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 13 of 51.
“The request was to respond to Parliament tomorrow. But just one more response in respect of what Mr Leong just raised in his reply. I think Mr Leong said that sometimes things are said in the "heat of the moment" or you may make a mistake on the spot. That, I think we understand and that is why the Standing Orders have provisions for Members to come back and give either a Personal Explanations or to correct statements. But this video came up around midnight, this morning. So, end of Tuesday. The Ministerial Statements and the clarifications took place on Monday. So, there was a space of more than 24 hours between the end of the clarification session and when the video is done. And when a video is done, it is not on the spur of the moment. Clearly, there is a team thinking about how to project it, how to edit it, the narrative it should have and how it should portray its protagonists or the other people that it is talking about. So, I think, insofar as "the heat of the moment" argument is concerned, it does not really apply here – that the video was put together for a purpose with some deliberation. That said, I have highlighted our concerns about that and look forward to Mr Leong coming back to us with PSP's response.”
“I see. I thank Mr Leong for his clarification and confirmation that the PSP video was, in fact, referring to what it suggests is an embarrassing moment by its Secretary-General. Okay. That aside, that brings me back to the final point, which is that having now explained how the video comes across and how it would be understood, then I think what would be appropriate is for the video to be taken down and for an apology, in a form acceptable to Parliament. I do not ask Mr Leong to respond to that today, as he has kindly said, they will go back and consider this. This is what should be considered, and please do let us know tomorrow.”
“So, am I to understand that Mr Leong is saying that PSP is saying that Mr Leong and Ms Poa have given rise to another "sia suay" moment? Is the reference to them or is the reference to something else?”
“I thank Mr Leong Mun Wai for his response. Let me just address a few things and then I think we can arrive at a partial conclusion of this matter. First, when Mr Leong says that he had not fully appreciated the difference between "clarification" and "debate", and he had not intended to be disrespectful to Mr Deputy Speaker, I think that we accept. There was a point when it bordered on the disrespectful, but to be fair to Mr Leong, he caught himself at that time. So, today I am raising this Point of Order not in respect of what Mr Leong said or did in Parliament. We can set that aside and not be concerned about that. The Point of Order that I am raising is with respect to the video, coupled with the text in the Facebook post – they have to go together. And in this respect, firstly, Mr Leong is the Secretary-General of the party, and this is the party's Facebook page, and that is why I am directing the question to him. Second, Mr Leong said that this was just an expression and that he thought that there was supposed to be free expression. There is free expression in Singapore, but it has never extended to falsehoods, scandalously defaming somebody or misrepresenting situations or facts or misrepresenting what happened in Parliament. So, I just wish to make that very clear, freedom of expression does not allow anybody to make false statements or misrepresent things. Because facts are important. And then, the next thing, did I understand Mr Leong correctly? Did he say that in the Facebook post, the reference to "sia suay" was a reference to him? Because the text says, "In what some online commentators are calling another 'sia suay' moment".”
“So, in light of this, may I, through you Mr Deputy Speaker, ask Mr Leong Mun Wai, who is the Secretary General of the PSP and therefore leads the PSP, may I ask why such a misleading post and video has been put up? That is first. Let me just ask that first and sees how it goes.”
“Examples of conduct that should be avoided include misrepresenting what happened in Parliament, such as by setting out partial (and thereby misleading) versions of what happened in Parliament, casting aspersions and making scandalous or defamatory statements about Parliament and/or its Members. And as stated, these obligations apply not just to Members but to all persons." So, the point I would wish to raise is this – the video, coupled with the text and blurb, actually does all of these things; misrepresents what happened in Parliament and misrepresents what the Deputy Speaker said or did. It should be remembered that in Mr Leong's case, Mr Leong himself personally has previously had occasions where he has breached Parliamentary rules and has had to apologise for the same. These occurred on 25 February 2021, 10 May 2021, 8 March 2022 and most recently, 22 March 2023 in respect of the Ministerial Statement on Police disclosure, where he had to apologise for being disrespectful to Speaker, and subsequent to that Sitting, he also withdrew various statements in his Facebook posts, clarified that he had not intended to cast aspersions on Ministers and admitted that he was wrong to make the suggestion that he did in his statement in Parliament. I had, on 18 April 2023, raised a Point of Order where I said that, although these were breaches, given that he had apologised, there was no need to take further action and I sought Speaker's concurrence, which Speaker gave. And it was on that occasion on 18 April this year that I reminded Members of the responsibilities, and that was when I circulated that note.”
“Section 31 of the PPIPA provides that no person" – that means, not just Members of Parliament, but anybody – "no person shall publish any statement, whether in writing or otherwise which falsely or scandalously defames or which reflects on the character of the Speaker or any Member touching on his conduct in Parliament or anything done or said by him in Parliament", "no person shall publish wilfully any false or perverted report or any writing containing a gross or scandalous misrepresentation of any debate or proceedings of Parliament or any speech of a Member of Parliament" and "no person shall publish any statement, whether in writing or otherwise which falsely or scandalously defames the proceedings or the character of Parliament." So, these provisions are concerned with statements reflecting on Members in their Parliamentary roles, statements reflecting on Parliament and false reports of Parliamentary proceedings. And if Members look at paragraph 8, "Breaches of these provisions constitute a contempt of Parliament that Parliament may punish. There are also offences that Parliament may refer to the Public Prosecutor. These provisions apply to Members and the public alike, with Members expected to lead by example in complying with the law". And at paragraph 11, I specifically drew to Members' attention that "[o]utside of Parliament, Members, their political parties, and members of the public, as well as those reporting on Parliamentary proceedings, should take note of section 31 of PPIPA and not conduct themselves so as to bring Parliament into disrepute.”
“I had actually spoken about this in Parliament and I had reminded Members about the obligations that Members have under the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act. I had distributed a note at that time, and just to refresh Members' memories, I will ask the Clerk to distribute the Hansard of what I had said at that time and the note. [A handout was distributed to hon Members.] The documents that are being circulated comprise three documents. The first is the extract of the Hansard on that occasion. The second is the note that I had circulated to Members, and the third is an excerpt from the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act, or PPIPA. I would like to direct Members to the second document in the bundle. It is titled "Upholding proper conduct in and out of Parliament". This is the note that was circulated to Members. And I would direct Members' attention to paragraph 6. Paragraph 6 says, "The proceedings of Parliament are public and they are reported and discussed outside of Parliament by Members and the public alike. This is part of public discourse. However, Parliament proceedings should not be distorted, misrepresented or otherwise used improperly.”
“" And then, Mr Deputy Speaker put to Mr Leong that it was not for a Member to dictate to the Chair when business should start or end and said he hoped that Mr Leong could agree. He specifically asked if Mr Leong would agree to that and Mr Leong agreed that, yes, it was not for him to decide when business would start or end. The video also does not indicate that subsequently, Mr Deputy Speaker gave Mr Leong many opportunities to raise clarifications. There was a time when Mr Deputy Speaker allowed Ms Poa to go first when he said, "Mr Leong, do not worry, I will come back to you." Subsequently, Ms Hazel Poa was allowed to make a clarification. And, after that, Mr Deputy Speaker said to Mr Leong, "Mr Leong Mun Wai, I am giving you some latitude. So, ask all the questions you have." And Mr Leong then proceeded to ask five questions, and it continued. And it was only right at the end when Mr Deputy Speaker looked around, there were no further hands, that Mr Deputy Speaker called upon Mr Alex Yam to give the last clarification. The next thing is that the video says that "during that hour", suggesting that clarifications only occurred for one hour. That, again, is not true. The entire session took about six hours. The Ministerial Statements took up about two hours and the clarifications took almost four hours, or three hours and 48 minutes to be precise. So, there was ample time for questions to be asked, and they were asked and they were answered and the session ended at 6.22 pm. So, we have here a situation where you have a video from PSP which gives rise to a false, misleading impression of what happened in Parliament and it misrepresents the proceedings.”
“That may be a technical characterisation but it is something that all Members of Parliament should know. And the video does not continue to point out what happened after that. So, the gravamen of this part is that there is no debate. But, of course, what is not highlighted is that questions are put to Ministers and the Ministers are still held to account; they put themselves up for questioning and that they did answer. The next thing that it does is it gives the impression that Mr Leong was not allowed to ask questions, which, again, is not true. If you look at the actual transcript, you will see that Mr Leong actually asked something like 11 questions or clarifications. And if I may just refer to my record of this, the transcript that I have. The video stops where Mr Deputy Speaker explains the distinction between Standing Order No 23 and a debate. What is left out is this part when Mr Leong Mun Wai says, "Yes. What I urge the Chair, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, is to be mindful that this topic has not been properly completely clarified. When it is not completely clarified, please do not end the session." So, there is an admission there that there is a distinction between clarifications and debate. And Mr Deputy Speaker says, "Mr Leong, I think the response to you is... I would like you to take your seat. The response is we had four Ministerial Statements from 12.30 pm and it is now 5.30 pm. That is about five hours' worth of to-ing and fro-ing. I think this House has ventilated a lot of issues. I would allow about three or four more clarifications from Members and we will then proceed to end the Ministerial Statements.”
“" Then, it shows the Deputy Speaker saying, "Mr Leong, I do not disagree with you that this is a matter of public importance. In fact, Standing Order No 23 makes specific reference that Ministerial Statements be made on matters of public importance." Mr Leong says, "Yes." The Deputy Speaker then says, "But the second sentence in Standing Order No 23 also states that there shall be no debate. Clarifications can be asked. So, there is no debate, whether under Standing Order No 23 or Standing Order No 25, which is a Personal Explanation." And the video cuts there. It ends. On the face of it, you may wonder, what was the problem with this video? The difficulty is this – the video gives a false impression of what occurred in Parliament. First, it gives a false impression that issues on the Ridout Road matter could not be fully ventilated because Mr Deputy Speaker would not allow a debate, despite a plea by Mr Leong Mun Wai for this to happen. If you think about it, it starts off with: "In what some online commentators are calling another "sia suay" moment". What is "sia suay"? Embarrassing. So, there has to be something embarrassing. What is this embarrassing thing? It goes on to say that "The PSP's Leong Mun Wai and Hazel Poa are here to do whatever it takes to ensure that the voice of people is heard". And then, you have that blurb which suggests that they were being shut down and a debate was not allowed to take place. So, the first wrong about the post, coupled with the video, is the suggestion that issues could not be fully ventilated and that a debate was not allowed. What the video does not say and what is the case, is that, procedurally, for Ministerial Statements, Members can ask questions or clarifications but, unlike for Motions, it is not a debate.”
“There is, on the PSP's Facebook page, a video that was uploaded some time around midnight yesterday. The exact time is not indicated. In the post, the text part of the Facebook post, it says, "In what some online commentators are calling another "sia suay" moment, the PSP's Leong Mun Wai and Hazel Poa are here to do whatever it takes to ensure that the voice of the people is heard." Then, you have the video and superimposed on top of the video is this text blurb. It says, "During that hour, the Deputy Speaker reminded Mr Leong Mun Wai that he should not start a debate during a Ministerial Statement after he" – that is, Mr Leong Mun Wai – "urged the Deputy Speaker not to end the debate early because this is an important topic." It was obviously referring to the Ministerial Statements and the subsequent clarifications with respect to the Ridout Road matter. Then, in the video, there is this dramatic opening. It shows Mr Leong Mun Wai saying, "Point of Order, Sir. This is an important issue. All Singaporeans are watching this debate." Then, there is soft music. Then, you have Mr Leong Mun Wai making his clarifications. That is just a straightforward showing of the clarifications that he made. Then, at about 3:31 minutes in, it shows the part where Mr Leong says, "There are still a lot more questions that I am going to ask Deputy Speaker. I think the debate is not going to end at 5.45 pm." Then, it shows Mr Deputy Speaker replying, where he said, "Mr Leong, I think that the Chair decides at what time the clarifications end. In fact, this is not a debate." Then, it shows Mr Leong coming back to say, "Point of Order, Sir. This is an important issue. All Singaporeans are watching this debate.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to raise a Point of Order. This is in relation to a video on the Progress Singapore Party (PSP)'s Facebook page and a breach of the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act. Before I put the Point of Order, Mr Deputy Speaker, it is necessary for me to explain the facts, the context and the background. Then, I will put the Point of the Order. If I may proceed?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move, "That notwithstanding Standing Order 26(2), the Second Reading of the Maintenance of Parents (Amendment) Bill do precede the Second Reading of the Online Criminal Harms Bill." Mr Deputy Speaker, in the normal Order of Business, Government Bills will precede private Members' Bills. In this case, we do have one private Member's Bill standing in the name of Mr Seah Kian Peng and it is currently listed after the Ministry for Home Affair (MHA)'s Online Criminal Harms Bill, which is being taken by Minister Josephine Teo. Minister Josephine Teo has sought and obtained leave from Speaker for absence from Parliament for today and tomorrow, as she has to travel overseas on official Government business. Under her current travel itinerary, she will only be back tomorrow evening and will only be able to take the Online Criminal Harms Bill on Wednesday at the earliest. Based on current progress, there is a possibility that we will complete the other Government Bills by tomorrow. So as not to hold back the Parliamentary agenda, which is heavy, and to provide certainty in timetabling, I would like to move that we revise the Order of Business to allow the Second Reading of the Maintenance of Parents Bill to go before the Second Reading of the Online Criminal Harms Bill. [(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]”
“I thank Mr Louis Chua for what is an important question. First, he had asked about MOF and Temasek. MOF and the Government, as a whole, it is well-known that our position is that we have to have zero tolerance on corruption. We have got strong laws on that and do not hesitate to enforce if need be. That, obviously, is communicated to all companies in which the Government either owns or, in fact, companies which the Government does not own. It is to the public at large. With respect to Temasek, I think as they had mentioned before publicly, they do regular engagements with their portfolio companies. They, too, send a strong signal that corruption is not to be endorsed, encouraged or in any way acceptable. The thing to remember about corruption though is that, by its nature, it is done in secret. I mean, unless they are not very adept, nobody goes around actively publicising that you are doing a corrupt activity. Fraud and corruption, by their very nature, tend to be secret. So, the key thing here is to continually review processes to see whether your processes are robust and enable something to be flushed out if need be. And even then, as we have seen in many other cases, it is not 100%. So, the short answer is that we just need to continue to be active, vigilant, get the message out and, as Temasek has said, keep continuing its regular engagement with companies and setting the standards.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Member for his supplementary questions. The short answer to the first question is absolutely. Singapore's approach is to have zero tolerance towards corruption. That remains unchanged. With regard to the second question of whether CPIB should offer bounties or rewards for information that lead to conviction, first, I understand from CPIB that, actually, there is no shortage of people coming forward to provide information or whistleblowing. Second, I mean, we can consider this. But part of the consideration or the factors that must be taken into account are these: do you want to incentivise reporting with the lure of gain of a reward? Or do you want a system where people whistleblow or make the report or complaint because, fundamentally, they feel that something is wrong and it is the right thing for them to do – to make the report or bring this to the attention of the authorities? I think that is the balance that we need to maintain. And if it were possible to maintain a system where people file reports because, as a matter of principle, they feel that something is wrong, that means that we would have a healthy system, where there is a strong sense of right and wrong in the community and in business circles, and people do the right thing.”
“Without the recapitalisation, there would potentially have been an erosion of value and a loss of jobs.”
“The Government understands that Temasek conducted the due diligence appropriate to the rights issues, bearing in mind that the company was already part of the group. This due diligence took into account Sembcorp Marine's public disclosures that had already been made. The disclosure pertaining to the Brazilian case mentioned that there were charges by Brazilian authorities against an ex-employee in his personal capacity and not against Sembcorp Marine's Brazilian subsidiary or the company. Sembcorp Marine Group also stated it was not aware of any other of its employees being subject to those investigations. All disclosures in the circulars and Offer Information Statement came with a representation by Sembcorp Marine's board on the accuracy of information and that all material disclosures had been made. Temasek's investments in Sembcorp Marine pursuant to the rights issues, as well as those of all other investors, were based on the information provided in the shareholders' circulars and Offer Information Statement. In the Sembcorp Marine Group's announcements on 3 July 2019, 8 July 2019, 3 February 2020 and 21 February 2020, it further stated that it was committed to the highest standards of compliance with anti-corruption laws and does not condone, has not condoned and will not tolerate any improper business conduct. Based on the available facts and disclosures at that time, Temasek made an independent, commercial decision to inject capital into the company. The rights issues were raised during the pandemic to ensure that Sembcorp Marine had sufficient funding to see through its business obligations and complete existing projects, given the downturn of the industry which was exacerbated by COVID-19.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, on 31 May 2023, the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) announced that it had, acting on information received, commenced investigations against Seatrium Limited and individuals from Seatrium Limited, for alleged corruption offences that occurred in Brazil. Seatrium Limited was previously known as Sembcorp Marine Limited, which merged with Keppel Offshore and Marine Limited (KOM) in February 2023. As investigations are ongoing, it is not appropriate to provide further details at this juncture. CPIB will be interviewing various individuals of interest and reviewing all documentary and other records to which it can gain access. Other than CPIB, we understand that the Brazilian authorities are investigating Seatrium, but it would not be appropriate to provide any details or comments at this juncture. CPIB takes this matter seriously. It will investigate the case thoroughly and seek to complete the investigations expeditiously. Dr Tan Wu Meng asked about the assessed impact on Singapore's reputation. As CPIB's investigations are still ongoing, it would be premature to speculate on the outcome. Suffice to say, there is no change in Singapore's zero-tolerance policy on corruption and our commitment to uphold the rule of law. Mr Louis Chua asked whether the decision by Temasek to inject capital into then-Sembcorp Marine took into account the alleged corruption offences in Brazil. Temasek became a direct shareholder of Sembcorp Marine in 2020 following the demerger of Sembcorp Marine from its then-parent, Sembcorp Industries. Temasek participated in Sembcorp Marine's two rights issues in 2020 and 2021.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, with your permission, may I take the next two Parliamentary Questions together, and also address Mr Murali Pillai's1 Parliamentary Question on the same topic which is listed for tomorrow's Sitting? I invite Mr Pillai to raise any supplementary questions that he may have today and to withdraw his Parliamentary Question for tomorrow if his queries have been addressed.”
“I thank Assoc Prof Jamus Lim for his supplementary questions. The answer to the first one is yes. Immediately after the announcement, STC embarked on engagements with the trainers and the horse owners. It is an ongoing conversation because as Members can imagine, when the announcement was first made, many were, shall we say, it came out of the blue. So, it is taking some time to adjust to the announcement and obviously with the employees as well. With respect to the surrounding area, there are not a lot of residential dwellings in the immediate vicinity. But it is part of the Housing and Development Board's normal consultations when they ask people, "What would you like for your town or for your area?" So, that will take place. On the second part, I think Assoc Prof Jamus Lim asked when we would consult. I think we have been doing a lot of that. For example, Acts, Bills, some of them, in fact, the majority of them are put out for public consultation. When we have the Remaking Our Heartlands exercise, for example, that is put out for public engagement, consultation ideas and suggestions. When we do placemaking, the long-term plan review was one such. So, I think that there is a category where it is sensitive, meaning, market-sensitive, and you would not normally go out and say, "Can I have public consultation on whether I want to do land acquisition?" That is a category that you would not do public consultation on. But your decision in deciding whether or not to do the land acquisition may be a result of previous consultations on feedback, congestion, what people want and so on. So, the short answer is we will do as much public consultation as we can.”
“I think now, as our housing programme picks up pace, we will be looking at developing it. But before you do that, you have to do infrastructure and road networks. You cannot just build a housing development there and then not have all the surrounding infrastructure, services, amenities and so on. As Members would know, one of the Mass Rapid Transit stations, which has just been announced, would be at that site. I think that one is scheduled for completion in 2031/2032, around there. So, the short answer is, it will be developed, there will be housing, but we need to build up the surrounding infrastructure and road network first.”
“There was a letter, I think, that came in 1998, where a resident wrote in to the Forum Page to say, "The traffic situation has worsened along Dunearn Road on race days, specifically between the Turf Club entrance and Clementi Road junction. The heavy vehicle flow is impeded by turnings into Swiss Club Road and the best solution for the Turf Club is move to another site, away from the residential zone, as reported in The Straits Times some time ago. I hope that Bukit Turf Club committee is seriously searching for an alternative site." And then, it goes on to make a lot more complaints about the traffic situation and it was signed off as "Long-suffering Citizen". [Please refer to "Clarification by Second Minister for Finance and National Development", Official Report, 3 July 2023, Vol 95, Issue 105, Correction by Written Statement section.] And questions were also raised in Parliament at that time. Mr S Dhanabalan, who was the Minister for National Development, mentioned that they would have to think about relocating Turf Club. Dr Richard Hu, who was the Finance Minister at that time, also made the same point. The other issue that came up was whether or not the Bukit Timah Turf Club site was best used for horse racing, given that it was prime land. And questions were raised in Parliament about that as well. So, the approach back in 1998/1999 was that Bukit Timah Turf Club was moved out of Bukit Timah because of the disamenities that it was causing and because that was not the best use for that land, and it was given the Kranji site in replacement. But at that time, what we did was we earmarked it as land reserved for housing, but not for immediate development. So, that is why it was reflected in the 1998 Master Plan as for housing.”
“I thank Mr Chua for his supplementary questions. Mr Chua's question actually covers two different sites – one is the Kranji Turf Club and the other is the Bukit Timah Turf Club, now known as Turf City. Let me deal with each in turn. For the Kranji Turf Club, this is something that has been earmarked for immediate development. So, if you have an extension, it is going to push back the plans to be able to develop the area immediately. Given the shortage in housing, if you push back and you extend it, it is going to push back the housing programme for the houses that can be built in the Kranji area. And the question is: extend for what purpose? So, if it is extended just to have more races, although it may not seem so, but that would not really help, in the sense that—consider this: the announcement has already been made. You already know that the operations are going to come to an end with respect to racing. It is not going to increase the number of people coming, which was already on a downward trajectory. So, the best approach is to use the time between 2024, with the last race, and 2027, to rehome the horses, export them, find jobs for the employees and do an orderly winding down and not hold back the housing programme. Bukit Timah, though, is a different proposition. So, let me just run through for Bukit Timah because Bukit Timah, when it was taken back, primarily at that time, the reasons why it was taken back was twofold. One was the disamenities. I am not sure whether Members were around at that time in this Chamber, but I think there were quite a lot of complaints about traffic and other disamenities caused. Let me see if I can find, just to give Members a flavour of what was said at that time. So, it was a "push" factor when STC was relocated from Bukit Timah.”
“I would certainly encourage them to raise with their employers and with STC if they have special needs, or face particular hardship, and we will lean forward to assist them. The third point on whether STC could allow workers to undertake skills training for other jobs, the answer is definitely yes. But I think the real question is: we need to be sensitive to what the workers themselves would like to do. There may be some who are able to find other jobs in the equestrian industry and, if they are able to find them those jobs and they want to continue, that should be very much their choice. But there may be some who may decide to exit the industry and wish to enter a new industry. For those, we would most certainly make every effort to assist them to be reskilled.”
“I thank Mr Patrick Tay for those pertinent questions. He raised three points. Let me take them in turn. With regard to the duration of 15 months, let me explain how that is derived. Fifteen months is the period when we expect the last race to take place. So, the last race to take place would be the Gold Cup next year, in October 2024. Working backwards, if we take back the land in 2027, you need to allow time for horse exportation as well. And horse exportation does not happen just so easily – you need time for quarantine, you need time for vaccination, you need time for transport, you need time to have them rehomed. So, working backwards, it was determined that October next year should be the last race, which means that between now and October, these employees, all of them, whether STC or for the trainers, will be able to continue in employment. Then the question is when it stops, because once the last race finishes, in a sense, especially for the trainers, there are no further races. So, there will still be horses to be looked after for exportation, but you would not be preparing for racing, for example. So, the workload is already going to start tapering off. Exportation is by 2026. So, there is still a period between 2024 and 2026 when there will be a tailing off. So, this is something that STC, as well as the trainers, will have to work through with their employees to bring the employment to an end. For STC, as I mentioned earlier, some will have to continue being employed right up to 2027, because the administration staff, whoever is doing payroll, payments and so on, they will still need to be around to do the winding down. The second point that Mr Patrick Tay raised was those employees who may be experiencing hardship and may require extra support.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank Ms Pereira for her question. On consultation, there are different types of consultation. With respect to the decision on land use, what the site should be used for, this is no different from decisions that we make in respect of other sites that are developed for public or other housing, and that is a decision that the Government has to take. We would not usually go for public consultation on whether or not to take back a particular site. That has to be part of the planning that the Government looks at. But before the decision was made, we had engaged very widely with Singaporeans at large on land use and this was under the long-term plan review as well as other regular engagements. And one thing which came back very strongly – not just from Singaporeans whom we engaged, but in this House in recent debates – was the need for more housing, in particular, public housing. So, that was one of the imperatives and drivers as we looked at and reviewed the amount of land available for housing and that informed our decision as to whether to take back this site for housing purposes. But the decision, having been made, what is very important is that all the stakeholders who are affected by the decision need to be assisted with the transition and that includes, as I mentioned earlier, the employees of STC, the trainers, the horse owners, the employees of the trainers, and there are some tenants, for example, on the site. Those tenants, for tenancies like food and beverage and so on, the contractual arrangements with them will be fulfilled and, if there are one or two who may need to be relocated, we will assist with the relocation.”
“On the question of retired racehorses going to other equestrian sports, that may have to be directed to the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth in terms of sports. But I just want to clarify something about these horses. These are racehorses and the majority of them would probably continue racing. So, the question is how to get them to places where they can continue to race. So, exportation would be one of the main strategies to deal with these horses. There are other countries. In fact, the exportation of horses does take place quite regularly. I understand from STC that every month, there are actually a few. They may go to Malaysia, for example. I think some interest has been expressed in Malaysia in taking in some of the racehorses from STC when it closes. Australia is another destination although, for Australia, they take in a smaller number. So, I think the primary strategy for these racehorses would actually be exportation, to allow them to continue to race if their owners so choose. But obviously, this is a conversation that we are having with the owners to see what they would like to do with the horses. But bottom line, we will find homes for all the horses.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, the answer to both of Ms Hany Soh's supplementary questions is yes. We will be working with MOT to do an impact assessment. In fact, that is one of the reasons why we need these three years before 2027 because you need to look at what are the infrastructure requirements around the place, the road network, the ease of traffic flow. All of these things will be part of the assessments and technical studies that have to be done as part of the land use review and site preparation. With regard to the second question about whether, when it is redeveloped, regard will be had to the heritage, the answer is yes. We are very mindful of the identity and heritage of various areas. In the early years when we were doing our redevelopment, we used to clear a lot of things and it was just new buildings coming up. But increasingly, we have become much more sensitive – not only as a Ministry, but as a population – to our history and heritage. This was very evident when we did the long-term plan review, and that is one of the pillars that has come out of the long-term plan review. Members will see this approach. We have said that we will do that for the old Police Academy site, also for Paya Lebar. Similarly, for this site, we will have regard to the heritage.”
“STC is committed to working with owners to manage their horses in a responsible manner, such as through rehoming, either overseas or in a stable in Singapore. Members have also asked about the impact of the closure of STC on equestrian activities in Singapore. While horse racing will cease, other equestrian activities are not affected by STC's closure. Sport Singapore engages regularly with the Equestrian Federation of Singapore which oversees our national team's training. The STC's closure does not affect our national equestrian team's training, which is located at Jalan Mashhor. On heritage, we recognise the rich history of the Turf Club and the racing community. The National Heritage Board will work with STC and stakeholders to capture and commemorate the heritage of STC and local horse racing. We will make every effort to assist those affected, and to ensure that the history and heritage of STC and the racing community is commemorated.”
“The STC employees will continue to be employed for at least the next 15 months up till October 2024, with some staying until closure in 2027. Upon cessation of their employment, they will receive retrenchment packages in line with Ministry of Manpower guidelines. In addition, they will receive job placement assistance, career guidance, skills training and counselling so that they can find new jobs. The National Trades Union Congress (NTUC) has also stepped in to offer support. The horse trainers employ or engage about another 420 workers. While these are not STC employees, STC will nevertheless lean forward to work with their employers, the trainers, to provide support to these workers and ease their transition. The media had recently reported that some equestrian entities are prepared to offer them jobs. STC will also be extending employment facilitation, skills training and career counselling. Members have also asked what will happen to the racehorses. There are approximately 700 racehorses. They will have to be rehomed once the races cease. In the meantime, STC has already rolled out support for racehorse owners and trainers for horse maintenance, as well as horse exportation and placement. STC is discussing with owners and trainers what additional support they may need to rehome their horses and will do its best to meet reasonable requests. Some trainers have highlighted concerns that the owners might abandon their horses. I hope that this is indeed not the case and I would caution any owner against so doing. Owners have the responsibility to look after their horses. It would be an offence under the Animals and Birds Act to abandon their horses or fail to care appropriately for them.”
“URA will consider how the site can be developed: (a) to create a distinct identity for the precinct, taking into account its unique characteristics; and (b) to build on the green character of our North Region and the site's proximity to major parks and nature areas, such as the Sungei Buloh Wetlands Reserve, Mandai Mangroves and Mudflats, Lim Chu Kang Agri-Food cluster and the Mandai Wildlife Reserve attractions. Work on the revised land use plan, as well as infrastructure design and planning for the site, will take place over the next three to four years before the Government takes over the site in 2027, so that land preparation and redevelopment can commence thereafter. The Government is studying the potential uses for the site, including the number of dwelling units that can be injected. Details of the redevelopment plan will be made known once the relevant studies and assessments are completed. Mr Edward Chia asked about timing. The handover of the land and assets of STC is scheduled to be completed by March 2027, which is three and a half years from now. We made the announcement now to give trainers and owners sufficient time to make the necessary arrangements. This also allows them to have several more races, culminating in the Singapore Gold Cup in October 2024. Ms Hany Soh, Mr Gerald Giam, Mr Sharael Taha and Mr Edward Chia have asked what assistance will be given to workers affected by the cessation of horse racing. We will make every effort to assist and ease the transition for them. There are two different groups of workers affected – those employed by STC and those employed by the trainers. About 350 STC employees are affected.”
“The decision to close STC was not an easy decision, nor was it made lightly. Given Singapore's small size and land constraints, the Government continually reviews our land use plans to meet present and future needs. At the same time, local horse racing has also experienced declining spectatorship over the years. In developing our long-term land use strategies and plans, the Government has actively engaged the public to understand their needs and aspirations. These engagements have strongly affirmed that we need more land for housing, as well as a diversity of spaces for leisure and recreation, to provide a quality living environment for Singaporeans. With the demand for more land for housing and the declining spectatorship for local horse racing, the Government has made the difficult decision to redevelop the STC site to better meet our future needs. Mr Gerald Giam asked whether the use of the Singapore Racecourse site under the current Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) Master Plan has been revised to include housing. At the Committee of Supply debate earlier this year, the Ministry of National Development announced that we have started on our Draft Master Plan review, which will take place over the next two to three years. The Government intends to update the revised land use for the site to include housing in the upcoming Master Plan. Ms Hany Soh and Mr Louis Chua asked about the redevelopment plans for the site. The site will be holistically developed to meet the increasing demand for housing, including public housing, as well as leisure and recreation. This is part of a larger overall plan for the North Region.”
“I recall how, when I was first appointed Deputy Speaker many years ago, he made an effort to make me feel welcome and offered assistance should I need it. He was always ready to give counsel and help to those who needed it. Warm, witty and friendly, he had a cheeky and playful streak which endeared him to many who encountered him, and he was always good company. He was a good father and a good role model. Mr Deputy Speaker, we have lost a good friend and a good man. However, we have been enriched by his contributions the impact of which still remain. He may no longer be with us but his voice can still be heard in the works he translated and in the Tamil language that he loved so dearly and did so much to promote. Mr Palaniappan was a Singaporean that we all can be proud of. May he rest in peace. [Applause.]”
“He actively contributed to the building of Tamil vocabulary by starting a Facebook page called “Singai Translate Community”, which deliberated with members of the general public on how best to translate complex English words and subject matters into the Tamil language. In 2014, Mr Pala translated the biography of our former President Mr SR Nathan titled "An Unexpected Journey: Path to the Presidency", into Tamil. After retiring, Mr Pala continued to impart his wealth of knowledge and experience as an Adjunct Faculty at the National Institute of Education and an Associate Faculty at the Singapore University of Social Sciences, where he had taught courses on Tamil Culture, Translation and Interpretation. In recognition of his contributions, he was awarded the Efficiency, Public Service, Long Service and Commendation Medals in 1996, 2001, 2008 and 2011 respectively. Mr Pala also made many contributions in the community, serving and receiving the Public Service Medal in 2001 as Vice-Chairman, Telok Blangah Citizens’ Consultative Committee (CCC). A respected community and grassroots leader, he played a significant role in grassroots events, solemnised marriages in English and Tamil where he made it a point to brief the couple on family values, and translated speeches for national agencies. In the 1980s he served as the secretary of the Hindu Endowments Board. Subsequently, he served on the Management Committee of the Sri Krishnan Temple and furthered racial harmony through his participation in the Inter-racial Religious Circles (IRCC). He emceed and helped out at temple consecration ceremonies and functions. But beyond these official duties, there was Mr Pala the man. Gentle, unassuming and approachable, Mr Pala would quickly put people at ease.”
“He led the Language Services Department, from 2008 until his retirement in 2012, during which he instituted several measures to improve simultaneous interpretation services during Parliamentary Sittings. In addition, Mr Pala helped promote inter-parliamentary relations by managing incoming and outgoing Parliamentary visits and conferences, taking up the role of Chief Liaison Officer for many parliamentary conferences hosted by the Singapore Parliament. Many a time, he went beyond official duties to ensure the foreign dignitaries were well taken care of, and received numerous oral and written compliments. He served a total of five Speakers of Parliament – namely Mr Tan Soo Khoon, Mr Abdullah Tarmugi, Mr Michael Palmer, Mdm Halimah Yacob and our current Speaker, Mr Tan Chuan-Jin – and accompanied them and many Members on countless official Parliamentary trips. Mr Pala’s vast experience and expertise in interpretation and translation between Tamil and English, was highly valued at the national level. He was part of the regular interpretation team for the National Day Rallies and was appointed by the Government as a member of the National Standardisation Committee for Tamil Media from 2009 to 2013, and the National Translation Committee (NTC), serving as the NTC’s Tamil Resource Panel Chairman from 2014 to 2020. During his tenure, he improved the standards of Tamil translation within the Public Service. Mr Pala served in the Tamil Language Council as a volunteer for close to 15 years and was instrumental in developing a Bilingual Glossary (English – Tamil) for the public as well as an e-Glossary for students. The key feature of this Glossary was the compilation of more than a few hundred words that are unique to the Singaporean Tamil context. It is still in use today.”
“I should also mention that we have with us in the Gallery Mr Palaniappan’s family. [Applause.] They are seated in front of the window on the far right, where you see some flowers placed. That used to be Mr Palaniappan's seat in Parliament, where he did his translation. We extend to the family our deepest condolences. I had invited them to be with us as we remember him and I hope that they will take comfort from the knowledge that Mr Palaniappan’s life and work is recognised and appreciated by this House. Many of us have only ever known Mr Palaniappan in his role as a translator and interpreter in Parliament. However, this was only part of the rich tapestry of his life and service, and it is fitting that I recount some of this, to give Members and the public a better sense of this unassuming but remarkable man. Mr Palaniappan, commenced his 50-year career in the Public Service in 1968 as a Judiciary Interpreter at the State Courts where he was in service till 1990, with a two-year hiatus from 1981 to 1983 when he was with the then Singapore Broadcasting Corporation. Mr Pala then joined Parliament Secretariat in September 1990 and retired upon reaching the compulsory retirement age in January 2012. He was re-employed by the Parliament Secretariat till July 2020 and worked part-time to interpret parliamentary proceedings during Sittings till November 2022. His voice was most often heard translating the Parliament proceedings from English to Tamil and, occasionally, from Tamil to English when speeches were made in Tamil. During his 30-year tenure in Parliament Secretariat, Mr Pala made many important contributions.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, every time a Member speaks in this Chamber, three other voices speak too – that of our translators, simultaneously translating our speeches into the other official languages. Today, one of those voices is silent. Last week Members were greatly saddened to learn of the passing of our Tamil translator, Mr Palaniappan s/o Arumugum, on 4 May 2023. Mr Palaniappan, known to many of us affectionately as Mr Pala, worked at Parliament for more than 30 years and as such, was a familiar figure to many cohorts of Members of Parliament (MPs). With your leave, Mr Deputy Speaker, I like to say something on behalf of all Members to remember Mr Palaniappan and acknowledge his contributions.”
“From 2000 to 2022, around 92% of the non-residents in our population each year were aged between 15 and 64, those aged zero to 14 accounted for around 5%, while those aged 65 and above made up around 3%. Given our ageing population, it is important that we have non-residents in the prime working ages to supplement our workforce and support our economic and social needs. Around 80% of non-residents were employed, that is, held a valid work pass. The remaining 20% who were not working included dependants and foreign students. The proportion of employed non-residents remained broadly stable between 2000 and 2022. In 2002, around 15% of employed non-residents were professionals, managers, executives and technicians (PMETs) while the remaining 85% were non-PMETs. The proportion of PMETs among the employed non-residents had increased to 25% in 2012, in line with our social and economic needs, and stood at 27% in 2022. This is similar to the trend of the PMET share in our resident workforce, which increased from 45% to 64% over the past two decades. The median fixed monthly salaries of employed non-residents for Employment Pass (EP), S Pass and Work Permit, excluding migrant domestic workers, for various years are in Table 1. The increase in the median fixed monthly salaries of work pass holders over the years reflects the steps taken to improve the complementarity of the foreign workforce, including through the raising of the qualifying salaries for EP and S Pass. 1 No available data for S Pass as S Pass was introduced in 2004.”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, I beg to move, "That Parliament do now adjourn." [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)] Enhancing End of Life with Choices and Dignity”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, I beg to move, "That the debate be now adjourned." [(proc text) Resolved, "That the debate be now adjourned." – [Ms Indranee Rajah]. (proc text)]”
“So, without in any way constraining how the Courts may decide to determine the matter, one imagines that the Court would apply first principles such as, for example, looking to see where the company has its management and control located, and relevant factors may include where the meeting was organised, where the material was sent from; basically, where the organisational centre of that meeting was. But like I said, I do not wish to constrain the Courts in any way and they should have the full ability to decide based on the facts and circumstances of each case. These amendments will enable entities to conduct virtual or hybrid meetings should they do so and they should be mindful of the regulations issued by the respective regulators. So, for example, SGX has publicly communicated that SGX-listed issuers may conduct physical or hybrid general meetings from 1 July 2023 onwards. This provides issuers added flexibility to decide the format of meeting that suits their shareholders needs and facilitates shareholder engagement. Mdm Deputy Speaker, let me conclude. These proposed amendments will permanently provide companies, business trusts and variable capital companies with the option of conducting fully virtual or hybrid meetings through the use of technology. The other amendments also strengthened Singapore's corporate governance regime by upholding market confidence and safeguarding public interests. These amendments are crucial to ensure that our legislation remains relevant and future ready. Mdm Deputy Speaker, I beg to move. 3.36 pm”
“The second clarification that Mr Tan had raised was where virtual meetings would be deemed to be held jurisdictionally and the implications that that might have on the tax residency of a company. The Companies Act in general, as it currently stands, does not prescribe jurisdictional requirements for where company meetings are deemed to be held. And the amendments being introduced today do not make any change to this position. So, in short, nothing that is being moved for the amendment today will change what is currently the law under the Act. Specifically, the amendments only clarify that nothing in the Companies Act prevents board of directors' meetings from being conducted virtually and do not change the current position in the Companies Act where board of directors' meetings may be conducted virtually. Similarly, the tax residency of a company will continue to be determined by where the business is controlled and managed, which is where the decisions on strategic matters are made. Ultimately, a company's tax residency would be determined on the facts and circumstances of each case. I think that the specific question that Mr Tan has in mind is that because in the case of a virtual meeting you do not have one particular location – so, where do you say that the meeting has been held? Thus far, the Courts have been able to make determinations on where the company's place of residence is for various purposes. I would not think that that would be very different in this case.”
“The practice note provides details on the requirement to provide shareholders with the opportunity to ask written questions within a reasonable time prior to general meetings and the safeguards required to validate votes. (c) in addition, the SGX, the Singapore Institute of Directors and the Chartered Secretaries Institute of Singapore outlined standards for service providers of virtual meeting technology. This set of standards enhances the market's understanding of virtual meeting technology and facilitates effective shareholder engagement. Mr Tan had raised a couple of points – the first on what happens if companies still insist on having physical meetings. As far as the amendments go, what the amendments do is that they provide an additional option. So, currently, you can have physical meetings, but what the legislation does is that it enables companies to also choose a hybrid option or a virtual option. We do not want to be overly prescriptive because, generally, this is something that should be left for companies to decide. And I think one of the things that investors will surely take into account is the ease and convenience with which they can transact their dealings with the company. Clearly, this is something that we will watch and see whether any further amendments need to be made, but the current situation is such that the options are there. We leave it to the companies to determine what is best for themselves in terms of how to conduct business. And I feel fairly sure that if they chose a course of action that was inconvenient to their shareholders and their investors, the likelihood is that the shareholders and investors will give the necessary feedback that will enable the company to change its practice.”
“In other words, the Court will take a holistic and balanced approach in determining whether a meeting should be invalidated, depending on the facts of the case. While the Court has the power to invalidate all or only a portion of a meeting, it will be used judiciously. Invalidation is usually the relief of last resort, where other remedies would not be appropriate, in order to achieve a just result – for example, in cases where the substantial injustice suffered cannot be otherwise remedied by any other order of Court. Next, Mr Ng asked if we have considered introducing new offences to punish individuals who disrupt fully virtual or hybrid meetings through technological means with the malicious intention to invalidate these meetings. At this juncture, there is no need to introduce new offences for such a situation. There are existing legislative levers, such as the Computer Misuse Act of 1993, to investigate any deliberate or malicious disruption such as by way of hacking. Mr Ng also asked if guidance will be provided on the best practices for conducting meetings using virtual meeting technology. The answer is yes. The various regulators have already issued or will issue materials drawing from the lessons learned in conducting such meetings during the COVID-19 pandemic. For instance: (a) the ACRA will be issuing a set of frequently asked questions (FAQs) to directors and companies on the legislative amendments for virtual and hybrid meetings. These FAQs will be updated on an ongoing basis to address common queries received from the public. (b) Singapore Exchange's (SGX's) Practice Note 7.5 on General Meetings also provides more detailed guidance to listed issuers on how hybrid general meetings may be conducted.”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, I would like to thank Mr Louis Ng and Mr Dennis Tan for their comments and support of the Bill. Mr Ng raised three points of clarification on fully virtual or hybrid general meetings, while Mr Tan sought clarification on the locations of virtual meetings and its implications, and also raised the point with regard to whether physical meetings may be still insisted upon by companies. Let me address these in turn. First, Mr Ng asked about the Court's power to invalidate meetings. As I had explained in my speech earlier, the new section 392(2A) under clause 15 of the Bill will allow shareholders to apply to the Court for a company's meeting to be invalidated, if they suffer substantial injustice due to disruptions, malfunctions or outages that are technological in nature. Whether or not there has been "substantial injustice" will be decided by the Court depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. The established principles in determining the threshold of "substantial injustice" that have been applied to the existing section 392(2), which the new section 392(2A) is modelled on, include the following. First, there must be a direct link between the technological disruption, malfunction or outage and the injustice suffered. Second, the injustice must be "substantial", in that it was real rather than theoretical or fanciful. Third, the aggrieved party must show that there may or could have been a different result in the meeting, if not for the occurrence of the technological disruption, malfunction or outage. And fourth, the determination of substantial injustice involves a holistic weighing and balancing of the various interests of all the relevant parties.”
“The Government will continue to work closely with the other tripartite partners to promote family-friendly workplace practices, so as to better support working parents in their caregiving needs.”
“Much has been done over the years to enhance parental leave to better support the caregiving needs of parents with young children. From 1 January 2024, we will double the Government-Paid Paternity Leave from two to four weeks for eligible working fathers. We will also double Unpaid Infant Care Leave for each parent in the child’s first two years, from the current six days per year to 12 days per year. These will give parents more time to bond with and care for their newborn, or to settle caregiving arrangements. Any enhancements to childcare leave, including according more leave to parents with more children, will need to balance the caregiving needs of parents with the manpower and operational needs of employers. Beyond legislated leave provisions, it is more important and sustainable for employers to provide a family-friendly work environment to help parents manage both their work and caregiving responsibilities. The Tripartite Standards on Flexible Work Arrangements (FWAs) and on Unpaid Leave for Unexpected Care Needs, were introduced in 2017 and 2018 respectively. Companies that adopt these standards are recognised as progressive employers that provide additional support for employees’ personal or caregiving responsibilities. The tripartite partners have also been looking into ways to better support employers in implementing FWAs. These include providing resources, such as implementation guides and training, to better equip employers to implement FWAs effectively and sustainably. To encourage wider adoption of FWAs, the tripartite partners are developing a set of Tripartite Guidelines by 2024 that will require employers to put in place proper processes to fairly consider and respond to employees’ FWA requests.”
“In conclusion, Mr Deputy Speaker, the rules afford more than enough opportunity for MPs, Opposition or otherwise, to hold the Government to account, raise queries and debate matters. The real issue is how to do this effectively. The answer lies not in changing the rules, but rather, for MPs to develop the skills of listening, using the existing rules more effectively, to make a contribution to the debate and show that they are deserving of the trust that voters have placed in them. 6.50 pm”
“Finally, Mr Leong has called for the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) and the Public Petitions Committee (PPC) to be chaired by an Opposition MP, on the basis that doing so will ensure that they are independent, impartial, objective and non-partisan. Let us reflect for a moment and ask if we really think that would be the case. The better solution is the one that we already have in place under the rules. The PAC and the PPC are Standing Select Committees. A select committee is a committee of Parliament. The Standing Orders (SOs) provide that the composition of each standing select committee should reflect the balance between the Government benches and the Opposition benches in Parliament. And if you think about it for a moment, that is fair – because it reflects the proportion of Government and Opposition MPs. The SOs provide that the Speaker chairs the PPC, which is, again, fair because he chairs the whole Parliament – a position to which he was elected by Parliament at the beginning of the term. And the Parliament which elected him was, in turn, elected by the people, who also decided the proportion of PAP MPs and Opposition MPs. Speaker appoints the Chair of the PAC, an authority conferred on him by Parliament through the Standing Orders, and that is also fair because it gives flexibility to choose an appropriate Chair having regard to the technical content involved. Mr Deputy Speaker, I will just take half a minute more to complete. Hence, the chairmanship of the select committees is drawn from the authority of the people and we should respect that. In any case, Opposition Members serve on the select committees and are entitled to ask questions and argue issues fully. There is no reason to think that they have not done their job properly.”