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 [(proc text) Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”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 2 of 13.
“I would like to thank the Minister for his reply. Can I just ask my clarification? Whether the PMO will consider eventually one day publishing more data, so that the public can better understand how the various Ministerial discretions were actually exercised, especially in the example I cited earlier for the OSC, when we actually called for this to be published a bit more.”
“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. Finally, the legal principles and thresholds guiding executive discretion should be transparent and made known, providing a clear framework for decision-making and reducing public concern about motives. Preparing Public Officers for the Future”
“Sir, Singapore entrusts significant powers and broad discretion to the executive to make decisions on a wide range of matters. These include the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act and the Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Act, which allow Ministers to give directions and make decisions relating to fake news and foreign interference, and the Online Safety Relief and Accountability Bill, which empowers the Online Safety Commission (OSC) to direct takedown of harmful content or restrict online accounts. Where executive discretion is exercised, and in the absence of a judicial review ouster, the public usually is only able to use judicial review to question that, albeit limited to grounds of legality, procedural propriety and rationality. A recent use was in the United Kingdom (UK) in 2019, when the Supreme Court ruled that then Prime Minister Boris Johnson's prorogation of Parliament was unlawful and Parliament resumed the next day. In Singapore, judicial review is rare. Given this, how does Singapore guide and monitor the use of executive discretion and what are the safeguards in place to ensure that these are done judiciously? I am not saying that there is no place for judicial discretion nor am I calling for judicial micromanagement. Instead, I hope for a better understanding and data about: first, if there is any central tracking of the use of executive powers; and second, what are the principles, if any, guide the use of such oversight? We should have a central public registry to record Ministerial powers and delegated authorities, allowing Parliament, the media and citizens to better understand who holds what powers and when they apply. Public body should publish periodic reports on how the discretionary powers are exercised.”
“These are real costs, but they simply do not appear on any balance sheet nor measure of GDP. Mr Speaker, I thus hope that as we chart our path as we are together, we continue to work to make Singapore a healthier society, a healthier home and not simply a wealthier one. Wealth without health is a house that is not a home. The choices that we make are ultimately a clear indication of what we as a society value – and I believe that we are ready to make them. [Applause.]”
“It is commendable that we have set an ambitious goal of ensuring that all households are within a 10-minute walk from a park by 2030. But as a small city-state with an ever-growing population and few places to go, we should also be extending this goal to ensure greater access to blue spaces, such as seas and lakes. Aside from widely accepted benefits of being in contact with nature in the form of greenery, numerous studies have also found that living near blue spaces positively influence mental restoration among adults and is something which we should work on. We must increase the quality of engagement with nature conservation groups. While such groups are now sometimes consulted ahead of development work, feedback is that this engagement can sometimes feel like a one-way information process, rather than a deep consultation or even a negotiation where concessions are made. As called for in a 2024 Singapore Terrestrial Conservation Plan, the Government should establish clear legal boundaries for protected nature areas and protect the few remaining habitats that we have, which are absolutely key for both planetary and societal health. To conclude, as we move on in our society's continued evolution, we have to be more willing to relook our previous reflexes, which cite costs or economic reasons as trade-offs that we cannot accept, when the alternative is a deterioration in the health of our society. And we must confront not just fiscal costs, but also human costs. They are the costs borne by the caregiver with no one to relieve her, the costs for the child plagued by intrusive thoughts and heart palpitations, because the digital world does not switch off, the costs borne by the resident who helplessly watches as the last wild space in their neighbourhood disappears.”
“What seems to be absent are the input of social scientists and psychologists; also, representatives from Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth (MCCY), given AI shaping of the arts and influence on culture, as well as Ministry of Education (MOE), as AI rapidly changes the way that students learn and develop or not. Even as we harness AI for industrial transformation and economic progress, we should take a leave from the UK's AI Council, which sat from 2019 to 2023. That Council included members from industry, public sector and academia, and focused on diverse areas from developing public confidence in AI to developing frameworks to deploy safe, fair, legal and ethical data sharing. For our own AI Council, ensuring formalised input from Ministries dealing with diverse groups also means that the conversation will also include the important factors of what our shared humanity means in the true spirit of us together. Second, our education system must be constantly incorporate the latest findings on the impact that AI has on learning. While various MOE frameworks are in place, a study last year by MIT Media Lab found that over reliance on AI may reduce functional brain connectivity and memory recall. This will be even more marked in the developing child's brain, characterised by higher neuroplasticity and its still undeveloped prefrontal cortex. The skills degradation argument was also cited in the safe and responsible use of AI in classrooms manual recently introduced in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), which includes provisions for GenAI use only in settings where direct teacher oversight is available. Sir, my final area today is the need for us to be committed to environmental well-being.”
“While I will raise this issue in more detail in my Ministry of Digital Development and Information's (MDDI's) Committee of Supply (COS) cut, I believe this development has to be studied with public participation and visibility through Select Committee hearings like we did with fake news. Next, the impact of GenAI. This Budget has seen the Government announced wide- ranging support. However, while many Singaporean see it as a way to replace mundane tasks, others worry about GenAI that risks taking away our culture and yes, work and what it means to be human, and not because AI is seen to be better than a human hand, coming up with pantuns in a second, but because it is cheaper, faster and often ruled by models and scripts that we have no access to and thus, have no say in. Many also worry about the impact of AI on our society's valuation of human creativity and consciousness. Forty-three percent of respondents to a Millennials Insights Survey from last year were concerned that the extensive use of AI in their daily lives might result in a loss of human touch. The Government has a clear responsibility in technology regulation, financial backing and its own adoption of such tools. And I raise two suggestions of how to mediate the societal impact of AI. First, at the top level, the new National AI Council must include representatives from the societal sectors that are at high risk for adverse effects from AI, rather than only boosting adoption via industrial AI Missions.”
“However, despite passing legislation that deal with discrete harms, we must also have interventions on the harms caused by the digital environments themselves. While we may not be interested in and can admirably resist all the myriad offerings big tech has for us, this does not mean that big tech ceases to be interested or invested in us. And the dangers of digital harms extend beyond our youths. A recent article in The Economist warned that older people too are seeing increases in smartphone addiction. Scientific evidence has emerged and tells us that children's brains and, in particular, are not developed enough to handle these digital environments. As social psychologist Jonathan Haid argues, unsupervised in person, that is, offline play, has seen a huge decline, replaced by near limitless virtual social interaction. This is concerning as in-person play develops critical social and coping skills. There has also been increasing concern about the plateauing of or even reversal of the Flynn effect, which states that younger generations score higher on IQ test compared with the previous ones. And while the jury is out and there is criticism of Haid's argument that digital childhood is the overwhelming cause for the youth mental illness epidemic, other jurisdictions are already proposing social media bands for children. Australia's laws came into effect in December last year, with countries like Spain, India, Denmark, Norway, Malaysia and the UK announcing similar intentions. It is time for Singapore to take clearer scientifically informed interventions to address these concerns. This should include setting up a Select Committee to study whether a ban is appropriate in par in parallel to the Government's ongoing study and engagement with counterparts.”
“Secondly, while the Household Services Scheme (HSS) has seen increasing participation, I hope that we make greater progress on having more non-live-in part-time domestic workers under the HSS. With basic childminding services no longer being supported with manpower concessions under the HSS pilot from next month, is the Government working with providers to raise awareness of more general HSS services under the scheme? By understanding this humanity behind the choices that we make in care work, we can open ourselves up to responding more creatively to the demographic challenges. I spoke earlier of the Beijing Vehicle Lottery System as an example of how policies that are highly effective on one problem could be inadvertently shaping decisions, like whether one should have children. The lesson from this is that we should be less fixated on pure optimisation and be more willing to accommodate the quarts of society. For example, when Sengkang MP Assoc Prof Jamus Lim called for a more needs-based Certificate of Entitlement (COE) system for parents with multiple young children with care needs and with care needs, it drew criticism for being subjective, divisive and benefiting too few. Surely, there is room to take into account lived experiences, as those of us with multiple young children and loved ones with care needs will attest to. In fact, it appears that some Government policies already take similar concerns into account, such as HDB's free parking scheme on Sundays and public holidays, which aims to promote social integration and stronger family ties. Next, societal health in the smartphone era. This Budget takes place in the context of widening scrutiny of social media platforms, online games, digital tools like AI. Many of us have raised concerns on digital safety.”
“For instance, research published in the Journal of Development Economics in 2018 found that the Beijing vehicle licence plate lottery system was associated with a 35% reduction in births in households of lottery participants and a 6% reduction in births across the entire city. I cite this to draw attention to how a society can respond to a policy because people are more complex than we can simulate. None of this takes away from the progress made on our caregiver support. The enhancement of parental leave last year was a meaningful step to recognise that caregiving is shared. But we still have work to do for an economy that supports employees who also do unpaid care work. The Government must foster workplaces where workers do not feel like taking this leave would limit their careers or made them feel like difficult workers with scheduling problems. We must see workers as whole persons with obligations that extend beyond work. Given that many Singaporeans turn to hired living help to run our households and families, we must be responsible for their welfare, not just because treating them better will pragmatically improve their ability to perform their jobs, but because it is the right thing to do. In 2021, a rule was introduced, requiring employers to provide domestic workers at least one rest day a month that cannot be compensated away. Has the Government more recently assessed if it is enough? What are the other options available to us, particularly when in the long run, workers from our rapidly development region may not be willing to leave their own loved ones behind to do care work in Singapore?”
“This matters deeply to how we, as residents of Singapore, experience our daily lives. This will provide a clear picture of whether our region's infrastructure is or will be sufficient for comfort and also help us advocate more meaningfully about urban related well-being issues, such as access to nature and blue spaces. Next, population and demographics are intertwined with our rising dependency ratio, megatrend and its implications for care work. And what care has always required, whether within families, between bosses and workers, and across communities, is presence, trust and reciprocity. It is not merely a resource to be allocated, but a relationship to be sustained. Yet our response is often to optimise, to identify the gap, design a handy scheme and roll out a niftily named subsidy. Perhaps this works for transactional problems, but care is not transactional. When policy treats it as though it were, we risk ending up with technically correct solutions that quietly missed the point. We close every quantifiable gap in our care support initiatives but still may widen what I would call a humanity gap, and this gap shows up in the distance between what our schemes try to provide and what the actual hole is that we humans feel. It shows up in the daughter whose disabled parents receive the Home Caregiving Grant but still feels completely alone. It shows up in the parent who receives new LifeSG credits but still feels really burnt out, trying to keep up with class WhatsApp chats and Parent Gateway notifications. It shows up in the employer who checks the flexible work arrangements box but judges the employee for using it. Efficient policies may have unintended consequences on society.”
“9 million is just a planning parameter, then the question Singaporeans living in high density communities like Sengkang need to see answered is this: at that parameter, what precisely does our infrastructure plan to provide and at what point does this provision start to cause discomfort? The Government has said many times that we do not have a population target. Yet when we say that we will "be significantly below 6.9 million by 2030", it fails to assuage concerns that residents have about what they can expect their daily lives would be like in five, 10, or even more years from now. The instinct to avoid having conversations about our population limits may backfire. It is a visible uncertainty that may cause anxiety and actively dampen positive emotions. It is thus fair for Singaporeans to ask for greater clarity. The difference between a crowded train and an intolerable one is not just the number of passengers in it, but whether the passengers believe that the train they are on has a timetable and a plan. During January's Singapore Perspectives Conference, there was much talk about how immigration will keep our economy dynamic amid persistently record low TFR. We must learn from the mistakes of our past and be clear eyed about the question of infrastructure sufficiency. To relieve concerns, would the Government consider releasing population projections for each region as part of the Urban Redevelopment Authority's plans? Research on perceived control in high density environments finds that stress responses are less affected by the actual density of the environment, but more on whether people believe that the crowding itself is being managed. By releasing granular projections, the Government has an opportunity to show our efforts to tackle crowding.”
“You just need to take the North East Line during peak hours and experience the feeling of being packed like sardines on the train. When squeezed between other passengers, it is easy to imagine that our Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) lines and indeed, our entire public transport system, was designed to serve a population far smaller than the living reality we see today. Under such circumstances, it is not difficult to understand why many Singaporeans ask: "Are we on the verge of crossing our population limit?" A crowded train versus an unbearable train is not just about the number of passengers but whether passengers believe the train has a timetable and operational plan. Since the ruling party uses 6.9 million as a population planning parameter, they should at least give Singaporeans an explanation – what exactly is the limit in the population plan? What are the population plans for various towns nationwide and what are the measures to mitigate the impact of population changes? Large-scale population changes are not merely abstract data, macroeconomic effects or word games. They also have concrete impacts on ordinary people's lives. (In English): On any weekday on the North East Line, the question about Singapore's population limits answers itself. And it is only human for people to ask, are we on the verge of crossing our population and demographic limits? The Government last month said in response to Aljunied MP Fadli Fawzi's question that, while the oft quoted number of 6.9 million is still a relevant planning parameter for the 2030s, our population size, not limits, depend on demographic trends and social and economic needs. If 6.”
“Mr Speaker, this Budget comes at a time of extraordinary monetary wealth in our country. Singaporeans have seen much progress in the material aspects of their lives, yet some continue to face significant economic changes from blue collar workers, whose wages like PMETs, far more than in comparable countries, to young graduates who struggle to land first jobs due to offshoring and tightened MNC passes, and employees who care for loved ones. During the opening of Parliament, I spoke about the importance of us together and the role I hope to see us take as we move forward beyond early nationhood. I would like to expand on this today. Health is wealth. We must make Singapore a healthier society to live in, rather than simply a wealthier one. In previous Budgets, I called for moving beyond GDP as our measure of success through dashboards of social development indicators of our social and sustainability goals to ensuring that we also measure our resources beyond economic data, which can take the form of how we quantify our resilience and societal well-being. Today, I will focus on what I see as three pillars of a healthier Singapore society: first, measuring our demographics; second, ensuring well-being in the time of the smartphone; third, supporting environmental well-being. These are issues that underlie our day-to-day feelings of being in crowded trains and roads, as well as the happiness and flourishing of our children in a time of change. They are the lived reality of our fellow residents on this island, for whom the optimisation of their humanity will mean little if it cannot lead to a healthier society. Mr Speaker, in Chinese. (In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] To understand Singapore's population limit is quite simple.”
“Thank you, Sir. I have two supplementary questions for the Senior Minister of State, the first relates to the NMHO. I noted that in last year during the Committee of Supply, it was stated that the NMHO tracks the mental health data internally. Will the Government commit to publishing these outcomes and indicators externally, for instance, through a public dashboard, similar to Australia's Mental National Mental Health Performance Framework? This will allow Parliament and the public to be able to better assess whether the strategy is on track through measurable and regularly updated indicators that are published. And my second supplementary question relates to measurable outcomes and the impact on the treatment gap. Beyond the listing of initiatives, my supplementary question relates to what measurable outcomes have been observed since the strategy is launched in 2023? For example, rates of self harm, suicide attempts or help seeking behaviours. I note that in 2016, there was a treatment gap with approximately 78% of individuals with conditions not seeking treatment. Has this been re-measured? And if not, how does the Ministry assess progress towards measuring and narrowing this gap?”
“While such focus groups are important for understanding these issues in Singapore's urban and cultural context, we must also engage with the research material, given that we regulate primarily for safety rather than more subjective concerns. We should understand how the science factors into these recommendations and I ask whether the panel should be updated to include more representation from academia. In conclusion, while I support the Bill in principle, I hope that some of the issues I raised will be taken to account to inform enforcement. I also hope that future reviews of regulations would be driven primarily by research and that this research is communicated together with any proposed new regulations. PMAs are useful to persons with disabilities and seniors by supporting their mobility in our communities and neighbourhoods, and can be important tools for removing barriers to accessing public transport. They bring significant co-benefits in the form of promoting connections within the community, sociability, improving health and offering mobility, all with much lower carbon emissions than cars. Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Bill.”
“Lastly, I have some comments on AMAP, which developed the review of regulations for PMAs that forms this Bill. I note that in the report, while there is consideration of other legislation in other jurisdictions, I could not find much direct analysis or assessment of the available scientific literature on the issue of PMAs, particularly in relation to road safety, for instance, on the recommendation of reducing the speed limit to six kilometres per hour from the current 10 kilometres per hour. Can the Minister of State share what is the actual data used to determine how reducing the speed limit to six kilometres an hour is significantly more likely to reduce the risk of serious injury, affect reflex time and prevent more accidents to begin with? My colleague from Hougang single member constituency, Dennis Tan, had earlier and also during the 2024 Committee of Supply, raised concerns too that the proposed six kilometre per hour speed limit appears to be tied to the average walking speed. This may be too slow and end up increasing the journey time for users and those who are reliant on it to move beyond their immediate neighbourhoods and also may have actual financial impact on those who rely on PMAs for their livelihoods. Could the Minister of State thus provide more specific details about how the new speed limit was arrived at? This is a similar issue with other reports, like the Panel's Review of Active Mobility Regulations for safer path sharing, which introduced the 10 kilometre per hour speed limit on footpaths, which I understand is based largely on work with focus groups.”
“How will enforcement officers thus identify these users and how will we ensure that certified PMA users just trying to move about their everyday lives are not subject to constant interruption or compliance checks? Having clear published guidelines will also help with public education efforts. This is especially important given that we can see from various news reports that so many of the confrontations between PMA users and pedestrians take place without an enforcement officer present. How can we ensure that vigilante justice will not rear its ugly head with passers-by leaping to hasty or even erroneous conclusions about whether or not a PMA user is indeed eligible? Having spoken to people with disabilities and advocacy groups, it remains common in our society to visually perceive able-bodiedness, including in the national press. We must avoid such stigma being perpetuated inadvertently. In view of the concerns above, can the Government share how it proposes to address with them with a view to ensure that misconceptions about what disability means, visible or hidden, affecting young or old are not further entrenched? Mr Deputy Speaker, a further concern raised was that it appears that enforcement of the new rules may be given inadequate time to come in. Four months. There are only four months until mid-2026. The Disabled People's Association highlighted this point in their comments on this Bill, stating that a one- to two-year implementation period would be more comparable to other laws, such as the Workplace Fairness Act. With the new regulations adding quite a few requirements to the already extensive rules on active mobility, I believe it would be fair to give users more time to get used to the regime and to ensure compliance with it.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sengkang is one of Singapore's densest estates and our residents regularly shared with us their transport immobility experiences and challenges while going about their daily lives in the community. I support the core objectives and the amendments being tabled before us today but would like to seek clarifications relating to how the enforcement of the new regime to regulate the use of PMAs will take place and in particular, how these policies are developed in conjunction with the AMAP. One of the key questions that I have relates to how authorities propose the enforcement take place against PMA users who are potentially breaching the upcoming rules. While the amendments introduce the Certificate of Medical Need system, how would trying to catch users without the requisite certification look like in practice? For example, would enforcement officers be required to identify potential rule breakers based on clear rationale? For instance, whether the certificate or the registration mark is visible on the mobility scooter? While circumstances like having multiple people squeezing onto a mobility scooter might be a reasonable means of identification, as it is unlikely that multiple people travelling to the same location may have mobility affecting disabilities, I am concerned that casual, visual perception of able-bodiedness would be used instead. Complicating this is that I understand that LTA's OneMotoring site listed several exemptions from the Certificate of Medical Need. These include users aged 70 and above, beneficiaries of the Assistive Technology Fund and Seniors Mobility Enabling Fund, and individuals assessed to require assistance with ADL under various assessments.”
“It is being debated in the UK Parliament about, I think the UK they were thinking of banning the purchase of cigarettes for those born in 2009 and later. There was a timeline that was mentioned, I believe in January 2023. Can we have more clarity about what our timeline would be for the studying of this cohort ban possibly to be introduced in Singapore?”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. While it is true that New Zealand has withdrawn the proposed cohort ban, I understand that there were some figures that were published at the time when this was being debated, which indicated that for example, the impact on the budget books to the ban was in the region of maybe a billion New Zealand dollars, but then there were some estimates as well that is anticipate to save billions of dollars in the long run in terms of healthcare costs. My supplementary question in this regard is, has Singapore done similar estimates and what are the figures for how much we are expecting if let us say if we were to introduce a similar cohort ban? What would be the impact be, both in terms of our revenue, in terms of taxes, and also in terms of the healthcare costs? That is my first supplementary question. Then the second supplementary question: New Zealand actually did very extensive polling in relation to the support for the ban. I think most of the results have come out very strongly in favour in the population, not just for non-smokers, but also in smokers. So, my question would be, has Singapore carried out similar studies? And what are the findings and whether the Minister of State can share the findings in Singapore, about whether the public is in favour of such a cohort ban? And finally, I believe I asked a similar question in January 2022, and this question also came out in the House in 2023, where the Minister of State shared at the time that we remain open to such a cohort ban in Singapore, and that this was being studied. I understand as well that countries like the United Kingdom (UK) have actually introduced legislation.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have three supplementary questions for the Senior Minister of State. The first is, given the shift in 2030 target, to 2035, what prevents further deadline extensions if headwinds persist, particularly given the current uncertainty around the geopolitical climate as well? The second is in relation to, especially for the food security and to help us better understand our food security situation, if Singapore's food imports were to stop completely, how many days could the country sustain itself on local production alone under these new targets? And my third supplementary question is, given the original "30 by 30" goal was described as aspirational, could I just ask for confirmation whether these new targets are targets or aspirations?”
“Thus, could the Minister consider, first, how Parliament can be kept updated and meaningfully informed about the use of these powers. Second, how Singaporeans can have clearer avenues for recourse. And finally, how can commercial and personal sensitive information be more explicitly safeguarded, even if the use and sharing of such data is subject to Ministerial discretion. This could take the form of including data sharing, breaches, remedies and vulnerabilities, and efforts to strengthen procedures. We must also have clearer rules and principles that must be applied when Ministerial directions are made for the sharing of data with information about the avenues available to the public to seek redress should their sensitive personal data be misused or even leaked. While we improve our data systems to better communicate and implement policies to better serve Singaporeans, let us ensure that we continue to have measures in place to protect and safeguard sensitive data in order for them to have trust in the institutions that are ultimately meant to be there to serve and support them.”
“While the Bill emphasises that PDPA obligations continue to apply and that criminal penalties extend to non-public sector recipients, citizens may wonder what are the explicit safeguards or channels of recourse they have to protect their privacy. This is especially in the instance where the data is highly sensitive, such as personal or family medical records. Can the Minister thus clarify: one, what instances would lead to re-identification; two, what avenues exists to raise concerns; three, how will breaches by non-public sector persons be communicated, particularly to affected citizens; and four, how can individuals seek redress in this system that has an increasing number of third-party partners or contractors? Redress should not only be about fines or punishment. Clear, accessible pathways for recourse are essential to maintaining public trust as data flows become more complex. Once sensitive personal data is leaked, it could potentially compromise a person's financial situation, access to key services and those of their family as well. It could affect the financial, commercial and competitive position of a firm. Should serious data breaches occur and recourse be difficult, that could undermine that very public trust that the Bill rests upon and which the Singapore system has painstakingly built up over decades. Mr Speaker, to conclude, I am not arguing against using data to govern better nor against using data to strengthen partnerships with the community or private sector. However, I hope that as we expand the executive's discretion about the use of our data out of necessity, we strengthen rather than dilute the governance framework around these increased powers.”
“While the Bill criminalises unauthorised disclosure or misuse of disclosed data by employees of external parties, this does not fully address the risk of legitimate but unintended commercial or anti-competitive effects. This could take the form of an external contractor gaining access to sensitive data about a competitor when data is shared legitimately under a broad authorisation to do so. Could the Minister thus clarify about whether and how the proposed data sharing and use directions will explicitly require consideration and evaluation of data that could be commercially sensitive? Would there be clear expectations to exclude, anonymise or otherwise protect such information by default? Could the Minister also clarify when issuing a data sharing direction, what specific factors must be evaluated? For instance, must the Minister assess the sensitivity classification of the data, the proportionality between privacy, intrusion and public benefit, whether less intrusive alternatives exist and the data recipients' security posture, and are these factors documented in writing for each authorisation? For example, Saudi Arabia recently issued rules for secondary use of data, which establishes a framework for sharing data beyond its original collection for public interest, research and innovation. Those rules explicitly state, for instance, that the data sharing entity reserves the right to incorporate provisions concerning intellectual property rights and commercial confidentiality within the usage licence. I would like to turn to the provisions giving express power to re-identify anonymise information.”
“Under the proposed amendments to this Bill, Ministers will be able to issue data sharing and use directions, and be allowed to further authorise sharing of data with non-public sector persons. While it is provided for in the Bill that directions must not be inconsistent with written law or to impede independently statutory functions, it is not clear to me how these limits will operate in practice under the expanded scope proposed by the Bill. It is not about ascribing nefarious intentions to current officeholders. It is about the institutional design and guardrails that need to be built around such powers to be granted. Could the Minister thus clarify, what would be the oversight mechanisms to be applied in ensuring that a direction is not overly broad nor made erroneously? What recourse exists if a decision is later found to be erroneous or disproportionate? It is also foreseeable that the proposed amendments could have implications beyond personal data. Any number of businesses now exist that attempt to commercialise personal data that is collected before attempting to monetise these data, whether through outright sale of such datasets, targeted advertising or using it to craft more commercially competitive strategies. Additionally, public or agencies also often hold commercially sensitive information, proprietary business data or intellectual property belonging to firms that engage with the public sector. It is not inconceivable that personal data, especially when aggregated is, by its nature, valuable, especially when dealing in instances, such as the people sector.”
“While we do not automatically disagree with this shift in principle, the public should understand why this change is being proposed and why now. In this regard, I understand that there will be grounds and limited instances in which data will be shared. However, for a full understanding of the difficulties faced, could the Minister clarify, in the last five years, how many times have agencies run into difficulties in providing necessary services to the community? And from these examples, can the Minister articulate the common characteristics that would indicate when Ministerial discretion was warranted? And will these characterisations be codified as guidance for future authorisations? Had the agencies previously attempted other approaches, such as, for example, for persons with disabilities and their families attempting to gain consent upfront from affected individuals to share the full suite of data to community partners, which are not public agencies, in order to better provide services? As I said earlier, allowing sharing to be made subject to a Minister's discretion is not automatically wrong. In a complex system with many moving parts, it is probably often necessary. But as with all our governance institutions, executive discretion has to be bounded, reviewable and transparent, especially when it concerns citizens' data. This is even more so when that data is highly sensitive. I need not remind everyone that data is king, given that we live in a world of scams, impersonation, data theft and identity theft, now enhanced by generative and exponentially improving artificial intelligence.”
“Mr Speaker, today, public services are delivered by community partners, SSAs and even private contractors. And we agree that it is important that data is available, where needed, to ensure that public services are allowed to reach as wide an audience as possible and to enable agencies to get assistance to vulnerable groups. Ultimately, data empowers policy-making that is more responsive to the needs of a diverse population. Thus, we do agree that data must be accessible to entities and partners in order to achieve this, and that data be used to enable better delivery of public services. However, the question before us today is not simply whether data should be shared or used. It is also about how power over the sharing and use of data is governed and what guardrails are in place where such power is exercised. We also would benefit from having express channels of recourse known and accessible widely that would come into play, if and when mistakes occur from misuse or abuse of data. The Bill before us today moves us from a framework that, on the whole, allowed data to be shared between public agencies and subject to rules and regulations about such sharing and use, to one which expands the sharing of data expressly authorising: one, the use of data; two, the sharing of data with non-public sector persons; and three, even the re-identification of previously anonymised information – all through Ministerial directions and further authorisations, that is, data sharing and use directions given by a Minister. Such a shift from a more rule-based model of data governance to one that relies more heavily on executive decision and ultimately, discretion, should be founded in necessity.”
“Mr Chairman, I move that the new clause* be read a Second time. The reasons for the new clause have been addressed in my speech during the debate on the Second Reading of the Bill. [(proc text) *The new clause read as follows: (proc text)] [(proc text) “E.— (1) For the purposes of the preparation of the report in section 112, the Commissioner shall have the authority to require online service providers to provide and publish publicly accessible information on an annual basis on — (proc text)] [(proc text) (a) risk assessments and trends relating to online harms; (proc text)] [(proc text) (b) privacy of its users; (proc text)] [(proc text) (c) clear procedures for reporting content and making complaints; (proc text)] [(proc text) (d) the measures taken or in use to enable users and others to seek recourse on such online platforms for victims; and (proc text)] [(proc text) (e) the time taken and remedy granted for such online platforms in response to reports and complaints." (proc text)] [(proc text) Note: It is intended that this new clause E be inserted immediately after new clause D. (proc text)] [(proc text) Consequential Amendments: (proc text)] [(proc text) Amendments to be made to the numbering of clauses, cross-references, and contents page consequent on the addition of any new clause(s). (proc text)] [(proc text) Question put, and amendment negatived. (proc text)] [(proc text) The Schedule ordered to stand part of the Bill. (proc text)] [(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)] 9.07 pm”
“Mr Chairman, I introduced a new clause E. [(proc text) Brought up, and read the First time. (proc text)]”
“(proc text)] [(proc text) (3) In preparing the report under this section, the Commissioner may consult — (proc text)] [(proc text) (a) persons (including a public agency) to represent the interests of women and children (generally or with particular reference to online safety matters); (proc text)] [(proc text) (b) persons (including a public agency) to represent the interests of vulnerable adults; and (proc text)] [(proc text) (c) such other persons as the Commissioner considers appropriate." (proc text)] [(proc text) Note: It is intended that this new clause D be inserted immediately after clause 111. (proc text)] [(proc text) Question put, and amendment negatived. (proc text)] New Clause E –”
“—(1) The Commissioner shall, on an annual basis, cause to be prepared and transmitted to Parliament a report, which must state the particular kinds of activities and content present during the preceding financial year, including the following — (proc text)] [(proc text) (a) consolidated information on the number of reports or complaints received by the Commissioner; (proc text)] [(proc text) (b) information on the types of complaints and reports from persons affected by online harmful activity as received by the Commission; (proc text)] [(proc text) (c) number of directions and orders issued by the Commissioner, the type of directions and orders issued, the classes of material pursuant to which a direction or order was issued (if any), and the time taken from the date of a report and the issue of directions and orders; (proc text)] [(proc text) (d) categories of persons or entities who have been issued a direction or order by the Commissioner, which includes an administrator, communicator, online service provider, owner, or prescribed online service provider; (proc text)] [(proc text) (e) findings by the Commissioner on the risk assessments and trends relating to online harms; (proc text)] [(proc text) (f) steps the Commissioner has taken, and its processes to address privacy concerns in accordance with the Personal Data Protection Act 2012; and (proc text)] [(proc text) (g) an assessment of the accessibility of recourse provided by online service providers for vulnerable adults. (proc text)] [(proc text) (2) For the purposes of subsection (1), "vulnerable adult" means an individual who is 18 years of age or older, and by reason of mental or physical infirmity, disability or incapacity, incapable of protecting himself or herself from abuse, neglect or self-neglect.”
“Mr Chairman, I move that the new clause* be read a Second time. The reasons for the new clause have been addressed in my speech during the debate on the Second Reading of the Bill. [(proc text) *The new clause read as follows: (proc text)] [(proc text) “Risk Assessment, Reporting, and Accessibility (proc text)] [(proc text) D.”
“Mr Chairman, I introduced a new clause entitled "Risk Assessment, Reporting, and Accessibility." [(proc text) Brought up, and read the First time. (proc text)]”
“Mr Chairman, I move that the new clause* be read a Second time. The reasons for the new clause have been addressed in my speech during the debate on the Second Reading of the Bill [(proc text) *The new clause read as follows: (proc text)] [(proc text) "Appeal to General Division of High Court (proc text)] [(proc text) C.— (1) An appeal against, or with respect to, a decision or direction of an Appeal Committee on an appeal under section 65 lies to the General Division of the High Court. (proc text)] [(proc text) (2) An appeal under subsection (1) may be made only on one or more of the following grounds: (proc text)] [(proc text) (a) on a point of law; or (proc text)] [(proc text) (b) that the online harmful activity did not occur; or (proc text)] [(proc text) (c) that it is not technically possible to comply with the decision, direction, or order that is the subject of the decision or direction of the Appeal Committee. (proc text)] [(proc text) (3) In any appeal under this section, the General Division of the High Court may confirm, vary or set aside the decision or direction of the Appeal Committee and make such further or other order as the Court deems fit. (proc text)] [(proc text) (4) The procedure for an appeal under this section is to be governed by the Rules of Court." (proc text)] [(proc text) Note: It is intended that this new clause C be inserted immediately after clause 67. (proc text)] [(proc text) Question put, and amendment negatived. (proc text)] New Clause D –”
“Mr Chairman, I introduced a new clause* entitled "Appeal to General Division of High Court." [(proc text) Brought up, and read the First time. (proc text)]”
“(proc text)] [(proc text) (c) "Vulnerable adult" means an individual who is 18 years of age or older, and by reason of mental or physical infirmity, disability or incapacity, incapable of protecting himself or herself from abuse, neglect or self-neglect. (proc text)] [(proc text) (3) To avoid doubt, it is not a defence that B consents to the communication of the online material under subsection (1). (proc text)] [(proc text) (4) Despite subsection (1), "sexual grooming of any person below 18 years of age or vulnerable adults" does not include communication of material that — (proc text)] [(proc text) (a) has a legitimate purpose related to science, medicine, education or art which a reasonable person would regard as such; and (proc text)] [(proc text) (b) does not pose an undue risk of harm to any person below 18 years of age." (proc text)] [(proc text) Note: It is intended that this new clause B be inserted immediately after new clause A. (proc text)] [(proc text) Question put, and amendment negatived. (proc text)] New Clause C –”
“Mr Chairman, I move that the new clause* be read a Second time. The reasons for the new clause have been addressed in my speech during the debate on the Second Reading of the Bill. [(proc text) *The new clause read as follows: (proc text)] [(proc text) “Sexual grooming of any person below 18 years of age or vulnerable adults (proc text)] [(proc text) B.— (1) In this Act, "sexual grooming of any person below 18 years of age or vulnerable adults" means the communication of online material by any person of or above 18 years of age (A) with another person (B) on at least one previous occasion — (proc text)] [(proc text) (a) A intentionally communicates online material with B which encourages, promotes, or provides instructions of sexual communication or sexual activity; (proc text)] [(proc text) (b) B is below 18 years of age or a vulnerable adult; and (proc text)] [(proc text) (c) A does not reasonably believe that B is of or above 18 years of age or a vulnerable adult. (proc text)] [(proc text) (2) For the purposes of subsection (1) — (proc text)] [(proc text) (a) "Sexual communication" means intentional communication for the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification or of causing another person (B) humiliation, alarm or distress, and the communication is sexual. (proc text)] [(proc text) (b) "Sexual activity" means — (proc text)] [(proc text) (i) intentional engagement of an activity for the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification or of causing another person (B) humiliation, alarm or distress, and the activity is sexual; or (proc text)] [(proc text) (ii) For the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification or of causing another person (B) humiliation, alarm or distress, A intentionally causes B to observe an image or recording which is sexual.”
“Mr Chairman, I introduced a new clause* entitled "Sexual grooming of any person below 18 years of age or vulnerable adults." [(proc text) Brought up, and read the First time. (proc text)]”
“Mr Chairman, I move that the new clause* be read a Second time. [(proc text) *The new clause read as follows: (proc text)] [(proc text) “Publication of online material encouraging or promoting suicide or an act of deliberate self-injury (proc text)] [(proc text) A.— (1) In this Act, "publication of online material encouraging or promoting suicide or an act of deliberate self-injury" means the communication of online material that encourages, promotes, or provides instructions for suicide or an act of deliberate self-injury. (proc text)] [(proc text) (2) Despite subsection (1), "publication of online material encouraging or promoting suicide or an act of deliberate self-injury" does not include the communication of material that: (proc text)] [(proc text) (a) has a legitimate purpose related to science, medicine, education or art which a reasonable person would regard as such; and (proc text)] [(proc text) (b) does not pose an undue risk of harm to any person below 16 years of age. (proc text)] [(proc text) Explanation. — Material has a legitimate purpose related to an academic enquiry, or as an expression related to art which a reasonable person would regard as art. (proc text)] [(proc text) Illustration (proc text)] [(proc text) A is a professor at an educational institution. A conducts a study relating to suicide or self-injury and communicates this online as part of A’s work as a professor. A’s communication has a legitimate purpose related to education.” (proc text)] [(proc text) Note: It is intended that this new clause A be inserted immediately after clause 21. (proc text)] [(proc text) Question put, and amendment negatived. (proc text)] New Clause B –”
“Mr Chairman, I introduce a new clause entitled "Publication of online material encouraging or promoting suicide or an act of deliberate self-injury." [(proc text) Brought up, and read the First time. (proc text)]”
“Mr Chairman, I move the amendment* to clause 63 standing in my name, as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement. The reasons for the amendment have been addressed in my speech during a debate on the second reading of the Bill. [(proc text) *The amendments read as follows: (proc text)] [(proc text) In page 75: to leave out lines 22 to 25. (proc text)] [(proc text) Question put, and amendment negatived. (proc text)] [(proc text) Clause 63 ordered to stand part of the Bill. (proc text)] [(proc text) Clauses 64 to 111 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. (proc text)] New Clause A –”
“Mr Chairman, I move the amendment* to clause 26, standing in my name as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement. The reasons for the amendment have been addressed in my speech during the debate on the Second Reading of the Bill. [(proc text) *The amendment read as follows: (proc text)] [(proc text) In page 42, line 28: to leave out "reason to suspect" and insert "reasonable grounds to believe". (proc text)] [(proc text) Question put, and amendment negatived. (proc text)] [(proc text) Clause 26 ordered to stand part of the Bill. (proc text)] [(proc text) Clauses 27 to 62 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. (proc text)] Clause 63 –”
“Mr Chairman, I move the amendment* to clause 19, standing in my name as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement. The reasons for the amendment have been addressed in my speech during the debate on the Second Reading of the Bill. [(proc text) *The amendment read as follows: (proc text)] [(proc text) In page 37: after line 26, to insert – (proc text)] [(proc text) "(6) Communication of online material does not constitute "online instigation of disproportionate harm" under subsection (1) if the communication relates to a matter of public interest." (proc text)] [(proc text) Question put, and amendment negatived. (proc text)] [(proc text) Clause 19 ordered to stand part of the Bill. (proc text)] [(proc text) Clauses 20 to 25 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. (proc text)] Clause 26 –”
“Mr Chairman, I move the amendment* to clause 11, standing in my name as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement. The reasons for the amendment have been addressed in my speech during the debate on the Second Reading of the Bill. [(proc text) *The amendment read as follows: (proc text)] [(proc text) In page 25: after line 27, to insert – (proc text)] [(proc text) "(4) A person's conduct does not constitute "non-consensual disclosure of private information" under subsection (1) if, having regard to all the circumstances, the public interest in the disclosure of the private information outweighs the public interest in maintaining privacy. (proc text)] [(proc text) (5) Without limiting subsection (4), matters which may constitute a public interest in the disclosure of the information include — (proc text)] [(proc text) (a) informing the public on a matter of significant public concern; (proc text)] [(proc text) (b) exposing wrongdoing, corruption, or a serious miscarriage of justice; (proc text)] [(proc text) (c) the proper administration of government or the conduct of public services; (proc text)] [(proc text) (d) open justice; (proc text)] [(proc text) (e) protecting public health and safety; (proc text)] [(proc text) (f) national security; (proc text)] [(proc text) (g) the prevention or detection of serious crime or fraud." (proc text)] [(proc text) Question put, and amendment negatived. (proc text)] [(proc text) Clause 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill. (proc text)] [(proc text) Clauses 12 to 18 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. (proc text)] Clause 19 –”
“Mr Chairman, I move the amendment* to clause 9, standing in my name as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement. The reasons for the amendment have been addressed in my speech during the debate on the Second Reading of the Bill. [(proc text) *The amendment read as follows: (proc text)] [(proc text) In page 24: after line 21, to insert – (proc text)] [(proc text) "(5) For the purposes of subsection (1), communication of online material is not "online harassment" if it constitutes, or is part of a course of conduct that constitutes, fair comment on a matter of public interest.” (proc text)] [(proc text) Question put, and amendment negatived. (proc text)] [(proc text) Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill. (proc text)] [(proc text) Clause 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill. (proc text)] Clause 11 –”
“No, Sir. Thank you. [(proc text) Question put, and amendment negatived. (proc text)] [(proc text) Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill. (proc text)] [(proc text) Clauses 4 to 8 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. (proc text)] Clause 9 –”
“Mr Chairman, I move the amendment* to clause 3, standing in my name as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement. The reasons for the amendment have been addressed in my speech during the debate on the Second Reading of the Bill. [(proc text) *The amendment read as follows: (proc text)] [(proc text) In page 14: after line 12, to insert – (proc text)] [(proc text) "(n) publication of online material encouraging or promoting suicide or an act of deliberate self-injury; (proc text)] [(proc text) (o) sexual grooming of any person below 18 years of age or vulnerable adults;" (proc text)] [(proc text) Consequential Amendment: (proc text)] [(proc text) In page 14, line 13: to reletter paragraph (n) as paragraph (p). (proc text)]”
“Mr Speaker, the WP still believes that the amendments we tabled would enhance the effectiveness of our laws in working for victims of online harms, while providing careful consideration for the Bill's powers. We disagree that these changes will cause the protection regime to be problematic or toothless. Nevertheless, I am grateful that we have had the chance to have a debate on these important issues and to the officeholders who have provided substantial clarifications. I think we all agree that the legislation covering online harms is very much something that will need continued review, refinement and development as the scale and nature of online harm shifts alongside changes in technology in our society. On Minister of State Rahayu's point that the Broadcasting Act covers the two categories of harmful online activity covered by our proposed amendments, we note that the Broadcasting Act does not allow victims to seek a swift recourse. As I stated earlier, both these categories were also rated by respondents as the most egregious of harms and, thus, we believe that they should be explicitly covered. Regardless, IMDA should work with the new agency under the Bill and study the types of reports received, emerging trends and effectiveness of the Broadcasting Act. We believe that victims should more appropriately lodge a report to OSC, not IMDA, to seek redress, and for OSC to issue directions and orders fast. Additionally, the Broadcasting Act is more of a governance for entities which does not provide recourse for victims. Also, I believe that the new agency's powers are wider and contain more remedies that will be available to victims. Thus, will the Minister of State clarify how our concerns outlined above will be addressed?”
“Yes, thank you. So, I think for something that is ambiguous, for example, what is considered harmful to a reputation, that would be something that sometimes, it could be a little bit ambiguous; and therefore, that is when, perhaps, there is a bit of a chance for the investigative powers to be used to investigate further.”