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 19 of 51.
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, international research shows that paid parental leave, which includes paternity leave, benefits employers in terms of talent attraction, employee retention and productivity. Paternity leave is also associated with stronger relationships between fathers and their children, as well as with their wives. The Government has progressively enhanced parental leave schemes to better support parents and, particularly fathers, in playing a bigger role in raising their children. In 2017, we made the second week of Paternity Leave mandatory and increased Shared Parental Leave from one to four weeks. Fathers can now take up to eight weeks of leave in total in their child's first year, to bond with their newborns and care for their wives. However, supporting the caregiving needs of parents must be balanced with the manpower and operational needs of employers, as I had explained in my Committee of Supply (COS) speech last week. A more sustainable approach is for companies to develop a family-friendly culture. We are heartened that some companies in Singapore are leaning forward to offer additional paternity leave, on top of legislated provisions. There are also other ways to provide more flexible leave options for staff; many companies have signed up to the Tripartite Standards on Unpaid Leave for Unexpected Care Needs. We welcome these progressive companies to share their experiences and best practices with other companies. As the needs of companies vary, employers, in partnership with their employees, are best placed to assess and implement the family-friendly arrangements suited to the company's context. We will continue to work with tripartite partners to review the scope for more parental leave provisions and build a Singapore that is Made For Families.”
“Mr Chairman, I thank Mr Leong Mun Wai's faith in my abilities. But I do not usually carry all the figures of all published Government data in my head. So, if Mr Leong Mun Wai is saying that there is a figure which is out there and it is published, and it is published by a Government agency, then I would have to assume that it is correct. It is just that if I do not have the figure with me at the moment and if it is MAS – because he must remember that I am with MOF – I would like to check before I give any confirmations. If he has an issue with the figure, he should let us know what the problem is as well. So, in short, he is asking about a figure. If it is published and it is a published figure from the Government, he can take it that that is the figure.”
“Right. Well, that would happen once every 99 years. So, we have not quite reached that stage yet and it might be a little premature to address that question. The expected rate of GST in 2030. Well, we really do not know at this point of time. Right now, we have just gone through one exercise of raising the GST by two percentage points in 2023 and 2024. Obviously, we will try to make that last as long as we possibly can with the revenues that we have. And I think the last question was, what would be the tax rate increase? I do not have that figure with me at the moment. Perhaps if the Member just files a PQ on that, I will get back to her.”
“Do you mean the land for HDB development?”
“Sorry, the last question was whether land will be repeatedly sold to whom?”
“Mr Chairman, if it is something that is already publicly available, then I do not need to confirm it. But if it is something that he wishes confirmation on, then I will have to check it, because if I were to give confirmation on anything, I would like to be sure that it is actually correct. So, if the Member would just let me have that, drop me a note or he could file a Parliamentary Question (PQ), we will see how best to address it. On the other point about the expenditures, we will look and see how we can present this in a manner that is useful. I say this because I do not want to leave the Member with an impression that MOF will always be collating and organising information at individual Member's request because that is very difficult to do. But we do understand that the public wants to understand how certain figures and expenditures are dealt with and we will see how we can do that in a meaningful way.”
“I thank the Member for his clarification, I would not want him to think I was giving him the same old answer every time. As far as low-income workers and employees are concerned, they, too, are on our radar. They are parents, just like others, and we would want to make sure that they have sufficient time to look after their children. So, let us study this together with MOM. Whatever we do must be something that is practical and feasible, given the nature of their work. Because, very often, they do have to be there, physically present. And then the question is whether or not the employer has got other people to cover for them if they take time off. So, I think what the Member can take away today is that they are on our radar and, just like any other parent, we would want them to have sufficient time with their children.”
“sg initiative provides employers with tools and resources to identify workplace integration gaps and implement team-bonding programmes and Corporate Social Responsibility activities. Another example is how we worked with Singaporeans as part of the Citizen’s Workgroup for the Singapore Citizenship Journey (SC Journey) to explore, discuss and create content to update the SC Journey for our new citizens. The SC Journey will include the co-created content for newcomers to better learn and appreciate aspects of life in Singapore. Ultimately, we recognise that integration may take some time. We must cherish the unity in diversity that Singapore has, which has helped everyone to rally together. We will press on to build a more inclusive and brighter future for Singaporeans. With many Singaporeans still aspiring to start and raise families, we will continue to build a Singapore that is Made For Families. We will also continue to review our population strategies to ensure that they remain relevant to our needs. Together, we will build a more resilient population and keep Singaporeans fully at the heart of our population strategies.”
“To generate the quality and range of jobs to meet Singaporeans’ aspirations, we need a diverse pool of foreign manpower to complement our local workforce. We must remain open towards complementary talent from overseas who bring valuable skills, networks and expertise. They can contribute to the development of emerging sectors where we need more time to grow local capabilities. As our economic needs evolve, we must ensure the right balance and complementarity between local and foreign manpower. Minister Tan See Leng will be providing more details during MOM’s COS. We have people from all over the world joining us. Many of them contribute to Singapore and some have come to regard Singapore as their home, adding to our diversity. We are proud of our diversity in Singapore, which is bound by a strong sense of community. In many other societies, COVID-19 has further widened social and economic divides. We have also seen greater occurrences of xenophobic sentiments and behaviours around the world. As Ms Foo Mee Har has emphasised, we must guard against such sentiments and continue to strengthen our ties with one another. This is especially important for Singapore as a multi-cultural society. Let me touch on how we are strengthening social integration and cohesion in Singapore. Fostering social integration and cohesion requires a whole-of-society effort. As individuals, each of us has a part to play. Let us be inclusive, patient and help newcomers to adapt to local norms. Similarly, foreigners here should make the effort to adapt and integrate over time. We have also worked with partners on initiatives to help foreigners settle in and understand local norms and culture. For example, MOM’s OneWorkplace.”
“To moderate the impact of low birth rates and ageing, we take in a carefully controlled number of new citizens and Permanent Residents each year. We are selective about who we grant Permanent Residency (PR) and, subsequently, citizenship to. Many of our new immigrants share family ties with Singaporeans while others have studied, worked or lived here for some time. In 2021, we granted about 21,500 new citizenships, including about 1,200 citizenships to children born overseas to Singaporean parents. We also granted about 33,400 new PRs. These numbers are similar to pre-COVID-19 levels and higher, when compared to 2020, due to the easing of travel restrictions and safe management measures, which previously slowed down in-person processes for the grant of citizenship or PR. During last year’s Committee of Supply (COS), I said that a few thousand applicants who were approved in-principle in 2020 had not completed all the required processes to be granted PR or citizenship. These applicants were, subsequently, granted PR or citizenship, adding to the numbers granted in 2021. Nonetheless, the total number of Singapore Citizenships (SCs) granted in 2021 remains slightly lower than pre-COVID-19 levels, as those granted SCs must first renounce their foreign citizenship. In some cases, this continues to take longer than usual due to COVID-19 related measures. We will continue to ensure that our immigration policy remains relevant to our needs and keeps the pace of immigration measured and stable. Our third strategy is to remain fully committed to supporting Singaporeans to seize new opportunities at various stages of their careers. At the same time, we do not have sufficient local manpower to meet the needs of businesses.”
“WFH is only one type of FWAs. Not all job types are suitable for WFH, but all job types can accommodate some form of FWA, depending on the nature of the job. Other forms of FWAs include flexi-time and flexi-load arrangements. Every organisation, big or small, can consider adopting the FWAs that best suit their employees' needs and their business operations. An example is Singtel. Pre-pandemic, Singtel already provided their employees FWA options, such as telecommuting, flexi-time and part-time work. Singtel also offers "Flexi Family Leave" – five days of leave for birthdays, childcare, adoption and family emergencies. With new work practices thrust upon us by the pandemic, we now have a window of opportunity to make FWAs a norm. We will be working with employers to do so, and more will be shared in the White Paper on Singapore Women's Development which will be tabled in Parliament later this year. We, ultimately, require the partnership of the wider community to build a Singapore that is Made For Families. We launched the Made For Families brand mark in June 2020 to assure families of support from the Government and community. To date, more than 90 businesses, organisations and community groups have adopted it and we hope more will take action and join us. Together, we will support and celebrate all families at every stage of their journey. Minister Masagos Zulkifli will share more details on our plans for the year ahead. 5.00 pm Next, I will touch on moderating the impact of low birth rates and ageing through selective immigration. I spoke about our low birth rates. At the same time, our population continues to age, which has implications for our workforce and society. This brings me to the second strategy.”
“Instead of legislating more childcare leave, the Government aims to lead by example and encourage employers to follow suit by exercising more flexibility and extending childcare leave where possible. This brings me to my broader point. To address the pressure of managing work and parenting commitments, we have to go beyond Government policies. We need to come together as a whole of society to build a more family-friendly Singapore for a more sustainable approach. As Ms Ng Ling Ling pointed out, a pro-family workplace culture is important. Around the world, the pandemic has prompted many to rethink where, how and why we work. The US has experienced the "Great Resignation" – a phenomenon in which scores of employees have quit their jobs as they rethink priorities and search for better working conditions or more fulfilling careers. While we have not had a "Great Resignation", there are clear indications that Singaporeans are paying more attention to whether employers support work-life balance. Recent surveys suggest that workers in Singapore value employers who enable them to manage both their career and family commitments. Ms Ng Ling Ling said that mindsets must change, I agree. Prof Hoon Hian Teck also filed a cut about work-from-home arrangements to bolster family life. Adopting flexible work arrangements and prioritising employee well-being are not only good for workers and, consequently, for families; in the post-pandemic world, these are going to be the key to firms' competitiveness, productivity and ability to recruit and retain talent. Let me say something about flexible work arrangements (FWAs). I want to emphasise that there is a distinction between FWAs and work-from-home (WFH). People often use these terms interchangeably, but they are not the same.”
“Lower-income working families pay as low as $3 a month at such preschools. By around 2025, eight in 10 preschoolers can have a place in a quality, affordable Government-supported preschool. The Government is currently reviewing our measures to improve the M&P journey. Mr Louis Ng suggested incentivising employers to increase usage of paternity leave, particularly among lower-income workers and providing childcare sick leave for all working parents. I fully agree that parents need more flexibility and time away from work to care for their children. Our research on the experiences of fathers' use of paternity leave shows that, across different types of jobs and companies, a key factor affecting the level of utilisation is workplace support. This includes whether supervisors are supportive of fathers taking leave and whether colleagues are willing to cover their duties. In some labour-intensive jobs, employers may be less willing to let fathers go on extended leave due to the challenge of finding covering arrangements. In such situations, employers could exercise more flexibility in fathers' utilisation of paternity leave, such as taking the leave in more than one period within their child's first year, to minimise disruptions to business operations. We will consider Mr Louis Ng's feedback, continue to review the scope for more parental leave provisions and work with employers to encourage their utilisation. However, supporting the caregiving needs of parents must be balanced with the manpower and operational needs of employers, particularly our Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SMEs), some of which may still be grappling with the effects of the pandemic.”
“We will also launch up to 23,000 new BTO flats per year in 2022 and 2023 as MND has indicated. Couples waiting for their BTO flats to be completed can rent a flat at highly subsidised rates under HDB's Parenthood Provisional Housing Scheme (PPHS). To better meet demand, HDB is ramping up the supply of PPHS flats with 800 additional units. With more people marrying later, fertility health will become more of an issue and must be taken seriously. In the Conversations, couples with fertility issues spoke about their challenges. We must continue to support and encourage them. This includes encouraging couples to understand and address potential fertility issues earlier, and workplaces to be more supportive. We will also introduce new funding support for certain types of Pre-implantation Genetic Testing for Singaporean couples to address the concerns that some couples have over genetically-transmitted diseases. We will share more details at a later time. To give every child a good start in life, we will continue to invest heavily in promoting good health and education from the early years. We will further support the physical, mental and cognitive well-being of children and their families. The Child and Maternal Health and Well-Being Taskforce is developing a five-year national strategy to address this. Minister Masagos Zulkifli will provide more details during MOH's COS. We are continuing to make quality preschools more affordable and accessible. Today, a working couple earning $8,000 per month pays $280 per month when they send their child for full-day childcare at an Anchor Operator preschool. This is 40% lower than the $470 per month they had to pay before preschool subsidies were enhanced in 2020.”
“From our 2021 M&P survey, eight in 10 young singles aspire to get married and have children, and over nine in 10 married Singaporeans want at least two children. Strong and stable families are the bedrock of our society. We are committed to fostering a supportive environment for them. We held the Emerging Stronger Conversations last year. Over 300 participants gave suggestions on how to better support families. In the Conversations, which Miss Cheng Li Hui had asked about in her cut, some young couples shared their concerns about having children during a pandemic. To reassure couples to proceed with their parenthood plans, we introduced the one-off Baby Support Grant. Parents of over 44,000 babies have received the grant. One such couple is Danial and Syaqilah, who got engaged, married and had their first child all within two years. They initially planned to have their first child only after moving into their Build-to-Order (BTO) flat. However, they decided to go ahead as there was no perfect time to have a baby. Baby Isa was born in August 2021 and they were glad that the Baby Support Grant helped with their transition into parenthood. Danial and Syaqilah showed us that COVID-19 need not discourage us from making important life plans. Other couples highlighted concerns about housing and the BTO pipeline, as many aspire to have their own home before they start families. Miss Cheng Li Hui filed a cut on how the Government can support such couples to access affordable housing, amidst disruptions due to COVID-19. We are pushing hard to complete our BTO projects as planned. For ongoing BTO projects, most flat buyers will be able to move into their new homes within four to five years after booking their flats, barring further unforeseen circumstances.”
“Mr Chairman, I thank Members for their cuts. Family is a key source of strength and support, especially in tough times. The pandemic has underscored this. As such, supporting Singaporeans who want to start and raise families remains the Government's top priority. I will speak about three Government strategies to build a more resilient population in Singapore. First, building a Singapore that is Made For Families. Second, moderating the impact of low birth rates and ageing through selective immigration. Third, strengthening our local workforce and complementing it with a foreign workforce, to grow opportunities for Singaporeans. First, we continue to support Singaporeans who wish to start and expand their families. Mr Gan Thiam Poh had filed a cut about our strategies to encourage Singaporeans to get married and have children, given our low Total Fertility Rate (TFR). The preliminary number of resident births in 2021 remained similar to 2020, at around 34,200. While this was 3% lower than in 2019 before COVID-19 struck, the fall was less than we had feared. Our TFR was 1.12 last year, a slight recovery from the historic low of 1.10 in 2020. But it remains lower than the pre-COVID-19 period. TFR is a measure of births per female of child-bearing age. While the number of births remained similar, the number of such females decreased over the same period, hence, TFR increased. Raising birth rates is key to tackling Singapore's long-term demographic challenges. At the same time, getting married and having children are personal decisions. We know that aspirations for Marriage and Parenthood (M&P) remain high. We will redouble our efforts to support Singaporeans who choose to get married and have children.”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, may I seek your consent and the general assent of Members present to move a Motion to take the proceedings on the business set down on the Order Paper for today beyond the moment of interruption?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, may I seek your consent to move, "That the debate be now adjourned."”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, may I seek your consent and the general assent of Members present to move a Motion to take the proceedings on the business set down on the Order Paper for today beyond the moment of interruption?”
“Mr Speaker, I beg to move, "That, notwithstanding Standing Order 91(2), a Ministerial Statement by the Minister for Foreign Affairs on 'The Situation in Ukraine and its Implications' be taken now." Mr Speaker, the Minister for Foreign Affairs Mr Vivian Balakrishnan wishes to make a Ministerial Statement on "The Situation in Ukraine and Its Implications". As Members know, this matter has arisen suddenly and escalated rapidly in the last few days. Ordinarily, the Budget debate takes precedence over other business. However, given that the Ministerial Statement seeks to update Members on the Singapore Government's position on the urgent situation in Ukraine, a serious security crisis which has implications for the international order, global economic outlook and also for our national economy, it would be good for Members to hear from the Minister for Foreign Affairs before the commencement of the Budget debate. [(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)] [(proc text) Resolved, that, notwithstanding Standing Order 91(2), the Ministerial Statement on The Situation in Ukraine and its Implications be taken now. (proc text)]”
“Mr Speaker, may I seek your consent and the general assent of Members present to move a Motion to allow a Ministerial Statement by the Minister for Foreign Affairs on "The Situation in Ukraine and its Implications" to be taken now.”
“I am just wondering. The Minister of State had earlier said that we have to deal with a range of things – espionage, for example. So, I was just wondering whether Ms Sylvia Lim was suggesting that she was engaged in espionage.”
“So, for the more egregious, serious transgressions – in this case, the findings that Mr Singh had lied and that Mr Faisal Manap had prevaricated, refused to identify documents, refused to answer questions – the recommendation is that those be referred to the Public Prosecutor.”
“So, for the more egregious, serious transgressions – in this case, the findings that Mr Singh had lied and that Mr Faisal Manap had prevaricated, refused to give documents, refused to answer questions – the recommendation is that those be referred to the Public Prosecutor. [Please refer to "Committee of Privileges Report (Recommendations in respect of Ms Raeesah Khan) and Committee of Privileges Report (Recommendations in respect of Mr Pritam Singh, Mr Faisal Manap and Ms Sylvia Lim)", Official Report, 15 February 2022, Vol 95, Issue No 48, Motions section.] [(proc text) Written statement by Ms Indranee Rajah circulated with leave of the Speaker in accordance with Standing Order No 29(5): (proc text)] In my reply speech on the Two Motions, I said that arising from the finding that Mr Faisal Manap had (inter alia) refused to give documents, the Committee’s recommendation was for that to be referred to the Public Prosecutor. I wish to make a factual correction, that the relevant finding was that Mr Faisal Manap had (inter alia) refused to identify documents. My speech should, therefore, read as follows:”
“That was dealt with at paragraphs 85 to 86 of the Schedule to the Report. The way the Committee dealt with it was, they said that those questions were quite telling. If Mr Singh had been very clear on 3 October, then Mr Singh would be saying, "I told you to tell the truth and you did not. You went against my instructions on telling the truth to Parliament. That was a serious breach of party discipline." He would not be saying, as he did, "I have told you that it was your call. Why it did not occur to you to tell the truth" and "can't lie, right?" (c) Statement in reply speech [(proc text) The following statement was made in the reply speech given by the Minister, Prime Minister’s Office and Leader of the House during the simultaneous debate for the Two Motions at the Sitting of 15 February 2022: (proc text)]”
“That was dealt with at paragraph 55 of the Report. The way the Committee dealt with it was, they said that those questions were quite telling. If Mr Singh had been very clear on 3 October, then Mr Singh would be saying, "I told you to tell the truth and you did not. You went against my instructions in telling the truth to Parliament. That was a serious breach of party discipline." He would not be saying, as he did, "I have told you that it was your call. Why it did not occur to you to tell the truth" and "can't lie, right?" [Please refer to "Committee of Privileges Report (Recommendations in respect of Ms Raeesah Khan) and Committee of Privileges Report (Recommendations in respect of Mr Pritam Singh, Mr Faisal Manap and Ms Sylvia Lim)", Official Report, 15 February 2022, Vol 95, Issue No 48, Motions section.] [(proc text) Written statement by Ms Indranee Rajah circulated with leave of the Speaker in accordance with Standing Order No 29(5): (proc text)] In my reply speech on the Two Motions, I said that, at paragraph 55 of the Report, the Committee had stated that the questions posed by Mr Singh to Ms Khan were quite telling, because if Mr Singh had been very clear on 3 October, then Mr Singh would be saying "I told you to tell the truth and you did not. You went against my instructions in telling the truth to Parliament. ..." I wish to make a factual clarification, that the Committee dealt with this issue at paragraphs 85-86 of the Schedule to the Report, and that Mr Singh would be saying “… You went against my instructions on telling the truth to Parliament”. My speech should, therefore, read as follows:”
“Ms Lim admitted, in the context of whether it would have been possible on 4 October to have Ms Khan clarify the truth the next day on 5 October, that this was not possible because time was needed to carefully structure Ms Khan’s clarification and to make the necessary preparations. (b) Statement in reply speech [(proc text) The following statements were made in the reply speech given by the Minister, Prime Minister’s Office and Leader of the House during the simultaneous debate for the Two Motions at the Sitting of 15 February 2022: (proc text)]”
“Ms Lim admitted, in the context of whether it would have been possible on 4 October to have Ms Lim clarify the truth the next day on 5 October, that this was not possible because time was needed to carefully structure Ms Khan’s clarification and to make the necessary preparations. [Please refer to "Committee of Privileges Report (Recommendations in respect of Ms Raeesah Khan) and Committee of Privileges Report (Recommendations in respect of Mr Pritam Singh, Mr Faisal Manap and Ms Sylvia Lim)", Official Report, 15 February 2022, Vol 95, Issue No 48, Motions section.] [(proc text) Written statement by Ms Indranee Rajah circulated with leave of the Speaker in accordance with Standing Order No 29(5): (proc text)] In my opening speech on the Two Motions, I referred to a context of whether it would have been possible on 4 October to have Ms Lim clarify the truth the next day on 5 October. I wish to make a factual correction, as I was referring to the context of whether it would have been possible on 4 October to have Ms Khan clarify the truth the next day on 5 October. My speech should, therefore, read as follows:”
“Mr Speaker, I beg to move that notwithstanding the Standing Orders, the question on the Second Motion in respect of the "Committee of Privileges Report (Recommendations in respect of Mr Pritam Singh, Mr Faisal Manap and Ms Sylvia Lim)", be put and voted in two parts: that the first question be put upon paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Motion and that the second question be put upon paragraph 3 of the Motion. [(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)] [(proc text) Resolved, (proc text)] [(proc text) That on the Second Motion in respect of the "Committee of Privileges Report (Recommendations in respect of Mr Pritam Singh, Mr Faisal Manap and Ms Sylvia Lim)", be put and voted in two parts, that the first question be put upon paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Motion and that the second question be put upon paragraph 3 of the Motion. (proc text)] 7.40 pm”
“Let me just make sure that I understand Dr Janil Puthucheary correctly. Yes. Mr Speaker, may I seek your consent and the general assent of Members present to move that the question on the Second Motion in respect of the "Committee of Privileges Report (Recommendations in respect of Mr Pritam Singh, Mr Faisal Manap and Ms Sylvia Lim)", be put and voted in two parts: that the first question be put upon paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Motion and that the second question be put upon paragraph 3 of the Motion. [(proc text) Hon Members indicated assent. (proc text)]”
“Sir, I think what Dr Janil Puthucheary is asking me to do is to also move to allow the Second Motion to have split votes, the reason being that there may be other Members in the House who may not wish to vote it in its entirety. So, if you will permit, I will then move a Motion now to seek that the Second Motion be allowed to be voted in a split manner as well.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would not be seeking to lift the Standing Orders in respect of the Second Motion since Mr Singh has said that they would not be agreeing to any part of it, with the important caveat that they have put on record that he and Mr Faisal Manap are prepared to be referred to the Public Prosecutor to clear their names.”
“Mr Speaker, I beg to move, that notwithstanding the Standing Orders, the question on the First Motion in respect of the "Committee of Privileges' Report (Recommendations in respect of Ms Raeesah Khan)", be put and voted in two parts, that the first question be put upon paragraphs 1 and 2(a)-(b) of the Motion, and that the second question be put upon paragraph 2(c) of the Motion. [(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)] [(proc text) Resolved, (proc text)] [(proc text) That on the First Motion in respect of the "Committee of Privileges Report (Recommendations in respect of Ms Raeesah Khan)", be put and voted in two parts, that the first question be put upon paragraphs 1 and 2(a)-(b) of the Motion, and that the second question be put upon paragraph 2(c) of the Motion. (proc text)]”
“I would have to ask for the procedural note. Would the Clerks have a copy of the procedural note for this? Just give me a moment, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, may I seek your consent and the general assent of Members present to move that the question on the First Motion in respect of the "Committee of Privileges Report (Recommendations in respect of Ms Raeesah Khan)", be put and voted in two parts, that the first question to be put upon paragraphs 1 and 2(a)-(b) of the Motion; and that the second question to be put upon paragraph 2(c) of the Motion. [(proc text) Hon Members indicated assent. (proc text)]”
“Okay. I am not going to ask you anything else, so you may sit down. Normally, when you vote for a Motion, you vote for the Motion in its entirety. So, if there are three things in the Motion and you agree with two, but not one, normally, you would vote against the entire thing, right? But there is a way to allow us to vote for 2(a) and 2(b), and remove 2(c) which is voted on separately, if we lift the Standing Orders. And what I will do, with the Speaker's permission, is to ask to lift the Standing Orders in respect of the First Motion, to allow the votes for 2(a) and 2(b) to be taken, and then for 2(c) to be taken separately, which will then record that the first two were unanimously passed, and the third one was rejected by the WP.”
“So, I am just confirming that paragraphs 2(a) and 2(b) you agree with, and paragraph 2(c) you do not agree with.”
“Okay. So, it is really only in respect of the $10,000 fine.”
“Okay. And you have no objection to paragraph 2(b)?”
“Okay. Then, paragraph 2, you would have no objection to paragraph 2(a), that is the resolution that resolves that Ms Raeesah Khan is guilty of abuse of privileges of Parliament?”
“If you look at the First Motion, the first resolution of the First Motion is to take note of the special reports. It is actually not a resolution, just to take note of the special reports. So, you do not have a problem with taking note of the special reports, right?”
“I understand. And for the first one, they would be prepared to vote in favour of the first paragraph, that is, taking note of the special reports. That is alright?”
“I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his clarifications. Just to be sure that I have this correct. So, for the Second Motion, the Leader of the Opposition and WP will be voting against it in its entirety, is that correct?”
“The only thing I wanted to check with Mr Singh was this. Because I had understood, when he spoke just now, that there are some things that the Workers' Party or he agrees to. One is the finding against Ms Raeesah Khan for abuse of privilege. I think that is not disputed. The second thing is that of the fine in respect of the untruths told on 3 August (twice). That, I think, is not disputed and they agree with that. What they do not agree with is the fine for the third time that she lied, the $10,000, because implicit in that was that she was acting on their guidance. So, they do not agree with that and they do not want to vote on that. What I am asking Mr Singh is whether he can clarify that they would be prepared to vote in favour of the first two parts of the First Motion, but not in favour of the last part, which imposes the $10,000 fine. And then, in respect of the Second Motion, because I had heard him say that he wishes to clear his name and that he will go before and cooperate with the PP, I am asking: is Mr Singh prepared to agree to the part of the Motion which says that he and Mr Faisal Manap be referred to the PP? I can understand that they do not want to vote on the other parts of the Motion. So, perhaps, if Mr Singh could clarify that part and then we can think about how we can deal with the votes on the two Motions.”
“So, he is actually objecting. And so, you could ride roughshod, you could steam roll, but that is not the right thing to do either. Because just like Ms Raeesah Khan was inquired into, somebody has to inquire into this. And there are only two ways. One is, you set up another Committee of Privileges. And the COP has said they do not think it is going to get very far because they have pretty much heard what there is to hear. And if you go back, you are going to have the same thing and, not only that, there are probably going to be aspersions cast on the new Committee of Privileges. So, for the more egregious, serious transgressions – in this case, the findings that Mr Singh had lied and that Mr Faisal Manap had prevaricated, refused to give documents, refused to answer questions – the recommendation is that those be referred to the Public Prosecutor. [Please refer to "Clarifications by Minister, Prime Minister's Office and Leader of the House", 15 February 2022, Vol 95, Issue No 48, Corrections by Written Statement section.] And the other things, for example, that Ms Lim lied, that Mr Faisal Manap lied, those we hold back until the PP has decided what to do. So, whatever it is, we cannot run away from the fact that we have before us a Report. The Report has highlighted things that we cannot ignore and we have to make a decision. And referring Mr Singh and Mr Faisal Manap to the PP is the fairest thing to do because, if they maintain their innocence, they will have a chance to vindicate themselves. They will be entitled to legal counsel, legal representation and it will go before the Courts who are independent and they need not fear that there is any political interference. So, I think, Mr Speaker, I have dealt with the various things that have been raised.”
“You see, under the Standing Orders and the way the procedure goes, when a complaint arises and it comes to Parliament's attention, Parliament has to deal with it somehow. You cannot ignore it, right? So, in this case, once Ms Khan came to Parliament and admitted that she had lied, it had to be looked into. I referred it to the Committee of Privileges. The Committee of Privileges was inquiring into the complaint about her. But in the course of that, these things came up and it became clear to the Committee of Privileges that there is a problem. Because they think that the three senior WP leaders were lying and had guided her to not tell the truth in Parliament, until there was no other choice. What is the Committee of Privileges supposed to do? Pretend it did not happen? Ignore it? It cannot do that. It was not set up to look into the three WP leaders. That part is correct. But if you are then seized with information, or it comes to your attention, that the three WP leaders have done something wrong, the Committee of Privileges has a duty to come back to Parliament and tell us, which they have done in the Report. And we here, in this Chamber, now have a duty to consider it and to do something about it. There are only three things we can do. One, we can just say, "I am not going to look at it. I do not want to discuss it. I do not want to deal with it." And that would be wrong. It would be wrong for all the reasons that the Prime Minister has said. It would be wrong because it would be an abdication of our responsibility. And it would be wrong because it is a rejection of our values. The second thing we can do is to say, "Okay. Let us punish them straightaway." But then, Mr Singh is saying that he denies this. He is saying that they did not do these things.”
“And it only came about after the Police had already put in their request for an interview and it became clear that this issue was not going to go away. The other is this very puzzling thing about why there was no direct instruction to tell the truth. Because after all this evidence – and this is not disputed – there was no clear instruction from Mr Singh, or anybody else, to say, "Raeesah, please go back to Parliament and tell them the truth." Instead, there is this parsing of words, this "take ownership", "take responsibility", "I will not judge you". I mean, how difficult is it to just say, "Raeesah, tell the truth"? How difficult is it to do that? Not very. Anybody should know how you can do that. So, this business of asking Ms Khan, being worried about her telling her parents, or have the parents found out, if that was so, how come nobody asked her whether she had told her parents? Why was no effort made to find out if she had cleared that, so that she could come back to Parliament and tell the truth? And why was their own party not told about it? How do you have a Disciplinary Panel that is set up to sit in judgement upon somebody, to judge her for something where, in fact, she has already told you – you know what she has done from months back? But you are sitting there, in judgement on her. I mean, these are questions that have not been answered, and these are pertinent questions. So, that leaves us with a situation where we have to decide what to do. And as I wrap, let me just wrap where Mr Singh began when he said, "Who did this House commit to the Committee of Privileges – Raeesah Khan or the WP leadership?" Now, that is somewhat misleading.”
“The answer is that the length of time that it takes to do an inquiry or to question somebody, really depends on the answers that they give. I have done cross-examination in Court myself. The witnesses who give you the answers in a straightforward and straight manner, actually go off very quickly. The ones who do not give a straight answer, the ones who you really have to extract the information from, those take a long time. In this case, Ms Lim’s evidence was relatively short, because the answers that she gave were to the point. Then, I should also say that she questioned how come there was no legal representation on the Committee of Privileges for the people who appeared before it. Well, the default position is that, for the Committee of Privileges, generally speaking, they do the questioning. But by special application, where it is necessary, if there is good reason for it, witnesses can apply to bring outside counsel. But I think the more important point to remember here is that Mr Singh is a lawyer. And so is Ms Lim. I do not think they really needed external counsel to be able to answer the questions that were put to them, which were not particularly difficult – well within their ability to understand and respond to. So, now, I come to the point about what these speeches did not address. The speeches did not address the core findings of the Committee of Privileges, which was: why did it take so long to have the truth told to Parliament? You would think that from the time that it is disclosed to them, the first reaction should be: "Oh, no, this is terrible. We better go back and clarify". But no, this matter dragged on for one month, two months, three months.”
“The composition of the COP is dealt with in the Standing Orders of Parliament, in Standing Order 100(7), sub-paragraph (a)(i), "There shall be a Committee to be known as the Committee of Privileges to consist of the Speaker as Chairman and seven members to be nominated by the Committee of Selection as soon as may be after its appointment, in such manner as shall ensure that, so far as it is possible, the balance between the Government benches and the Opposition benches in Parliament is reflected in the Committee". In other words, what the Standing Orders seek to do, is to make sure that the Select Committee, which is a standing Select Committee, reflects the same balance that is here in Parliament. And Mr Singh has spoken many times about why do we not have more Select Committees, and about the supremacy of Parliament. So, all of these are in the rules which have been there for a long time. And these rules, they have been revised from time to time. And if I recall correctly, I believe Mr Low Thia Khiang was on the Committee for the revision of the rules at one stage. They have always had an Opposition Member. And nobody has complained about the composition of the Committee. And, in fact, when we had to determine who would be the Opposition representative on the Committee of Privileges, Mr Dennis Tan was nominated by Mr Singh and he certainly did not complain at that time, or say that he should have more Opposition Members. So, it just really rather does sound as though, if you do not like the outcome of the Committee of Privileges, then you complain about how it is composed, when it was never an issue before. Then, I think Ms Lim talked about the length of the proceedings, why was it necessary to question Mr Singh for so long.”
“So, it is not as though the Committee did not consider the things that Ms Lim said just now. The other thing is Ms Lim said much about the fact that the notes did not just refer to the words "It was your call". The notes also had the phrase "Did the need to tell the truth occur to you", "can't lie, right?" And she suggested that those notes were really in favour of Mr Singh. That was dealt with at paragraph 55 of the Report. [Please refer to "Clarifications by Minister, Prime Minister's Office and Leader of the House", 15 February 2022, Vol 95, Issue No 48, Corrections by Written Statement section.] The way the Committee dealt with it was, they said that those questions were quite telling. If Mr Singh had been very clear on 3 October, then Mr Singh would be saying, "I told you to tell the truth and you did not. You went against my instructions in telling the truth to Parliament. That was a serious breach of party discipline." He would not be saying as he did, "I have told you that it was your call. Why it did not occur to you to tell the truth" and "can't lie, right?" So, in short, the points that Ms Lim talked about just now were something that the Committee considered, and it is in the Report. Then, the next strategy is really to cast some aspersions on the COP itself and to suggest that, somehow, there is something wrong with the composition of the COP.”
“I mean, there was so much evidence, you cannot possibly be referring to every single piece. But what is clear is that the Committee took into account and considered all relevant documents. So, the essence of the allegation by Mr Singh is that the Committee had cherry-picked the evidence. Well, Mr Singh is a lawyer. I am a lawyer. He knows that evidence that is given is considered by a tribunal. Relevant evidence is referred to. Not all evidence that is put in is relevant. And when you write your final report, you refer to relevant evidence. Tribunals, and in this case the COP, do not necessarily have to put in everything that was submitted, but they did include a lot of documents – the Report does include many documents submitted by Mr Singh, Ms Lim and Mr Faisal Manap. If he feels that something is relevant and was not taken into account, he will have the opportunity to refer to it, if this matter goes to Court. But then, what is important is that, at this point of time, we should not try to give the impression that the COP purposely left out certain things or cherry-picked evidence. I come now to Ms Lim's speech just now. I think she made reference to the notes that she took during the Disciplinary Panel proceedings. And obviously, because that piece of paper, those notes were very damaging to Mr Singh, she sought to explain it, to put her interpretation on it and to suggest that this was not really taken into account by the COP. That is not actually accurate. I think at paragraph 51 of the Report, the Report expressly quoted her as saying that her notes had to be taken in totality to understand it. It said that Ms Lim said she did not know the context in which Mr Singh used the phrase and essentially the Committee noted her position.”