaries of enforcement by the government in power.”
“These theoretical observations are further compounded by the fact that, in practice, Singaporeans routinely collaborate with non-Singaporeans on all manner of critical and non-critical operations. Top generals conduct joint military exercises on a regular basis and we often send our best civil servants on overseas assignments where they may gather knowledge and experience from citizens of other nations. Our political officeholders are often called to perform global public service, serving on committees in international organisations where they collaborate with high-level officials from other countries. Mr Speaker, there are additional instances where intent on the part of the alleged agent remains uneasily vague. For example, clause 5(3) states that activities will be covered as long as "both the person and the foreign principal knew or expected that the person would or might undertake such an activity". Surely, it is possible that an individual might independently choose to pursue a given course of action, bereft of external influence. Yet, this choice could still be common knowledge. By a similar token, the definition of foreign principals may be excessively broad. While we do not wish to constrain the Government's ability to act on a wide range of potential actors, the existing definitions of "foreign business" and "foreign political organisation" could encapsulate perfectly innocuous ties. While we understand that malicious intent is subsequently captured by clauses 5 through 7, exclusionary language, especially for these two very general categories, may be warranted – something to the effect of a sub-clause that explicitly spells out how these entities are engaged in political activities.”
“By a similar token, it would not be unusual for working relationships dealing with public policy to venture into politically sensitive, controversial – this is the wording in the Bill – issues. Think matters, such as climate change, vaccinations, free trade and gender issues, all of which are controversial and often evoke partisan leanings, regardless of whether there may have been any intent to direct such effort towards a political end. This could have a chilling effect on already guarded national discussions by constraining the ability of our citizens to work with foreigners on matters of national importance so long as they happen to be politically controversial. Taken together, including the exceedingly vague term "collaborations", into the scope of activities subject to FICA, it becomes inherently problematic. Is it sufficient for us to claim that casual transparent interactions do not entail collaboration but deep engagement does? How much must one actually work with another before they are deemed to have collaborated? In his response to Parliamentary Questions filed by then Nominated Members of Parliament Anthea Ong and Walter Theseira on foreign influence, Minister K Shanmugam explained that there is nothing to prevent politicians or political parties from engaging with foreign parties but you cannot take money from them. To engage, however, includes the possibility of working with and, indeed, even working for somebody else. Surely, it must bother us that we are choosing to define into our laws the possibility of catching, in Minister K Shanmugam's words earlier on, a one in 1,000 chance but glossing over the far greater likelihood of throwing up many, many more false positives.”
“It could also give rise to either an excessive number of frivolous accusations or, conversely, inhibit actual victims from stepping up to alert authorities if they suspect they may have been manipulated. The Workers' Party believes that it is far better to strike the balance between efficiency and accountability by eliminating the most ambiguous language from the law while subjecting cases corroborated by actionable intelligence to judicial scrutiny. The coincidence of interests, another dimension highlighted as notes, remains poorly excluded by the overall language of the Bill. Part (iv) of clauses 5 and 48, where we have not proposed amendments, refers to the term "collaboration", which is undefined but as the notes explain, takes on its "ordinary meaning". While we understand that the purpose is to capture nefarious collaborations, perhaps inspired by the case of former Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy professor Huang Jing, such broad language raises both theoretical and practical concerns. For starters, there is very little reason why the simple act of working together, the dictionary definition of "collaboration", with a foreign entity need give rise to subservience or, for that matter, even mild influence. I am certain we all have had colleagues with whom we disliked but, yet, we are forced to work together on projects and would never imagine nor wish to emulate or even learn from. Hence, there is little logical reason why one would link collaboration with influence or, more intrusively, interference. Moreover, in any collaborative relationship, especially when parties carry equal standing, it is frequently impossible to attribute who actually exerts control.”
“The proposed amendments to clauses 17(2) and 18(2) are meant to refine intent. While we agree that clandestine foreign interference may well involve multiple principals, expanding the applicability of the law to include instances where individuals "need not have in mind any particular foreign country or principal" veers uncomfortably into territory where we criminalise those who may have been deceived or misled. Yet, the explanatory notes of the Bill clearly expressed that covert activities are "not intended to cover circumstances where a person undertakes an activity with no knowledge, awareness or direction from the foreign principal or where the relationship between the person's activities and the foreign principal's interest are merely coincidental". Indeed, many disinformation campaigns operate via deception. Will we then charge those who have been unwittingly made to operate as pawns of a more sophisticated principal? Lest we rule out as the domain of the naive and, hence, inapplicable to PSPs, it is useful to remind ourselves of how often even sophisticated experts may end up being duped. Just think of the victims of Bernie Madoff's Ponzi scheme, the Envy Global nickel investment scam or Elizabeth Holmes' Theranos, currently playing out in US Courts. In the first half of this year, Singaporeans collectively lost a total of $168 million to con-men. To compound matters, allowing for such possibilities would be extremely costly in terms of resources. Think of the time, energy and resource that would have to be expended to investigate and prosecute cases where it is unclear whether any specific foreign actor is even involved.”
“One potential objection to this set of amendments is that the Minister or the relevant Competent Authority will always act judiciously and with care. This claims that, bereft of the flexibility to act on their suspicions, we will compromise the ability of our authorities to properly protect our citizens. But this calls for us to enshrine into law the propensity of a political office holder to always act in the public interest. This could well be the case today. But would it be always? What if, God forbid, an irresponsible party forms the government or someone in the government goes rogue? We are walking dangerously close to Manchurian Candidate territory here – and I know I am citing a lot of movie references. The purpose of the law in any society guided by rule of law is to bind the hands of policymakers, regardless of their benefactions, from the most egregious exercises of arbitrary decision-making. Do these specific sub-clauses satisfy that standard or should the language of the law be rendered as clear as possible? Furthermore, we cannot exclude the possibility that even an entirely well-meaning officeholder may carry suspicions, even firmly held ones, that could well turn out to be erroneous. In the press release accompanying the First Reading of this Bill, MHA cited the example of "an abnormal spike in online comments critical of Singapore on social media in late 2018 and 2019". Yet, two executives at one major social media platform, Facebook, have publicly stated that it has uncovered no cases of coordinated, inauthentic behaviour by foreigners targeting Singapore since 2017. Given the apparent contradiction, would MHA share with this House why it believed that social media activity during that period was foreign influence?”
“Finally, it is worth adding that by further requiring, as in clause 17(1)(c) that an individual "knows or has reason to believe", already rules out the possibility of wilful ignorance; piling on the need for this selfsame individual to be speculative is excessive. In clauses 20 and 21, amendments were proposed to raise the level of proof required: from mere suspicion or belief, to at least some degree of evidence or actionable intelligence. This is justice on the basis of pre-crime, virtually straight out of the film "Minority Report". It is the policing of thought. As much as I may be a fan of Tom Cruise, Stephen Spielberg and Philip K Dick, "suspicion" or a "reason to believe" does not rise to the level of actual crime, but represents anticipatory action. At its best, it runs the risk of abuse and misuse, short-circuiting the free will of individuals to change their minds before they act. At its worst, it rises to the level of thought policing, pinning on suspects actions that they have yet to be realised. Even conspiracy – a very indirect attribution of potential involvement in illegal activity – requires solid evidence. To be clear, the world can be an unpleasant place and there may well be instances where the risk of subsequent malicious activity would justify the execution of pre-emptive actions that would preclude the possibility of even more insidious outcomes. But the threshold for us to engage must, at least, be one where we possess evidence or, as we called for in the amendments to this Bill, actionable intelligence and a reasonable assessment of imminent harm. Short of this, we are relying on gut feeling and instinct to play with people's lives.”
“Statistically, any outcome that has the greater probability of being realised could be anything ranging from 51% to 99%. Thus, establishing that a given action will amount to an offence will require an estimation of a likelihood. While courts have a long history of attributing just cause based on strong, credible evidence, this is an enormous leap of faith for any single, largely unchecked individual. Mr Speaker, nobody denies that foreign interference can occur, facilitated by the medium of electronic communications that could be prejudicial to the security, public good, domestic harmony and international relations of Singapore. The desire to draft a law robust enough to capture such possibilities is a sound motivation. But at the same time, we cannot deny that the vast majority of such communications activity – even when framed in a manner that is potentially incriminating to its sender – could well be innocuous; the frivolous or unfiltered rantings of a troubled mind. Possibilities are insufficient, especially when they call for predictions of an uncertain future. Were this Bill be passed into law as it stands, we will require not just that our Ministers or relevant Competent Authorities speculate on the likely mindset and possible actions of individuals, but that such individuals themselves possess the ability to predict whether the information they communicate will affect security, public good, domestic harmony or international relations. Experts can barely venture such forecasts successfully, much less an average person.”
“We can all accept that there are threats out there that have to be dealt with. We can all accept that some threats are subtle and, by design, evasive, and, hence difficult to identify and prove with absolute certainty. And we can all accept that establishing facts, even by the strict legal standards upheld in a Court of law, will seldom be definitive. Memories may be hazy. Claims may be contradictory. Even eyewitnesses could easily differ in what they perceive – or believe to have observed – from an event. Film classics like Rashōmon and Virumaandi, and parables like the Blind Men and the Elephant, remind us that objectivity may be elusive, even in fair, carefully-litigated circumstances. Consequently, society – and the legal system – have allowed for a comparatively high burden of proof for claims and accusations, which (at the very least) requires a comparatively high probability of an outcome or event being true. We also have well-understood channels of appeal, to allow for the possibility of overturning rules that subsequently turn out to be false positives. But this does not appear to be the case in a number of clauses in this Bill, notably, the amendments we have proposed to parts of clauses 17 through 18, 40, and 75. Clause 17(1)(c)(iii) of the Bill, for example, will charge an individual with an offence if he or she engages in electronic communications that involve activity that, I quote, “is or is likely to be prejudicial to the friendly relations of Singapore with other countries”. But what is "likely"? The dictionary definition only states that something that is likely “will probably happen or is expected”; it does not attribute any probability to this likelihood.”
“In other words, we believe that the "sunlight of scrutiny", to use the phrase of our esteemed colleague Mr Murali Pillai, is more crucial than ever in needing to be applied to this Bill and the broad and alarming powers it purports to introduce. This sunlight is what helps both shine a light on malicious foreign activity and, at the same time, assures all of us that we do not need to worry about the over-expansive use of Government powers. 4.53 pm Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): Mr Speaker, the proposed Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Act (FICA) is an important Bill that could, potentially, better equip our nation to face up to the evolving nature of external threats in the 21st century. In particular, the Bill seeks to better protect Singapore from the risks of foreign principal interference in our domestic affairs. This principle of non-interference per se is unobjectionable, and the Workers' Party stands behind the notion that domestic political matters should, indeed, be determined by our own people. But the proposed language in a number of areas spelled out in the Bill are troubling. In this speech, I will provide justifications for the amendments that the Workers' Party has proposed in my name. These pertain to clauses that leave the scope of foreign interference troublingly vague and, relatedly, proposed an insufficiently steep hurdle for the applicability of the law, one that we believe begins to border on the policing of thought. The common thread among these amendments is that we need to satisfy a reasonable standard of proof and intent when we claim that an individual has acceded to the influence of foreign principals. Let me begin by stating a few propositions that I believe all in this House will have little difficulty agreeing with.”
“Imagine, if one day, the Competent Authority designates a six-month-old baby a PSP under Part 4. This decision is final and cannot be set aside if the Minister upholds this upon appeal. It will not be allowed to be set aside on the grounds of irrationality since judicial review on these grounds are not possible! While this situation may be dismissed as outlandish and would never happen, it is theoretically possible under the provisions of the Bill. Stranger things have happened. While we might say that we have confidence in current policy-makers' intentions and policies, yet, no one can guarantee the conduct of future Ministers and competent authorities and their commitment to acting rationally and legally. In fact, were we not told that the logic for the constitutional amendments surrounding the establishment of the Elected Presidency and, in 2016, changes in the remit of the Council of Presidential Advisers, have to do with putting in safeguards in place against the possibility of irrational or unreasonable behaviour by top decision-makers? Why do these safeguards not apply here, especially as we are granting wide-ranging powers to the Minister? I wish to also point out that judicial review does not review the merits of cases. Instead, it is a process by which the Courts exercise supervision over decisions made by Ministers and other public officials and bodies to ensure that legal limits are enforced where public power is exercised. It is an important part of the checks and balances to ensure that powers are wielded judiciously by the state. We cannot repeat enough our position that greater powers need greater oversight and it is, therefore, with this in mind that our proposed amendments do away with the ouster of judicial review.”
“The Court of Appeal has expressed concern in Per Ah Seng that ouster clauses “can be regarded as being incompatible with the rule of law because it should be within the Court’s purview to declare the legal limits of discretionary powers”. Our former Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong, too, has suggested that ouster clauses, "may be inconsistent with Article 93 of the Constitution, which vests the judicial power of Singapore in the Supreme Court". Crucially, for our purposes today, the ouster clause does not allow for the Courts to consider applications for judicial review of decisions taken by the Minister and Competent Authorities on the grounds of illegality and irrationality. The latter two limbs of judicial review are key in ensuring that, as captured in Chng Suan Tze v Minister for Home Affairs, "All power has legal limits and the rule of law demands that the Courts should be able to examine the exercise of discretionary power". And we must, as legislators, have the rule of law in mind as we consider the balance of, amongst others, natural justice, national security and the separation of powers as we decide whether or not a judicial review ouster clause should stand. For illegality, this arises when a decision-maker exercises a power wrongly, or improperly purports to exercise a power that it does not have. The Courts, in their role to check and balance powers granted to bodies, ensure that nobody overreaches and goes beyond the powers given to them. For irrationality, it allows a party to challenge a decision by a public official or body if “it is so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could ever have come to it”. Disallowing judicial reviews on the grounds of illegality and irrationality takes away an important check on the powers granted to the Government.”
“Additionally, decisions of both the Reviewing Tribunal and the Minister are not subject to correction by any higher authority, especially as the proposed clause 104 purports to oust judicial review on all but procedural grounds. There is also no mention of either the tribunal or the Minister being guided or bound by precedents of previous decisions which are often instructive and valuable. To address concerns that judicial trials may compromise national security because of the sensitive nature of a matter, our proposed amendment also allows for such hearings to be held in-camera, without the public being allowed to attend, if the Court is satisfied that it is in the public interest to do so. Next, I turn to the proposed clause 104, which is what is known as a judicial review ouster clause. The substance of this clause is that the Government seeks to protect the Minister’s decisions under FICA from review by the Courts. This offends Article 93 of the Constitution, which expressly states that "judicial power of Singapore shall be vested in a Supreme Court and in such subordinate Courts as may be provided by any written law for the time being in force". The ouster clause is a breach of the principle of the separation of powers: the Government should not be using its legislative authority to oust the rightful constitutional oversight of a co-equal institution in the Singapore system. It means that no decision under FICA should be challenged through the process of judicial review, apart from the very narrow grounds of purely procedural compliance with the Act not being properly followed. Many of our leading jurists have also expressed their discomfort with ouster clauses.”
“Second, even the small number of cases which are eligible to appeal to the Reviewing Tribunal, are subject to further restrictions, including the provision under clause 99(b) which states that the Minister may prescribe tribunal rules that enable a Reviewing Tribunal to decline to give the appellant the full particulars of the reasons why a decision was made. This would mean that he would, effectively, be asked to make his appeal partially blindfolded. In view of this, we propose that in line with the doctrine of the separation of powers, the judiciary is the appropriate organ of state to exercise oversight over the broad powers granted under this Bill. This proposal means that any person who is subjected to a determination order or decision under the Bill has a right of appeal to the judiciary, that is, to the High Court. The Reviewing Tribunal is clearly not an effective substitute for the Courts. Firstly, the composition of the tribunal is decided by the Government and only one of them is a Supreme Court Judge who is qualified and experienced in scrutinising and determining such appeals. This is also problematic as the tribunal effectively is appointed by the Cabinet, in what is effectively a check, by the Executive, on an Executive decision. This is a classic case of, in the words of the Leader of the Opposition, “Ownself Check Ownself”. The tribunal is also, unlike the Courts, not part of the Judiciary established under our Constitution, whose independence is also enshrined in our Constitution. Under our Constitution, judicial power is vested in the Courts. Carving out matters that should be properly determined by the Courts for review by a tribunal that cannot be held to account is deeply problematic.”
“In particular, it is not clear how, or even whether the tribunal will be able to consider appeals on the substance of the exercise of the Minister's powers to issue Part 3 directions, given that there is no obligation in the Act for the Minister to explain how he exercises his powers of considering Part 3 directions issued by the Competent Authority under the Act. Also, I note that the tribunal is only empowered to either dismiss the appeal or revoke the decision. It is not within the tribunal's power to make any amendments. Finally, the decision of the Reviewing tribunal is final and there are no further rights of appeal. Individuals designated a Politically Significant Person under Part 4 or issued directives under Part 5 or 6 around countermeasures for foreign donors and activities that are not donor activities but may involve a foreign principal in Part 6 have no route of appeals through the tribunal. Their only route is through the Minister himself and the Minister's decision is final. I also note that our proposed deletion of clause 119(2) is a consequential amendment of having deleted the provisions relating to the Reviewing Tribunal. The Workers' Party's position to the approach taken above is that oversight mechanisms proposed are insufficient to ensure the Act is not abused. First, the Minister is in almost all cases the final decision-maker. Only a limited and very narrowly defined subset of cases are subject to appeal to the Reviewing Tribunal.”
“I turn, first, to clauses 92 and 93 which deal with the rights of appeal against decisions made under the Act by both the Minister and the Competent Authorities. This section is important as it prescribes the methods and processes in place to protect citizens against an abuse of power by the government of the day. Clause 92 provides for the setting up of a Reviewing Tribunal which comprises three individuals who each has to be Singaporeans and will serve a term of three years. The Government appoints these individuals, and the chair of the tribunal has to be a Supreme Court Judge. There are no other specific requirements in the Bill relating to the remaining two members of the tribunal. The renumeration and expenses of the tribunal are paid for under money provided by Parliament, but the rules for tribunal proceedings are, under clause 99, made by the Minister and are only presented to Parliament after being gazetted. The tribunal can hear appeals on too narrowly and clearly-defined circumstances for a person issued with a Part 3 direction, that is, a direction to counteract harmful foreign online communications activity of the proprietors of a Proscribed Online Location, which are locations that are declared by the Minister to be purveyors of hostile information content. It is notable that the drafting of this section shows that the draftsperson is able to very narrowly and precisely define parameters when it is desirable to do so. Additionally, all appellants must have first requested the Minister to reconsider the earlier decision before they can be taken to the tribunal.”
“And ultimately, in the hands of possible future rogue Ministers and officials, damage Singapore's reputation as an open global business hub where enforcement and application are predictable and certain. Together with the hasty passage of significant Bills, such as this, with limited or rushed debate, these would risk chilling investment and job opportunities in the process. I must also sound a note of caution. We must ensure that we do not end up being so shrill and fearful of the threat of foreign interference that we end up neglecting an even more insidious threat, one where domestic players could seize an easy opportunity to whip up nationalism and anti-foreign sentiment to further their own political goals, nefarious or otherwise, in the flimsy name of protecting national interest and sovereignty. We have seen this happening since 2016 in movements and campaigns like Brexit, Pegida and Make America Great Again. There has been a rise of far-right governments from Brazil to central eastern Europe; formerly fringe parties, such as the Front National and the Alternative für Deutschland, have acquired national platforms. All of them have built their success on twisted versions of patriotism and national identity and sovereignty. If similar homegrown ideas and movements are allowed to take root here, whether from the ruling government of the day, opposition parties or otherwise, the damage done to a small society like ours could be catastrophic. Moving on to the proposed amendments by the Workers' Party, I will speak on those standing in my name, which are amendments to clauses 92 to 104, which fall under Part 8, Oversight Arrangements. These relate to two main points. First, the rights of appeal; and second, the judicial review of the clause.”
“A fear that has been repeated by numerous voices including those of, in particular, my colleagues Assoc Prof Jamus Lim's and Mr Gerald Giam's amendments. The impact of the Bill is not reserved just for the few who are active in politics. The way it has been drafted and passed has the potential to adversely affect ordinary Singaporeans in ways that may not be initially obvious. It is like a trojan horse that appears benign at first, but unravels upon passage in two main ways. Firstly, any uncertainty will create a chilling effect on political discussion and engagement. As a specific example, the wide discretion allowed by the drafting of the Bill to designate who is a Politically Significant Person (PSP) runs the risk of encouraging many to step away from conversation in the public space to avoid the onerous countermeasures that come with being a designated PSP. This means local content creators, local activists, local academics, their retraction from our public spaces will mean that we will be worse off, and this will dampen the richness of thinking and dialogue on issues that matter to all Singaporeans. It will also be damaging to our standing connection to the global commons, which has recently already been called into question with concerns raised over the closure of Yale-NUS College. Secondly, many have echoed our fears that this Bill represents power given to the Government which is not subject to the oversight of the Courts. It provides the Minister wide-ranging powers that are largely unfettered, with the only exception being a reviewing Tribunal that has a narrow scope. Could this be a slippery slope that would lead to less checks on how these powers are wielded?”
“I also note that the Bill is 168 pages longer than the POFMA Bill and contains, on the face of it, even broader powers which should, logically, mean that more scrutiny must be given before it is passed. I would therefore, like to seek clarification from the Minister about why the pressing need to forge ahead with this Bill now. While I reiterate that the Workers' Party agrees that appropriate measures need to be put in place to counter the threat of foreign interference, we would like to understand what is the real and imminent threat that Singapore faces that warrants such a rush in passing the Bill. How many instances of suspected foreign interference have there been in each of the last 10 years? And more crucially, why are the specific powers and tools contained under the Bill so urgently required by the Minister and various Competent Authorities that would mean the Bill needs to be rushed ahead and passed into law without further delay at this particular juncture? I also want to stress that this Bill is not an obscure one that, once passed, will have minimal impact on the lives of Singaporeans. Already, we have seen numerous voices from a Senior Counsel, various NGOs, Singaporean academics, including a senior research fellow at IPS, speaking up to voice their grave concerns not only at the speed at which the Bill is to be passed, but also about the substantive provisions contained in the Bill. There is a fear from many that in the rush to pass the Bill to counter foreign interference, we may be throwing the baby out with the bath water and end up catching many legitimate and innocent people, entities and projects in the dragnet.”
“Mr Speaker, we have today, before us, a mere 21 days after its First Reading, a 249-page wide ranging Bill which grants sweeping powers to the Minister and the Competent Authority to counteract foreign influence in our polices and direction. As my Workers' Party colleagues will point out, we believe in giving relevant authorities clearly defined and effective tools to counter actual acts of foreign interference. Our objections, however, are raised in both the drafting of wide-ranging powers, the problems with oversight mechanisms and also the way the Bill has been presented. Outside this Chamber, Singaporeans are just starting a second week of yet another set of tightened COVID-19 rules while navigating a system of confusing quarantine and testing programmes and regulations, scrambling to adapt to more home-based working and learning. Our healthcare workers are strained and we have resorted to activating SAF to assist the system that was overwhelmed only one month after we further loosened restrictions. Most of us are also receiving numerous requests for assistance from residents in dealing with the confusion of Quarantine Orders, the new Home Recovery Programme and also with pressing economic hardship suffered because of the latest round of tightened restrictions. And in the midst of many Singaporeans being preoccupied with such pressing concerns, this Bill has been tabled and put up for Second Reading within three weeks with no public consultations nor Select Committees convened for the purposes of scrutinising the powers that it gives the Minister. This is in stark contrast to POFMA, where a cross-party Select Committee convened public hearings over eight days, which saw 79 individuals and organisations testify.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have two supplementary questions. The first is, I take the Minister for Health's earlier explanation about the numbers that were quoted earlier. But my question relates to what were the previous planning parameters when we first announced that we are moving into the endemic phase. This is very key because we need to know that we are properly resourced; that we do not have a situation like what we saw in the last couple of weeks where people were waiting for days, or up to a week, before they were actually responded to. So, my question would be, how many cases were we planning for back then, before this current surge? Was it 1,000, 2,000, 3,000 or 5,000? And how can we actually put measures in place to make sure that it does not occur, especially when we are planning to loosen the restrictions again in three weeks. So, I think everybody wants to avoid a situation where we actually end up where, every time we loosen some restrictions, we see a massive surge, and then people cannot actually get any answers, or they cannot get through the hotlines. The second point is whether anything can be done for better communications and messaging for residents and people who are actually affected. We have things like Heightened Alert, Stabilisation, preparatory stages. People are getting very confused about what each of these actually refer to. Same goes for the acronyms like HRP, QOs. And I am sure many Members have actually seen the many, many different flowcharts and spreadsheets. It is just very, very confusing. What else can be done to make sure that our communications to a very complicated situation, are communicated to residents so that they do not end up having to jam the hotlines as well?”
“If we do not face these negative sentiments squarely, misunderstandings may well become deeper. In addition, the authorities and decision-makers should be more proactive in information disclosure, based on the principle of information transparency, so that we can engage in realistic discussions, avoid misunderstandings from happening or deepening and prevent social tensions from escalating unnecessarily. (In English): To conclude, immigration and foreign manpower have been heated issues in Singapore for many, many years. CECA and FTAs are but the latest iterations of the debate. This is a difficult, complicated topic and an issue that many other nations continue to struggle with. We must, therefore, create a strong ecosystem for conversation, interaction and disagreement on the topics at hand. We must say no to a continued top-down approach to immigration where we are told what is good for us. The danger is that, over time, resentment continues to build, and anti-immigrant sentiment spills over into nasty incidents where there is a heavy element of racism and xenophobia that also affect our Singaporeans as well, such as the unfortunate events that we have seen in recent months. I hope the Government will take this as an opportunity to rethink the way these topics have been managed and discussed so far and, instead, lean more into enabling conversations on the ground to change hearts and minds rather than continue to debate what is best for Singaporeans and dictate our story for us. Mr Speaker, with your permission, I beg to move amendments to the Motion proposed by the Non-Constituency Member of Parliament from the PSP. [A copy of amendments handed to Mr Speaker.]”
“Data on these hot-button topics should be published and shared regularly to allow citizens to understand the impact of Government-led policies on the shape of our economy and society and to allow our academics and commentators a fact base to start with. A proactive, transparent and data-driven approach to the conversation around foreigners might not convince every cynic but it would go a long way to quieten any unfounded claims, leave less room for conspiracy theories to flourish and give short shrift to those who seek to sow discord amongst us and seek bogeyman, a prime example of which would be CECA and FTAs. Mr Speaker, in Chinese, please. (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.]: Mr Speaker, Sir, while the Motion today is about jobs for Singaporeans, this issue cannot be divorced from immigration and foreign workers. Such discussions will inevitably stir up strong reactions in today’s Singapore society. Real concerns from some Singaporeans may well be seen as xenophobic or even discriminatory. I think a few points can serve as starting points for the discussions. First, we must acknowledge that with globalisation, Singapore, like many other countries, faces the problems of widening income gap and rising social tensions in tandem. Second, these phenomena have, indeed, intensified the friction between the local and foreign workers. In many ways, these problems are avoidable. The key lies in whether Singaporeans, foreign workers and even the authorities are making an effort to integrate them into the society. Faced with challenges brought about by globalisation, we must cast aside our prejudices and discrimination, especially in the workplace. In this respect, anti-discrimination legislation in Parliament is a right move.”
“Finally, I cannot stress enough the importance of a transparent, data-driven approach to immigration and our foreign manpower policies. At the moment, decisions on whether or not to grant citizenship, permanent residence and various work passes are made by ICA and MOM respectively, but no reasons are ever given. Likewise, data relating to our resident labour force often lumps Singaporeans and Permanent Residents together. While the Government may have reasons for doing so, the best medicine against misinformation, cynicism and resentment is cold, hard data, and to build a transparent culture around the data relating to our policies. We also need to understand that residents who are married to foreigners or who have foreign family members are often left wondering and speculating about why their family member's application for Long-Term Visit Pass (LTVP), permanent residency or citizenship was rejected and what they could do to change the outcome. They would naturally compare this against the number of immigrants moving into the neighbourhood who are granted the immigrant status that they have been applying for – some for decades – sometimes without any ostensible familial ties to Singapore Citizens. Is it any wonder that resentment would build up? The Government thus needs to take the lead in this by being proactive about the type of data that is shared: from information about our workforce broken down into Singaporeans and Permanent Residents, to providing clear pathways to citizenship for those who are already part of our Singaporean families and communities.”
“Efforts need to be made to learn the norms within Singapore society, whether it is how we "chope" our tables or the inclination to queue wherever we go. This does not mean losing the richness of the culture or practices that come with one’s history; Singapore will continue to embrace diversity as being at our centre. Indeed, I do see examples of some immigrants reaching out to us as we conduct our ground work and expressing their desire to volunteer, to work with us and give back to the communities that they live in. It is heartening, especially when we note that they do not do so because they are after priority queue numbers for school places for their children or some other benefit, but because they truly believe in doing something to further the communal spirit that should overcome differences in our backgrounds. I only wish that we see more of these, and that we continually look for ways and means to improve the situation, to allow more ground-up, non-Government-directed avenues for interaction and understanding between citizens and immigrants, allowing voices to be heard from both sides. That said, we also need to have a no-excuses approach to discriminatory, prejudicial behaviour and against those who seek to sow discord between immigrants and our host communities. Both groups deserve to have their rights protected stringently. Just as the law comes down hard against those who make offensive and aggressive gestures against foreigners or those from different backgrounds, we also need to ensure that Singaporeans do not face discrimination at the workplace and I hope that the welcomed but long overdue anti-discrimination legislation announced will be strong and robust enough to achieve this.”
“To this end, it is notable that the European Programme for Integration and Migration states that this is, quote, "a two-way process of adaption by migrants and host societies, and, of identification and respect for a core set of values that bind migrants and host communities in a common purpose", unquote. I think this approach needs to equally apply to incomers who choose to sink roots and take up a pink IC, and those who may be here on a more temporary basis. While I note that there are initiatives organised through the People’s Association, what has been less clear to the public is whether the organisation itself is seen to be there primarily to serve partisan interests and, more importantly, how successful these initiatives have been. Judging by the recent episodes that have come to our national consciousness, both online and off, towards foreigners, this would suggest that we need to redouble our efforts in bridging any gaps that remain between the groups. How can we, together, in a way that is accepted by both sides, come up with a common core set of values that each of us respects, that would bind us together, to lessen any mistrust and negative feelings that may be currently amplified by uncertain economic times and the fear for one’s livelihoods? I do not think this is something that Government leaders and associated bodies, such as the People’s Association, should ram down the throats of a skeptical populace. Perhaps what is lacking is the buy-in from both sides that it is not only important for Singaporeans to adapt to having "foreigners" in our midst, but that our foreign friends must also play their part in wanting to integrate into the communities they are in.”
“Rather than immediately take issue with the speaker, we could understand that lived realities on the ground could be very different to ours and we should pay attention to whether these views and experiences could reveal potential blind spots in the implementation of our policies. We must also remember that widening inequality is as dangerous as any threats to our economy, as this only drives fears relating to the quality and quantity of the jobs available to Singaporeans, and can lead to anger and resentment against any incomers who are perceived to be better off and to have taken our rice bowls. Widening inequality thus leads to increasingly polarised politics, which has a certain irony, as data suggest that it is technological advances, which are, in turn, exacerbated by the failure of politics and Government policies to address these trends, rather than globalisation trends, that drive how equal a society is. Having said all of this, what else can we do to address the concerns and tensions highlighted above? Two big areas where we can work on more are: first, building more, stronger and meaningful bridges between immigrants and citizens; and second, embracing a strong, transparent and data-driven culture. In order to better understand one another, much effort needs to be expended by both groups, immigrants and citizens alike, in order to have these immigrants properly integrated and accepted into society. There needs to be mutual understanding, tolerance and, finally, meaningful relationships between these two groups to minimise the pitfalls associated with "the other" and also make real the benefits and increased richness to community life that our migrants can bring to our country.”
“Our reliance on foreign labour, whether skilled labour or the low-wage migrants we see taking up the slack as carers in our medical and social systems, as live-in help for households, and also for building sites, may prove to be our Achilles heel if we assume that we can simply turn on the tap for these roles to be fulfilled at any time, and that the workers will come in. Our policies, including our FTAs, need to be sensitive to this and not be blind-sided by any reverses in globalisation trends which are currently threatening to be the case. This is especially important in the current era, where we see the rise of nativist politics and governments from around 2016, as evidenced most famously by the Brexit vote and election of Donald Trump. Too easily have immigration and migrants become convenient bogeymen, just like CECA and our FTAs appear to have done, often against all data that suggest otherwise. Singapore is vulnerable to such dangerous sentiments, and the shocks caused by COVID-19 and the anxieties wrought by a changed world only add to the fears of our people and need to be addressed through more sensitive policies and engagement with the populace. Now, more than ever, there needs to be humility in the approach taken by our leaders to such matters, and the listening ear of the Government needs to be attuned to and prod at the genuine concerns behind why some of us feel the way we do so strongly; sometimes, in the face of endless explanations that our assumptions or understanding of these policies and FTAs are flawed.”
“It is hardly right then that we dismiss all these views and concerns as narrow-minded and xenophobic. The challenge to citizens to accept and accommodate more people into our communities, with the different histories, languages, accents, ways of life and cultures they bring is not always an easy one for a society to accept and it is imperative on all of us to play an active role to manage and mitigate any potential fall-out. Indeed, we have seen how our public debate around immigration and foreign manpower has changed over the last decade. In 2013, during the debate around our Population White Paper with the now "iconic" 6.9 million figure, then Deputy Prime Minister Teo told this House that “the growth in foreign workforce, total population, infrastructure and housing are not aligned", and accepted that it "contributed to the anxiety, crowdedness, integration problems and the daily inconveniences faced by Singaporeans today". Additionally, we must be mindful of how world events can shape the conversation. It has also been pointed out that the current era we are living in has been an unprecedented one which became hyper-globalised, with its roots in the 1980s, when Reaganism and Thatcherism took off. Movement of people, goods and services, has become much easier, and, together with the growth in the middle classes in massive and emerging economies, such as China and India, has had an impact on our domestic markets and society in general. But it must not be forgotten that globalisation has slowed down since 2010 and the trend of increasing globalisation is not a linear process, as history has, indeed, taught us.”
“This is because the consequences of immigration are often felt very personally by individuals. These changes in the make-up of our society cut at our very daily experience: who we see in our communities every day, the languages we hear around us and the sheer numbers of "others" we have to share our already crowded public spaces with. Above all, the perception of the impact of immigration on jobs. This is especially against the backdrop of unprecedented disruption caused by the shift to, amongst others, digitalisation, Industry 4.0 and a re-balanced normal, all of which have been exacerbated by COVID-19. On the other hand, the promise is that immigrants bring skills and a diversity of experiences, and often take up the slack in our labour markets. However, these benefits brought about by our foreign manpower policy tend to accrue more generally and are less directly experienced by individuals. The argument that more trade, more foreign workers and more enterprise equals better and more jobs for Singaporeans is less visible and is not always immediately evident. Tensions are felt when this "grand bargain" is not one that all Singaporeans have bought into. This could be especially hard to bridge because many come to the debate with views that are seen through a personal lens, one that could bring biases due to personal life experiences, which would, in turn, lead to a very generalised view over our foreign manpower and immigration policies. And citizens may thus approach the matter without the required nuance or balance that academics or policymakers have the luxury to adopt. Our citizens are, after all, still feeling our way through how to respectfully debate such sensitive topics.”
“Mr Speaker, while today’s Motion is ostensibly about jobs for Singaporeans, I believe an inescapable part of the conversation is about immigration and its impact on our economy and society. Immigration is a topic that is complex and sensitive, and we must, as a society – together with the Government – learn to have difficult conversations with each other without vilifying those who may have a different opinion from ours. Too often do we hear cries of "xenophobia" and "racism" being thrown at those of us who may raise, often legitimate, concerns about the changing nature of our social fabric or the strain on our labour markets. And on the other hand, those who try to speak up in defence of greater international movement of labour and trade are labelled as sell-outs and as "opening the floodgates" at the expense of hardworking Singaporeans. This polarising approach is neither healthy nor productive, and I believe all of us must take a more nuanced and open-minded approach. Singapore is a young country. And immigration has been a fundamental part of our story for a very long time, from our founding as a free port in the 1800s to our transformation into a modern city in the 1980s. Immigrants have and will always continue to shape our story. We are the country we are today only because of our embrace of diversity and different histories, and this has to continue. Indeed, for most of our pre-Independence history, immigration exceeded natural births. After Independence, the Government first tightened immigration, then implemented a policy that uses migrants to fulfil a certain role in our labour force as one of the economic tools to drive the growth of our economy. I do not think that many will deny that this is a complex and difficult balance to get right.”
“(In English): Mr Speaker, television used to be a great equaliser in Singapore but it is ironic that the advent of paid TV in the wake of the duopoly between Singtel and StarHub, which was, ostensibly, to give us greater choice, has now opened up a divide between those who can afford to pay the extra subscription charges to watch top sports competitions and those who cannot afford to do so. Now that civil and criminal liability for commercial dealings in set-top boxes and related services is being imposed, what steps will the Government take to widen access to broadcast of sporting events? Will certain major sporting events be broadcast free-to-air or perhaps be shown at Community Clubs? This will go some way towards preserving access to sports, which has proven to be a great unifier in our otherwise multicultural and multi-ethnic nation. It could also bridge the digital divide for ordinary Singaporeans. It would definitely give us all something to talk about over our morning coffee at our neighbourhood coffee shops. Mr Speaker, I support the Bill.”
“I, like many Singaporeans, understand the importance of IP protection and would support the authentic versions unequivocally. However, we still need to guard against a bad situation where IP protection inadvertently results in access to media content becoming an expensive luxury. For example, it would be unfortunate if the only way in which one could lawfully watch the English Premier League (EPL) is through paying for exorbitant packages. Otherwise, why would there be so many otherwise law-abiding citizens resorting to using set-top boxes or other relevant services to watch their favourite content? Take the Euro 2020 football tournament in June for example, to access to all matches, you must pay an exorbitant fee of $90. And let us not forget EPL fans who have to pay for an expensive sports package subscription fee each month. Bear in mind that Singaporeans pay more for similar content than those in most other countries, even those with higher cost of living. Television used to be a great equaliser in Singapore, but it is ironic and saddening that the advent of paid TV in the wake of the duopoly between Singtel and StarHub – which was ostensibly to give the audience greater choice – has now opened up a divide between those who can afford to pay more to watch top sports competitions and those who cannot afford to do so. Now that the Government is going to impose civil and criminal liability for commercial dealings in set-top boxes and related services, what steps will the Government take to widen access to broadcast of sporting events? Will certain popular sporting events be broadcast free-to-air or perhaps be shown at Community Clubs?”
“It will be unfortunate if the only way in which one could lawfully gain access to content, in particular, sporting events, would be to pay exorbitant amounts in order to do so. Key to this is knowing why else would many otherwise law-abiding citizens resort to using set-top boxes and services to access their desired content. The recent Euro 2020 football tournament was available only to those who could pay the exorbitant fee of over $90 to have access to all matches. This is in addition to the special subscription rates that go over and beyond basic sports packages that avid followers of the English Premier League have to pay. Overshadowing all these is that Singaporeans pay significantly more for such content than those in most other countries, even those with higher costs of living. I would not be the first to point out here that in years past, Singaporeans could watch live broadcasts of any sporting events and certainly, I am old enough to remember the thrill of being allowed to watch the epic Wimbledon Final between Steffi Graf and Martina Navratilova in 1988, which was telecast on free-to-air TV. Nowadays, if I want to see if Roger Federer would ever win another Slam, I would need to pay around $49.90 a month or $449 a year for the Sports Plus package to watch it on TV after spending lots of time and effort navigating the confusing variety of different sports, the different channels and providers offer and deal with changes to availability due to exclusivity rights expiring. Mr Speaker, in Chinese. (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The Copyright Bill before us today was described by WIPO as Singapore’s biggest copyright reform in 30 years.”
“While I do see that this is a helpful and necessary exception to have, particularly in the advent of more and more powerful AI capabilities and Singapore's drive to be a Smart Nation, it remains to be seen in the real world if the safeguards and conditions are sufficient to balance protecting the rights and commercial interests of copyright holders against allowing legitimate use of copyrighted material for text and data mining purposes. Finally, I wish to turn to the impact on consumers. While many modern end-users, raised on the steady diet of electronic media, intuitively grasp instances of copyright violations, could the Minister clarify what efforts have been undertaken to educate the public at large on what constitutes a copyright violation, how to attribute copyright owners appropriately and how to avoid infringing copyright? After all, copyright provisions apply to all Singaporeans and it would be especially embarrassing and unfair for our citizens, in particular, that uncle who has just discovered the joys of the "forward" function on WhatsApp, to find themselves inadvertently running afoul of the copyright law as a result of sharing content. Finally, I would like to turn to the introduction in clauses 141 and 142 of the Bill of civil and criminal penalties for engaging in commercial dealings due to infringing set-top boxes and services, which include computer programmes and apps. I support, in principle, the control of set-top boxes and related services as this assists in the enforcement of the protection of IP rights. However, I believe that we still need to guard against a situation where IP protection results in access programming becoming prohibitively expensive and therefore, no longer accessible to all.”
“This is especially in the case of online content and for themes that are deliberately ambiguous, such as memes or parody. Given that an increasing number of Singaporeans are creating online content, will the Minister provide any further clarification on what would constitute "fair use" or would this await the guidance of the Courts when the matter has been taken to litigation? This could be confusing for existing content creators who might only have guidance to what would constitute "fair use" of their works but undertaking costly and time-consuming litigation over the potential infringement of their ownership rights. Would IPOS provide specific illustrations of when a use connotes fair use versus when it would not? Such an approach would further the Government's purpose for introducing the fair use exception, in particular, to "create an environment conducive to the development of creative works". One potential way forward would be for industry associations to take the lead and issue guidelines on what "fair use" would look like for that particular industry, an approach that MinLaw appears to have considered, as mentioned in 2019 MinLaw and IPOS Copyright Review report. Would the Ministry provide an update on whether industry efforts are currently underway to develop such guidelines? Moving on to a new exception contained in Part 5, Division 8 which is for the reproduction of works for text and data mining. This applies to both commercial and non-commercial activities and would permit reproduction of works and recordings of performances for "computational data analysis", including the preparation of works for analysis. There are protective conditions in clause 244(2), which amongst others, specify that the user must have had lawful access to the work or recording.”
“A further question arises about the presumptions that apply for authorial works that are first published in Singapore, as contained in clause 167. I note that these assert a territorially-premised copyright claim. However, it is less clear what the protections and provisions available for international and enforcement of such claims are. What cross-border legal resources are available and are these embedded within a new copyright protection regime? These are not abstract and theoretical questions, as recently seen in the case of a dispute that arose earlier this year over one of our beloved National Day songs. Second, I wish to raise a number of considerations and clarifications relating to the exceptions introduced by the Bill, primarily the change from a "fair dealing" to a "fair use" exception, which form an extensive part of the Bill. Division 2 of the Bill replaces the fair dealings provision in sections 35, 36, 37, 109, 110 and 111 of the existing Act with the concept of fair use, which "depend on the facts", while still being subject to the considerations specified in clause 191. This shifts the treatment of alleged copyright infringements away from the fair dealings doctrine – the treatment under English law, where violations must fall into categories defined in the statue – toward a more open-ended fair use doctrine, the approach adopted in the US, where factors did not match any exhaustive list. Importantly, the Bill's open-ended fair use exception now means that the Court need to determine whether the fair use exception applies. I note that this discretion opens up the possibility of significant ambiguity, particularly in the beginning without a body of case law to back it up.”
“It is further notable that creators and performers have organised themselves into guilds and unions, such as the powerful British performers' union "Equity" and the Writers' Guild of Great Britain, which have not only been crucial in fighting for better pay and working conditions for their members, but are also key in protecting such practitioners and their livelihoods in the wake of the devastation wrought by COVID-19, by negotiating with employers to improve working terms and conditions, improve and ensure diversity in their ranks. They also have a right to be consulted on various matters. The ability to have such representation and rights recognised was particularly important as the industry was wrecked by the lockdowns and restrictions brought on by the coronavirus and will be key in helping them to weather any future major disruptions. In contrast, the Screenwriters' Association (Singapore), while doing good work for the training and development of its members, does not have the power to negotiate minimum standards and protections for its members, and is limited to providing feedback to IMDA focus group meetings upon invitation. The system in Singapore surrounding creative practitioners is therefore still very much tied with the involvement and endorsement of the Government. Therefore, the Workers' Party would support a move that goes even further than the current Bill in giving more rights, protections and rewards to creators and performers to be in line with those in developed countries. With this in mind, I would like to ask if the Government intends to go even further to recognise the rights of creators and performers by legislating for them to receive royalty payments. Is the change in copyright law, meant to be a step in that direction?”
“Mr Speaker, the Copyright Bill before us today was described by WIPO magazine as Singapore's biggest copyright reform in 30 years and is drawn from an extended period of public consultation which started in 2016. The objectives of the Bill are laudable and include upholding Singapore's international obligations relating to intellectual property (IP), updating and rationalising various aspects of our existing laws on IP and improving accessibility to and ease of understanding these laws. Critically, it also confers upon authors and performers the moral right to be identified and includes provisions governing fair usage of IP matters. It is these final two elements of the Bill that I will concentrate my speech on. First, on the granting of new rights for creators and performers. Divisions 1 and 2 of Part 7 automatically grant authors the right to be identified in relation to the works they produce and performers to be identified with their performances. This is a welcome step further than the current regime under which creators and performers only have a right to prevent the false attribution of another person as the author or performer. We support the recognition of IP in the works of authors and performers, yet, I believe that there is room for us to expand such recognition. In many other jurisdictions, for example, the UK, US, Australia, New Zealand and various European countries, creators and performers earn residual payments, or royalties for the use of their works and performances. For example, writers and actors of television programmes broadcast by the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) earn royalties. This is in contrast to the situation in Singapore where writers and actors on Mediacorp television programmes do not do so.”
“I thank the Minister. I have two supplementary questions. The first is, as part of my original Parliamentary Question, what other options and alternatives were considered and why were they not taken? Secondly, what do you feel is the impact on the future possible tie-ups and also, some of our existing tie-ups, for example, Duke-NUS? There is a certain impression given that maybe, even though we might approach other external parties for similar collaborations in the future, will we then suddenly decide that actually, we have had enough, we have benefited enough, we are going to forge ahead. So, I think that really ties into our academic standing and our reputation.”