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 16 of 51.
“The rates of household formation and average household sizes are influenced by several factors, such as family formation and dissolution, and preferences for various living arrangements. The number of resident households1 grew by an average of 0.7% per annum between 2019 and 2021, from 1.37 million to 1.39 million. This was slower than the average annual growth rate of 2.4% between 2016 and 2018, before the COVID-19 pandemic. The average household size has remained stable between 2019 and 2021, at around 3.2 persons per household. This is a slight decrease compared to the preceding three-year period of around 3.3 persons per household on average. For the near future, we expect societal trends towards smaller households and continued growth in the formation of households. We will continue to monitor these trends closely to ensure that our policies and plans meet Singaporeans’ needs.”
“This question has been addressed in my reply to Question Nos 23 to 39 for oral answer on the Order Paper for 6 February 2023. [Please refer to "Findings from Keppel Offshore & Marine Corruption Probe", Official Report, 6 February 2023, Vol 95, Issue 81, Oral Answers to Questions section.]”
“These questions have been addressed in my reply to Question Nos 23 to 39 for Oral Answer on the Order Paper for 6 February 2023. [Please refer to "Findings from Keppel Offshore & Marine Corruption Probe", Official Report, 6 February 2023, Vol 95, Issue 81, Oral Answers to Questions section.]”
“I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his clarification. So, the decision, as I understand it, is that the Workers' Party will vote in favour of the Progress Singapore Party's Motion, but keeps a safe distance from the Affordable Homes Scheme and the Millennium Rental Scheme.”
“Earlier on, Minister Desmond Lee had asked the Leader of the Opposition to clarify the Workers' Party's position on the Progress Singapore Party's Motion. I think he asked about the position that Workers' Party has on the Affordable Homes Scheme. The leader of the Opposition said, if I understood him correctly, that it is an intriguing proposal that needs further study. That does not actually quite answer the question, but let me put the question more clearly. One, there is the Motion. The Motion by the Progress Singapore Party says that this House calls on the Government to review its public housing policies in order to deliver affordable and accessible HDB flats for Singaporeans and so on. So, I think the first clarification is: is it the Workers' Party position that it can support that Motion. But the second part is the whole of that Motion is actually premised on the Affordable Homes Scheme and the Millennial Rental Scheme. So, it seems to me, and the Progress Singapore Party may disagree, that because that Motion is premised on these schemes, actually, if you are voting in favour of the Motion, you would also be voting, or you must necessarily agree with those schemes. However, if what the Workers' Party is saying is that it can vote in favour of the Motion, but not necessarily in favour of the two schemes, then I would be grateful if the Leader of the Opposition could clarify that.”
“The Member does not need to accept that it is inaccurate or not so. I am stating our position that it is inaccurate. He is free to debate that if he wishes, but that should be done on another occasion. Whilst I am here, Mr Speaker, may I seek a further clarification from the Leader of the Opposition.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, it is an important point, but the statement made by the Non-Constituency Member of Parliament was incorrect. His suggestion is that the NIRC all gets swiped and packed into funds and therefore, actually, if we did not put it into funds, we would have plenty of money to do other things. The NIRC goes into the whole pool, and with the whole pool, we will distribute what we need to do or allocate according to National Budget. The Budget debate takes three days. I really do not want to start the three-day debate right now. So, that is why as an act of kindness to all Members, we have said that we would just register that it is incorrect and we will debate it later.”
“Mr Speaker, may I seek your consent and the general assent of Members present to move that the proceedings on the item under discussion be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No 48(8) to remove the time limit in respect of the Minister Desmond Lee's speech.”
“And, indeed, I am sure Mr Murali had good reason to do so because I think his amendment came after listening to various speeches. But this amendment, I think, could have been done a lot earlier. But it is all right, we will deal with it as it comes.”
“This is not so much a clarification. It is just a short point of order which probably does not require a reply. But it would have been helpful if the Leader of the Opposition had put forward the amendment earlier so that Members would have had the benefit of seeing the amendment and have been able to debate it. I do not, of course, that it comes just after everyone else has spoken and just before the Minister will speak.”
“The Child Development Account (CDA) supports parents in child raising and parents can use CDA funds to defray healthcare and educational costs, including preschool fees. In planning their curriculum, preschools are required to take reference from national frameworks approved by the Early Childhood Development Agency (ECDA), to create quality learning experiences that are holistic and developmentally appropriate for children. We want to safeguard the use of CDA funds for fees covering the preschool curriculum and other associated expenses such as uniforms and books. Hence, they cannot be used for optional enrichment programmes offered on top of the preschool curriculum. With regard to after-school care programmes, parents have given feedback that it would be helpful if CDA funds could be used for Student Care Centre (SCC) expenses. We are considering this carefully and will provide an update in due course. Other forms of financial support are available for low-income families who require assistance with SCC expenses for their children. The Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) provides them with monthly subsidies of up to 98% of student care fees, up to a maximum amount of $290 per month and a one-off grant of up to $400 to offset enrolment costs.”
“These questions have been addressed in the reply to Question Nos 23 to 39 for Oral Answer on the Order Paper for 6 February 2023. [Please refer to "Findings from Keppel Offshore & Marine Corruption Probe", Official Report, 6 February 2023, Vol 95, Issue 81, Oral Answers to Questions section.]”
“A concurrent or simultaneous debate will allow Members to address both Motions in a single speech and enable the issues raised in the two Motions to be considered holistically. It will also allow for more efficient conduct of Parliamentary business. Minister Desmond Lee and Mr Leong Mun Wai, as movers of the respective Motions, will each, as is usual, have the right to speak to move their Motions and to reply at the end of the debate to close their Motions. To be clear and for avoidance of doubt, it is only the debate that is concurrent. The Motions remain as two separate Motions and at the end of the debate, the vote on the two Motions will be taken separately. Mr Speaker, I beg to move. [(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)] [(proc text) Resolved, that, notwithstanding the Standing Orders, the Motions on "Affordable and Accessible Public Housing" and "Public Housing Policies" be taken together, and that the debate on these Motions and on any amendment proposed thereto be proceeded with simultaneously as though the debate were on a single Motion. (proc text)]”
“Mr Speaker, I beg to move, that, notwithstanding the Standing Orders, the Motions on "Affordable and Accessible Public Housing" and "Public Housing Policies" be taken together, and that the debate on these Motions and on any amendment proposed thereto be proceeded with simultaneously as though the debate were on a single Motion. Mr Speaker, as Members are aware, the Minister for National Development Mr Desmond Lee and the Non-Constituency Member of Parliament Mr Leong Mun Wai, have each filed separate Motions, the titles of which I have just read out. Both Members have given notice of their intention to move their Motions on 6 February 2023. For benefit of the Members, let me just read out the terms of the Motions. The Motion standing in the name of the Minister for National Development – Affordable and Accessible Housing: that this House affirms the importance of keeping public housing affordable and accessible while protecting the interests of current and future generations of Singaporeans, and endorses the commitment of the Government to these twin goals. The Motion standing in the name of Mr Leong Mun Wai – Public Housing Policies: that this House calls upon the Government to review its public housing policies in order to deliver affordable and accessible HDB flats to all Singaporeans, strengthen the owner-occupation intent of public housing, protect retirement adequacy and keep public housing inclusive for every Singaporean of each generation. Given the subject matter of the two Motions, I am in today's Business Motion, moving that the two Motions be considered together and debated concurrently. This is because the two Motions cover common topics and related issues, albeit from different perspectives.”
“I will give the reference in a minute. On the facts of this particular case for Keppel, as part of the DPA, Assoc Prof Jamus Lim may not recall this, but Members who were present in 2018, when I responded to this in Parliament, will recall. Under the DPA, one of the requirements or the conditions for the Deferred Prosecution, was that Keppel would have to continue to implement compliance and ethics programmes designed to prevent and detect violations of the FCPA and other anti-corruption laws. And they also undertook to review their internal accounting controls, policies and procedures regarding compliance with the FCPA and other applicable anti-corruption laws. They also agreed to modify their compliance programme, including internal controls, compliance policies and procedures. So, in this particular case, conditions were imposed; and it is my understanding that they have indeed been carried out because the DPA has been successfully concluded. At that time, if I recall correctly, Temasek, as well as Keppel, also stated that they carry out programmes which are designed to make their staff and their companies aware of the need for good corporate governance; and that they had education programmes. I think the same would be true of all other multinational corporations (MNCs). They understand the need for this. I would agree with Assoc Prof Jamus Lim that it is very important because directors, boards, offices of companies especially large ones and especially those operating in other jurisdictions do need to be aware of the need of proper governance, anti-corruption and good controls. 1.40 pm”
“The answer to that is, a stern warning is given when you feel that you cannot say that you give a complete clean bill of health. But at the same time, you do not have enough to clear that evidentiary huddle. So, what are the choices? The choices are: do nothing at all or bring charges when you know you do not have sufficient evidence; or is there something in between? The stern warning device is the something in between. It signals; it is an expression of AGC's position that: "We do not think that you are completely off the hook, but we do not have enough to charge you; and I want you to know this. I am putting down a marker, a marker that there is something not entirely right. But this is the only device available to the AGC." So, that is what it does. It would be a very different thing, for example, if AGC had just thrown up its hands and said, "Okay, close investigation; do not do anything." That, too, would not have been the correct thing to do.”
“With respect to the first question on what can be done with respect to acts committed abroad, the first thing to remember is that the Singapore Government does not run these private companies that operate abroad. This is a matter for the companies own corporate governance. But as a Government, what we do is that we make sure our laws are directed at ensuring that you have good corporate governance; we also encourage programmes which require good corporate governance; we have a very strong stance on anti-corruption; all the signals that we send as a Government is to tell our companies, "Please – do business properly". It is incumbent upon those companies – not the Government – to ensure that their staff, their practices are clean and above board, and in accordance with proper governance. On the second question, I am not sure I got that. Can you repeat the second question?”
“I think I can say this much in response to that question – which is that if it comes to the attention of our authorities that an act of bribery or an offence has occurred, it will be investigated. And if there is sufficient evidence to pursue that and to bring it to Court, then they will do so. If the suggestion is that we are somehow condoning bribery overseas, the answer is no. In fact, I would direct the Member to the answer that I gave earlier on – and it bears repeating – where I said that Members need to be realistic about what we can and cannot do. Singapore companies that operate overseas do so in myriad environments, where all kinds of business practices prevail. We cannot police all of them. However, what we can do and we should do is insulate our companies and our system against corruption. Our companies must find a way to do business cleanly wherever they do business and people must know that is how we operate.”
“Mr Speaker, may I seek your consent and the general assent of Members present to move that Question Time at this day's Sitting be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No 22(1) so as to enable the Questions for Oral Answer to continue until the completion of Question No 39.”
“Perhaps another five to 10 minutes, Mr Speaker. I do not have an objection answering. I do not wish it to appear that we are not responding to questions. But I hope that the Members ask questions that will be relevant and appropriate questions.”
“The short answer is, I do not know. I do not know because I did not conduct the investigations. And what I do understand from the investigations is that CPIB says that the six have not made any admissions. 1.30 pm”
“Could Mr Louis Chua please repeat the questions?”
“I thank Mr Murali for his questions. With respect to review of the PCA, our general assessment is that the PCA does have sufficient powers. But if there is anything that can be usefully reviewed, anything that we feel can be enhanced or improved, we are always open to suggestions. On the second, on the Office of the Attorney-General, it is an office which carries a heavy responsibility. In discharging that responsibility, the Attorney-General has to be quite careful of what he says or does not say in public, particularly with respect to decisions because you do not know whether further down along the line, a certain further action may have to be taken. So, what I have said earlier is that, in this case, they have put out as much as they thought would be appropriate to do so. But you really do not want a system where, every single case, the investigations are discussed in detail and where it then becomes an exercise of the public determining guilt or innocence in the absence of proper due process.”
“In response to Ms Sylvia Lim's first question as to whether CPIB has been able to obtain admissions or confessions for those six persons, my understanding is that CPIB has not had any admissions or confessions from the six persons. The second one, when she asked about the foreign witness, I will refer back to my earlier answer where I actually said two things. I said there is one foreign witness who gave evidence in other proceedings which could have been relevant to establishing offences in Singapore, but that foreign witness is not willing to voluntarily give evidence in Singapore. That is number one. Number two: she said that some Members may ask whether prosecution could be advanced arising out of the fact that a particular individual had entered into a plea bargain in another jurisdiction – so, that is a separate individual – in relation to his involvement in the KOM bribery. And when this individual was investigated by CPIB on his return to Singapore, he denied knowing that commissions paid to the agent in Brazil were paid out as bribes. And he did not, during CPIB's investigations here, implicate himself or others in conspiring to paid bribes. So, the question is, has he said something different here? I think the answer is yes. But I will not go into details. Firstly, I do not have details of what exactly was said. What I do know, and I am able to say based on what has been informed to me, is that in this particular case, what was said in the US and what has been told to CPIB, there are differences.”
“I thank the Member for his supplementary questions. Let me start first with his reference to the speech by the Attorney-General (AG). In that speech, in the same speech, the AG actually said this. He said – he was describing the kind of internal process that the AGC goes through – and he said, "At the end of this internal Inquiry, we make an assessment of whether we are likely to have a reasonable prospect of obtaining a conviction. Only when we are convinced that the evidence and the law disclose a criminal offence do we even begin to consider whether prosecutorial discretion should be exercised. It would be a subversion of the rule of law and a waste of valuable public resources for us to pursue prosecution in the absence of a reasonable prospect of conviction. In fact, many of the files that were considered in my Chambers are closed at the first stage of assessment because the facts of the law do not disclose any criminal offence that can be proved in a Court of Law." And the background of that speech was that the AG was actually talking about the context of offences against minors, where it is particularly difficult to get evidence. That was the overall context he was talking about. So, the question is not whether or not it was a choice between an uphill task – in other words, do not do it just because it is a bit difficult or – the other, that it is outright impossible. The correct test is what the AG has described – it is that there must be a reasonable prospect of obtaining a conviction. Because there must be a certain threshold. Otherwise, if you just go around filing charges with insufficient basis, that will not make for a strong justice system. And that is the threshold that AGC feels that it is not able to get over, in this particular case.”
“Earlier on in my answer, I had said that AGC has sent three mutual legal assistance (MLA) requests to Brazil to secure evidence that was needed. And AGC and CPIB also sent an MLA request to another relevant foreign authority to interview other potential material witnesses. So, I think what we have from my previous answer is three to Brazil and one other, since I said, "sent an MLA request to another foreign authority". And, as I explained earlier, they have not yielded the evidence that could be used to secure a conviction or the responses have not been helpful. And I do understand that, at least, for one or two of them, the latest ones, there have been no response. Because you would recall earlier, when PQs were asked, or I think, in Committee of Supply (COS), I had said they were pending responses – if you recall. There has been no further response since then. The other question that the Leader of the Opposition asked, the thrust of his question on the Board of Directors, was whether or not there was anything in the investigations with Keppel that could lead to more evidence with respect to the individuals. This much I can say – whatever CPIB has been able to do or to uncover or to ask in its investigations in Singapore with respect to Keppel, it has done. But the problem is not so much what they had been doing the investigations here. The problem is that key material witnesses are not available. And that is the problem. That is the hurdle that they have not been able to overcome. And that is why charges have not been proffered.”
“I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his clarification. I cannot answer for Keppel. In the answer that I had given previously, I had directed the Members to the Keppel press release which talked about the then current Board. But coming back to Mr Singh's question, that is why I asked him whether he is suggesting that constructive knowledge is an offence. Because CPIB only investigates offences. Therefore, if the question is whether the investigation included determining if there was constructive knowledge, the answer is: if constructive knowledge is not an offence then there is no reason for CPIB to be investigating this. CPIB investigates offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act and that is what they have done. And in this case, unfortunately, there is insufficient evidence for them to mount a prosecution.”
“With respect to the last question on whether a successful prosecution could have been mounted depending on the nature of the information, the short answer is: you do not know until you actually get the information. How would you know what that person would say? So, the short outcome of the request for mutual legal assistance is, as I explained in my earlier answer, that they either have not yielded evidence that could be used to secure conviction before the Courts or the responses have not been helpful in advancing the case. I do not know all the details of the MLA, but I do know that the latest ones, there have been no response. So, I mean, if the Member is asking what could have been done, the answer is, we do not know because they made the request and they have not been able to get the evidence that is needed. Then, with respect to the first question about whether CPIB had investigated the constructive knowledge at the material time of the Board, can I just seek to understand: is the Leader of the Opposition indicating or suggesting that constructive knowledge is an offence under the PCA?”
“Our companies must find a way to do business cleanly, wherever they do business and people must know that is how we operate. In conclusion, the PP decided not to prosecute the six individuals because the evidence available in Singapore does not provide sufficient evidential basis to prosecute, bearing in mind the Prosecution's burden is to establish the ingredients of each offence beyond reasonable doubt. The CPIB has done its best, including working with international partners to uncover such evidence. CPIB and AGC have undertaken a careful and thorough review of the documents, including the DPAs and plea bargains and the PP has advised that those are insufficient to meet the burden of proof. But if subsequently new and compelling evidence comes up, the PP can and will re-evaluate the decision. The PP's decision to issue stern warnings should be understood in that context. Mr Speaker, Singapore's success arises in no small part because of its policy in upholding the rule of law and adopting a zero tolerance policy to corruption. Both are necessary factors and our zero tolerance policy must be upheld in a manner that complies with the rule of law. The PP has acknowledged this and this is exactly what the PP has done on the facts – to uphold the rule of law.”
“GDMA was not prosecuted in Singapore as key evidence against the company was not available here and GDMA had been dealt with in the USA. However, Gursharan Kaur Sharon Rachael, the Singaporean employee of the US Navy, was prosecuted here as evidence of her corrupt conduct was available to CPIB and she pleaded guilty to those offences. Mr Zhulkarnain asked if we will amend the PCA to expand the powers of the CPIB to facilitate investigations outside jurisdiction. CPIB's powers under the PCA allow it to investigate offences committed by Singaporeans abroad but the investigations have to be conducted in Singapore. CPIB cannot conduct investigations abroad. And regardless of what our law says, it is not possible for our agencies to exercise police powers in another country. That would not be allowed or tolerated by any other country, just like we would never allow a foreign investigative agency to exercise police powers in Singapore. Think of it this way – do you think Singaporeans will or should accept that a regional police force can come into Singapore and interrogate Singaporeans? Hence, when evidence resides outside Singapore, our agencies are dependent on international cooperation and foreign authorities to facilitate their investigations and secure the relevant evidence. This Parliament cannot legislate to empower CPIB to conduct investigations in foreign jurisdictions because that would run afoul of territorial sovereignty. Therefore, Members need to be realistic about what we can and cannot do. Singapore companies who operate overseas do so in myriad environments, where all kinds of business practices prevail. We cannot police all of them. However, what we can and should do is to insulate our companies and our system against corruption.”
“Dr Tan Wu Meng sought statistics on prosecutions and stern warnings, and Ms Poa asked if warnings were issued in other corruption cases. From 2017 to 2021, CPIB has issued an average of 138 warnings annually and 139 individuals were prosecuted. Stern warnings are not unusual, being used in cases where there are evidential difficulties or little public interest to prosecute. Questions have been asked on the impact of Singapore's zero tolerance policy on corruption and reputation. There is no change in Singapore's zero tolerance policy on corruption. I have explained the reasons why no criminal proceedings have been brought in this matter. In having regard to the rules of evidence, CPIB and AGC are observing the basic rules for a fair and just criminal justice system. What can be inferred from this is that while Singapore has zero tolerance on corruption, it also strongly adheres to the rule of law. Mr Murali Pillai asked in what circumstances CPIB will investigate foreign bribery cases involving Singapore Citizens or companies under section 37 of the PCA. CPIB will investigate all cases whether they happened locally or overseas, as long as the alleged offences fall under the ambit of the PCA and the information is credible and can be pursued. CPIB will investigate and submit its findings and recommendations to the PP, who will then decide if there is sufficient evidence to prosecute. On Ms He Ting Ru and Ms Hazel Poa's questions regarding Singapore companies being convicted of corruption abroad, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) does not have such records and CPIB's records do not go as far back as 1965. More recently, in 2015, a Singapore company, Glenn Defense Marine Asia Pte Ltd (GDMA), pleaded guilty in the USA to bribery-related offences.”
“The PP does not tell us whether everyone in AGC agreed with him or if there were differing views, or which agencies he worked with apart from CPIB. Nor is it our task to ask AGC to list all the agencies which were involved. In the end, what matters is the considered view of AGC, working with CPIB. In response to Mr Chua, I am advised that relevant potential offences were considered by the PP. Next, on the naming of individuals, Mr Dennis Tan and Mr Gerald Giam asked about the identities or details of the six individuals. Mr Murali Pillai and Ms Sylvia Lim asked whether other entities or persons were involved. As a matter of policy, CPIB does not disclose the names of individuals unless they are charged in court. This policy is not unique to the CPIB; law enforcement agencies in the US, UK and New Zealand have a similar approach. The principle underlying this policy is to avoid prejudicing that individual's right to due process and also avoid any presumption of guilt in the absence of any formal findings. If Members feel that hereafter, this practice should be changed and that law enforcement agencies should name all individuals who were investigated, even if in the end no charges are brought, then please say so. That would be a major change of policy. But please note, if Members want to change, then it cannot be only for this case. It must be for all future cases. That is something to think carefully about. Members will recall that about two years ago, a question was in fact raised in this House, asking about the protections available for those whose reputations are affected by media coverage of ongoing trials of certain offences and how such reports are regulated.”
“Some Members may ask whether any prosecution could be advanced arising out of the fact that a particular individual had entered into a plea bargain in another jurisdiction, in relation to his involvement in the KOM bribery. When this individual was investigated by CPIB on his return to Singapore, he denied knowing that commissions paid to the agent in Brazil were paid out as bribes. He did not, during CPIB's investigations, implicate himself or any others in conspiring to pay bribes. Even if the PP applies to a Singapore Court to admit the plea agreement, the agreement did not identify any specific individuals and was made in the context of a plea bargain and will be given limited weight without further supporting evidence and in the face of potentially conflicting oral testimony. CPIB has conducted as thorough an investigation as it could with the information and powers that it possessed. However, given the cross-border nature of this case and absence of key witnesses, CPIB's investigations could not overcome the evidential difficulties for the purposes of prosecution in a Singapore Court. As such, stern warnings were issued. If, subsequently, new and compelling facts come to light, it remains open for the PP to re-evaluate the decision in the light of the evolving legal and factual matrix. Ms Hazel Poa asked whether the decision to issue a stern warning was unanimous in AGC and CPIB, and if other agencies were consulted. Mr Louis Chua asked what offences were being considered. The decision not to charge is made by the PP in the exercise of his discretion and professional judgement, taking into account all relevant considerations.”
“While the documents make reference to the actions of certain individuals, I have been advised that those references, on their own, are insufficient to establish any offences beyond reasonable doubt, without witnesses testifying in Singapore about the context surrounding those actions and the intention behind them. In short, the agencies do not have sufficient evidence that would show, beyond reasonable doubt that any of the six individuals were guilty of an offence. CPIB conducted an in-depth investigation within Singapore, within the scope of its legal powers. However, as I said earlier, the difficulty with this case is that several potentially key witnesses are not in Singapore and CPIB has not been able to secure their cooperation or agreement to testify in Singapore. With the initial assistance of the Brazilian authorities, CPIB made two fact-finding trips to Brazil in May and August 2019. AGC and CPIB sent three mutual legal assistance (MLA) requests to Brazil to secure the evidence that was needed. AGC and CPIB also sent an MLA request to another relevant foreign authority to interview other potential material witnesses. The contents and outcome of these MLA requests are confidential, but I can inform the House that they have either not yielded evidence that could be used to secure a conviction before our Courts, or the responses have not been helpful in advancing the case. There is one foreign witness who gave evidence in other proceedings, which could have been relevant in establishing the offences in Singapore. However, that foreign witness is not willing to voluntarily give evidence in Singapore. Neither AGC nor CPIB can compel him to do so.”
“In deciding whether to charge, the PP has to consider whether he has the necessary evidence to prove that those individuals were involved in certain conduct and possessed a certain mental state, to establish the offences. In this case, as CPIB explained in its media release, there are evidentiary difficulties in doing so. Simply put – there is a lack of sufficient evidence either documentary or through witnesses, which would establish any criminal charge beyond a reasonable doubt against a specific individual. The Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) has made a number of mutual legal assistance requests over five years. To date, the findings from these requests are insufficient for prosecution, as I will elaborate later. Given this reality, I would like to know if any Member thinks that, nevertheless, even without sufficient evidence, the PP should have proceeded to bring charges against individuals who deny the allegations against them. If so, please let me know and the basis on which you say so. Does the fact that KOM had entered into DPA make a difference in this matter? And would the DPA be enough to, at least, commence prosecution against the specific individuals in question? The answer is no. The DPA and related documents were entered into between KOM, the US Department of Justice and the US Attorney's Office. KOM USA, a wholly-owned subsidiary of KOM, also entered into a plea bargain agreement with the US authorities. No individuals were parties to these documents.”
“Members may also access the handout through the SGParl MP mobile app. You would see, at paragraph 5, that CPIB explained: "This case is complex and transnational, involving multiple authorities and witnesses from several countries. There are evidentiary difficulties in cases of such nature. Many of the documents are located in different jurisdictions. In addition, key witnesses are located outside of Singapore and cannot be compelled to give evidence here. The decision whether to prosecute the six individuals for criminal offences has to take into consideration all relevant factors, such as the culpability of each individual, the available evidence and what is appropriate in the circumstances. Having taken these into consideration, stern warnings were issued to the six individuals." Police and other law enforcement agencies investigate a vast number of cases. When they do not proceed, the standard practice is not to issue any statement. Where there is public interest in knowing more details, Members may file questions in this House. And the relevant Minister will, after consulting the PP who made the decision independently, answer the questions to the extent permitted in law. That is what is happening here, in this case. I think Members will agree, in general, when the law enforcement agencies do not proceed to charge someone after completing investigations, it is not expected that the agencies go into details of the decision. But if anyone has questions on the decision, the matter can be raised in Parliament and that is what we are doing now. Let me deal with questions that I have identified. First, the reasons for issuing the stern warning rather than prosecution and the sufficiency of DPA and SOF. Decisions on charging are made by the PP.”
“There has been a fair bit of speculation on why the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) did not issue a fuller statement or why the Government is dealing with the matter in Parliament, which is based on a lack of understanding of how these matters are usually dealt with. First, CPIB had explained the reasons for its decision in its press release. With your leave, Mr Speaker, may I ask the Clerks to distribute copies of the press release to Members?”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. My response to these Parliamentary Questions would also effectively address the Parliamentary Questions (PQs) by Members Ms Hazel Poa and Ms He Ting Ru for written answer today; and the PQs by Members Mr Dennis Tan, Mr Gerald Giam, Dr Wan Rizal1 and Ms Poa2 scheduled for subsequent Sittings. The Members may wish to raise any supplementary questions arising therefrom and withdraw the PQs for later Sittings which are answered today. Mr Speaker, the questions arise from the Public Prosecutor's (PP's), decision to issue stern warnings to six former senior management staff from Keppel Offshore & Marine Limited (KOM), some of whom used to work at KOM's wholly-owned US subsidiary at relevant times. The questions raised by Members fall into the following broad categories: (a) why were the six individuals issued with stern warnings instead of being prosecuted; (b) whether, and if so why, the Deferred Prosecution Agreement (DPA) and the accompanying Statement of Facts (SOF) are insufficient to mount a prosecution; (c) details of the investigations or decision to issue stern warnings; (d) why the six individuals in question were not named and whether they should be; (e) statistics on stern warnings and prosecutions; (f) whether the decision to issue stern warnings, instead of prosecuting, will affect our zero tolerance stance on corruption and reputation; (g) corruption in foreign jurisdictions; and (h) sufficiency of the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA). Before I answer these questions, let me deal with a preliminary point.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I have your permission to take Question Nos 23 to 39 in the Order Paper together?”
“(proc text)] [(proc text) Resolved, "That this Parliament, in accordance with section 4(3) of the International Development Association (IDA) Act 2002, resolves that an additional subscription of Singapore to the International Development Association, of a sum not exceeding US$70,000,000, be authorised for the purpose of the 20th Replenishment of the International Development Association." – [Ms Indranee Rajah] (proc text)]”
“As a small country, our resources are limited and we have to make sure that every dollar counts. We will prioritise the needs of Singapore and Singaporeans; and use prudent fiscal management to manage our resources well. This allows us to grow the funds and there will be then space for us to contribute to the common good. So, this is what we have done and this is what we will continue to do. We also do not take our international financial obligations lightly as they often have long durations, and we cannot always predict what economic conditions will be like and what our fiscal situation will be like. So, if you set up a development agency, that is a very long-term commitment and you need to be sure that you can carry this through. Whilst I appreciate the sentiment within the Member's suggestion, one should also be mindful that we are a small country, we are constrained, we have limited resources. So, our approach is, look after our people. Where we have excess, we give. We give through institutions, we give directly, and we maintain some, so that we can be nimble and flexible. We must also be realistic to understand with our small size, exactly how much we can do by ourselves. We must also be careful of hubris. There is much that we can and should do, but we cannot do everything alone. And working with others allows us to amplify the impact of what we do. But, that said, I thank the Member for his support. [(proc text) Question, put and agreed to.”
“Apart from the contributions to the World Bank Group, we also contribute to institutions like the Asian Development Bank, the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank and the International Monetary Fund. And that, in a way, takes care of the suggestion that it should be done in an institutionalised way, because what we are really doing is leveraging the systems, the administration, the infrastructure and the reach of such international institutions. But we do more than that. Last year, Singapore contributed humanitarian assistance to Ukraine as well as to the disaster relief and humanitarian efforts following the earthquake in West Java, Indonesia. And during the pandemic, Singapore contributed to the COVID-19 Vaccine Global Access Advance Market Commitment, or COVAX AMC, which helps support access to vaccines for over 90 low- and middle-income countries. We also contributed vaccines to our neighbours as part of our commitment to tide through the pandemic collectively. More recently, Singapore became a founding member of the Pandemic Fund to enhance global pandemic prevention, preparedness and response. Beyond mandatory contributions, we have also contributed our technical know-how, providing training for close to 150,000 foreign officials under the Singapore Cooperation Programme since it started 30 years ago. And late last year, we announced a sustainability action package at COP27, to support the capacity building needs of fellow developing countries on sustainability and climate issues. So, you can see that, firstly, we do work with and through institutions to amplify our reach. We go over and beyond that and we make direct contributions. But all of this is part and parcel of a balanced approach.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to start first by thanking the Member, Assoc Prof Jamus Lim, for his support for the Motion. Listening to Assoc Prof Lim, I think there is in fact common ground and then there is a part where, perhaps, we have a slight difference of views. The common ground is: is it a good thing to do, to do something to help developing countries? I think the answer is yes. Is it common ground that doing so would benefit countries in the region? I think the answer is yes. And I think also that insofar as this specific Motion is concerned, since Assoc Prof Lim has given his support, I think we can take it that he is in agreement and that this particular issue can be put to rest. So, the only question is, do we do more? And if we do more, the question is to what extent. And what the Assoc Prof would like us to do is also to set up a foreign development aid agency. I think he even has thought of a name for it. "SingAid" – that was the name he attributed to it. So, that is where the differences are – which is how much more and do you set up an agency for this. On the question of whether we should do more – and I think if I heard the Member correctly, he also talked about systematising it. If I remember correctly, that was the word he used. The first thing I should do is to assure the Chamber and others that contributing to IDA or the World Bank Group is not the only thing that we do. What we do is we take a balanced approach. We look at what is commensurate with Singapore's size and we enter into obligations that we can afford over the long run, after the needs of Singaporeans are met. When we look at international contributions, we do more than just contribute to the World Bank Group. We have actually done so through various other institutions.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That Parliament do now adjourn." [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)] Selective En bloc Redevelopment Scheme at Ang Mo Kio Avenue 3 6.50 pm”
“Mr Speaker, I beg to move that, "That the debate be now adjourned." [(proc text) Resolved, "That the debate be now adjourned." – [Ms Indranee Rajah]. (proc text)]”
“In so far as the grant is concerned, if the concern is whether or not their housing grant can be increased, that is something we can look at and make a separate decision because they are two separate things. So, if the Member is asking, today, can I say that we will increase the income ceiling, the answer is there are no plans to do that at this stage. If the Member is saying whether we can increase the grants, that is something we can look at. But, overall, the key message to the Member and to Singaporeans is that we will do whatever is necessary to ensure that housing remains affordable and accessible.”
“We will look at it overall and see how we can maintain that accessibility and affordability.”
“I thank the Member for his supplementary questions. I also understand his concern, which is about affordability and accessibility for HDB housing for the majority of Singaporeans. What HDB and MND do is to look at it as a whole, not just one lever or one particular measure in isolation. Overall, what we are trying to do is to look at the demand as well as the supply which, of course, in the pandemic years, has been somewhat constrained. So, to ensure that public housing remains affordable and accessible, one of our current priorities is to rein in the strong upward momentum in HDB resale prices. To this end, as the Member knows, we have rolled out additional measures in September 2022 to moderate demand and ensure prudent borrowing amidst rising interest rates. And then to moderate demand for resale flats, MND and HDB introduced the 15-month wait-out period for private property owners and ex-private property owners to buy a non-subsidised HDB resale flat. Raising the income ceiling at this juncture may negate the efforts to cool the resale market as it would enable the higher-income households to bid up resale prices further. Our other priority is to ramp up the supply of new flats to meet the strong demand for public housing. Thus, any review to raise the income ceiling would also have to be balanced against greater competition for the finite resources of the Government. So, in short, what we are really saying is this. We understand the concerns. We know that Singaporeans are keen to buy their HDB flats. On MND and HDB side, we will do our utmost to ensure that they remain affordable and accessible. Tweaking the income ceiling, in and of itself, may not necessarily be the best measure.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That Parliament do now adjourn." [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)] Fostering a Stronger Voice for Students and Staff at Institutes of Higher Learning in Policy-making 6.53 pm”
“Mr Speaker, I beg to move that, "That the debate be now adjourned." [(proc text) Resolved, "That the debate be now adjourned." – [Ms Indranee Rajah]. (proc text)]”