Indranee Rajah
Singapore
“Mr Speaker, I would like to make a clarification in relation to two written answers on childcare leave issued by the Prime Minister's Office on 25 September 2025 and 3 February 2026 in response to Parliamentary Questions filed by Members of Parliament Ms Cassandra Lee and Ms Valerie Lee respectively.”
“Based on Year of Assessment (YA) 2025 data, about 9,500 working mothers claimed a lower amount of Working Mother's Child Relief (WCMR) under the fixed-dollar basis than they would have under the previous percentage-based basis, for children born or adopted on or after 1 January 2024.”
“We regularly receive feedback on enhancing child-related leave provisions, including the Member's suggestion. In recent years, parental leave provisions have been significantly enhanced, such that parents now have 30 weeks of paid leave, including 10 weeks of Shared Parental Leave.”
“The Government does not have data on the number of transactions involving multiple units on a single residential title that have not been subdivided. Such properties are treated as a single property for Additional Buyer's Stamp Duty (ABSD) purposes when it is bought, so no ABSD is foregone.”
“The Government publishes data on personal income tax, which is publicly available on www.data.gov.sg. This includes data on the number of course fees relief claimants and the amount of the relief granted. The Member may refer to the website to access the data for the first three questions.”
“In considering the duration of leave, we will look at the need. In this case, as I have explained, there is a difference between those who give birth physically to a child and those who adopt.”
The complete record
Every one of 2,520 lines we hold for Indranee Rajah, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 11 of 51.
“Paternal involvement in child-raising at an early stage, is increasingly being recognised as important for the well-being of the child and the family. To encourage shared parental responsibility and have fathers be more involved in child-raising, the Government has doubled the Government-Paid Paternity Leave (GPPL) – from two weeks to four weeks since 1 January 2024. The additional two weeks are currently provided on a voluntary basis. This is to give employers some time to adjust, taking into consideration the economic conditions, operational and manpower challenges faced by some employers. Employers who are ready to and voluntarily grant the additional two weeks of leave will be reimbursed by the Government, just as they are for the mandatory first two weeks. As signalled by Deputy Prime Minister Wong last year, we aim to make the additional two weeks of GPPL mandatory as soon as possible. We encourage employers who have not yet done so, to make the most of this voluntary period to start adjusting their HR practices to accommodate the additional two weeks of paternity leave – so that they will be ready and can transition seamlessly once it is made mandatory. As with other legislated parental leave provisions, failure to grant mandatory paternity leave to an employee – who is entitled to and has requested such leave – is an offence and subjected to the penalties, as laid out in the Child Development Co-Savings Act (CDCA). Employees who encounter disputes with their employers relating to their GPPL entitlements can lodge a claim at the Tripartite Alliance for Dispute Management. We are working with employers to encourage them to implement family-friendly workplace practices, including supporting fathers to take paternity leave.”
“If the MP is placed on leave of absence and is subsequently charged or convicted, it would be the party’s responsibility to ensure that the MP pays back the allowance received during this period, if that is the right thing to do in the circumstances. In the present case Mr Iswaran volunteered to pay back his allowance after he resigned and before his trial, so the question did not arise. Each case will depend on the facts and circumstances, and on what is the right and fair thing to do in each situation. Mr Speaker, I now move on to Mr Yip Hon Weng’s query, as to whether it is necessary to appoint a Committee of Inquiry (COI) to investigate Mr Iswaran’s case at an appropriate juncture. Mr Speaker, Sir, section 9 of the Inquiries Act sets out the subjects for which a COI may be appointed to inquire into. These include: (a) accidents involving death, serious injury, or serious property damage; (b) incidents that may endanger public safety or public health; and (c) the conduct or management of a Ministry. The purpose of a COI is to investigate something with a view to finding out how it happened. In this case, the CPIB has investigated the matter. Based on their investigations the AGC has taken the view that there is basis for criminal charges to be brought against Mr Iswaran. Determination of criminal offences is a matter for the court, which is currently dealing with the case. We should wait for the court proceedings to conclude before deciding if anything else needs to be done.”
“This position was supported by the Workers' Party and Nominated Members of Parliament in the debate last year. This brings me to the second issue, which is, whether MPs on leave of absence should have their allowance withheld. On this, it is important to appreciate that there are two material differences between leave of absence and suspension. First, leave of absence, in and of itself, does not imply any wrongdoing as it does not function as a penalty, unlike suspension, which operates as a sanction or penalty. MPs may apply for leave of absence for a variety of reasons which have nothing to do with wrongdoing, for example, due to illness, overseas travel or other exigencies. Second, unlike suspension, leave of absence is not a matter for the House. In a situation where an MP is under investigation, he or she cannot be put on leave of absence by Parliament. The MP can apply for leave of absence on his or her own accord or be required by the party to take leave of absence. Whether or not the party requires the MP to take leave of absence will depend on the circumstances of each case. These two material differences have a bearing on how the question of an MP's allowance should be dealt with if the MP is under investigation and is subsequently charged or convicted. Given that leave of absence is not an indication of wrongdoing or a sanction, it would not, as a general rule, be correct to withhold the Members of Parliament's allowance while he or she is on leave of absence. If the House were to withhold the MP’s pay pending the investigations or the outcome of the case, we would encounter the same problem that arises for suspension. The House would be prejudging the issue.”
“Members may ask, aside from Mr Iswaran's case, whether there is a need for us to change the current framework with regard to an MP who is under investigation for an offence. In the course of the debate last year, the Progress Singapore Party (PSP) had called for suspension of an MP under investigation, but, strangely, only if the investigation related to corruption and not any other offence. In addition, Ms Poa had also sought leave to introduce a Private Member's Bill to amend the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act 1962 to give Parliament the flexibility to authorise the back payment of the allowance of an MP who has been suspended from the service of Parliament by resolution. There are two separate issues involved here. First, whether it should be a rule that an MP, under investigation for an offence, should be suspended. And second, whether an MP, on leave of absence while under investigation, should have his or her allowance withheld, pending the outcome of the investigation or the case. I will deal with them in turn. On the first issue, it would not, as a matter of principle, be correct to suspend an MP simply because he or she is under investigation. To do so would be to effectively prejudge that the MP has committed a wrongdoing, even before details of the investigation are known. What if the MP is subsequently not charged or is charged but found innocent? We would have wrongly punished the MP in our haste to presume guilt or wrongdoing. Everyone who is alleged to have committed a wrongdoing, including MPs, should be given due process. This is why in most Parliamentary systems, including the United Kingdom and New Zealand, there is no general practice of suspending a member against whom investigations are ongoing.”
“Mr Henry Kwek asked whether, in view of the outcome of the investigations regarding Mr Iswaran, it is necessary to further consider the matter as resolved in this House on 19 September 2023. To provide context, Members will recall that in September last year, Ms Hazel Poa moved a Motion to suspend Mr Iswaran from the service of Parliament for the remainder of that Session of the 14th Parliament. Ms Poa's objective in so doing, which she expressly stated at that time, was to stop Mr Iswaran from receiving his Member of Parliament (MP) allowance, as he was on leave of absence and was not carrying out his MP duties. I had, in parallel, moved the Motion proposing that consideration of the matter be deferred until the outcome of the investigations was known so as not to prejudge the matter. The House agreed and resolved to consider the matter regarding Mr Iswaran when the outcome of the investigations was known. The Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) has since completed its investigations and the Public Prosecutor has brought charges against Mr Iswaran. Prior to the formal presentation of the charges against him, Mr Iswaran resigned from Cabinet and as an MP. Following his resignation, he also informed the Prime Minister that he would voluntarily return all monies he received by way of Ministerial salary and allowances as an MP that were paid to him since the commencement of the CPIB investigations in July 2023. In these circumstances, the specific issues regarding Mr Iswaran, which the House was concerned with, had been addressed. There is, hence, no need for any further consideration of steps to be taken against Mr Iswaran by the House.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I have your permission to answer Question Nos 23 and 24 in the Order Paper together?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That Parliament do now adjourn." [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)] Building a Generous Society and Nation 7.56 pm”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That Parliament do now adjourn." [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)] Social Cohesion through Common Spaces in Residential Estates 4.19 pm”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That Parliament do now adjourn." [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)] Towards a Vibrant and Sustainable Creative Economy for the Arts 7.40 pm”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That Parliament do now adjourn." [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)] Flexible Work Arrangements for All 5.10 pm”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That Parliament do now adjourn." [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)] Strengthening Accessibility to Mental Healthcare 7.43 pm”
“The IMC will consider that request as part of its review.”
“I thank Mr Murali Pillai for his clarification. I think his question really was with respect to foreign companies which do not do anything other than own property, should we not bring them under the ACRA regime and make them disclose any beneficial ownership? Let me explain first the current thinking behind why we do not require that at the moment. The Companies Act and ACRA look at companies which carry on business in Singapore. If you have a foreign company that does not carry on any business and the only thing it does is just buys a property, then strictly speaking, it is not carrying on business, it is just owning a property. And, therefore, it is not caught by the Companies Act regime for registration with ACRA. In fact, such a foreign company does not even need to be registered in Singapore at all. It just is the entity that owns a property. That is the reason why we do not require it come under ACRA. But that is not to say that there would be no requirement to find out beneficial ownership of that foreign company because when they are buying the property, the financial institutions, the real estate agents and the lawyers who act, would have to make those inquiries as part of their due diligence, and so they would have that information and the law enforcement agencies can, if necessary, ask these intermediaries for that beneficial ownership information. That said, when we do our review as part of the IMC, we will look at all relevant areas and if anything needs to be finetuned or changed, we will look at it. And I think his final question was – I was not quite sure I have understood the full import of it – if Mr Murali could just clarify that.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, let me take the second question first because the Member said, when there were more than 120 properties, why were there 94 prohibition orders? Let me go back to what I had said earlier in my Ministerial Statement. I said, to date, 94 residential properties have been issued with prohibition orders. So, 94 refers to the residential properties. Then, in addition to that, there are 53 commercial properties and five industrial properties. So, I think that will make up the numbers that Mr Leong was asking about. The Member's other question was: was there any landed residential property on the mainland that was issued with the prohibition order? Was that the question? The answer is, no. I said that out of the 94 residential properties, 60 were completed resale units, 34 were uncompleted units and eight of these properties were landed residential properties at Sentosa Cove. So, there were no mainland landed residential properties purchased. I think the newspaper reports had indicated that some of them were caught in Good Class Bungalows. I think that may be what the Member is thinking about. My understanding is that those were rented properties, not purchased properties. Finally, I think the Member asked how the 10—he said 10 offenders. Technically, they are suspects at this stage. I do not think we can say they are offenders yet. They may well be, but they are suspects at this stage. I do not have details of that. It is still under investigation. Those details will have to come out later when the investigations are complete.”
“I do not know the exact number but it is a much smaller proportion compared to the others. I think Minister Josephine alluded to about 80% of the STRs as coming from the financial sector. So, for the real estate sector, it is a much smaller proportion. However, what I would like to emphasise is that the real estate agents are operating as part of an entire ecosystem, meaning that for any transaction of the property, there should be a bank involved – usually a financial institution; there should be a lawyer involved somewhere, the real estate agent or the property developer. So, because it is part of an ecosystem, just because a real estate agent may not have filed an STR may not in and of itself mean that anything suspicious may not be picked up. You have to see it in that broader picture. But the percentage, compared to the others, is much lower.”
“For the properties in Sentosa Cove, the foreigners who are non-PRs can acquire them and approvals are generally granted. For example, if you own one Sentosa Cove property and you want to get another one, then because it is two properties, you may not get approval for that unless there is some good reason for it. So, the short answer is that the approvals are generally granted. I do not have the details of the two that were rejected but I think the key message that I wanted to get across is that Sentosa Cove was developed with a specific marketing clientele in mind, which is an international clientele, which is the reason why approval is generally granted when they are purchased by foreigners.”
“The other thing which may not have registered on Members' consciousness is this – Minister Josephine Teo alluded to it – the monies that are being laundered, online gambling and other things, most of that took place outside of Singapore. When they want to come here and use Singapore as a base for money laundering, most of them would try to keep their activities here clean. So, on the face of it, they would do their very best to be as legitimate as possible here because they want this to be the place where they flow the illicit money and it comes out clean. Anybody who has watched "Breaking Bad" will know how this is done. "Better Call Saul" was an exposition on how you do money laundering. In response to Mr Yip's question, when they come here, they are going to do their very best to look and feel and seem legitimate. The illicit monies come from elsewhere and they would try to put it through legitimate transactions so that when they come out, they are clean. I think I have addressed the Member's questions. If I have missed anything, perhaps Mr Yip would let me know.”
“Sir, I think we can always do more to help equip real estate agents and others in the sector to do better. But I think that the key thing to remember is this: the obligation that they have is to file an STR. So, if something strikes them as suspicious, that is their main duty. They do not have to carry out an entire investigation and crack the case themselves. They do not have to do the job of CAD or SPF. The key thing that the real estate agents and others in the non-financial sector have to do is to spot when something seems off, is inconsistent or cannot be explained. Usually, when you are in the sector long enough, you get a sense and a feel of this, which is why these are the gatekeepers. They are the ones who deal with these transactions constantly and after a while, you will be able to pick up when something is just not quite the way it ought to be. So, in response to the first question, the answer is there is always more that can be done and we will look at that as part of the IMC. The other question that Mr Yip asked was what checks are in place to ensure that Singapore's property market is not being targeted or misused for money laundering activities. You can never ensure that we will not be targeted. You can never ensure 100% that it will not happen because, as much as we try to prevent, you can be sure of the fact that because of our status as a financial hub and financial centre, they would want to come here. But you can make it a very inhospitable place if we can step up on prevention, detection and enforcement, which Minister Josephine Teo talked about.”
“I thank the Member for his clarification. Indeed, we agree that more can be done. We had already started to do more in this space which is why even before this case came about, we had already started to look at how we could strengthen the system. Hence, the Real Estate Agents Act was passed in 2010 and came into effect in 2021, and the regulations that I mentioned as well. We will certainly see what we can do to strengthen the regulations in this sector. [Please refer to "Clarification by Minister, Prime Minister's Office and Second Minister for Finance and National Development", Official Report, 3 October 2023, Vol 95, Issue 113, Correction By Written Statement section.]”
“[Please refer to "Clarification by Minister, Prime Minister's Office and Second Minister for Finance and National Development", Official Report, 3 October 2023, Vol 95, Issue 113, Correction By Written Statement section.] So, basically fines and you can be suspended and have your licence revoked. I think Mr Gerald Giam had asked about information sharing. With respect to COSMIC, that will have to be directed to Minister of State Alvin Tan. But with respect to how we can better assist real estate agents, as I mentioned, CEA is looking at setting up the webpage to assist them. We will step up on the training and on the guidelines. Some other types of information they would have available to them are by way of ACRA searches, for example. This is information that they can pull. For higher risk transactions, they are required to do enhanced due diligence; they have to ask for information. So, if they are being represented by someone and the beneficial owner or the owner is not here, they would want to see, for example, a power of attorney and/or letter of authorisation. They might have to ask for sources of the income and the company's place of incorporation. The types of documentation differ, but essentially, CEA provides these guidelines and conducts trainings for the real estate agents, so that they will have a better idea of what to ask. As part of the IMC that I will be chairing, we will look to see what more we can do to better equip real estate agents in this sector.”
“[Please refer to "Clarification by Minister, Prime Minister's Office and Second Minister for Finance and National Development", Official Report, 3 October 2023, Vol 95, Issue 113, Correction By Written Statement section.] In my early answer, I said out of the 88 applications, only two were denied. So, that is on the approvals. Finally, I think Ms He had a question on how many estate agents have had action taken against them. Ms He had asked in respect of the past five years, but the Estate Agents Act (EAA) and the regulations have been in place for only three years. The EAA and regulations have been in place since 2021. So, that is the period you are referring to. The short answer is that the CEA will not hesitate to take action against property agents or agencies, who are found to have breached the EAA or the Prevention of Money Laundering and Financing of Terrorism (PMLFT) regulations. And those who fail to comply with the regulations can face disciplinary action, including financial penalties of up to $100,000 for property agents and $200,000 for property agencies and suspension or revocation of an agent's registration or an agency's licence. Since 2021, CEA has taken action against two property agents who were found guilty by the CEA disciplinary committee for contraventions of the EAA and the PMLFT regulations. These agents failed to comply with regulations relating to obtaining, documenting and verifying the accuracy of identifying information of clients, and determining and documenting the risk assessment of clients engaging in money laundering or financing of terrorism. In the most recent case, the property agent was imposed with a financial penalty of $400,000 and had her registration suspended for four months in July 2023.”
“Okay, perhaps I will take the question by Ms He Ting Ru first. I think Ms He asked firstly, whether or not SLA carries out CDD. The answer is, SLA does not carry out additional anti-money laundering checks on transactions because this would duplicate the existing CDD checks by real estate agents, developers and agencies. The conveyancing lawyers, the lawyers and the financial institutions also do the checks. So, SLA is not the main interface with the people doing the purchases, and hence, they do not do anti-money laundering checks. I think her second question was on the contributions for approvals. As I mentioned earlier in my main answer when it comes to landed property, there are two approval regimes. One is for mainland Singapore. And the other is for land that was residential property that was developed specifically to market to an international clientele; and there is one – Sentosa Cove. It is the one in mainland Singapore, where the approval regime is stricter and, as I mentioned earlier, that is the one where we take into account, various things: the applicant must be a PR for at least five years and that is the one that requires the exceptional economic contribution to Singapore, that could include factors like, how much income taxes have been paid and what other contributions they have made. For Sentosa Cove, which was developed specifically for an international clientele, generally speaking – if they are able to show identity and they are not allowed to own more than one landed property. So, should they not have any other residential property, approval is generally granted.”
“Mr Speaker, I thank Ms Foo Mee Har for her clarification. I think when people look at the very large, staggering quantum of the $2.8 billion in this case, they might draw the wrong conclusion about the state of money laundering in Singapore or the adequacy of our regulatory regime. But this really could not be further from the reality because this case is a culmination of two years of painstaking planning. The Member was asking about my assessment of where we stand now. I would say that, first and foremost, it is a strong and robust regime. We could, for example, have just, at the beginning, taken out a few of the suspects, seized a few million dollars and called it a day. But we did not do that. We wanted to develop as full a picture as possible, go after the entire network. So, we take a holistic approach. Where there were suspicious indicators associated with any individual, we pursued it relentlessly. We were patient. And this is testament to the strength and robustness of our regulatory and enforcement regime. But we can always do better. And I think what we have been outlining here today, is that we have been saying that we can do better in regulating gatekeepers like the lawyers, accountants, real estate agents, especially through prevention, detection and enforcement as well as other prongs of our anti-money laundering strategy. And that is what the IMC will be looking at.”
“And then the real key is how do you design it in a way that pulls together all this information and a pattern emerges. That is really how the detection and the capability building should be built up.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, Mr Saktiandi asked how we compare with other hubs in terms of the spending that we put in for the resources. If I may, that may not be perhaps the way to look at how to strengthen effectiveness because it is not so much how much money you put into it but how effective you are and how much value you get for whatever money you put into it. So, we just take a broader look at the system. You think about it this way. There are so many parts of our system. It is not just who is staffing the STRO or who is staffing Police or who is staffing a particular Ministry. Every bank officer who deals with people is a part of the system. Every real estate agent is a part of the system. Every lawyer. Every accountant. Every Registered Filing Agent. And each of them has parts of the puzzle. The real nature or the real key to uncovering the money laundering is making sense of the patterns because everybody owns a little piece of it. You file, you send it to STRO and I think Minister Josephine mentioned earlier, STRO is doing much more of the data analytics now. So, increasingly, it is going to become technology and analytics that pull together all the information that different people in this system submit up. So, I think, to answer his question, when we set up the IMC, one of the key areas of focus that I talked about was, how we can centralise and strengthen monitoring and sensemaking capabilities across Government agencies to better detect suspicious activities. So, we will put in whatever resources are necessary to be able to make better sense of this and some of it will have to be done by technology, some of it has to be done through better training of whether it is real estate agents or anybody and the financial sector.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. No, there is nothing that I would like to add except to say one other thing, which is that the STRs, by their nature, are confidential. Insofar as anybody is asking what does an STR contain, this is not information that is generally disclosed in any event because it is part of the investigation and this is a live investigation.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That Parliament do now adjourn." [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)] Keeping Workplaces Safe Beyond the Heightened Safety Period”
“I thank Mr Leong Mun Wai for his clarification. First, he says that he is concerned about the salaries and, of course, what would happen in the case when somebody is not performing. Well, as I said earlier, if a certain threshold has been met, if it was warranted, then we would consider having a clawback. How that is to be affected remains to be seen. Because as explained today, the law as it currently is, does not allow for it. This does not, however, preclude the Prime Minister from, as a matter of party discipline, requiring it. And if Mr Iswaran acceded to that, then there is actually nothing more to be done, if it warranted it. So, to ask me now, can I confirm that we will have a Bill or something to amend – my answer is, wait and see what the outcome of the investigation is because such a Bill may not be necessary. What I can assure Members of is that, at least on our side – the party's side – we will do what is right and what is fair, having regard to the circumstances. That assurance, I think, I can give. 6.15 pm”
“I mean, the investigative authorities are listening to this. This is a public matter. He might end up jeopardising his own case. So, as a matter of party discipline and good order, he has been asked to stay away and, at least to his credit, he has complied with that – even though he is entitled to come in as an MP. That is why I think I should also clarify something which was said earlier by Ms Poa, which I think I have just clarified by my explanation. I think Ms Poa said something to the effect of Mr Iswaran being suspended by the Prime Minister. Did Ms Poa say that? Anyway, the direction to stop work as a Minister – the interdiction – comes from the Prime Minister in his capacity as Prime Minister to Mr Iswaran in his capacity as a Minister. Insofar as not carrying out MP duties and going on leave of absence, that is something which is requested by the Prime Minister as a matter of party discipline. Mr Iswaran could come to Parliament if he wants to, but he has not done so because he has listened to what he has been asked to do. Leave of absence and not being able to perform MP duties is quite different from suspension. Suspension is as provided for under the Act and certain criterion and thresholds have to be met. That was the clarification I wanted to make.”
“I thank the Member for his clarification. First, it is important to remember that there is a distinction between Mr Iswaran's role as a Minister and his role as an MP. As a Minister, he was appointed by the Prime Minister. So, he holds that position at the Prime Minister's pleasure. The Prime Minister, therefore, also has the ability to interdict him and to tell him to stop carrying out duties as Minister whilst he is under investigation. That is because his appointment flowed or came from the Prime Minister. That is as I understand it and if I am incorrect, my colleagues will set out the correct position. But that interdiction includes a direction that he should not be allowed access to all Government buildings. That flows from the Ministerial position; and that is obviously because you are under investigation, and you do not want to prejudice the investigation. Then, there is the issue of Mr Iswaran's status as an MP. Mr Iswaran's status as an MP was not by appointment, by the Prime Minister or otherwise. He was elected. He was elected by the constituents of West Coast GRC. His mandate comes from them, and you can only suspend or take away his ability to act as an MP in accordance with the PPIPA. And I have taken Members through those provisions. So, in other words, currently, because he is not suspended, if Mr Iswaran wanted to come today and enter Parliament, he can because he is an MP. But as a matter of party discipline, he has been requested by the Prime Minister to also cease his MP duties because you can imagine how difficult it is to carry out your MP duties when you are under investigation or even to come to Parliament. Imagine if he was sitting here and somebody were to ask him about the investigation, what is he going to say?”
“Sorry, I just want to make sure that I have the question correct. One was access to Government buildings and the other was? Can I trouble Mr Singh to repeat the question?”
“And if he is cleared, then what we would have done in the meantime, if we accept Ms Poa's Motion, is that we would have suspended him and we would have docked his pay when there was, in fact, no need to. At the end of the day, it is a question of where is the balance, what is a fair way of dealing with this, given the current state of the law, given the current state of knowledge that we have? Ms Poa's approach is, really, let us just ignore whether or not he has done anything wrong. Let us just suspend him because it is a matter of money. And then, if need be, we pay it back. But I think we need to approach it as a matter of principle, which is that, at the current time, when you cannot say clearly that some threshold has been crossed, then we say wait, see what the outcome of the investigations are. And if, depending on the outcome, a threshold has been crossed, then we will certainly look at it as a matter of party discipline. And the Prime Minister has very firm views on standards of integrity and conduct, and he will not let the matter rest if thresholds have been crossed. I think that assurance I can give, which is that if certain thresholds had been crossed and if warranted and merited, we will do something. As to what exactly we will have to do, we will have to see what happens. But I have said quite plainly that we will certainly consider a claw back and also think how to do it. So, I hope that sets Members' minds at rest, because if we do not suspend him today, it does not mean that you cannot do so in the future. If you do suspend him today, you are effectively saying that he has done something wrong, when there is no basis at the present time. There may well be later; we do not know. But at the present time, it will be premature and prejudging the issue.”
“If the Member is suspended, then he does not get any allowance. So, the law does not provide for anything in between. Ms Poa mentioned that she had, in the original Motion, wanted to provide for clawback but was advised by Parliament – which I think is the current position under the law, that there is no provision for a clawback. So, the question is: what do we do? Currently, right now, given the state of the law and given that we do not know the facts and that we do not know the outcome of the investigation, that is why I have said we should wait till the outcome of the investigation. Then, we have a clearer idea of what to do. And the next question then is, what should we then do with respect to the monies that are paid with respect to Mr Iswaran. I think the answer is this. We will look at it again when we know if the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) intends to bring any charges and if so, what the charges are. We will consider a clawback, if justified. If he is charged, the Prime Minister will consider the allegations and accusations against him and decide whether to make him resign and to pay back both salary and allowance without waiting for legal process. Bear in mind, this is a party discipline matter. It is a party discipline matter. And the Prime Minister would do this on the basis that he has not lived up to the party discipline and standards of conduct, whether or not he has committed offences. And if it is really necessary, then we will consider what to do with respect to legislation. But there will be issues there. That is the reason why I say, again, that these are issues that should be considered when the outcome of the investigation is known. Because it may very well be that at the end of the investigation, he is also cleared.”
“But the Committee of Privileges and this House would have been well within its rights to say: "We accept the findings of the COP [Committee of Privileges] and we act immediately under section 20." But we did not. We did not because we felt that, as a matter of fairness, we should wait and see what the outcome of the proceedings were. And so, the actual resolution which I moved was this: "that Mr Pritam Singh's, Ms Sylvia Lim's and Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap's respective roles as set out in the report, in relation to the untruth spoken by Ms Raeesah Khan in Parliament, and Ms Lim's or Mr Faisal's stating of untruth to the Committee on oath or affirmation and the appropriate sanctions in respect thereof, be deferred until the conclusion of the investigations and criminal proceedings, if any, against Mr Singh." So, in that case, I went further, and I said to wait till not just the conclusion of the investigations but the conclusion of the proceedings. In this case, I am saying, let us wait until the conclusion or the outcome of the investigations because that would put this House in a better position to know what to do. Let me just come back to some of the other questions that were asked. Mr Singh had a question. Mr Singh supports the position that Mr Iswaran should not be suspended at this point in time, I think. His second question, though, was, what should Parliament do in the interim period. And I think his position was that it might be appropriate to suspend his MP allowance. That is what I think Mr Singh said. The difficulty with that, and this is what Ms Poa was alluding to, is that there is no provision in the PPIPA currently to suspend allowance. It is a binary position: if the person is a sitting MP, he receives the full allowance.”
“In the case of the referral to the Public Prosecutor on the Committee of Privileges Inquiry for Mr Singh and Mr Faisal Manap, we actually said that we would wait till the outcome of the proceedings. Let me just read from the relevant report, because the Committee of Privileges' recommendations were that "Mr Singh be referred to the Public Prosecutor, for further investigations, with the view to considering if criminal proceedings ought to be instituted in respect of his conduct before the Committee, and that Mr Faisal be referred to the Public Prosecutor for further investigations for his refusal to answer relevant questions put by the Committee and consider if criminal proceedings ought to be instituted". And what the Committee of Privileges said in their recommendation was this: "Based on the evidence before this Committee, we are satisfied Mr Singh had told untruths to this Committee. Parliament is empowered to summarily decide on the matter and also decide on the appropriate sanctions based on our findings. However, we recommend that Parliament refers Mr Singh's conduct to the Public Prosecutor, with a view to consider the institution of criminal proceedings. We would also recommend that Parliament consider deferring any action to be taken in respect of possible dishonourable conduct and contempt of Parliament until criminal proceedings, if any, are complete." The point I want to make is this. The specific offence in that case was dishonourable conduct and contempt. That falls squarely within section 20 of the PPIPA. The Committee of Privileges had made its finding with regard to Mr Singh and Mr Faisal Manap. Mr Singh and Mr Faisal Manap, of course, dispute that. I understand that. And that was the reason why we said they should go to Public Prosecutor.”
“Then, Ms Poa talked about the question that, well, it is taxpayers' money that is being used in the interim period. But the important question is – what is the principle? You do not suspend somebody just because you do not want to pay him. You have to suspend him because there is a principle that has been breached or a threshold has been crossed. It may well be, depending on the outcome of the investigations, that that threshold may be crossed. I do not know. None of us know at this stage. So, that is why my Motion at this point in time says that we should wait until the outcome of the investigations before deciding what to do, simply because that threshold has not yet been met. And on this, I note that the Leader of the Opposition had also taken a similar position, for which I do thank him. Because he said Parliament should be very mindful of suspending somebody in the meantime and this would set a precedent should the Government decide to fix anybody. He also talked about the wheels of justice and that we must not do anything precipitously – this is not the Leader of the Opposition's words – but essentially, what he is really saying, which is the same thing as what others have said is, "do not pre-judge the issue". And that is correct, because the Leader of the Opposition and Mr Faisal Manap are under investigation. They were referred to the Public Prosecutor. On that, I just also want to say that when you look at the way that we approach that, we did not suspend them because we felt that it was better for the outcome to be heard. In fact, we went further in that case. Because here, in this Motion, I am only asking for us to wait till the outcome of the investigations.”
“If that were so, then we would have to suspend Mr Faisal Manap. He was on leave of absence because he was ill. But we do not do that, because he was ill. So, in other words, it is not the leave of absence in and of itself. It is the reason why you have to take leave of absence. And in this case, Mr Iswaran was effectively asked to take leave of absence because it is untenable for him to perform his duties as a Minister and it will be very difficult for him to perform his duties as an MP whilst under investigation. So, as a matter of proper, good order, he should be on leave of absence. Then, the next point that she made was because he was under arrest. Well, yes, when you are under investigation, part of Police procedure is that you are under arrest, but I come back to the same point. This is still at the investigative stage, and you have not actually established whether there was any wrongdoing. So, then she made the next point that he was not performing his duties. Here, let me just make a very short digression to say that while he has not been able to perform his duties as an MP, his constituents are still being looked after. I wanted to make that point because it is very important that his constituents know that they are still being taken care of and are in good hands. In fact, Minister Desmond Lee has been doing the Meet-the-People session. He and another MP, I think Miss Rachel Ong, have been doing house visits. The other MPs in West Coast GRC have been covering events on the ground. So, I just wanted the residents of West Coast GRC to know that notwithstanding the fact that Mr Iswaran has to be on leave of absence, they are still being taken care of.”
“Because, what it then means is that we can pass any resolution that we like without having regard to values, principles or standards and targeted specifically at any Member of this House. Think about what kind of Parliament that would be. What would be the standards of integrity of such a Parliament? What would be the sense of fairness and how would people regard this House if we did something like that? So, I would be very, very cautious before we say that we suspend a Member just because we can. It is quite important that we should establish the principles of suspension. When I asked Ms Poa what are the principles she is advocating, she listed a few. Let me go through them in turn. First, she said it is because Mr Iswaran is under investigation for corruption and corruption is a serious offence. But then I ask Ms Poa, what about rape? What about murder? If a Member is under investigation for those offences, should the Member be suspended? Ms Poa did not have an answer. She said she had not thought about that, which means that she had not thought about the principle. This is worrying because it means that when PSP advocates something, they are not acting as a matter of principle, but as a matter of targeting a specific individual and that is my concern. And anyway, in any event, whilst Mr Iswaran is under investigation under the Prevention of Corruption Act, firstly, it has not yet been established whether he has done any wrongdoing yet, at this point of time. So, as I mentioned before, the facts are not known, the specific allegations against him are not known. So, on what basis do you suspend? The next thing Ms Poa said was that we should suspend because Mr Iswaran is on leave of absence. Leave of absence, in and of itself per se, cannot be a reason for suspension.”
“It states: "Whenever a Member has been named by the Speaker or the Chairman immediately after the commission of the offence of disregarding the authority of the Chair, or of persistently and wilfully obstructing the business of Parliament by abusing the rules of Parliament or otherwise, then if the offence has been committed by such Member of Parliament, a motion shall forthwith be proposed by a Minister or Parliamentary Secretary present that the Member shall be suspended from the service of Parliament and the Speaker shall forthwith put the question on that motion, no amendment, adjournment or debate being allowed". Whatever else one may wish to accuse Mr Iswaran of, we certainly cannot accuse him of the conduct listed out in SO59. There may be others who may have offended that SO, but not Mr Iswaran. So, that does not apply. That brings us to the provision that Ms Poa referred us to earlier, which is SO59(5). But SO59(5) is a general provision which just basically says that Parliament can move a resolution. So, if you are relying on that provision, effectively what you are saying is that "because I can pass a Motion to suspend you, I will." That is where the question of principle comes in. Should this House do something just because it can? The question is not, "should we do it because we can" and even then, I have to put a reservation there, because I am not sure that it can be read as broadly as Ms Poa puts it. But for the sake of argument and just for the sake of argument, if it is as broad as she says, as a Parliament and as a House, we have to act on principle. Because if we do not, it becomes very dangerous.”
“Section 29(3) of the PPIPA says, "no salary or allowance payable to such Member for his service as a Member of Parliament shall be paid in respect of any period during which he is suspended from service in Parliament." So, section 29(3) is the provision that says that if you are suspended, then you do not get your pay. But that begs the question: when are you suspended? Well, there is a specific provision in section 20, which says that "for any dishonourable conduct, abuse of privilege or contempt on the part of a Member, Parliament may" – and then, it has various things – "may suspend him from the service of Parliament for the remainder of the current session of Parliament or for any part thereof." So, there is one specific provision which has a certain threshold with three requirements: dishonourable conduct, abuse of privilege or contempt. But that does not apply in this case. It has not been made out yet. If subsequently something arises out of the investigations that you can say constitutes dishonourable conduct or abuse of privilege, then maybe so, but that has to be considered down the road. But, at this point in time, can we say that section 20 has been triggered? I would respectfully say no. Then, there is the next provision, which is section 19. Section 19 says, "without prejudice to sections 20 and 21, Parliament may, in accordance with its Standing Orders, suspend any Member from the service of Parliament for the remainder of the current session or for any part thereof". Section 19 tells you to look at the SOs. So, let us look at the SOs. And that is why I asked Ms Poa the question earlier. The relevant SO is SO59. SO59, subsection (1) has a specific provision on suspension.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to thank all Members who have spoken on this and made their contributions to this very important debate. I would like now to respond to what has been said by Ms Hazel Poa and the position of PSP, but also to help Members understand the principles and the tenets upon which we should act in such a situation. Insofar as Ms Poa and PSP's position is concerned, what does concern me greatly, is that her Motion and the move to suspend Minister Iswaran does not appear to come from a place of principle. It is, by her own admission, specifically targeted at Minister Iswaran and not a matter of policy or principle. In order to decide what we must do for this, it is very important to first understand what the law is. And that is why I asked Ms Poa under which specific provision she was seeking to suspend Mr Iswaran. Because as I understood her argument, which is the same as she has posted on social media, her argument, PSP's argument is that: "I want to cut your pay. And because I want to cut your pay, I want to suspend you." In other words, "this is the result I want, and therefore, I would suspend you." But that is not the correct approach, because when you look at our rules, you will see that generally, suspension is a punishment. It is punitive in nature, generally. And the cutting of pay is a consequence. So, we must first ask ourselves: in what scenario do you suspend and has that threshold been met? Where do we start? We start with the PPIPA. The PPIPA does have specific provisions on suspension. Let me deal first with the part that deals with the allowance because that is where PSP is coming from.”
“Just to confirm. Ms Poa is not bringing this Motion as a matter of broad principle of general application, but a very specific targeted Motion directed at Mr Iswaran. Is that correct?”
“Just one further clarification. Because Ms Poa has limited it quite carefully to corruption. Can I ask Ms Poa, is it her view then that if an MP is under investigation for murder or for rape, then suspension should not apply?”
“My second clarification, therefore, is this – if that is the relevant provision of the SOs, is Ms Poa saying that we do not need to have any principles for suspension? We just suspend because we can? In other words, you do not look to see whether something has occurred; in other words, you do it because you can do it. What is the principle on which she is saying that we should suspend?”
“SO56(5)? SO 56 has no "(5)". It is just 56.”
“Is Ms Poa referring to the Standing Orders (SOs)?”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I just wish to seek some clarifications from Ms Poa so that when I do my reply later, I can do so in a considered manner and we are not talking at cross purposes. The first clarification I am seeking is this: under what specific provision is Ms Poa seeking to suspend Mr Iswaran? I know Ms Poa would like to suspend him in order to cut his allowance. But the cutting of the allowance is an outcome. It happens when you suspend somebody. But you cannot just suspend in vacuum. There has to be, as I mentioned in my earlier speech, a threshold, a section of legislation or some legal provision where you seek suspension. So, my clarification is this – under which section of legislation or what regulation is Ms Poa seeking to suspend?”
“All we know at this point in time is that Mr Iswaran is under investigation by CPIB under the Prevention of Corruption Act. However, we do not know the facts or what specifically he is being investigated for. The outcome of the investigation is not yet known. We simply do not have sufficient material to make an informed decision at the present time. As such, Mr Speaker, it is premature to take any action with regard to Mr Iswaran at this stage and doing so would be to prejudge the outcome of the investigation. It would be better to wait for the outcome of the investigation before deciding what to do. That would put us in a better position to assess the right and fair course of action. Mr Speaker, at the end of the day, it is important that we deal with situations like these objectively and dispassionately. We should not attempt to exploit such situations for political ends, but rather to do the right thing at the right time. The People's Action Party (PAP) has been very strict with its MPs and Ministers and will continue to be. I hope Opposition parties will uphold equally high standards – not just in words, but also in deeds. Mr Speaker, I beg to move. [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]”
“Nevertheless, it is important to signal to Singaporeans that this is what we expect of ourselves so that they have the assurance of knowing that we are committed to this. However, we must also be realistic and recognise that there will be occasions when Members may come under investigation for possible wrongdoing, as is currently the case. The question is, what approach this House should take when that happens. This is dealt with in the second limb of my Motion, which asks the House to affirm that in the event an MP is investigated for possible wrongdoing, we should act in a manner that is not only firm, but also fair. Again, I do not think that there can be any dispute on this, as a matter of principle and approach. The real question is how it is to be applied. Obviously, what is fair will depend on the individual circumstances of each case. Ms Poa is calling for the suspension of Mr Iswaran. What is the principle that Ms Poa is advocating in calling for his suspension? Is it that he is under investigation? If so, then her proposal should cover all MPs being investigated. At the moment, there are three Members of Parliament under investigation: Mr Iswaran, Mr Pritam Singh and Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap. Regarding Mr Singh and Mr Faisal Manap, Members will recall that this House had referred Mr Singh and Mr Faisal Manap to the Public Prosecutor following the outcome of the Committee of Privileges' inquiry into the complaint against Ms Raeesah Khan. Notwithstanding that they are under investigation, they have not been suspended. Is Ms Poa calling for their suspension as well? If not, then why not? This brings us to the third limb of my Motion, which is what we should do with respect to Mr Iswaran at this point in time.”
“Indeed, in her Facebook post of 8 September 2023, Ms Poa expressly states that she filed the Motion for Parliament to suspend Mr S Iswaran from the service of Parliament for the remainder of the current session of the 14th Parliament, "so that he no longer receives his MP allowance...". In other words, Mr Speaker – or more accurately, in her own words – Ms Poa is moving a Motion to suspend Mr Iswaran solely in order to cut off his MP allowance. Mr Speaker, this gives rise to some concern as to how this House should exercise its powers. We should make decisions on the basis of generally applicable principles and not on individual cases in isolation. We are being asked to suspend a Member. The suspension of an MP is a serious matter. If done, it must be done in accordance with the law and on the right principles. We need to know on what basis the suspension is sought, what threshold or criterion for suspension the NCMP is relying on and what are the principles that lead Ms Poa to propose suspending Mr Iswaran at this point of time? Ms Poa will be speaking in this debate after me and I invite Ms Poa to clarify these matters. Mr Speaker, this House is given the privilege of regulating the conduct of its Members and when it does so, it should act on principle, rationally and fairly, and the standards we espouse should apply to all Members. That is why I have brought the Motion in the terms set out above. Mr Speaker, there should be no quarrel with the first limb of my Motion. As lawmakers and elected representatives of our citizens, it goes without saying that MPs should uphold the highest standards of integrity and to conduct ourselves in accordance with the law.”