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 [(proc text) Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”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 12 of 13.
“After my sister and I were born, my mother told me that she felt a lot of pressure to try for a third child, in the hope that they would have a boy. When she brought this up with my father, his answer was short and sharp, "What's wrong with my daughters?" he asked. I am incredibly grateful that my father has lived his whole life by these words, believing and supporting his daughters with his heart and soul to live our lives in accordance with our own choices – whether or not he agreed with us! – and I know that I would not be here without this commitment that he has given us. I also do not think that he, as a lifelong workaholic at the workplace, would have expected himself to become so involved in the care and nurturing of his beloved grandsons in his 70s, which has been critical in supporting me in my own journey here today. I can only hope that many more of us show our wives, mothers and daughters the same belief and love that I experienced as we move towards greater gender equality. Mdm Deputy Speaker, gender equality is not a partisan issue. It is not even just a women’s issue. It is a men’s issue. It is a societal issue. We are in this together. I hope our Parliamentary colleagues will address these issues together, especially since our hon colleagues have, by their own admission, said they raised similar issues repeatedly. It is time for Singapore to take the next step. [Applause.] 8.11 pm”
“These include adjusting policies to break down stereotypes which are unfair to women, and allow women to gain more leadership positions, such as in Parliament, the Cabinet and Boards of Directors; introducing measures to encourage employers to adopt flexible work arrangements, to narrow the pay gap between men and women, respect and understand employees’ needs to take care of their family and children; expanding sex education so that people are more sensitive in identifying and preventing sexual harassment and abuse, and giving more protection to children and the less privileged who are vulnerable to sexual harassment and abuse. The Government should also provide more channels to report sexual harassment and abuse. In terms of legislation, the Government can introduce anti-discrimination laws, raise citizens' awareness of gender equality in the workplace and other areas, and strive towards gender equality and fair treatment. Gender equality and anti-discrimination is not only a women issue, but also a national issue that concerns all of us. As a responsible citizen, we must fulfil our duties towards each other. (In English): I started this debate by speaking about my maternal grandmother. She would be so happy to see how little girls today do not have to fight for a right to get themselves educated in Singapore, and no longer need to hide books to read surreptitiously. But she would be first to say that we must not rest on our laurels and carry on working towards a world of gender equality. And now, I would also like to close with a big note of thanks to my father. He was born just after the war, the last of 10 children in an extremely traditional family who viewed boys as far superior to girls.”
“And since it is still Olympic season, it cannot escape our attention that changes are also sweeping through sports as well. It is notable that the Tokyo 2020 Olympics saw attention being given to the outfits of female Olympians, and many commented positively on the choice of the German gymnastics women’s team and Norwegian beach volleyball women’s team to wear attire that they felt most comfortable with. It is also heartening to note that female top athletes such as Naomi Osaka and Simone Biles are the ones who are leading the way in raising issues relating to mental health. While it is important to make our policy positions and stand clear, we must take tangible action to effect change. This is why we have brought up the various different proposals that we have in our 2020 manifesto and to make a difference, not only for women, but society as a whole. We have to enact real change in our legislation and Government policies to address discrimination directly. This is clearly not a silver bullet, but an important next step to send a signal, to set the tone for the foundational principle of gender equality that we should put at the forefront of all our policies and laws. Mdm Deputy Speaker, if I may, in Chinese. (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to reiterate that giving equal treatment to men and women should be a fundamental safeguard of a society. Of course, there are many facets to gender equality.”
“Ms Sylvia Lim focused on the challenge facing political parties in Singapore in finding sufficient numbers of able and willing women to step up to being parliamentary candidates and political leaders. She noted that while Singapore had made progress, greater success was more likely if the social norms supported gender-equal choices. She was cautiously optimistic that the element of political competition would pressure political parties to field more able women, in order to gain support from a more demanding electorate. Assoc Prof Jamus Lim shared how gender equality and female empowerment can be a force for economic progress. He has raised how our female labour force participation rate has actually trended down over the past five years and the male participation rate has consistently outstripped that of women. Moreover, the most lucrative and fastest growing sectors remain male-dominated and reduced participation could be symptomatic of the difficulty that women face in breaking into such jobs. To make matters worse, the gender pay gap in Singapore remains substantial. He also proposed various measures to support women and working mothers, and to address the gender pay gap. These are just the main topics relating to the barriers to gender equality and there are many more which I have received in the form of comments and emails. These topics range from the concerns raised about fertility challenges that women face and women’s health in the form of the chronic management of common conditions like polycystic ovary syndrome and its associated co-morbidities. To summarise, it is good to hear that across the aisle, we are in general agreement that gender equality has to be pushed to the forefront of national discourse.”
“He also mentioned the important role of fathers in caring for their children – all the while leading by example as told by the number of times his little two-year-old featured in our Zoom calls while he was on papa duty. Mr Vikram Nair recounted what participants had shared at a dialogue session he attended, including their experiences of facing discrimination at the workplace during pregnancy or difficulties in re-entering the workforce after devoting several years to caregiving. Ms Raeesah Khan spoke about sexual violence and survivor care. She noted that we need to ensure that survivors are given adequate support to ensure that they are able to address the trauma they faced. She also touched on three pressing issues in her community: female genital cutting, polygamy and the hijab. Dr Shahira Abdullah called for a whole-of-society and community mindset shift, including for boys and their caregivers. She said that women should be the allies of each other and act in solidarity with women from marginalised groups. I thank Ms Yeo Wan Ling for her speech on the contributions of women in the Labour Movement and Ms Tin Pei Ling for reminding us of the Aspirations of Women Motion in 2017 and for supporting the amended Motion. Mr Zhulkarnian Abdul Rahim mentioned the important role of men and fathers in this conversation; and Miss Cheng Li Hui, I thank her for her views as well on egg freezing and fertility support. Mr Gerald Giam in his speech called for more openness in our immigration and visa policies for foreign spouses of Singapore Citizens to strengthen the Singapore Core, for more support to be extended to single parents and for policies to promote flexible work arrangements, all of which benefit both men and women.”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, we have come to the end of the debate today on a topic that touches on so many aspects of our lives individually and us as a society. The amount of feeling and the long number of speakers are indicative of how important this topic is. As to the amendment that was proposed, the Workers' Party does not object to the amendment and looks forward to scrutinising the action plans to be proposed. We hope to see concrete steps taken to effect change, whether through legislative amendments or policy overhaul. Be that as it may, I would again reiterate that when we decided to bring this Private Members' Motion as a party, my colleagues and I felt strongly about how the issues we raised affect both ourselves and also, the women and men in our lives. Mr Leon Perera spoke about the three women in his life – his mother, his wife and his daughter – and how he wants to see a world where women were no longer boxed into long-held stereotypes. He shared how men and employers have key roles to play in abolishing sexist attitudes, and how we can accelerate progress by having anti-discrimination legislation while working together to teach the principles of gender equality to our children. I thank Minister of State Sun Xueling and Parliamentary Secretary Rahayu Mahzam for giving an update on Government policies supporting women in various areas. My Sengkang GRC colleague Mr Louis Chua shared why it is important that our care-related policies do not ironically perpetuate stereotypes and reinforce notions on gender roles. Both men and women must not be forced to make the false choice of choosing between work or family, and we need to ensure adequate support is granted to our caregivers.”
“I have outlined some of the key areas of concern in this speech and my colleagues in the Workers' Party will continue to do so. I also believe that all of us here do want to ensure that we work together to engender a whole-of-society effort to empower every woman to freely realise her full potential and participation in society. In that spirit, I look forward to a collegial, frank and honest debate on the Motion. [Applause.] [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]”
“At the same time, it is also key that women who currently shoulder the responsibilities of informal care do not end up being further penalised by our policies. In this regard, the Workers' Party has spoken up against the Government's current policy of requiring higher CareShield Life premiums to be paid by women as this, at best, causes a double penalty on many women who are already struggling with a gender wage gap and taking on less paid work due to their caring responsibilities. In 2018, when CareShield Life was introduced, my colleague Sylvia Lim and Pritam Singh, the Members for Aljunied GRC, pointed out not only the devastating impact this would have on women's participation in the labour force, but also fundamentally how this difference in treatment along gender lines directly contradicts the scheme's intended features of "universality" and "risk-pooling". Apart from being unfair to women, this sets a dangerous precedent where we differentiate policy application within society. For example, if life expectancy differs between races and socio-economic groups, would different premiums then be justifiable between these groups, depending on how we splice the population? Creating this heavier burden on women, therefore, does not move us in the right direction. National policies such as CareShield Life should pool risk across differences and instead share the burden of care, especially as our population ages. To conclude, yes, we can be proud of the progress that we have made for gender equality so far. But as has already been acknowledged by many in this House, much work needs to be done. We should not get so carried away by our perceived successes and with patting ourselves on our backs that we miss this key moment to effect sustainable change for gender equality.”
“As a first step, we repeat our previous call for better recognition of those who carry out these informal caring responsibilities. It is only by measuring the contributions of unpaid workers and publishing it as a supplement to our GDP data that we can start developing policies to guard against these workers, who tend to be overwhelmingly female, from becoming destitute in what should be their golden years. To add to the challenges women face, the life expectancy at birth in 2020 for women was 86.1, compared with 81.5 for men. Yet, women are more likely to take on a disproportionate role in providing informal care, be it for their children, husbands or elders, often at an economic cost as we often have to scale back on the type or amount of paid employment taken on. Coupled with the gender wage gap, this is something that has serious implications on women's financial resources and, in particular, retirement adequacy. Indeed, it was found that women have more difficulty than men when it comes to meeting the Basic Retirement Sum in their CPF accounts, with only 56% of women meeting the amount compared to 67% for men in 2018. Clearly, the various top-up schemes available have not addressed this gap between the genders, hence our call to relax rules on the transfer of CPF funds before the age of 55 after the Minimum Sum has been met, to allow transfers to older relatives. While I note there are more top-up schemes available now, it is not yet clear what the impact is on women's retirement adequacy. We need to continue to question gender norms that view informal caring as primarily a job for women, and instead encourage a more equal distribution of such responsibilities. But the problem will, of course, not be solved overnight.”
“These challenges are further exacerbated by how gender-based violence too has increased since the beginning of the pandemic. Indeed, the Association of Women for Action and Research (AWARE) reported increases of 137% in the number of family violence calls during our lockdown last year. These developments are worrying and tell us that addressing gender equality must be done even as we continue to tackle the effects of COVID-19. What is equally alarming is that there appears to be a limited number of Singapore-specific studies available, which leaves us in the dark as to the true impact of COVID-19 on women here. I, therefore, believe that the Government has to study and publish its data and statistics to measure the adverse impact COVID-19 has had on women, and also to carry out longitudinal studies to measure the different spheres in which women have been adversely affected, and to catch any trends before these reversals become hard-baked into our economy and society. The fragility of progress in gender equality itself is also a matter for consideration as we build further policies to ensure that future shocks to society do not result in such reversals in the future. My colleagues will continue to set out our proposals to address this. Finally, to conclude, I would like to touch on the issues that women face when we age. Singapore is ageing and by 2030, 25% of our population is expected to be aged 65 and above. This means that more Singaporeans would need help to perform day-to-day tasks and will cease to be active members of the workforce. The informal caring burden will grow. It is, therefore, essential that we put in place sustainable policies to address these concerns.”
“A study published in the European Societies journal in September 2020 included women in Singapore in their data and found that across the board, changes in working status to unemployment, reductions in working hours and transitions to working from home have been more frequent for women than for men. The consequent loss in income or the adverse impact on careers could be irreversible for us who have been so affected. For women who do manage to hold on to our employment status despite the ever-changing, challenging environment, study after study has found that the transition to alternative working arrangements and the shutting of schools and care support structures have affected women more than men. In fact, UN Women has estimated that while women were doing three times as much unpaid work as men before the pandemic, the figure has at least doubled since the pandemic hit. Warnings were also sounded that any gains of the last 25 years could be wiped out and there are also many concerns about the impact on the well-being of women who already bear so much mental load of running households. Having myself come through the circuit breaker last year with a very active three- and two-year-old cooped up at home, locking my study door so that I could answer emails and get on Zoom calls while nursing first trimester morning exhaustion and morning sickness, with our usual main support network in my parents cut off, I often wonder how I managed to survive. I know that I only managed to juggle my full-time job due to an extremely understanding boss. I can only imagine how much worse this would have been for other women such as single mothers and families who do not have access to help at home or a support network.”
“Education is a key way for us to encourage a change in prejudicial mindsets from an early age. Teachers should be empowered to host frank discussions on gender inequality, the impact of discrimination, and a rethink of gender roles and expectations. An independent review of our school curriculum should also be held, as it can help to propose measures to be applied consistently across all schools to make progress on our gender equality efforts. Moving on to why we need to take action now. Why must we act immediately to put in place the appropriate policies and any legislative amendments while Singapore is still feeling its way out of the pandemic? It has been found that while men are more likely to suffer ill effects from COVID-19 infections, women across different societies around the world have been disproportionately affected – economically, mentally and physically – by the changes and disruption brought about by COVID-19. For example, a study by Ipsos in May this year here in Singapore found that household and care responsibilities were sources of strain for more than half of mothers, with similar figures reporting not having the time to look after their physical, mental and emotional well-being. The adverse impact on women stretches across all spheres in a woman's life, from the workplace to the home, as it has been found across all socio-economic classes and societies. On the economic front, women in the labour market have suffered more than men in the economic slump that has followed the pandemic. A Politico article published last month cited expert opinions that women in low-wage jobs are most at risk of leaving the workforce permanently, which in turn would have a detrimental effect on our economy. Singapore too is no exception.”
“It has been more than 50 years since the Women's Charter was passed in Singapore. We must make more progress. Likewise, when we consider that not all women tread or should be expected to tread the same path in life, we should consider the aspirations of women and their partners of when and how to start a family. It is why we have, in our last manifesto, a call for the formation of a not-for-profit National Fertility Centre, to provide assisted conception procedures along with advice. This centre should also look to offering preservation of eggs and sperm to benefit married couples for whom this option may be necessary. There should also be a wider conversation about re-looking the laws that currently ban egg freezing for non-medical reasons, with any proposed amendments or solutions bearing in mind not only the concerns raised by some of us, but also whether such procedures will be accessible to different socio-economic groups. More generally, considering the gender angle for any policy being proposed or implemented should also become second nature, and perhaps a national gender scorecard can be created and published in this regard. This scorecard would track progress – or not, as the case may be – that we have made for matters such as the gender wage gap and contain a regular time use study which quantifies the amount of unpaid work being performed in Singapore on an annual basis, particularly as the bulk of care work is undertaken by women. The scorecard can also profile companies that are leading the way in efforts to increase women's participation in leadership positions and decision-making processes to encourage greater adoption of these best practices. Another partner in our quest to change mindsets relating to prejudice and stereotypes would be our schools.”
“Easily accessible and widely known support and mentorship networks need to be continued to be built up along with formal mentorship programmes, with both female and male mentors, at various levels to support women. Policymakers can help, and should work together with employers and other stakeholders to put in place the right policies. For example, we must remove barriers to women who wish to re-enter the workforce by targeted job-matching and paid re-entry schemes. Our 2020 manifesto's specific proposal was for tax reliefs to be granted to employers to run successful re-entry programmes for mothers and informal carers who have taken time off to fulfil their caring responsibilities. These schemes could range from mentorships to skills updating and should offer a permanent position at the completion. Participants would benefit from not having to accept a lower pay or a lower-skilled position. This is also a proposal which I spoke on during the 2015 General Election campaign. It is also one which the Workers' Party has had in our manifesto since at least 2015. Beyond this, I am happy to see that there have been calls from all sides for the introduction of anti-discrimination laws to better protect women, especially in the workplace. This is a crucial yet missing part of our legislative framework. Mandating the obligation of a harassment-free workplace that is imposed on employers sends a strong message to our business community that we, as a society, will not accept discriminatory practices against any of our workers. The current TAFEP regime does not go far enough in providing a framework for accountability for perpetrators and neglects the nuances of such situations by placing the burden of reporting the incident on the victim.”
“A woman should not be defined by her relationship status, nor should we judge her for deciding not to have children. Instead of jumping to conclusions and assuming that there must be something wrong if someone, especially a woman, is unmarried or does not have children. Perhaps it is time we accept these as one of life's outcomes and move on, instead of constantly questioning what went wrong to lead to it. This approach would also mean much to women – and men – who may be single or childless not by choice, but because of the hand that life has dealt them. In this, our media also needs to play its part. Notably, in a CNA article dated 30 June 2021, which attempted to explore the trend of highly educated women remaining single, the questions asked were, I quote, "are they too picky, too busy, too independent, too intimidating?" I am just not sure if we will ever see questions like these being asked if a highly educated unmarried man in his 40s were to be presented as the same. Now that we have laid out the problem, what can we do about it? There have been many studies that have shown that having enough female leaders is important for any society or organisation to ensure that female perspectives are taken into account, and to give rise to a diversity of views and experiences. As women, we too need to lead by example in accepting and supporting other women, and to show how this can be done, regardless of the choices we wish to make in life. These range from striving to be corporate or political leaders, to deciding to take time off work to concentrate on starting a family or other interests.”
“My colleagues and I will today elaborate on each of these and share our thoughts on how we can remove barriers to gender equality, and what support and infrastructure we feel is necessary to better empower women to fulfil their potential. I would like to focus on a few topics today. First, the systemic and cultural impediments to gender equality, and what can be done about it. Second, the adverse effects that the COVID-19 pandemic has brought to women in particular. Third, the challenges faced by women as we age. Starting with the biggest impediment to gender equality, it is our view that if we persist in thinking of "women's issues" and "women's success and progress" through the lens of traditional measures, such as climbing the career ladder and economic earning power, gender equality will be hard to obtain. Work traditionally done by women such as caring, running households and looking after our families, continue to be seen as being inferior or merely ancillary to the "real work" of earning wages. Ask parents of young children during lockdown whether they truly understand how essential and difficult the job of teaching and caring for children is, and we would tell you that we do not understand why such crucial labour is generally seen as being low status and is not well paid. Conversely, the issue cuts both ways: it is a shame that the worth of a man is also often based so much on his ability to earn wages to support his family, with little acknowledgement given to his wish to also participate in the unpaid labour of the household and the care of his loved ones should he choose to do so. We should also strive to respect choices that women make and leave room for women to choose non-conventional paths in life.”
“Of course, we must not forget that there are vulnerable groups of women who do need the protection of the law and wider society, and our suggested approach does not take anything away from that protection. Our concern is when we approach gender equality with preconceived ideas of what is right and wrong for a woman's place in society and how we can help them. This is not helpful because women are not victims, and to treat us as such only continues to reinforce some of the patriarchal prejudices that have held women back from achieving our fullest potential for too long. Another question we get is why we are focusing so much on this topic while the country is battling a new wave of COVID-19 infections, and there are bigger issues which we need to contend with, instead of opening a debate on gender equality. Again, the answer is that across all societies, women make up the bulk of those in the caring professions such as nursing and social care, who have been stretched to their limits in the last 18 months, and at home it is often mothers who have taken on the burden as we juggled home-based work, home-schooling, childcare and housework. It is only right that we address these issues now, as we emerge into a post-pandemic world, to ensure that we do not fall behind in the progress made thus far. And for those who feel that gender equality is a largely philosophical exercise, perhaps speak to a woman who is denied a pay increment or job offer because of her gender or status as a mother. For us, it does not get any closer to bread and butter issues than this. How to achieve gender equality is a wide topic that comprises many areas, ranging from the gendered impact of ageing, care responsibilities, and our economic and social contributions.”
“The promise of a society in which every woman and girl enjoys full gender equality, where all legal, social and economic barriers to empowerment have been removed, remains unfulfilled. When speaking about gender equality, I am often asked – as someone who only has sons – why is this an issue which I feel is important? Why would I want to disadvantage my sons by speaking about empowering women and girls to achieve equality with their male peers? My answer is simple: gender equality benefits all of society. We must stop thinking about gender equality as being gender wars. This is especially the case in Singapore, where we have been told since a tender age, that our people are our only natural resource. Women and girls represent half our population, and any form of gender inequality means that we, as a society, are not able to fulfil our full potential. My sons, along with other boys and men, will and should not be threatened by a more gender equal society. Instead, I believe that they too will benefit when we remove all barriers for both sexes to achieve their full potential and to freely decide whatever role in society each of us chooses to play. Gender equality should be an aim for all of us and, as we will see during today's debate, men are an integral part of the conversation and must do their part to bring it about. But before we get carried away slapping ourselves on our back and congratulating ourselves for managing to recruit many allies, we should also pause and ask whether it is helpful to conflate this with the attitude that women need "champions" and "rescuing" by some white knight in shining armour, or if women can be empowered to choose for ourselves the best path forward, noting that my best path may or may not be what the next woman needs or desires.”
“I am heartened to see that this flurry of activity indicates that we are not alone in believing that much remains to be done to advance gender equality and to remove barriers to empowering women. Coming back to the reasons for filing this Motion, we at the Workers' Party also believe that it is more important than ever that we talk about the lived experience of our Singaporean women, to identify the areas for improvement and to have a discussion about empowering women to carve out our own roles in Singapore and the world. It is why our manifesto for the 2020 General Election contains concrete proposals that address issues relating to improving gender equality. The ideas and topics we will bring up today represents the Workers' Party's contributions to the discussion, based on our own policy proposals, lived experiences and our engagement with fellow Singaporeans and our constituents over the years. It is with this in mind that my colleagues and I will today share our thoughts and vision for gender equality in Singapore. We believe that it is a good thing that the Government has, over the last 12 months, put in much time and effort into understanding the issues relating to gender equality. This Private Member's Motion is our contribution to this national discourse. We look forward to seeing the results of the consultations and conversations held, and hope to see substantive legislative action taken to fully enshrine the changes we want to see into law. The UN Development Report in 2020 ranked Singapore 12th in the world for the Gender Inequality Index, behind countries such as Switzerland, Denmark and South Korea. Clearly, we can and must do more to improve gender equality in Singapore.”
“But by the time she passed away five years ago, aged 99, her nine granddaughters have led hugely different lives from being the first Singaporean woman on Everest, authoring best-selling cookbooks, studying, living and working on five continents and speaking here today in this House. She would also marvel at how Singapore's legislative chamber would now comprise 30% women and that there would even be a year officially dedicated to women. But while we applaud the efforts of all that have made progress for women possible, true gender equality is yet to be obtained. It is something that we still have to work towards. We must make sure that the strides that we have taken do not suffer any reversals, as it is indeed threatening to be the case in a post-COVID-19 world. Some of the issues faced by my grandmother may seem extreme to us with modern eyes. But I believe we women still feel the vestiges of such issues, whether it is the promotion or pay raise being held off because we have taken or are about to take maternity leave, or the perception that men should continue to play a secondary role in caring for our loved ones. Just after the General Election last year, the Government announced that 2021 would be designated as the Year to SG Celebrate Women. I noted that the Government is due to publish its White Paper imminently to review women's issues. And the Government has also been carrying out a series of feedback and recommendation sessions through various organisations, ranging from the NTUC Women Committee to the People's Association Women Integration Network, and many more. I also noticed that eight days after the notice for this Motion was filed, the PAP Women Wing and Youth Wing released its Joint Paper on Women's Development.”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, I beg to move*, "That this House affirms that gender equality requires a whole of society effort to remove all barriers in order to empower every woman to freely realise her full potential and participation in society." [(proc text) *The Motion also stood in the name of Mr Leon Perera. (proc text)] As a little girl, I remember listening to stories told by my maternal grandmother about how she moved with her mother to "nanyang", a term used to describe Southeast Asia by the Chinese diaspora. As the eldest child and being a daughter, her childhood was often a battle between herself and her parents who felt that it was unseemly for girls to not only be seen running around outdoors but for them to be educated. She was allowed to start Primary school but was pulled out two years later when it was deemed this was more than enough education a girl would need. The next three years were a battle, which she obviously won, as she was allowed to attend another two years of school before being banished to the upper floor of their house to look after the household and her younger siblings. I would imagine how she would sneak books upstairs and hide in dark corners poring through them, as she painstakingly taught herself how to read. This learning was to be a lifelong journey for her, for even into her 90s, she would carry around a battered old dictionary with her, which she would use to look up words she came across in the newspapers that she did not know. I know that it was a bitter regret of Popo's that she was born a girl and that she was not allowed to further her education as a result.”
“I thank the Senior Minister of State for the reply. I just have a supplementary question. Would the Ministry consider committing to conducting a survey, say, every five years, because, obviously, the survey on caregiving is very structured. Or in the alternative, whether they can actually have a caregiving portion in the census so that we can have a very clear idea of how Singapore is ageing, the trends we are seeing, every time we conduct the census?”
“I just have one supplementary question. Should the public, victims or their families have concerns about media behaviour when a traumatic event occurs, what recourse do they have and what measures are being taken to educate them on the sort of recourse that they have?”
“I thank the Minister for his response. The reason I asked this question is because a lot of parents have come to me and said they are worried about the health and safety of their children, especially those under the age of 12, who are unable to get vaccinated at the moment. I just wanted to ask what efforts are being made to address these concerns, as in efforts to address these parents directly? Because, obviously, a lot of them are very worried, a lot of them are writing to me and writing to all of us here. They want to know how about those parents, for example, with children who have pre-existing medical conditions that make these children more vulnerable, if they do actually get COVID-19. Are these children expected to isolate or stay at home? What are the actual effects this will actually have on these children? These are some of the questions that parents have come up to me with and I would just like some clarifications from the Minister about this. Earlier, the Minister also said that the task force is studying the safety of vaccinations on children under the age of 12. Do we have any estimates of when we expect to see results because the Minister mentioned that more announcements and decisions will be made at the appropriate time? Do we have an estimate of when this is expected to be available? Lastly, I just wanted to ask, especially at the preschools and maybe even infant care levels, as many parents with young children will know, it is actually very difficult for these children to keep their masks on and adhere to hygiene and safe distancing measures. What sort of extra steps and precautions are taken to make sure that these children and by definition, their family members, especially vulnerable family members at home are also protected?”
“Thank you, Madam. I just have a point of clarification or supplementary question for the Senior Minister of State. Can I just ask what are the considerations that are given to whether STVP holders will eventually be eligible for the vaccine, given, after all, a lot of them are living very closely with our longer-term residents or even Singaporeans and PRs within the community? So, what are the reasons why they were not initially considered to be eligible for vaccinations and what are the considerations now when the Senior Minister of State has indicated that there is a review ongoing? When will we expect to hear the outcome of this review?”
“Likewise, each time a major announcement is made about tightening up or loosening of restrictions, my inbox gets a series of emails from various business or even school mailing lists urging patience while they wait for guidelines from the relevant authorities about how the rules will affect their operations and also to allow them time to digest the rules and adapt their processes yet again to ensure compliance. There is also often a lag of a few days before business and individual support measures are announced, leaving much anxiety in the meantime. This often leads to the sense that the MTF is having to scramble to play catch-up each time major changes are announced. While all these seem like small things, they do not help in engendering confidence, whether to encourage more people to get themselves vaccinated or to convince people that these are the right steps to keep Singapore safe and our economy going. I end by saying that having clear, coherent communications throughout the various stages of the pandemic and honest, open conversations about the reasons and matrices for the different restrictions and support measures is just as important as the substantive steps being taken. Mr Deputy Speaker, while we at the Workers’ Party stand united with Singaporeans in the fight against COVID-19, we believe that there is room for improvement as outlined above and hope that these will be taken into account.”
“Telling our people what the matrices which inform our decision-making are can only add to public confidence that the crisis is in good hands and let us know that our policymakers are dealing with it in a competent and coherent manner. This approach is also important in addressing ground feedback relating to matters as wide-ranging as vaccine hesitancy to understanding the different restrictions. We owe much to our civil servants and various agencies who have been hard at work coming up with and implementing the various policies and schemes, but I also note that the details about communication matter, too, and they can make or break an individual’s reaction to our containment measures and fight against COVID-19. For example, the changes and updates in vaccine safety and advice stemmed from an approach with an abundance of caution. This is not a bad thing. Yet, I have heard many accounts of individuals being told that they were ineligible for the vaccine due to medical reasons, such as drug allergies, in one week, only to be encouraged to sign up to get themselves vaccinated the week after, with no official statements being made that they could find about the reversal in policy at the time. More personally, I registered to take the vaccine after the rules relating to breastfeeding mothers and anaphylaxis were updated, but found out when I got home after my first shot that the safety booklet given to me contained the outdated advice that breastfeeding mothers should stop breastfeeding for five days and those with a history of anaphylaxis were ineligible for the vaccine!”
“Yet, I note that the Finance Minister indicated that the Government was, in fact, preparing a roadmap for Singapore's transition to life with COVID-19. And in a Facebook post on 20 July 2021, the Prime Minister said that Singapore has to "feel our way forward". Yesterday, the Health Minister updated this House that a roadmap was currently being implemented. I would, therefore, like to seek clarification from the MTF about what is the definitive plan for how we move forward. If so, will the Government, in the spirit of accountability and providing much needed stability and confidence, make these metrics and roadmaps public? If there are obstacles to doing so, what are they and what can this House do legislatively to ease the process? I would like to conclude, too, with a more general observation about the importance of clear, consistent messages to the public in the midst of a public health crisis. This would lead to less confusion and it behoves us to ensure that we have coherent policies that are communicated early and clearly, especially as we are a country that prides itself on doing well in rankings for the ease of doing business due to the clarity and transparency in our processes. Most of us accept that there are, indeed, times when restrictions need to be tightened at short notice as the situation develops rapidly. However, we need as much warning as possible to allow businesses and households a fighting chance to rework plans and try our best to stave off any impending cashflow crises. It is, therefore, important that we have clarity, such as the risk index proposed by my colleague Mr Gerald Giam, that is announced to the public.”
“The inability to work from home, shortage of manpower, coupled with the lack of travel opportunities for a break even if it is just a quick day trip across the border, means that our essential workers have been particularly hard hit. Women, too, across all societies have borne the brunt of the pandemic and we are no exception in Singapore. Attention has to be paid to these groups to ensure that they are not pushed to the point of breaking, driven by the various workloads and household responsibilities with no chance for respite. The pandemic has also highlighted the unsustainable nature of some of our industries and our economic model, which rely on cheap, abundant foreign labour. In particular, construction firms and the cleaning industry are facing high costs of having to quarantine migrant workers and are also struggling with a shortage of workers. Many construction projects have been delayed as a result. Perhaps, this is the push we need to fully transform this sector and raise productivity levels to solve the labour crunch. As I mentioned here in this House earlier in May, it is timely that our businesses take the first steps in transforming to move away from our addiction to cheap, abundant labour. Finally, my earlier question about publishing information relating to how the MTF weighs up the various factors for understanding how restrictions and support schemes are determined and to signpost how we will move from tier to tier seems particularly pertinent, given the events of the last months. In his response earlier this month, the Health Minister said that it would not be realistic to provide a definitive roadmap.”
“But what we need now, more than ever, is a roadmap with support measures pegged to respective restriction levels moving forward. It would be extremely helpful to individuals and businesses to know what this roadmap is, with stages and criteria that are determined in advance and clearly communicated to all of us to enable us to plan forward as much as possible. Next, I also note that, apart from businesses, individuals, too, are having to adapt to our changing times. Our economy has been kept afloat by new working arrangements becoming the norm, with working from home now being the default arrangement for many. This has brought some unexpected conveniences for some, like allowing us more family time without the need to commute to the workplace. However, there are also some of us for whom working from home has not yielded good results. A recent survey by Microsoft found that workers in Singapore were more burnt out and exhausted, compared with their peers globally, with one in two workers saying they felt exhausted and 58% saying that they felt overworked. This has been attributed to digital workloads rising due to the pandemic. We need to bear their welfare in mind when we adjust our workplaces and jobs to reflect the new normal. I also hope that the trends we see, with an increase in those pursuing non-traditional career paths, will continue and receive more attention. Another group of workers which you must also consider is our essential workers, particularly those involved in the provision of the different types of care responsibilities and who work to keep our care infrastructure and essential infrastructure going.”
“This is something to be applauded and should not be taken for granted. It is also up to the Government and us, as lawmakers, to ensure that there is a level of assurance, stability and, where possible, certainty in the measures we take and the support we give Singaporeans and our businesses. While it may appear that calibrating business support schemes in accordance with the situation of the day allows for targeted support to be given, over prescribing or managing the situation may end up being self-defeating. It could result in a situation where our policies become too reactive and the confusion and uncertainty that result may end up in help not reaching those who need it the most. Attention also has to be paid to keep rules simple as much as possible, an approach in policy-making that we used to pride ourselves in. For example, business owners struggle to make sense of the various schemes available to them. To top it off, they are also facing problems due to the delayed or uncertain nature relating to timing and amount of disbursements that they are eligible for. If the intention is to support these businesses, we must make sure that our support is effective and is as efficient as possible. These schemes must be designed to deal with the immediate threat faced by businesses which are already on the ropes. COVID-19 will remain with us for a while yet and emerging variants may mean that our drive to handle this as endemic would suffer from setbacks. The question is, therefore, how can we continue to provide our businesses with support in a sustainable manner? We can keep on extending schemes at the very last minute and going through a budgeting process each time new restrictions are announced.”
“Retail, fitness, F&B and related businesses along the entire supply chain are on their knees from having endured more than 18 months of hardship arising from a reduction in footfall and various permutations of closures or restrictions. Many of them have said that they are clinging on and depend on a timely disbursement of a patchwork of business support schemes to stay afloat, even while they scramble each time to make sense of the ever-changing restrictions. Some SME owners have told us that while they can deal with tight restrictions and difficult regulations, what has been particularly difficult is the ever-changing landscape in which they are constantly spending a lot of time and energy adapting their businesses to comply with. While we should encourage businesses to be nimble and adapt quickly to a rapidly changing environment, I fear that the last 18 months would be a step too far for all but a lucky few. We cannot take the position that uncompetitive and inflexible businesses that are unable to pivot to deal with such times should be allowed to go under. There is also too much at stake, as many livelihoods depend on the survival of these businesses. I believe the MTF is painfully aware of this. However, events over the last two weeks, in particular, have proven to be very confusing and disruptive. The sudden changes just days apart have resulted in much stress and confusion and these also do not engender confidence, as many of us often wonder how many days or weeks will pass before a sudden change in position is on the cards again. And even as we, as individuals, alongside our businesses, struggle to make sense of the shifting landscape, the vast majority of us here in Singapore do want to follow the rules and play our part in the fight against the disease.”
“Other restrictions were also brought in to restrict social gatherings and, amongst others, the retail and fitness industries took a large hit. Primary and Secondary schools also shifted to home-based learning. On 10 June, it was decided by the MTF that we would move to Phase Three (Heightened Alert) in two steps from 14 June, with food outlets opening up with two diners allowed to dine in; social gathering and visitor sizes moving to five; and, on 7 July, the number of diners were allowed to increase to five per table, all these to take effect from 12 July. Even as diners, F&B businesses and other industries were celebrating a cautious return on 12 July, the now infamous KTV cluster was announced on that very day. By the middle of the week, the cluster had grown to 88 infections and, on 16 July, just four days after dining sizes were increased to five, a slew of dining rules and regulations that one would need an advanced degree to navigate were mandated to be implemented by restaurants on 19 July. And, finally, on 20 July, after barely a day of having to comply with the most complicated dining rules ever to have been devised, restaurants were suddenly told they had to throw all of that and much of their inventory out of the window and that dine-ins would no longer be allowed for the next four weeks. One can only imagine the amount of losses that this has resulted in. While I appreciate that our responses are, in some ways, shaped by the fast-changing nature of the pandemic, we should pause and reassess whether this approach of drip-feeding restrictions and business support measures is doing more harm than good. Many business owners, in particular SME owners, have written to me to express their anguish over cashflow difficulties.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, we now find ourselves back in Phase Two (Heightened Alert) again. Community spread has increased and the large number of unlinked cases is cause for much concern, particularly when we have not yet reached our vaccination target of 70%. While challenging, these restrictions are important to bring down our community infection levels and to ensure that our healthcare system and workers are not overwhelmed. I also note that we continue to make progress with our vaccination rollout and all the staff and personnel involved in this national effort to safeguard us against the virus have my utmost respect and gratitude. I would like to focus today on our roadmap for managing COVID-19 and what more can be done to further support our businesses and workers who are already on the ropes as we lurched from phase to phase in this seemingly never-ending battle against the Coronavirus. The last two months, in particular, have been difficult ones for Singapore. Both residents and businesses alike have had to navigate and respond to restrictions that have changed on an almost biweekly basis. After months of progressively opening up in the original Phase Three, Singapore's recovery received a huge setback when community cases jumped after the virus breached our defences at Changi Airport. This resulted in an announcement on 14 May that a new phase, christened Phase Two (Heightened Alert), would come into effect two days later, meaning that all food and beverage businesses would once more be required to shut down to dine-in customers, along with restrictions being tightened for a host of other industries and that these would take effect for four weeks.”
“Thank you. I have some clarifications for the Minister. The first is how are we going to address the stigmatisation that may occur, that mental health issues do not equate to a propensity for violence, particularly given what has just happened? How do we make sure that these messages and these erroneous messages do not end up being propagated and what sort of attention is being paid to this? Secondly, just now, the Minister actually mentioned that the CCE curriculum for lower secondary has been updated. I would like to know what is actually being done at the Primary School and lower levels, for example, pre-school, and what support and resources are available to parents of younger children who are worried about the mental condition or mental health of their younger children. Thirdly, the Minister mentioned earlier that 540 students or individuals have sought help in the wake of this incident at River Valley High School. Given that there are 98 counsellors available, would this actually lead to a waitlist? For example, I understand that there might be a couple of months of waiting list for counselling services or mental health support services at Universities like NUS. So, I just wanted to know how is the waitlist being managed? And then, finally, just a word on the workload of teachers. I understand that a lot of teachers are feeling very stressed out because, apart from teaching curriculum, making sure that they are giving the counselling for careers, they are now also expected to look out for their students' well-being. This is a good thing, but I just wanted to know what sort of support is going to be given and available to teachers to make sure that they themselves are not stressed by the extra workload?”
“I would like to ask the Minister how long was this make-up pay scheme applied for, given that it was used once before. And also, how many candidates or potential candidates have declined to run on the Government's ticket because they said that the pay was not enough?”
“While I note that BCA's Green Mark gives a point for buildings that provide sheltered bicycle lots, adequate facilities like showers and changing rooms, can we go a step further to eventually make such on-site end-of-trip features mandatory for new and renovated office spaces? Additionally, we could provide additional tax breaks for buildings which provide such facilities by having a green tax relief scheme. These measures would definitely further encourage active mobility commuting. In conclusion, while we understand the Bill's intent, we need to ensure our EV infrastructure is developed in an equitable and sustainable way and that it is not the only focus of a sustainable transport plan. We must think ahead and also innovatively to ensure we focus our minds towards fulfilling our commitment to a green Singapore – promoting health and improving transportation. I support the Bill.”
“2 kilos of carbon dioxide, equivalent to the emissions from driving a car for 10 kilometres, eating a serving of red meat or chocolate or sending 800 emails. With this in mind, I would like to call for the Government to allow Sengkang to lead the charge in becoming one of the first towns to fully embrace a cycling culture, with a dense network of cycling paths and pedestrian-friendly infrastructure. I believe that the compact nature of our estate and the large number of residents who cycle in Sengkang, whether for leisure, commuting or as delivery riders, make it a good place to trial our move towards more active travel and mobility options. The younger population's high reliance on delivery services and proximity to bike networks, such as the Punggol Waterway Park and Sengkang Riverside Park, makes the estate an ideal candidate for a concerted push towards being a truly bike- and pedestrian-friendly town. Sengkang can and should be a model for how Singapore can move towards sustainable mobility. We can even go further by considering repurposing car lanes into bike lanes. This is a tried-and-tested approach from cities, such as Taipei, Copenhagen, Amsterdam and Canberra. A more considerate road design that embraces bicycles and even PMDs can also address matters of road safety, which is the subject of some of the changes to the RTA Bill that was also debated earlier today. If we make it easier for all road users to use pathways and roads safely together, it would naturally engender safer road behaviour. To address concerns raised about active mobility options in Singapore's climate, we should also ensure coordination with BCA and other authorities.”
“Given on-going trials to repurpose car lanes for pedestrian use and increase bicycle paths, MOT and LTA should use this opportunity to increase adoption of a cycling culture in Singapore. Preliminary studies have found that bicycle sales have soared in the wake of COVID-19 travel restrictions and lockdowns. I look forward to the results of LTA's on-going household travel survey to see if there is a marked increase in commuting by bicycle and other more eco-friendly measures. If it is, indeed, true that the on-going pandemic has resulted in the uptake of alternative forms of mobility, it would be a shame to let such gains be reversed as we think about moving back to a new normal. Indeed, greener forms of commuting and transport must form an integral part of that new normal from day one. To encourage higher ridership rates and more commuting by bicycle, we should introduce legislation to reorient our infrastructure to promote cycling and other low emission options of travel as an alternative means of commuting. An obvious place to start will be further amendments to legislation to reorient our infrastructure to promote cycling and other low emission options as an alternative means of commuting and not just as a means of recreation. Having dedicated bike lanes on roads and pop-up bicycle lanes that are separate from both pedestrians and motor vehicles are good ways to encourage alternative means of transport, not just for leisure but also for commuting. This is especially important when you consider that cycling was estimated to emit 10 times less emissions than electric cars by a recent study. In fact, the study also found that the average person who shifted from car to bike for just one week, one day a week, cut their carbon footprint by 3.”
“Moving on from equity to sustainability, we should also ensure that there is sufficient consideration for how we would manage inevitable growth in electronic waste from expired EVs and whether the 10-year duration for COEs remains relevant, given the potentially low emissions beyond the 10-year life of the electric car. EV batteries comprise rare metals that can be hazardous to humans and the environment and are a finite resource that we will soon be in short supply of. Our EV strategy must consider extending the typical 10-year useful life of the car and have a plan for the electronic waste after that, including adequate facilities to repurpose, recycle and, when there are no other choices, for the safe disposal of such waste. We need to think ahead about this issue systematically and not scramble when we realise we are being forced to act because of pressing environmental or safety concerns. LTA and MOT should coordinate closely with MSE to develop a clear plan. The public and key stakeholders should also be consulted and must be asked to provide feedback as we prepare our infrastructure to accommodate EVs. This crucial element should be baked into the system from the start, not patched on in an ad-hoc fashion years down the line. I also wish to note that EVs are just one component of developing a sustainable transportation eco-system. The Green Plan 2030 highlighted the importance of continuing efforts to promote an active, healthy lifestyle in Singapore. This includes promoting cycling and even more eco-friendly means of getting around. There is the added benefit of building exercise into our daily commute.”
“The principle of equitable access to chargers should be enshrined in law. The convenience and benefits of owning an EV must not only be reserved for residents who live in landed properties as they can easily purchase, install and access their own charging points in their own properties. I note that the RFI being conducted by LTA right now does consider deploying 60,000 charging points by 2030, including 40,000 points in public and HDB carparks. Yet there are less details about how and where these points would be located. I would like to ask, can the Government provide a commitment that building equitable access will be the cornerstone of LTA's approach to our EV transition? What specific payment and funding models are being considered to ensure that the final user will be extended affordable prices? Would the Government engage residents in deciding the location of charging points and pricing and publicise the results of this engagement? What regulations can be put in place to prevent ugly behaviours, such as charger and space hogging, which deprive other users of the chance to charge their vehicles? Getting out EV support infrastructure right from the very beginning is especially important as the continued growth in mobility-as-a-service means that many drivers and users of mobility devices depend on their vehicles for their livelihoods. They conduct deliveries and transport passengers and should be able to continue doing so without having to worry about finding an available charging station to spend 30 minutes or more charging up their vehicle in the middle of their workday.”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, the main thrust of the Land Transport Authority (Amendment) Bill before us is to bring about greener and more sustainable transport options in Singapore, focusing on enhancing our land transport infrastructure to support EVs in particular. Such a move is overdue and is necessary, given the climate emergency we are facing. All the measures in this Bill are an appropriate first step. There remain key gaps that we must address in order to secure a more sustainable and environmentally-secure future for Singapore. My remarks and clarifications today relate to two key areas: first, building an equitable and sustainable EV infrastructure; and, second, stepping up efforts to promote additional green transport alternatives. The core of the Bill focuses on enabling LTA to promote the use of electric vehicles in Singapore through facilitating the development of and standards for an EV charging infrastructure. The stellar rise of mobility as a service has given its role more urgency, underlining the importance of having LTA play a role in building up a sustainable mobility eco-system that can minimise the environmental impact of our transport system. For this to be achieved, new low emissions mobility options must be widely available to all. I note that there is no provision in the Bill that directs LTA to ensure that charging points for EVs in public areas, including HDB estates and public vehicle parking facilities, remain widely accessible. The Bill also does not prescribe the role of LTA to ensure that charging points are made available in a manner that is affordable to the public, including ensuring sufficient competition in the market to encourage fair pricing for consumers. These may be seen as operational matters.”
“Some further concerns that I have include confusion or lack of awareness by members of the public should they be stopped and searched. This may lead to such incidents accumulating and, ultimately, will prove damaging to social cohesion in Singapore, while undermining trust in actual law enforcement officers. What steps will need to be taken to ensure that this does not happen? In conclusion, while we support the measures put in place by this Bill to improve safety and security across our transportation networks, I hope that the Ministry can consider my concerns and suggestions to further improve our transport system and to make it a safer and fairer one for all. Despite these concerns, I support the Bill.”
“Subsection 9 of the new section 23A of the Bill defines these "authorised persons" as: one, an officer or an employee of the Authority; two, an employee of an auxiliary police force in uniform; three, an employee of a licensee authorised to operate a rapid transit system using train or railway premises; four, a security officer (within the meaning of the Private Security Industry Act) engaged by a licensee mentioned in paragraph (c); and five, an outsourced enforcement officer. This is a wide group of persons. While there are good reasons to step up security due to persistent concerns about terrorism and the security of our transport networks, this amendment continues the trend of expanding key Police powers to persons who may not be fully trained in law enforcement. As in previous cases of extending Police powers, the language of the Bill does not discuss the training that these “authorised persons” will receive to exercise their powers with sufficient care and due diligence. Police powers must be wielded judiciously and carefully, and adequate training must be given to counter the risk of abuse, including but not limited to excessive enforcement, harassment and even sexual assault, particularly in view of the inclusion of frisk searches; this is very important. Because of these concerns, could we not directly build safeguards into the relevant provisions? For example, in view of the expansion of powers to include frisk searching, we could, as earlier suggested, mandate that only female authorised persons are allowed to frisk search other women. Another example would be to use body cams to reduce the likelihood of abuse and overly vigorous use of such powers.”
“Why do we not instead compare ourselves to countries which better respect the safety of such workers by holding ourselves to the same high safety standards of those countries? Why can we not learn from them how these countries address the very same concerns that we have, while at the same time mandating that workers are transported in a safer manner? We must seriously consider mandating that all migrant workers are transported in buses or mini-buses. The drop in tourism due to COVID-19 has resulted in many buses and mini-buses with spare capacity – perhaps this is a good time as any to start the transition, with some kind of Government support. The re-purposing of such currently idle or under-utilised buses or mini-buses would be welcomed. In any event, we should also have a proper study of the costs – both as an absolute number across the industry and as a percentage of total construction costs – associated with enhancing safety measures for the transport of our migrant workers, together with a good look at the labour model for our construction industry in order to have a more meaningful conversation on this topic, rather than have vague statements being made about costs each time the topic is brought up. I am glad to hear from Senior Minister of State Amy Khor that this will be one of the matters to be considered. Last but not least, I turn to the extension of frisking powers to "authorised persons" mentioned in clauses 20, 24 and 31 of this Bill.”
“While this is a topic for another day, it would naturally flow that any increased costs by more stringent transport safety standards would have less of an impact if we are not so reliant on employing a large force of cheap, low-skilled workers in our building sector. Additionally, as we have been looking at our ITM 2.0 roadmaps, is this not a good time for us to start looking into the entire way the construction industry is structured, to really find long-lasting, sustainable solutions that maximise productivity and minimise labour input? Second, this argument is also problematic, as we did not shy away from mandating safety measures, such as seat belts on all school buses, when an accident, which killed an 8-year-old boy in 2008, saw a retrofitting of seat belts on all school buses. A sum of $35 million was set aside by the Government to help owners of small buses implement this. Finally, it was reported last week that the number of people injured or killed while on board lorries has been falling in the last 10 years and, indeed, comparisons are drawn between the lower number of casualties involving accidents on lorries compared to all motor vehicles. This is actually a non-starter, as the statistics quoted include the number of injuries for all road users, and crucially include motorcycles, which have a higher casualty rate. Additionally, as the Senior Minister of State Amy Khor said yesterday, each life lost leaves behind a family that is grieving and each injury has the potential to leave a worker unable to continue working to support his family. Referring to other countries where such similar practices are allowed should not be our first reaction.”
“Yet, section 126 of the Road Traffic Act still has a provision banning the use of goods vehicles for passengers, unless, I quote, "(a) the person so carried is in the employment of the owner or hirer of the vehicle and is proceeding on his master's business and is carried in accordance with rules prescribed under section 77(6); or (b) the person so carried is a sick or injured person carried in a case of emergency". Such a practice is dangerous to not only the migrant workers themselves, but it also poses real risks to other road users. As mentioned previously, this topic has been debated as far back as 2009, and yet 12 years, and numerous other deaths and injuries later, we are still arguing about whether this is an appropriate way to treat migrant workers. While I am glad to hear that NTUC is looking at this matter, I note that the reason always given whenever such calls are being made is that to allow any safer ways of transporting migrant workers would mean increased costs. Leaving aside what this says about us as a country where we can argue that "increased costs" is a good enough reason to turn a blind eye to lower safety standards for "lower tier workers", I believe this argument is flawed. First, because it ignores a more fundamental problem in our labour system that we are still struggling to address and that is our addiction to cheap labour, often at the expense of productivity increases. Despite many pointing out the danger and unsustainable nature of our approach of importing cheap labour in sectors, such as the construction and marine industries, not much has been done by enterprises to shift away from this model towards a more productive, less labour-intensive model.”
“The overriding objective of certification should be to raise awareness of road safety and to educate, not to treat it like an examination to score road users. Will there be the option to take the test in languages which our older Singaporeans are more conversant in? What provisions will be made for the small minority of riders who may not be so literate and able to sit a test? What assistance will they be given to learn and understand the safety requirements in order to be able to pass the test? Next, I would like to move on to another large theme of the Bill before us: the theme of enhancing road safety. There are many provisions being introduced through the Bill, from enhancing safety for our road users to ensuring the security or safety of persons who use our public transport networks. Yet, there is one area of safety which does not feature and that is the safety of migrant workers. Just last month, two migrant workers lost their lives and scores more were injured in a series of accidents involving lorries, and there was one just a few days ago. These workers were riding in the backs of lorries, in an area meant for cargo. Given that there are approximately 300,000 such workers in Singapore, this is a large number of our population who face dangerous commutes on a daily basis. This issue has been under scrutiny for over a decade, with calls stemming back to 2009 being made – many by colleagues in this House – to ban the transport of workers in the backs of lorries like livestock or goods. We must not forget that these are workers who leave behind their homes and families and slog for long hours under all weather conditions to build our homes and to repair our roads.”
“Second, in relation to the requirements to obtain certification, the Minister of State mentioned that there will be some form of safety code knowledge to be tested as part of the certification process. But how would the test be tailored to allow for the specifics of riders, as opposed to more conventional road users, particularly in view that some of these riders will be allowed on public paths and roads? Also, would there be a minimum age and how will minors be regulated? Lastly, on licensing, I would like to raise some concerns about the requirement for certification in general. All of us in this House have residents who rely on these test-needed-to-ride-on-road vehicles for their livelihoods. Some of these delivery drivers rely on such vehicles as their sole source of income and some are sole breadwinners for their families. Many older Singaporeans, too, rely on these vehicles to get around and they may not be so conversant in English. Indeed, I have come across such residents who have shared with me their struggles in passing certification requirements in fields as diverse as chefs in the F&B industry to forklift drivers. Many of them have been doing these jobs for decades and excel with carrying out these jobs on a practical level, but struggle to pass the paper examinations. The result is often an impact on their livelihoods as they are unable to be employed in the very jobs they have been carrying on for years. I hope that we learn from the experiences of our fellow Singaporeans who were affected by previous certification requirements and ensure that the certification process is simple enough so that it remains accessible to all of our residents and that they do not end up being unnecessarily tripped up by red tape.”
“Mr Speaker, while we agree with the Bill before us today, I have a number of concerns and clarifications that I would like to make in relation to three areas of the proposed amendments to the Road Traffic Act. First, relating to certification and licensing. A major focus of the Bill is the licensing and certification of riders of “test-needed-to-ride-on-road vehicles”. These are power-assisted bicycles (PABs) that are prescribed by the rules under the Active Mobility Act 2017, and the new rules require that riders of such vehicles be certified to have passed a prescribed test of competence for that class or description of vehicle and the test of competence will cover riding on public paths and roads. The rationale for introducing such a test of competence is to improve road safety and to make our roads and footpaths safer for pedestrians, riders and motorists. I agree that we must take action to reduce the number of accidents on our roads and public paths, and my Workers’ Party colleagues have spoken about this matter on previous occasions. I would like to raise a point of concern that I had in relation to the introduction of licensing. I would like to seek some clarifications relating to the requirement for a competency certificate for power-assisted bicycles that are test-needed-to-ride-on-road vehicles. First, how would the certification process be rolled out and the requirements phased in to ensure that all riders who wish to continue riding their vehicles are not left in a position where they are unable to obtain their certification before the requirements kick in? This is especially important as many riders do rely on their vehicles for work and to move around.”