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 20 of 51.
“That was something she did of her own accord. She admits it; it is not in dispute. The big question was why it was done on 4 October. And reams and reams of paper have been directed at precisely that question. So, I do not think one can say that the Committee of Privileges did not want to get to the bottom of why she lied. The next thing Mr Singh said was the fact that she had concocted the lie was not balanced against her evidence to the COP. What that allegation really is is this. The allegation is that she has lied before, she must be lying again. In Courts which deal with this, it is known as the similar fact evidence rule. Just because somebody has done something once, does not necessarily mean that they are guilty of the same thing again. If you want to get to the bottom of something, if you want to get to the truth of something, you always have to look at each instance by itself and weigh it objectively. And that is exactly what the Committee of Privileges did. The next thing Mr Singh said was that what took centre stage was the uncorroborated testimony that she was instructed to lie. I spent a great deal of time in my opening speech listing out what exactly the factors were that the Committee of Privileges took into account, in terms of corroborative testimony, contemporaneous evidence, written documents, the evidence of other witnesses, and whether or not something made sense. So, I do not think that that is a fair accusation to level against the Committee of Privileges. The next thing he mentioned was the selective nature of the COP Report. It did not mention certain documents, he said. But then, as we can see, when he made reference to certain WhatsApp messages, Minister Desmond Lee read out other WhatsApp messages.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, I had listened to the speeches of Mr Pritam Singh, Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Faisal Manap. They have raised a number of points, but the points do not really address the core of this matter. They do not address the key findings of the Committee of Privileges. So, I can understand, tactically and strategically, why you do that, because you have got this big uncomfortable report that says these really strong statements. So, it is probably, as a strategy, a good idea not to deal with those head-on, but to pick small little things here and there, and to hope that other people will look at that. But since that is how it has been presented to this House, let me address all those small little points first, before I come back to the key issue. The first thing Mr Singh had said is that it has been something like 25 years since we have had to have proceedings before the Committee of Privileges. Yes, indeed. And it is a very shameful thing that we had to have a Committee of Privileges for something like this. For so many years, we were able to do without it. But now, after we have the office of the Leader of Opposition, we have Workers' Party coming in, and then, we have to deal with this. So, yes, it has been some time. But I suppose when these things happen, they serve as a good reminder to all of us about the values that we uphold and the things that we need to do. And in some ways, this process has been educational. The second thing Mr Singh said was that the COP did not appear to want to get to the bottom of why Ms Khan lied in Parliament. Actually, there are hundreds of pages in the COP Report that are all directed to why did she lie on 4 October. The first part, we know, was off her own bat. It is undisputed.”
“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 48(8) to remove the time limit in respect of the Prime Minister's speech?”
“(b) Dishonourable conduct and contempt of Parliament on the part of Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Faisal Manap for lying about the 8 August meeting and for their initial concurrence in the guidance to maintain the lie by agreeing that it should be taken to the grave. Likewise, the Committee has recommended that any decision on this be deferred until the outcome of the referral of Mr Singh's conduct to the PP. This is dealt with in paragraphs 3(i) to (ii) of the Second Motion. In conclusion, the conduct of Mr Singh and Mr Faisal Manap will be considered by the PP under the criminal justice process. Parliament will only consider the remaining issues (if any) after the criminal justice process has taken its course, by which time we will have the benefit of what emerges from that process. This is the fairest way forward for all. Mr Speaker, the recommendations made by the Committee are sound and balanced, given the circumstances. I would ask Members to accept them and to support the Motions, as I do, so as to uphold public trust in Parliament and in our democracy. Mr Speaker, I beg to move. 4.11 pm”
“The lies would have determined the fate of another MP who was being looked at before the Committee of Privileges. And that is a different order of seriousness altogether. That is a Part 5 offence under the PPIPA, and that is the reason why the Committee had recommended referring Mr Singh to the PP. (b) The other thing is that it would mean Ms Khan was following his guidance when she lied on 4 October. And that is also very serious. (c) So, given the seriousness of the matter, it would be the fairest course of action to all concerned to refer it to the PP. The PP will have the opportunity to consider all evidence afresh, including new evidence, in deciding whether or not to prefer criminal charges against Mr Pritam Singh. It would also give Mr Singh the opportunity to defend and vindicate himself, with legal counsel, if criminal charges are brought. (d) Fourth, the matter would be adjudicated by the Courts which are independent. In the case of Mr Faisal Manap, his refusal to produce documents or answer questions can also amount to an offence under the PPIPA, and that is the Part 5 offence, so the Committee has recommended that he also be referred to the PP. This is addressed in paragraph 2 of the Second Motion. Apart from the offences to be referred to the PP, there remain the following potential offences under the PPIPA that need to be dealt with by Parliament: (a) Dishonourable conduct and contempt of Parliament on the part of Mr Pritam Singh, for lying to the Committee, and for his role in guiding Ms Khan to lie to Parliament. The Committee has recommended that Parliament defer any action on this until the criminal proceedings (if any) are completed. This is dealt with in para 3(i) of the Second Motion.”
“But there is also a certain category of offences which could be dishonourable conduct or you could classify them as contempt, but they are very specific under Part 5 of the PPIPA. These include lying to a Committee in Parliament and refusing to answer questions as well as refusing to produce documents. There are other offences listed in Part 5. These are a special category. What is common about them and why they are also regarded as serious, is that they, essentially, pervert, obstruct or prevent the processes of Parliament. For the Part 5 offences, Parliament has the power to refer these to the PP. The PPIPA does not provide for other offences to be referred to the PP. It has to be under Part 5. And you could have an offence, which is a Part 5 offence, but which Parliament may choose not to refer, if it does not think it is that serious. So, in this case, the Committee found that all three lied, but it is only recommending to refer Mr Singh to the PP, not Ms Sylvia Lim, not Mr Faisal Manap because their roles were subsidiary and their lies were not as egregious. Then you may ask, so what is the difference between Mr Pritam Singh's lie and Ms Khan's? The seriousness of the conduct on the part of Mr Singh is this: (a) Ms Khan lied to Parliament, and that was bad enough. But Mr Singh on the other hand, if what the Committee found is correct, not only lied but lied under oath. And not only that, but this was in proceedings before a Select Committee of Parliament conducting a formal inquiry and tasked with finding out the truth. Then, there is the question of the consequences of a lie in this context – because it would, if believed, have had a bearing on the punishment to be meted out to Ms Khan.”
“To assist Parliament in this task, the Committee has made the following recommendations for our consideration: (a) that while Parliament has the option to refer the three senior Workers' Party leaders to another Committee of Privileges, it is unlikely that another Committee would make much progress in terms of uncovering more evidence; and (b) that a distinction should be drawn between the conduct of Mr Singh on the one hand, and Ms Lim and Mr Faisal Manap on the other, given their different roles and conduct. The Committee noted Ms Lim's and Mr Faisal Manap's roles were "relatively subsidiary", while Mr Singh appeared to have played "the key and leading role in guiding Ms Khan in respect of the Untruth". The Committee has therefore recommended that Parliament refer Mr Singh's conduct to the Public Prosecutor (PP), with a view to considering whether to institute criminal proceedings. This is addressed in paragraph 2 of the Second Motion. Mr Speaker, some may wonder why Mr Singh and Mr Faisal Manap should be referred to the PP and why this cannot be dealt with "in-house" by Parliament. Others may also wonder why it is the case that, for Ms Khan, who lied to Parliament, a fine is proposed whereas in the case of Mr Singh, who also lied, but to a Committee of Parliament, he should be referred to the Public Prosecutor (PP) instead of just being fined like Ms Khan. These are important questions and I want to address them. Let me just explain a little bit about the PPIPA and how it works. Under the PPIPA, there are what, I would term, and this is my term, general offences: offences of dishonourable conduct, abuse of privilege and contempt. These, Parliament can and often would deal with itself.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I turn now to the recommendations regarding Mr Pritam Singh, Mr Faisal Manap and Ms Sylvia Lim. Based on the objective evidence before the Committee, the Committee made these findings: (a) that all three senior Workers' Party leaders have lied to the Committee as to what was discussed at the 8 August meeting, and that they guided Ms Khan to maintain the Untruth she had told; (b) that Mr Singh lied about what had happened at the 3 October meeting and essentially gave Ms Khan to understand that it would be all right to maintain the Untruth if the matter came up in Parliament the next day. In addition, Mr Faisal Manap refused to answer a question from the Committee at least eight times, despite being reminded that he had been called before the Committee to assist with its investigations, and that his refusal would amount to an offence and constitute a contempt of Parliament. The Committee considered that Mr Singh and Mr Faisal Manap's conduct could constitute contempt of Parliament and offences under Part 5 of the PPIPA. As the Committee was convened to look into the complaint against Ms Khan, the Committee noted that it was beyond its purview to recommend any penalty in respect of the three senior Workers' Party leaders for their conduct which arose in the course of the inquiry. Parliament, however, has the power to consider what should be done and take the appropriate action.”
“The Committee found that if Mr Singh had, indeed, told Ms Khan on 3 October to tell the truth, then after she lied again on 4 October, which would have been a breach of that instruction, she would not be thanking them for guiding her without judgement. Here, the operative word is "guiding". Implicit in her email is that she had followed their guidance until then. The Committee found that by telling Ms Khan on 3 October that "there would be no judgement", Mr Singh had left her with the view that if she were to continue with the Untruth, there would be no judgement on her. The Committee further found that taken together, the events of the 8 August and 3 October meetings would essentially point Ms Khan in one direction, which is, to keep to the Untruth if the issue was raised, with the assurance that Mr Singh would not judge her if she did so. The Committee therefore found that Ms Khan’s culpability in respect of her repetition of the Untruth on 4 October was mitigated by the following: (a) the fact that she was a first-time MP who confessed to and sought guidance from her Party leaders as to what to do; (b) regrettably, the guidance they gave, and which she followed, was to maintain the lie; and (c) her conduct and evidence showed that she would have come clean, if she had been advised to do so from 8 August. The Committee also took into account that Ms Khan's mental health had been "unfairly and publicly attacked, in particular, by Mr Singh", and that Ms Khan had resigned as a Member of Parliament. The Committee has, therefore, recommended a lower fine of $10,000 in respect of the repetition of the Untruth on 4 October 2021. This is dealt with in paragraph 2(c) of the First Motion.”
“So, you would expect that in such a situation, he would immediately have demanded an explanation. Yet Mr Singh did not speak to Ms Khan for the rest of the day, until close to midnight. And even then, there was no instruction to clarify the truth the following day on 5 October when Parliament was still sitting. (g) Mr Singh told Ms Khan that he would not “judge her”. This makes no sense if he had told Ms Khan to tell the truth, as there would be nothing to judge. However, it makes a lot of sense if he had told or encouraged her to continue the lie. (h) Ms Loh Pei Ying’s and Mr Yudhishthra Nathan’s evidence contradict what Mr Singh said. On 12 October, Mr Singh told Ms Loh and Mr Nathan that he had met Ms Khan on 3 October and told her “I will not judge you”. Both Ms Low and Mr Nathan understood this to mean that Mr Singh had given Ms Khan a choice as to whether or not to come clean, and that if she chose to repeat the Untruth she would not be judged. (i) Mr Singh claimed he did not give Ms Khan a choice as to whether to tell the truth. But this is contradicted by Ms Lim’s notes taken during the Disciplinary Panel, in which she recorded Mr Singh as telling Ms Khan that “I told you it was your call”. (j) On 7 October, Ms Khan had sent an email to Mr Singh, Ms Lim and Mr Faisal Manap seeking their advice on what to do because she had just received an email from the Police requesting her assistance. In her email, she thanked the senior WP leaders “for listening to me, for caring for me and for guiding me throughout this without judgement”.”
“At this point, he realised his earlier evidence was untenable and he changed his position and admitted that he did not tell Ms Khan to come clean proactively on 4 October. He then said she should tell the truth if raised. (d) But Mr Singh’s claim that he made clear on 3 October that Ms Khan should clarify the truth if raised is contradicted by the fact that no preparation whatsoever was made prior to 4 October to prepare for the truth to be told. 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 "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.] This is borne out by what happened after the decision was taken to come clean on 12 October when the whole WP machinery swung into action – there were discussions on what the draft statement should look like, the drafts were personally vetted by Mr Singh and shown to their CEC, their activists and their social media teams were prepped and so on. (e) On 4 October, as Minister Shanmugam was asking Ms Khan in this Chamber to confirm if the incident had really occurred as she had described, Ms Khan texted Mr Pritam Singh to ask “What shall I do Pritam?” If, as he claimed, he had been clear that, if asked, she should tell the truth, there would have been no need for her to text him for guidance. (f) Further, if Mr Singh’s evidence was true, it would mean that when Ms Khan lied again on 4 October, she would have flagrantly disobeyed his instruction of the previous day.”
“(e) They did not speak with Ms Khan on the issue. (f) While Mr Singh had claimed he was concerned with ensuring that Ms Khan’s family was told about the sexual assault before clarifying the Untruth, not once did he or the others check if she had spoken with her parents. (g) No steps were taken for any clarification to be made in Parliament, ahead of the September or October Sittings. (h) The other WP CEC members were kept in the dark. Mr Singh established a Disciplinary Panel consisting of the very same people who knew that she lied – himself, Ms Lim and Mr Faisal Manap – and they did not disclose this to the CEC. All of these are consistent with a situation in which she was told to maintain the lie. As to the 3 October meeting, the Committee found “the evidence was quite clear that Mr Singh strongly pointed Ms Khan towards continuing with the Untruth on 3 October”. They found as follows. (a) On 3 October, Mr Singh visited Ms Khan at her home specifically to advise her on what to say at the 4 October Parliamentary Sitting because he “had a feeling” that the topic might come up. He did not tell Ms Lim or Mr Faisal Manap about the meeting. (b) At this meeting, Mr Singh did not tell Ms Khan to proactively raise the matter, or to tell the truth. This is not disputed but this common position was only arrived at after inconsistencies in Mr Singh’s evidence was pointed out and he changed his evidence. (c) Mr Singh initially said Ms Khan had to proactively clarify the truth on 4 October even if the issue did not come up. But when it was pointed out that no preparations had been made, there were no draft statements, for example, then he said no preparatory steps were taken because it was uncertain if Ms Khan would have to clarify the truth.”
“Ms Khan’s evidence is that “the conversation was that if [she] were to retain the narrative or if [she] were to continue the narrative, there would be no judgement”. Her understanding of this therefore was that there would be no consequences if she continued with the lie. She was not instructed to tell the truth. Mr Singh’s evidence, on the other hand, was that he did not give Ms Khan a choice and that he made it “crystal clear” that she had to tell the truth. Presented with such conflicting evidence, there is only one way to tell who is telling the truth, and, that is, to test it against objective evidence, which is what the Committee did. They assessed it against the contemporaneous evidence, against written documents, against the conduct of the parties both before and after the relevant events, and they tested it against whether the evidence given to the Committee made sense. Taking all these into account, the Committee found that Ms Raeesah Khan was telling the truth and that Mr Pritam Singh, and to a lesser extent, Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Faisal Manap, had lied to the Committee. (a) Immediately after the 8 August meeting, Ms Khan sent a WhatsApp message to her assistants, stating “they’ve", meaning Mr Singh, Ms Lim and Mr Faisal Manap, "agreed that the best thing to do is to take the information to the grave”. So, there is written, contemporaneous evidence immediately after the meeting. (b) Her evidence was corroborated by Ms Loh Pei Ying and Mr Yudhishthra Nathan. (c) On the three WP leaders’ own evidence, between 8 August and 3 October, nothing was discussed about clarifying the lie, but they all agreed that telling the Untruth in Parliament was a serious matter and should be corrected. (d) There were no correspondence or documents from them on the issue at all.”
“Ms Khan’s evidence is that when she repeated the lie on 4 October, it was her understanding, based on what Mr Singh said to her on 3 October, that there would be no consequences if she continued with the Untruth. Mr Singh, on the other hand, says that Ms Khan did so on her own accord and contrary to instructions given. Ms Lim and Mr Faisal say they did not discuss the issue with her. They left it to Mr Singh. Two meetings are key to this issue: the meeting between Ms Khan and the three senior WP leaders on 8 August 2021, or "the 8 August meeting”, and the meeting between Mr Singh and Ms Khan on 3 October 2021 at her home, or “the 3 October meeting”. Regarding the 8 August meeting, Ms Khan’s evidence was that the three senior WP leaders told her to continue with the Untruth. There was no need for her to clarify the truth in Parliament, and Mr Singh told her to “take the information to the grave”. The three WP leaders, on the other hand, say that there was simply no discussion on the matter after Ms Khan confessed to them, or, indeed, for nearly two months which passed thereafter. Instead, the discussion moved on to other matters. Next, the 3 October meeting. This is of critical importance because it took place the evening before the Parliament Sitting of 4 October, where Ms Khan said the lie for the third time. This meeting involved just Ms Khan and Mr Singh. No one else was present. The issue with regard to the 3 October meeting was whether Mr Singh had made it clear to Ms Khan that she had to tell the truth. Or Mr Singh gave Ms Khan a choice as to whether to tell the truth or keep to the Untruth, and if he did give her such a choice, whether he pointed her in the direction of how that choice should be exercised.”
“The Committee has accordingly recommended that a fine of $25,000 – that is, half of the maximum penalty – be imposed on Ms Khan for lying twice on 3 August. That is dealt with in para 2(b) of the First Motion. I turn now to the penalty for the lie that was repeated on 4 October 2021. This is the issue that occupied the bulk of the Committee’s inquiry. Because by this time, she had disclosed the Untruth to the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Pritam Singh, and the two senior Workers’ Party (WP) leaders, Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Faisal Manap, who are the Chairman and the Vice Chairman of WP respectively. So, the issue is this: when Ms Khan repeated the lie in Parliament on 4 October, was she acting on her own accord or was she acting on the guidance of her senior party leaders? If she was acting on her own, then the penalty should be higher, because it means that she and she alone was responsible for deliberately repeating the lie despite being told otherwise – as claimed by Mr Pritam Singh – showing a lack of remorse. But if as a young and inexperienced MP, she was acting on the instructions or guidance of her party leaders, to whom she deferred and to whose views she gave weight, then that would be a mitigating factor, because then she is not the only one responsible. In this case, the penalty should be lower. Here, the accounts of Ms Raeesah Khan and the three senior WP leaders are diametrically opposed – so much so that, in fact, there can be no possibility of this being a case of differing interpretations or of any misunderstanding. It is a situation where either Ms Raeesah Khan lied to the Committee, or else Mr Pritam Singh, Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Faisal Manap lied to the Committee. There is no in-between.”
“The other aspect of parliamentary democracy is that MPs are expected to act honourably and to respect the processes of Parliament as an institution, and not act in a manner that would undermine it or the work of its committees. Thus, dishonourable conduct, abuse of privilege and contempt of Parliament, including its committees, are offences under the PPIPA. Parliament is expected to keep its own House in order. Hence, the Act gives Parliament power to deal with such offences ranging from a reprimand, suspension of privileges from Parliament, a fine or even committal to prison and expulsion from Parliament. In addition, if the conduct constitutes an offence listed under Part 5 of the PPIPA, Parliament also has the power to refer the matter to the Public Prosecutor. Let me now deal with the findings and recommendations of the Committee. First, in respect of Ms Raeesah Khan for abuse of privilege. In terms of liability, the case against Ms Khan is clear and straightforward. She has admitted that she lied in Parliament twice on 3 August 2021 and again on 4 October. The Committee has, therefore, found she “acted with disregard for the dignity and decorum of the House” and recommended that Parliament find Ms Khan guilty of abuse of privilege on all three occasions. You will see that this is dealt with in para 2(a) of the First Motion. The next issue is what penalty she should receive for these abuses of privilege. Here, it is undisputed that when she lied on 3 August, she was the only one who knew that what she had said was untrue and, therefore, acted entirely of her own accord. Hence, she should bear the full and sole responsibility for those transgressions.”
“However, on 1 November 2021, Ms Khan confessed in Parliament that she had not, in fact, accompanied the survivor to the Police station. I will refer to this as "the Untruth". I raised a complaint under Standing Order 100(7)(b) against Ms Khan for breaches of privilege and the matter was referred to the Committee of Privileges (the Committee). The Committee was duly convened and began its inquiry on 29 November 2021. The Committee completed its work and presented its Report to Parliament on 10 February 2022, making findings and recommendations in respect of Ms Raeesah Khan’s conduct. However, in the course of its inquiry, the conduct of three senior members of the Workers' Party leadership also came into question. This led the Committee to also make certain findings and recommendations relating to them as well. Before I go into the Report, Mr Speaker, let me say something about the privileges and immunities of Parliament and the corresponding duty that arises. One of the most powerful things about a parliamentary democracy is the ability to speak freely and candidly in Parliament. This is so that MPs can raise matters of public importance, safe in the knowledge that they have immunity from civil or criminal proceedings outside this House. That is a great privilege. In Singapore, this is enshrined in the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act 1962, the PPIPA. But because it is such an important privilege, it must also be used responsibly and must not be abused. This includes the need to be truthful on, and to be able to substantiate, matters said in Parliament or any committee of Parliament.”
“Mr Speaker, on the face of it, the Motions before us today require us to make certain decisions about the conduct of certain Members of Parliament (MPs). However, the Motions are of a far deeper and greater significance. Fundamentally, the Motions are about safeguarding the essence of democracy – our democracy – and preserving its most vital and essential characteristic, which is, trust. They are about the need to ensure the integrity of our institutions, and Parliament in particular, and about the confidence Singaporeans can have in their elected representatives. These things are not given. Established democracies, like Australia and the United Kingdom, have, in recent months, had to deal with allegations of senior parliamentarians being untruthful. The consequences are the erosion of public trust. Now, regrettably, we have to deal with our own situation of parliamentarians being untruthful. How we deal with this will reflect on our values and the standards of conduct to which we hold ourselves as MPs. How did we come to this point? Let me provide a quick recap. On 3 August 2021, Ms Khan spoke during the debate on the Workers' Party's Motion titled "Empowering Women". She claimed that the Police's response to sexual assault survivors who lodged Police reports was sometimes "disheartening". She alleged that three years ago, she had accompanied a sexual assault survivor to make a Police report against a rape that was committed against the survivor. She claimed to have witnessed the survivor come out crying. The Police officer had allegedly made comments about her dressing and the fact that she had been drinking. Ms Khan made that statement twice on 3 August and repeated it during a later session on 4 October.”
“Sir, may I proceed as the copies of the two Motions are being distributed?”
“Mr Speaker, I beg to move the First Motion standing in my name on today's Order Paper titled "Committee of Privileges Report (Recommendations in respect of Ms Raeesah Khan)". I also beg to move the Second Motion standing in my name on today's Order Paper titled "Committee of Privileges Report (Recommendations in respect of Mr Pritam Singh, Mr Faisal Manap and Ms Sylvia Lim)". Sir, with your permission, can I ask for the distribution of the copies of the two Motions that I have referred to? I thought that it might be more convenient for Members to have copies so that they can refer to them as I am speaking.”
“Mr Speaker, may I seek your permission to move both the Motions standing in my name on today's Order Paper one after another and for my opening speech and reply at the end of the debate to range over both Motions.”
“The Motions remain as two separate Motions and, at the end of the debate, the votes 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: (a) "Committee of Privileges Report (Recommendations in respect of Ms Raeesah Khan)"; and (b) "Committee of Privileges Report (Recommendations in respect of Mr Pritam Singh, Mr Faisal Manap and Ms Sylvia Lim)", be taken together, and 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: (a) "Committee of Privileges Report (Recommendations in respect of Ms Raeesah Khan)"; and (b) "Committee of Privileges Report (Recommendations in respect of Mr Pritam Singh, Mr Faisal Manap and Ms Sylvia Lim)", be taken together, and 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, both Motions arise out of the Report of the Committee of Privileges issued last week in respect of the complaint against Ms Raeesah Khan for untruth spoken in Parliament. The First Motion deals with the Committee’s findings and recommendations in respect of the conduct of former Workers’ Party Member of Parliament (MP) Ms Raeesah Khan which I had previously referred to the Committee. The Second Motion deals with the Committee’s findings and recommendations in respect of the conduct of the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Pritam Singh, and Workers’ Party MPs Mr Faisal Manap and Ms Sylvia Lim, which arose in the course of the Committee’s inquiry. Given that both Motions arise out of the same report and, further, given that the facts and matters pertaining to the Motions are interlinked and the same set of evidence applies to both, I wish to move that the two Motions be considered together and debated concurrently. 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. To be clear, and for avoidance of doubt, it is only the debate that is to be concurrent.”
“The Keppel Offshore and Marine case is complex and transnational in nature, involving multiple foreign authorities and several more potential witnesses based overseas. We have requested further Mutual Legal Assistance (MLA) from foreign authorities to obtain additional information from these witnesses and are still awaiting the response to these requests. How quickly and to what extent our requests will be acceded to are dependent on the foreign authorities to which the requests were made. CPIB will spare no effort to complete the investigations against the individuals involved.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move, "That Parliament do now adjourn." [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]”
“Mdm Deputy 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 48(8) to remove the time limit in respect of Minister of State Faishal Ibrahim's speech?”
“And I hope that that is something that the Member will bear in mind.”
“Mr Speaker, as Leader of the House, I would like to issue some salutary advice to the learned Member. I have, in this House before, spoken about the importance of being able to substantiate allegations that are made in this House and we have seen what happens when Members make allegations which cannot be substantiated or are irresponsible. I wish to remind the Member exactly what transpired yesterday. The Member stood up and made an allegation that teachers in MOE were practising vaccination-differentiated measures. It is an allegation which is cast out there and besmirches teachers as a whole. Minister Chan Chun Sing stood up to ask for details of this allegation. And the reason why you provide details, if you are a responsible Member of Parliament, is because when you come to this Chamber and you are given a seat in this Chamber, you are expected to discharge your duties responsibly. When you make allegations against teachers and just cast it out there, you must be able to substantiate it. And that is why Minister Chan asked, "Please provide me with the details of which school and which teacher so that the Ministry of Education can follow up." What we have seen today is Mr Leong Mun Wai coming here firstly, to grandstand and make broad allegations or broad speeches that have no bearing whatsoever on the details that were requested of him. We have seen that when you, Mr Speaker, requested him to provide those details, he prevaricated and evaded. And now, finally, we discover that the details cannot be forthcoming because he is referring to a Telegram chat where there are no details at all. So, I just wish to conclude by reminding Members that they are given the privilege of speaking in this Chamber and that privilege must be exercised responsibly.”
“Mr Speaker, on the question of whether we will continue to design targeted measures, the answer is yes, we are working hard on that for Budget 2022. We have been taking feedback. We are looking to see what we can do to support households and that is something that Members can look towards in Budget 2022.”
“Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for his supplementary question. I think that the short answer really is this. Neither Ms Low nor I suggested that everything is temporary. I think there is recognition that there are real cost pressures and there have been increases. So, some of it may be temporary, but whatever it is, we know that households are facing pressures and therefore this Government will do whatever it can to alleviate those pressures and the full impact of such cost increases on households and for individuals.”
“Mr Speaker, the answer is as I had indicated in my original answer, which is that we will do our best, but we cannot defer fee increases forever. If and when we do have to have fee increases, we will do our best to ensure that Singaporeans are supported and buffered against such increases.”
“And for healthcare, we have many schemes, such as CHAS, the Pioneer Generation Package and the Merdeka Generation Package. We also provide housing subsidies to keep HDB flats affordable, so eligible first-timer households buying a resale flat could enjoy up to about $160,000 in housing grants and around 80% of new HDB flat buyers have little or no cash outlay on their mortgage payments. Then, in addition, we have other permanent schemes, like the GST Voucher, or the GST-V Scheme, Silver Support Scheme and ComCare. And then, on top of all of these permanent structural schemes, we do provide the one-off support, or schemes for a specific period to help people where there are specific hardships or problems which may continue for a few months, but after that they are able to manage on their own.”
“Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for her question. Actually, we already do that. We do not just give out one-off benefits. We have a lot in terms of structural support and let me explain our approach to it. The first thing is directed at incomes and earning a living. The second thing is essential areas. And then third, providing essential support for the low-income and elderly. On the first one, the most sustainable way that we can help Singaporeans with the cost of living is to help them have good incomes. And how we help them to have good incomes is to ensure that they have good opportunities and good jobs. We have often heard that it is said, "Oh, you must not pursue growth for growth's sake". This Government does not pursue growth for growth's sake. This Government pursues growth because we want good jobs for people and we want them to have good incomes, and that will help them to manage not just the increase in cost of living but to be able to attain all the other things and aspirations that they want to achieve in life. So, we pay a lot of attention to growing the economy. And that is structural. The second thing we do is we have structural schemes to uplift and supplement their incomes. This includes the Progressive Wage Model, as well as the Workfare Income Supplement Scheme. In addition, we have broad-based structural support measures to help Singaporeans in essential areas, like education, healthcare and housing. Education, as we know, is heavily subsidised. Every Singaporean child could receive about $180,000 in education subsidies by the time he or she turns 16, including preschool subsidies, with more for those who come from less well-off backgrounds.”
“So, essentially, whatever the increase to the expenditure as a result of GST, the Assurance Package is designed to buffer them for that increase. The Government is directly supplementing them, so that they would not feel the impact. So, I just hope that Members will bear this in mind. The date that it takes effect and the date that the impact is felt are two separate things and we will continue to look out for the lower-income households and the majority of the middle-income households.”
“I thank Mr Liang for his question, which is, I think, a question on the minds of many Singaporeans. There are actually two distinct aspects of that question. One is, can we delay the date that GST takes effect? But the second and the much more important question is, can we delay the impact of that increase on Singaporeans? For the first one, we had announced in Budget 2018 that we plan to raise the GST by two percentage points from 7% to 9%. And we said then that it would be some time from 2021 to 2025. We said the exact timing would depend on the state of the economy and how much our expenditures grow and how buoyant our existing taxes are. And we said all that before COVID-19. Then the pandemic came along. So, we then said in 2020, that the GST rate increase would not take place in 2021 and that was in direct recognition of the hardship that was felt by people because of the pandemic. It is not something we can put off forever, but the exact timing is something that we have to think about. In deciding the timing for the GST hike, we are carefully considering the overall economic conditions. The economy is recovering steadily and barring fresh disruptions, it should grow in step with global economic recovery, and we expect GDP to grow by 3% to 5% in 2022. But this brings me to the second question, which is the more important one, which is: irrespective of whatever date we may say that GST takes effect, can we delay the impact on Singaporeans? And the answer is that we have designed it such that, yes, we can delay the impact on Singaporeans through the Assurance Package. For the majority of Singaporeans, we will delay the impact on them effectively by five years and for the lower income, the impact on them will be delayed effectively for 10 years.”
“We will also significantly mitigate the impact of the GST rate increase on Singaporeans through the Assurance Package. We have already set aside $6 billion for this Package to provide direct cash and other support to Singaporeans. Such support will effectively delay the impact of the GST rate increase by at least five years for the majority of Singaporean households. This means that for most households, the actual impact of the GST increase will only be felt five years after implementation. Lower-income households will receive more support under the Assurance Package and for this group, the impact of the GST rate increase will be pushed back by about 10 years. To sum up: while global inflationary pressures have been a significant driver of the recent rise in core inflation, the Government has shielded and continues to shield Singaporean households from much of these price pressures. We will continue to review and improve ways to support Singaporeans, particularly lower-income households, seniors and those with greater needs.”
“The size of our fiscal injections in 2020 to 2021 were correctly sized to cushion the sharp fall in output during this crisis period. Much of our support over the last two years has been to relieve costs, through schemes such as the Jobs Support and Rental Support Schemes. These not only helped save jobs and incomes but also had less impact to inflation. As businesses and households adapted to living with COVID-19 and stabilised their revenues and incomes, we were able to taper off our fiscal support and shift the emphasis towards restructuring, transformation and growth. On Mr Saktiandi Supaat and Ms Foo Mee Har's questions about the fiscal response going forward: we will continue to monitor economic conditions closely to ensure that businesses are adequately supported, especially in more adversely affected sectors and balance tapering off of relief with support for transformation and restructuring. Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked if the proposed GST increase remains part of our strategy for fiscal sustainability; and if so, what can be done to mitigate the impact of the GST increase on Singaporeans, especially lower-income households and retirees. We need sound fiscal foundations, not just to provide support to households and businesses when needed, but also to meet our collective aspirations – affordable healthcare, quality education, and a safe and secure home – in a responsible and sustainable way. The GST together with our income and wealth taxes are important parts of a sound revenue structure that will enable us to provide care, support and a strong social compact. Even as we keep our finances on a sound and stable footing, we will ensure that our overall system of taxes and transfers remains a fair and progressive one.”
“In addition, Singaporeans living in HDB 1- to 2-room flats would also have received $100 in Grocery Vouchers in October 2021. These would help with the increased spending during the year-end and the New Year festive period. We have also begun distributing 600,000 Public Transport Vouchers of $30 each to help lower-income households amid the public transport fare adjustment. These payouts are over and above the regular GST Voucher – Cash payouts of up to $300, Service and Conservancy Charges (S&CC) rebates of between 1.5 and 3.5 months, Silver Support of between $720 and $3,600 per year for seniors who had low incomes in their working years and Workfare Income Supplement of up to $4,000 per year in cash and CPF top-ups for lower-wage workers. Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked whether we have the fiscal resources to help Singaporeans with the cost of living. I would like to assure Mr Liang that we will give priority in our fiscal plans to help Singaporeans manage. As we prepare for Budget 2022, we are assessing the situation carefully and reviewing the scope of household support measures. Mr Louis Chua and Mr Ang Wei Neng asked about mitigating or delaying increases on fees charged by Ministries and Statutory Boards. The Government will do its best to keep costs and in turn, fees as low as possible, to provide the best value to the public. We froze fee increases in 2020 on account of the sudden COVID-19 crisis, but we cannot do so indefinitely. As fees are raised, we will continue to provide support to those who need it most. Our approach of running cost-efficient services and providing targeted help allows us to keep our total burden on businesses and households low. Ms Foo Mee Har asked if our fiscal support contributed to higher inflation. The answer is no.”
“Minister of State Low Yen Ling has given a comprehensive overview on how the Government keeps our economy competitive, ensures sustainable real wage growth, manages business costs and has allowed the Singapore dollar to strengthen to mitigate inflation. Second, the Government also directly helps Singaporeans with the cost of living. As mentioned, two key drivers of core inflation are higher global fuel costs and food prices, leading to higher prices for utilities and groceries. The Government has been directly shielding the majority of Singaporeans from the full impact of the cost increases for these items and is continuing to do so. To help with the cost of utilities, the Government provides quarterly GSTV U-Save rebates to Housing and Development Board (HDB) households as part of the permanent GST Voucher scheme. All eligible HDB households received a tranche of U-Save rebates this month. In Budget 2021, the Government provided an additional 50% of U-Save rebates for all U-Save recipients, which was paid out in April and July 2021. This additional 50% on top of the permanent U-Save rebate has helped HDB households to substantially defray the cost of their utility bills. HDB 1- to 2-room households received $595 in U-Save rebates in FY2021, equivalent to about 4.5 to six months of their utility bills on average, even after the increase in the electricity tariff this month. HDB 3- and 4-room households received $535 and $475 in U-Save rebates, equivalent to three months and 1.5 months of their utility bills in FY2021 respectively. To help households with daily expenses, especially food, the Government has given $100 in Community Development Council (CDC) Vouchers to every Singaporean household in December 2021.”
“Minister of State Low Yen Ling has just provided an overview of the inflation outlook, including second-round inflation effects which Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked about and the Government's overall approach to managing inflation. I would like in addition to emphasise the following two points. First, while the inflation rate of 3.8% reported for November 2021 is high, a significant part of that 3.8% is accounted for by accommodation, mainly imputed rentals and private transport costs. However, most Singaporeans live in owner-occupied homes and use public transport. As such, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) Core Inflation measure, which excludes accommodation and private transport costs, would more accurately reflect the actual inflation experienced by most Singaporeans. MAS Core Inflation was at 1.6% year-on-year in November 2021. Second, a significant share of the recent rise in core prices is being driven by global factors. Higher energy prices have had an impact on utility bills, while global food prices and supply chain disruptions have affected prices of non-cooked food locally. The sharp rise in global energy and food prices is expected to be temporary and should subside as bottlenecks are resolved and supply improves to better meet demand. That said, the Government understands the concerns of Singaporeans about these cost increases and empathises with the very real pressures felt by individuals and households. The Government has been working hard to help Singaporeans with these costs in a number of ways. First, through our economic and fiscal strategies.”
“We recognise that parents need continued support to care for their children even after they turn seven years old. This is why we had extended childcare leave provisions in 2013 to provide two days of childcare leave per parent per year, for parents with children aged seven to 12. Those with children aged below seven continue to have six days of childcare leave per year, as children of a younger age require relatively more care from parents. These childcare leave provisions are in addition to their annual leave entitlements. We take a practical approach in supporting working parents’ caregiving needs, balancing these with the manpower and operational needs of employers, to avoid affecting parents’ employability. As mentioned in my earlier replies to Mr Louis Ng’s Parliamentary Questions on childcare leave, a more sustainable approach would be for employers to adopt progressive workplace practices, such as flexible work arrangements (FWAs), to better support parents. Other than working from home, FWAs also include flexi-time and flexi-load, which could help parents with their caregiving responsibilities. For example, although frontline workers often have to be physically present in their workplaces, employers can stagger the start and end times of their shifts or enable shifts to be shared by multiple workers. We will continue to work with stakeholders to promote family-friendly workplace practices so that employees can better manage their work and family commitments.”
“In comparison, local companies are to update the Register of Nominee Directors within seven days of being informed of any changes by the nominee director. This provides sufficient time for local companies to update the register whilst ensuring that the registers are updated in a timely manner. The general principle, really, is of the underlying assumption that if it is a local director, then it will be easier to contact the relevant persons and to do the updating. This is not something which is particularly unique or startling, for the simple reason that there are many types of deadlines where more time is given to foreign companies, simply because they need to contact people who are overseas. The second item that he raised was about items where we are partially compliant, rather than fully compliant. The answer is that we continually review our regulations and our practices to make sure that we are in line with international practices. Some things may take a little bit more time while some things need to be studied. So, for example, this latest set of amendments are a result of our review coming out of previous comments. So, it is a work in progress. But I think the Member can be assured that we will continue to work towards greater transparency and making sure that we are in alignment with international frameworks. Finally, Mr Louis Ng asked when Guidance will be given on certain definitions. That will be done as soon as reasonably practicable. Mr Deputy Speaker, I think that answers the questions and I beg to move.”
“The other new requirement is to identify individuals with the executive control of a company or LLP to be listed in the Register of Registrable Controllers, if they are unable to identify a registrable controller. Again, this is unlikely to increase compliance cost. I would also like to highlight that these new requirements will only apply to companies and LLPs. Small businesses that are set up as sole proprietorships or general partnerships will not be impacted by them. The Government will help companies and LLPs to comply with the new requirements. ACRA will issue a Guidance on the new requirement of maintaining a Register of Nominee Shareholders. The Guidance will contain detailed instructions to clarify and explain the new requirements. For example, it will provide details on how a nominee shareholder and nominator can be identified and include a model template to support the maintenance of the register. ACRA will also update the existing Guidance on the Register of Registrable Controllers for companies and LLPs to provide clarity on how these entities can identify persons with executive control as registrable controllers. Mr Leon Perera had a number of questions. The first one, I believe, relates to the different timeframes. The 30-day timeframe for foreign companies to update the Register of members is consistent with section 372 of the Companies Act, which requires foreign companies to update any changes in their particulars in ACRA's registers within 30 days. This also provides sufficient time for foreign companies to contact members who are located overseas and update the Register which is located in the registered office in Singapore.”
“A shareholder is considered to be a nominee if he fulfils the following two criteria in respect of the shares that he holds. First, he is accustomed to, or under an obligation, to vote in accordance with the instructions of any other person. The word "accustomed" suggests some degree of habit – meaning that there must be some consistent pattern of behaviour of the nominee shareholder voting in accordance with the instructions or wishes of any other person – and occasional instances of such behaviour would not be sufficient to constitute "accustomed". The second criterion is that he or she receives dividends on behalf of his or her nominator. Practically, it would suffice if the nominee is expected to receive the dividends on behalf of the nominator, even if the dividends are not eventually distributed. Our amendments are in line with FATF. I would also add that public companies listed in Singapore and their shareholders will not be subject to this new requirement, as provided for in the Fourteenth Schedule of the Companies Act. Lastly, Mr Louis Ng asked about the compliance cost of the new requirements and the support that Government will put in place. To be clear and, as mentioned in my speech earlier, out of the four sets of amendments in this Bill, two are clarifications on timelines and only two are new requirements. The new requirement to maintain a Register of Nominee Shareholders is unlikely to materially increase compliance costs, especially if the small businesses do not have nominee arrangements. Moreover, the responsibility on the company is only to maintain such a register, based on declarations by nominee shareholders. Companies will not be required to send notices to check if shareholders are nominees.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to thank Mr Louis Ng and Mr Leon Perera for speaking on the Bill and for their support. Mr Louis Ng raised three points of clarification, which I will address in turn. First, Mr Louis Ng asked about the rationale for identifying CEOs and directors with executive control to be listed in the Register of Registrable Controllers, if a company is unable to identify a registrable controller. As I had explained in my speech earlier, there have been situations where a company claimed to have no registrable controllers with significant interest or control. Currently, such companies would not be required to enter any particulars into the register of controllers. The intent of the Register of Registrable Controllers is to increase the transparency of natural persons who have beneficial ownership and control of companies. In situations where no registrable controllers are identified, persons with executive powers within the company are effectively exercising control. It is, therefore, necessary to include these persons in the Register if no other controller can be identified. Mr Louis Ng also asked if it is necessary to provide particulars of the CEO and the directors in the register of registrable controllers when ACRA may already have the information in other registers. The reality is that a company can have many directors, but not all of them exercise executive control over the company. The purpose of the new requirement is to ensure that companies identify the directors and CEOs with executive control, so that the beneficial owners are properly identified. Next, let me address Mr Louis Ng's clarification on the definition of a nominee shareholder.”
“Mr Speaker, as the Minister of State's time limit for her speech is approaching its end, may I move the following? 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 48(8) to remove the time limit in respect of Minister of State Sun Xueling's speech?”
“Mr Speaker, I beg to move, "That Parliament do now adjourn." [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)] Role of Migrant Domestic Workers in Singapore's Caregiving Landscape”
“From June 2020 to June 2021, the Permanent Resident (PR) population in Singapore decreased by 6.2% to 0.49 million. As explained in the Population in Brief report published on 28 September, the main reason for the decrease is because more PRs remained overseas continuously for 12 months or more due to COVID-19 travel restrictions. We do not have sufficient data to ascertain whether these PRs are in their citizenship countries or elsewhere. It is also too early to conclude if these PRs will return or relinquish their PR status. In general, PRs who are overseas require a valid Re-Entry Permit (REP) to return to Singapore as PRs. The REP is renewable based on considerations, such as whether the PR is gainfully employed and contributing to Singapore or has family roots here. Our PR population has remained stable at around half a million for over a decade and short-term shifts in the PR population are unlikely to affect resident employment trends, as citizens consistently make up about 85% of our resident workforce. Resident employment numbers and unemployment rates have been improving since the third quarter of 2020. The Member can refer to the latest data on MOM's website. We will continue to closely monitor the changes in our PR population as COVID-19 travel restrictions are steadily lifted.”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, I beg to move, "That Parliament do now adjourn." [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)] BeyonD Home Ownership: Supporting Diverse Aspirations Through Rental Housing 7.31 pm”
“So, you cannot look at just one single item and say, "Oh, this, by itself, please change, it is very onerous". You do have to look at the bigger picture. And you cannot just look at a very narrow tunnel-vision thing. The other takeaway is really that this Government will always make sure that whoever is in need, in genuine need, will have support. And the only way you can do that is to have diverse revenue sources which are sustainable; and for recurrent expenditure, to make sure that you have recurrent revenue. That is all I plan to say about GST at this stage and I hope that this is something that the Workers' Party will reflect on. Mdm Deputy Speaker, let me just conclude by saying that MOF will continue to review our tax regime regularly to ensure its relevance and its effectiveness in the digital economy. And I beg to move. [(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)] [(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)] [(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Ms Indranee Rajah]. (proc text)] [(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]”