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 3 of 51.
“The position taken by the Leader of the Opposition and the WP Members who have spoken is disappointing. The sum total of their position today has really been that, you know, the rules do not apply to us and let us make a little point here. Let us have a little jab there. But let us not deal with the real issue. Let us not engage with the real fundamental point that we are talking about – which is, what kind of Parliament ought we to be. And here let me come to the Motion. By and large, although the Leader of the Opposition has said that he has lifted the whip, actually, the positions do appear to be aligned across the board. I do not think there is any real difference in the position that the WP Members have taken. So, they are able to agree to paragraphs 1 and 6 of the Motion. Paragraph 1 affirms that honesty and integrity are fundamental pillars of Singapore's Parliamentary and political system. So, they accept that honesty and integrity are fundamental pillars of our Parliamentary and political system. And they agree with paragraph 6, which means that they agree to call on all Members to uphold our solemn duty to respect and abide by the law and act with integrity at all times and honour the trust placed in us by Singaporeans. At the same time, however, they seem to have difficulty with the other limbs. So, the first thing is paragraph 2. Paragraph 2 calls on us to note the judgment where the High Court upheld Mr Singh's conviction for lying to the COP. I do not understand the difficulty in noting the High Court judgment, which basically means that we have taken due note of what the Court has found. What is the difficulty with noting that? Secondly, the findings of the COP – that he had guided Ms Raeesah Khan to continue with her lie to Parliament.”
“Mr Speaker, I wish to thank all MPs who have spoken on the Motion on both sides of the House. This is an important debate because it is about matters that affect the standing and the integrity of our Parliament. I thank the MPs who have spoken and supported the Motion. They have correctly pointed out that this Motion is about principles and values that we uphold. As Dr Syed Harun and Ms Kuah Boon Theng said, the public rightfully holds high expectations of trust in our Parliament and this is even more so for the Leader of the Opposition. Ms Tin Pei Ling also highlighted that the quality of our Parliament embodies the values and aspirations of Singaporeans and this in turn affects how we are regarded on the global stage. And as Mr Mark Lee pointed out, trust in our Parliament is a foundational asset for Singapore underpinning the confidence in our institutions. Let me turn to the WP's position and I note that all Members of the WP who spoke on the substantive speeches made it a point to thank their supporters and their constituents and all the people who have faith in you, who have shown you support and who have basically cheered you on. It is good that the Opposition in Singapore has such support. But the flip side is also true. If people give you such unstinting warm support, you should not let them down. You should when in Parliament uphold principles of integrity and values because Singaporeans deserve a good opposition. Singaporeans deserve an opposition who will uphold the rule of law, who will observe due process and who will respect the integrity of our institutions. But have the WP served their supporters well in the positions that you have taken today? I, very respectfully, say the answer is no.”
“Sir, just a clarification because Mr Tiong said "no fine". Is it Mr Tiong's position that you should have fines for extramarital affairs? That those are criminal offences?”
“And Mr Singh is asking the Speaker to rule —”
“And Mr Singh is asking Mr Speaker to rule to allow the Prosecution's statement for this Motion?”
“Before the trial. So, Mr Singh is now asking, or he says that he had asked the PP for permission to use them for today's Motion. Is that correct?”
“And Mr Singh's answer was, "That is correct". And Mr Singh's position was that he had asked — So, that was provided during the trial?”
“Mr Speaker, I just wish to enquire. The statements that Mr Singh is referring to, is he referring to statements that the PP had provided him for purposes of the trial?”
“One moment, Mr Speaker, so that I can be very clear. Mr Tiong has just raised a Point of Order. He says that the Court did not use the word or did not find there was a cover-up. The District Court judgment at paragraph 489 stated that the three WP leaders had acted to "conceal their involvement in guiding Ms Khan to maintain the Untruth since 8 August 2021". "Conceal", if one looks in the general meaning of the dictionary usually means cover-up.”
“By supporting this Motion, Members will show that this generation of MPs are determined never to allow that to happen and that we will continue to uphold and enforce the rigorous standards that have served Singapore well and will continue to do so for many years to come. I therefore ask all Members to support the Motion. Mr Speaker, I beg to move. [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)] 4.02 pm”
“Ms Khan and Mr Perera had not lied to a Committee of Parliament or under oath; and Mr Perera had not been charged for a crime, let alone found guilty by the Court. I am sure the WP will agree with me that the same standards and rigour must apply, whether to backbenchers or party leaders. Of course, the same standards apply also to People's Action Party (PAP) MPs. If a PAP MP or Political Office Holder is found guilty of lying or dishonesty, nobody doubts that serious consequences will follow. It would be untenable for them to continue as if nothing happened. In serious cases, they will have to relinquish their positions. Members may recall that in 1999, PAP MP Choo Wee Khiang was charged for cheating. He resigned before pleading guilty. In 2024, Mr S Iswaran resigned as soon as he was charged, even before conviction. Mr Tan Chuan-Jin resigned on account of his personal conduct, even though there was no criminal offence. In all of these cases, the MPs resigned their seats as matter of party discipline, and to express remorse and accountability, but most of all to maintain the high standards expected of those in public office. These standards underpin our system of Government and are crucial to providing Singaporeans with the quality of leaders and Government that they deserve. Mr Speaker, this matter goes beyond party politics. Honesty and integrity are non-negotiable. They form the foundation of our political system and of good governance in Singapore. If Parliament allows these standards to slip, distrust will gradually take root, and the public confidence in our institutions will be eroded, inevitably and irreversibly. The damage would be profound and exceedingly difficult to recover from.”
“Under these circumstances, the conclusion is clear and beyond doubt: Mr Singh's conduct was dishonourable and unbecoming of an MP; and he has fallen short of the requirements and standards expected of the Leader of the Opposition. If Members agree with this conclusion, they should vote in favour of the Motion. If they disagree and wish to vote against, they should justify to this House and to Singaporeans why Singapore should accept such lowered standards of honesty and integrity from their political leaders. The WP MPs have often made speeches in this House about the importance of accountability. They have declared it their mission to hold the Government to account. The question is whether they believe that their own members – including their leader – should also be held to account for doing something wrong, especially after the Court has convicted them of a crime. The WP and Mr Singh himself have expressed strong views against lying and dishonesty. After Ms Khan lied to Parliament and after the cover-up failed, Mr Singh, Ms Lim and Mr Faisal recommended to the WP CEC that she be expelled from the party if she did not resign. The WP CEC accepted the recommendation. When Mr Leon Perera was discovered to have lied to the WP leadership about his extramarital affair, Mr Singh said, "The Constitution of the Workers' Party requires candidates to be honest and frank in their dealings with the party and the people of Singapore… Leon's conduct and not being truthful when asked by the party leadership about the allegation fell short of the standards expected of WP MPs. This is unacceptable. Had he not offered his resignation, I would have recommended to the CEC that he be expelled from the party." Notably, swift justice was meted out just for lying to the WP leadership.”
“To recap, the duties of the Leader of the Opposition include leading the Opposition in presenting alternative views in Parliamentary debates on policies, Bills and Motions; scrutinising the Government's positions and actions in Parliament; and nominating opposition Members for appointment to Select Committees. In addition, the Leader of the Opposition may be asked to take on other duties, such as attending official state functions, and taking part in visits and meetings alongside members of the Government and the Public Service. When he does so, he goes as a representative of Parliament. The Leader of the Opposition also receives specific privileges. He will, from time to time, receive confidential briefings by the Government on important national issues, such as security and external relations, especially during a national crisis or emergency. In debates, he gets the right of first response and more time for his speeches, equal to a Minister's speech time. He is provided an office in Parliament; additional staff support and resources and double the allowance of an elected MP. Clearly, the Leader of the Opposition position carries important duties and privileges. Whoever holds this designation must be respected and trusted as a competent representative of the people. When the Office of the Leader of the Opposition was first introduced, there were high hopes for the role and how it would enhance the functioning and standing of Parliament. But now Mr Singh has done all the things that I have set out and been convicted in Court for lying to a Committee of Parliament.”
“Mr Speaker, I thank Mr Tiong for his clarification. Maybe I should explain to him step by step. If a statement is made to the Court and the Court finds that that is not true or rejects it, it must follow, as a matter of logic, that what was told to the Court, is not the truth. The Court can decide whether or not it wishes to proceed with perjury, but the Court does not have to do so. The point I am making is that: what was told to the Court, if untrue, it must follow that it is a lie. It is just a matter of logic. If I may be permitted to continue, Mr Speaker. As I was saying, Parliament cannot wait on the WP nor should our view depend on the WP's internal deliberations, or on whether Mr Singh's actions contravene the WP constitution. This House must decide on the matter without unnecessary delay, as it reflects on the standing and integrity of Parliament. Sir, I have also moved that Parliament considers that Mr Singh's conviction and conduct render him unsuitable to continue as the Leader of the Opposition. Mr Singh was first designated the Leader of the Opposition by then Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong after the 2020 General Election. After the 2025 General Election, Prime Minister Lawrence Wong again designated Mr Singh as the Leader of the Opposition. The office of the Leader of the Opposition was formally established in 2020 to recognise Singaporeans' strong desire for a greater diversity of views in our politics and to enable our political system to evolve in a way that maintains our sense of national purpose. That objective remains valid. Mr Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is not an ordinary MP. He has greater responsibilities and privileges than other backbenchers.”
“I thank Ms Lim for her clarification. My point is timing. And the point is what I was getting to, which is that, while I understand that this is what the WP is doing, Parliament cannot wait on the WP nor should our view depend on the WP's internal deliberations —”
“He guided her to continue with the Untruth. Yet when the truth came to light, he did not admit his complicity. Instead, he disowned her actions and later sat in judgment of her conduct – while concealing his own role. Third, Mr Singh refused to acknowledge the impact of the original Untruth on the Police. He said no wrong had been done to the Police by reason of the false claim and questioned the amount of work the Police had done to investigate the false claim. He dismissed the work the Police had to put in and the diversion of public resources with the comment that the Police is not a "broken-back organisation". The Police had to comb through more than 1,400 sexual assault and related cases from 2018 to 2021 to investigate the false claims. This led to delays in handling other matters and cases. Mr Singh could easily have prevented all this by urging Ms Khan to tell the truth the moment she confessed to him.”
“For wilfully giving these false answers, Mr Singh was charged and eventually convicted by the District Court. His appeal was dismissed. Mr Speaker, I have set out the brief facts of the case. They are findings of the Courts and Mr Singh has said he accepts the Court's judgment fully and without reservation. So, as we can see: Mr Singh guided Ms Khan, twice, to maintain her Untruth to Parliament; he then lied twice before the COP; he lied before the Court; he lied to the public; and he concealed material information from his own party. Mr Speaker, there are simply too many lies – they pile up, one on top of another, each to cover up a previous lie. And that, is a problem as Mr Singh is also the Leader of the Opposition. This case shows a failure of leadership on the part of Mr Singh. First, if Mr Singh had told Ms Khan to come clean when she first confessed her Untruth to him in August 2021, the entire matter would have taken a very different course. Yes, it would have been inconvenient and uncomfortable to disclose the truth then. The WP had just won their second group representation constituency (GRC) in Sengkang in the 2020 General Election and Ms Khan was a member of WP's Sengkang team. But the consequences would have been nowhere as grave as what followed Mr Singh's telling Ms Khan to take the Untruth "to the grave". It is precisely at such moments where leaders are tested, and where leadership matters. And we have seen the contrast between Mr Singh's approach and Mr Low Thia Khiang's leadership. Second, there was a failure to take responsibility. After Ms Khan told the Untruth, she knew she was in trouble. She asked Mr Singh for advice, as her party leader and because she regarded him as her mentor. Mr Singh told her to hide the Untruth.”
“Yet, on 2 December 2021, hours before the COP hearing was due to begin, Mr Singh held a press conference and admitted, for the very first time, that the three WP leaders had known of Ms Khan's Untruth shortly after she had said it on 3 August 2021. Mr Singh described this timing as a pure, complete coincidence. This was unbelievable. And here is what the District Court found, and I quote: "497. Notably, [Mr Singh] only publicly disclosed his own prior knowledge of the Untruth when holding a press conference on 2 December 2021, the very day that the COP was to hear evidence from Ms Loh [Pei Ying] and Ms Khan. Before this, even the WP CEC was kept in the dark. 498. [Mr Singh] only made his public disclosure after Ms Loh had told Mr Mike Lim to let [Mr Singh] know that no matter what happened [Ms Loh] would be going into the COP to tell the truth or what [she] knew of it and [she] wanted to give [Mr Singh] an opportunity to clarify or make a plan where he could put out the party's position or his position first. 499. In [the Court's] view, [Mr Singh's] action in holding the press conference on 2 December 2021 clearly suggested that he was trying to do damage control by pre-emptively disclosing his knowledge and involvement before it was publicly revealed by [Ms] Loh or Ms Khan." When Mr Singh appeared before the COP, he continued to lie and to distance himself from Ms Khan's conduct. He denied making the statement about taking the Untruth to the grave – that was a lie. He said that he had wanted Ms Khan to tell the truth in October 2021 – that was another lie. These were even graver than other lies, because he was giving them in evidence before a Parliament committee and he was speaking under oath.”
“Well, he did proceed to sit in judgement upon her, personally. In the course of the DP proceedings, when Ms Khan requested a second interview with the DP, Mr Singh replied: "Dear Raeesah – I hope you can see that it is precisely your character and behaviour that is under review here, in view of your actions in Parliament and your decision to stick to the untruthful anecdote when asked again in October". On 30 November 2021, Mr Singh, Ms Lim and Mr Faisal recommended to the WP CEC that for lying to Parliament, Ms Khan should be expelled from the party within 24 hours if she did not resign. The WP CEC accepted their recommendation. Ms Khan resigned from the WP that same day. What is most troubling about this episode is that Mr Singh, Ms Lim and Mr Faisal failed to declare to the WP CEC or their own party members, let alone the public, that all three of them had actually known about the Untruth since August 2021, and all three had been involved in guiding Ms Khan to maintain her Untruth. One does not need to be a lawyer or a Parliamentarian to know that this is improper and wrong, legally and morally. As the District Court observed: "there would have been a real concern that the three WP leaders may not be seen to be able to act fairly or impartially when enquiring into Ms Khan's behaviour, as their own conduct in the affair would also come under scrutiny", and they had in fact acted "to conceal their involvement in guiding Ms Khan to maintain the Untruth since 8 August 2021". Mr Singh claimed that this information was not provided because it was "irrelevant".”
“On 11 October 2021, Mr Singh and Ms Lim consulted Mr Low Thia Khiang, the WP's former Secretary-General, on what steps to take in relation to the Untruth. Even as they sought Mr Low's advice, they were not honest with him. Critically, they did not reveal that they had known about Ms Khan's Untruth since 8 August 2021. Mr Low said he only learned this two years later, in 2023. At that point, Mr Singh and Ms Lim were also still hopeful that the Government might not discover the Untruth. Ms Lim told Mr Low that discovering the Untruth was not easy because "there are so many Police stations in Singapore". Again, Mr Singh did not disagree with her. It was Mr Low who impressed upon Mr Singh and Ms Lim that Ms Khan had to clarify the Untruth and apologise to Parliament, regardless of whether it might be discovered by the Government. This was the turning point in the WP's response to the Untruth. Following this meeting with Mr Low, arrangements were finally made for Ms Khan to clarify the Untruth. She eventually did so via a personal statement in Parliament on 1 November 2021. In short, Mr Singh and the other two WP leaders hid the truth for months. They only decided to come clean after Mr Low, their former Secretary-General, advised them to do so. The Disciplinary Panel (DP) proceedings and the press conference. What happened next was not edifying. The day after Ms Khan clarified the Untruth, the WP announced that it had formed a DP to look into her admissions in Parliament. The DP comprised Mr Singh, Ms Lim and Mr Faisal – the very persons to whom she had confessed her Untruth in August 2021, from whom she had sought advice, who had agreed to guide her to take the truth to the grave, and – in the case of Mr Singh – who had said he would not judge her.”
“With the benefit of the Court judgments, we now know that it was in fact Mr Singh and the other two WP leaders who had lied about what was said at this meeting. The Court found that their attitude had been clear and simple: they believed that there was no need to tell the truth because they did not think that the matter would surface again – they thought it would be buried forever. For the next two months until October 2021, Mr Singh did not discuss the Untruth with Ms Khan, nor do anything to get her to correct it. This was despite him actively monitoring her other Parliamentary work during this time. The 3 October 2021 meeting. On 3 October 2021, one day before Parliament sat on 4 October 2021, Mr Singh visited Ms Khan at her home. He told Ms Khan he had a feeling that the issue of the Untruth might be raised the next day. He wanted to discuss what should be done if the topic came up. The District Court found that during this meeting, Mr Singh guided Ms Khan to continue her Untruth in Parliament. This is consistent with the finding of the COP. So, when Mr Singh denied this before the COP and the Court, he was again lying. The next day, when Minister Shanmugam asked Ms Khan for further details of her anecdote in Parliament, Ms Khan doubled down on the Untruth. Both Mr Singh and Ms Lim were present in the House. When Ms Khan reiterated the Untruth, they did nothing to correct her. They allowed Parliament to be misled again. Mr Faisal also learnt about the exchange in Parliament later that day. The 11 October 2021 meeting with Mr Low Thia Khiang. The Police emailed Ms Khan on 7 October 2021, requesting to interview her to obtain more details for the investigation. She forwarded this email to Mr Singh and the other two WP leaders.”
“The Court disbelieved and rejected his evidence. That means he lied to the Courts too. In gist, this was not a single lapse. Mr Singh not only lied, but lied repeatedly – to the COP, to the public and to the Courts, doubling down each time. He was also not upfront with his own party. Mr Speaker, allow me to set out salient facts from the Court judgments which substantiate these points. The 8 August 2021 meeting. Taking the Untruth to the grave. On 7 August 2021, a few days after Ms Khan told the Untruth in Parliament, she confessed this to Mr Singh over the phone. The next day, she met him, along with Ms Lim and Mr Faisal. Ms Khan told them about the Untruth as well. At this meeting, Mr Singh told Ms Khan to take the Untruth to the grave. This was the Courts' finding. There is contemporaneous evidence showing this. In particular, Ms Khan sent a WhatsApp message to two of her close WP colleagues immediately after the meeting. The message recorded that the three WP leaders had "agreed that the best thing to do is to take the information to the grave". That is a quote. The Courts also found that at this 8 August meeting, Ms Lim had said that "probably the issue won't come up again", and Mr Singh did not contradict her view. However, before the COP, Mr Singh vehemently denied Ms Khan's account that she had been asked to take the Untruth to the grave. He said, and I quote, "[This] would be highly inaccurate. It is a complete lie." The other two WP leaders denied it before the COP too. All three claimed instead that they did not discuss with Ms Khan what should be done about the Untruth at this 8 August meeting. Mr Singh said that she had to speak to her parents first. Mr Singh continued to say this during his Court trial.”
“In this case, we do have a substantive Motion, the terms of which require us to consider the character and conduct of Mr Singh, and at times Ms Lim and Mr Faisal, in light of the High Court judgment and the COP Report, and to make certain decisions after doing so. It is therefore necessary for us not to skirt around the conduct with euphemisms but to name it squarely, so that everyone understands the issues clearly and can debate them properly. Let me now deal with the Court judgments. In February 2025, the District Court convicted Mr Singh for lying before the COP. He appealed his conviction. Last month, the High Court dismissed Mr Singh's appeal and upheld the findings of guilt on his charges. Mr Singh has stated that he accepts the High Court's judgment "fully and without reservation". The Court findings established many disturbing facts about Mr Singh's conduct. First, in relation to Ms Khan's Untruth, Mr Singh told her to "take it to the grave", essentially instructing her to hide the Untruth. Second, he later guided her to continue with the Untruth. Third, he recommended to the WP Central Executive Committee (CEC) that Ms Khan be expelled from WP if she did not resign, but crucially failed to disclose to the CEC his own prior knowledge of Ms Khan's Untruth and his own involvement guiding her to continue with the Untruth. Fourth, he lied to Singaporeans when he publicly rejected Ms Khan's accounts of the matter, and accused her of lying. Fifth, he lied twice to the COP about his own involvement in guiding Ms Khan to maintain her Untruth. Once when he denied telling Ms Khan to take the Untruth to the grave, and again, when he claimed that he had wanted Ms Khan to clarify the Untruth. And sixth, Mr Singh stuck to these untruths when giving evidence at trial.”
“Mr Singh, Ms Lim and Mr Faisal – then the three senior-most leaders in the WP – gave evidence before the COP to assist in its investigations into the circumstances that led to Ms Khan's Untruth. Ms Khan told the inquiry that the three WP leaders had advised her to continue with the Untruth after she first uttered it in Parliament on 3 August 2021. However, the three WP leaders denied this before the COP. The COP found each of the three to have lied under oath. On 15 February 2022, Parliament debated and adopted the COP's Report. This House fined Ms Khan and resolved to refer Mr Singh to the PP to be investigated for lying to the COP. Mr Singh was later charged in Court on 19 March 2024 for lying to a Parliamentary committee, which is an offence under the PPIPA. Mr Faisal was referred to the PP for refusing to answer the COP's questions. For this, he was subsequently issued a Police Advisory. Parliament postponed making a decision on: Mr Singh's, Ms Lim's and Mr Faisal's involvement in guiding Ms Khan to continue with the Untruth; and Ms Lim's and Mr Faisal's lying to the COP; pending the outcome of Mr Singh's case. Mr Singh's court case has recently concluded. Parliament now has to decide what to do in the light of the Courts' findings. And that is the reason for the Motion today. Mr Speaker, before I go into the Courts' findings, I should mention that normally under the Standing Orders, they do not allow reflecting upon the character and conduct of an MP or making a charge of a personal character, but there are exceptions. This is when it pertains to his conduct in his capacity as an MP and if there is a substantive Motion on the matter.”
“The Leader of the Opposition is designated by the Prime Minister and the decision whether Mr Singh should continue with that designation rests with the Prime Minister, not Parliament. However, Members are entitled to and, I would argue, have an obligation to express a view on Mr Singh's suitability to continue in that role. It will then be for the Prime Minister to decide what to do after that. The fifth limb asks the House to note that the Court judgments have implications for Ms Lim and Mr Faisal, as I will explain in my speech. However, as the extent and degree of their conduct differ from Mr Singh's, the fifth limb proposes that their matters be considered separately on another occasion. Mr Speaker, let me briefly set out the facts. On 3 August 2021, Ms Raeesah Khan, then a Workers' Party (WP) MP, spoke during the WP Motion titled "Empowering Women". She alleged that three years earlier, she had accompanied a sexual assault survivor to make a police report on a rape committed against the survivor. She claimed to have witnessed the survivor come out crying and alleged that the police officer commented about the survivor's dressing and the fact that she had been drinking. Ms Khan repeated this allegation at a later Sitting of Parliament on 4 October 2021. However, on 1 November 2021, she admitted to Parliament that she had lied and had not in fact accompanied a survivor to the police station. I will refer to this lie as the "Untruth" as the Court did. Following Ms Khan's admission, I raised a complaint against her under Standing Order 100(7)(b) for breach of privilege. The complaint was referred to the COP, which was convened and began its inquiry on 29 November 2021.”
“It strikes at the trust Singaporeans place in us as well as the solemn duty we owe to the people we serve. It undermines the high standards of integrity and incorruptibility which make the Singaporean system work and for which Singapore is known. That is why I have brought this Motion before Parliament today. The Motion asks the House to: 1. Affirm that honesty and integrity are fundamental pillars of Singapore's parliamentary and political system; 2. Note the findings of the High Court and the COP; 3. Express regret at Mr Singh's conduct, which was dishonourable and unbecoming of a Member of Parliament; 4. Consider that such conduct renders him unsuitable to continue to hold the Office of the Leader of the Opposition, a Parliamentary leadership position with important responsibilities, duties and privileges, and that his continuation in this role would undermine the standing of Parliament and public confidence in the integrity of Singapore's political system; 5. Note that the High Court's judgment and COP findings have implications for Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Faisal Manap which have to be considered separately; and 6. Call on all Members of Parliament to uphold our solemn duty to respect and abide by the law, act with integrity at all times and honour the trust placed in us by Singaporeans. So, to be clear, and for avoidance of doubt, in the third limb of the Motion, the one that asks us to express regret, the House is not being asked to impose any penalties or sanctions on Mr Pritam Singh under the PPIPA. What is being asked is for this House to express a view of his conduct and, if the House agrees that such conduct is not acceptable, to express its regret at such conduct. Also, the fourth limb of the Motion does not operate to remove the Leader of the Opposition.”
“Mr Speaker, I wish to move the Motion standing in my name in today's Order Paper. Mr Speaker, we are here today because a lie was told in this Chamber four and a half years ago. That lie led to another, and another, and yet another, and then to an inquiry by the Committee of Privileges (COP) where more lies were told – this time, under oath. This resulted in a referral to the Public Prosecutor (PP) and eventually to charges in Court for offences under the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act 1962 (or PPIPA). Last month, on 4 December 2025, the High Court upheld Mr Pritam Singh's conviction by the District Court on two counts of lying before the COP. The District Court also found that Mr Singh had guided Ms Raeesah Khan to maintain her lie to Parliament, confirming the COP's findings. Now, the matter has come full circle back to Parliament. Mr Speaker, this is a serious matter. The misconduct in question is not trivial. It involves multiple lies to different persons at different times, guiding a junior Member of Parliament (MP) to do the wrong thing and a failure of leadership. In Singapore's Parliamentary democracy, honesty and integrity are not abstract ideals. They are not optional virtues. They are the foundation of public trust. The authority of this House does not rest on law alone. It rests on the confidence and trust that Singaporeans have in Parliament – in its processes and its Members. This confidence and trust can be lost. This is why Parliament must insist that its Members always speak truthfully and act with integrity, even when it is politically inconvenient to do so. When an MP lies to Parliament or before its committees, it is not just a personal lapse or a tactical misjudgement.”
“Our future population size depends on various demographic trends, such as birth rates, life expectancies and migration, as well as future social and economic needs. We thus develop various scenarios which are used for infrastructure planning to ensure that we are prepared for a range of possible outcomes, and do not plan on the basis of any single population number. Our scenarios show that our total population is expected to remain significantly below 6.9 million by 2030, and that 6.9 million remains relevant as a planning parameter for the 2030s.”
“The Member is referred to the written reply to Parliamentary Question No 2 for the Sitting on 14 October 2025. [Please refer to "Enhancements to Extended Childcare Leave Scheme and Proposal of New Leave Scheme for Caregivers", Official Report, 14 October 2025, Vol 96, Issue 7, Written Answers to Questions section.] The Government is committed to supporting working parents in caring for their children and will take the Member's suggestion into account when we next review the current leave provisions.”
“There were 29,237 Citizen births in 2024, a 1.2% increase from the 28,877 citizen births in 2023. The overall increase in Citizen births was primarily due to an increase in Chinese births between 2023 and 2024. The increase in Chinese births was due in part to the effect of the dragon year in 2024. However, the dragon year effect has diminished over time, reflecting a shift away from traditional beliefs among younger generations in their childbearing decisions. Our total population was 6.11 million as of June 2025. Based on current trends and the various scenarios we use to plan for the long term, our total population is expected to remain significantly below 6.9 million by 2030 and this figure continues to remain relevant as a planning parameter for the 2030s.”
“Our intake of Permanent Residents and Citizens takes into account several factors. Apart from our total fertility rate, we also consider other demographic indicators, such as life expectancy and age profile of our population. Our intake also varies on an annual basis depending on the number and quality of applications we receive. Starting from the publication of the Population in Brief 2025, we have excluded citizenships granted by descent from being reported as part of the total number of citizenships granted. This is to more accurately reflect immigration inflows, since citizenship by descent is a constitutional entitlement for children born overseas to at least one Singaporean parent. It is akin to how children born in Singapore to Singaporean parents are constitutionally entitled to citizenship by birth. The number of citizenships by descent granted will continue to be reported under the Marriage and Parenthood section of the Population in Brief, and is also available on other open sources, such as the Department of Statistics' SingStat Table Builder. This is a technical change in reporting and our intake methodology has not changed.”
“Mr Speaker, thank you for allowing me to make this clarification. At 26 September 2025 Sitting, Ms Denise Phua asked supplementary questions on Singapore's recent drop in the International Institute for Management Development's World Talent ranking. In my response, I had said that Singapore's ranking in terms of our total public expenditure on education as a percentage of gross domestic product had gone from 63rd in 2024 to 65th in 2025. It is actually the other way round. Our ranking had gone up, from 65th in 2024 to 63rd in 2025. I had also said that the perception-based indicators on whether our primary and secondary and university education meets the needs of a competitive economy, had improved. I would like to clarify that our ranking for these indicators had fallen slightly, but nonetheless remained high. For primary and secondary education, Singapore's ranking had gone from second in 2024 to third in 2025. For university education, it had gone from second in 2024 to seventh in 2025. [Please refer to "Response to Singapore's Drop in 2025 World Talent Ranking", Official Report, 26 September 2025, Vol 96, Issue 6, Oral Answers to Questions section.]”
“Sir, I thank the Member for her supplementary question. On the first suggestion to have a pilot within specific regions, have a Baby Gift on a smaller scale, just two things. Singapore is already quite small, and I am fairly sure that if we were to give a Baby Gift to, let us say the central region, and not to the others, the other regions will very quickly put up their hands. But I think that the more important point is this: the Baby Gift is meant to be a commemoration. It is meant to be something to mark a milestone. But in terms of the essentials and what is needed, what most parents actually need is the cash. And hence, that is why we have the Baby Bonus Cash Gift. And also, why we have the First Step Grant, which puts cash into the hands of the parents and then, they can choose what they want. The other thing also – and we went through this when we were preparing the SG60 gift – different parents want different things. So, when we were road-testing it, some came back and said, "Can I change this gift for something else, because I already have this?" So, you will run into those issues and therefore, the general policy is we give the parents cash; they can buy what they want, but for special occasions we have something to mark that special occasion. As to whether any survey or study was done on the impact of the Baby Gift, not that I am aware of. I may stand corrected, but not that I am aware of, simply because the Baby Gift was not intended to be a policy measure to achieve a certain outcome. It was just intended to be a nice thing to commemorate a special occasion.”
“The Government takes a long-term approach towards land use and infrastructure planning, to ensure that we have sufficient land to meet our current and future needs and to provide a high-quality living environment for all Singaporeans. When developing our plans, we consider our changing demographic and socioeconomic trends, as well as the evolving needs and aspirations of Singaporeans, and how we can optimally respond to these with the physical space that we have. We do not plan around a single or optimum population density. To ensure that our city remains liveable for all, we also incorporate urban design strategies islandwide, such as varying building heights and creating well-connected and pedestrian-friendly public spaces.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, as there are still quite a number of speakers, we will not be able to finish by the moment of interruption at 7.00 pm. I therefore need to move to proceed beyond 7.00 pm. [(proc text) Resolved, "That the proceedings on the business set down on the Order Paper for today be exempted at this day's Sitting from the provisions of Standing Order No 2." – [Ms Indranee Rajah.] (proc text)]”
“Mr Speaker, the next item of business will be the Second Reading of the Online Safety (Relief and Accountability) Bill. There are three political officeholders speaking on the Bill. Minister Josephine Teo is moving the Bill and she will cover the broad policy areas. Minister of State Rahayu Mahzam, on behalf of the Ministry of Digital Development and Information (MDDI), will be covering the scope of harms covered, and Minister Edwin Tong, in his capacity as the Minister for Law, will be speaking on statutory torts, end user identification and anonymity. Minister Josephine Teo, as the mover of the Bill, will have the right to speak twice, to open and to close. In the ordinary case, other Members speaking only have the right to speak once. However, as Minister of State Rahayu and Minister Edwin will be covering areas for which we anticipate that there will be questions or queries that need to be responded to, I am therefore moving to allow them to speak twice and also to lift the time limit on their speeches, as there are very many speakers on this Bill. So, Mr Speaker, may I seek your consent and the general assent of Members present to move that the proceedings on the item under discussion be exempted from the provisions of: Standing Order No 48(3), to allow Minister Edwin Tong and Minister of State Rahayu Mahzam to speak more than once; and Standing Order 48(8), to remove the time limit in respect of Minister Edwin Tong's and Minister of State Rahayu Mahzam's speeches.”
“For example, members of the public can already inspect a private company's electronic register of members upon payment of the prescribed fees under section 12(2)(d) of the Companies Act 1967. The amendments simply update the mode of access by replacing physical inspection with electronic access to the same information. This removes an obsolete requirement without prejudicing or expanding rights. In relation to privacy and data protection concerns raised by Mr Chia, ACRA is mindful of the need to balance corporate transparency with personal data protection. For example, ACRA implemented the filing of a contact address last year to enhance personal data protection. As the Registrar will make public the contact address and not the residential address, I encourage shareholders and position holders to file a non-residential contact address to better protect their personal data. In other words, ACRA needs to know the residential address, that is for ACRA's purposes. But sometimes when you need to have personal service of court documents, for example, you can put a contact address which the documents can be served, and that is what is made publicly available. In conclusion, this Bill demonstrates our commitment to continually strengthen the robustness of our corporate regulatory framework and ensure Singapore remains a good place to do business. Mr Speaker, I seek to move. 1.02 pm”
“The amendment clarifies that this requirement includes reporting when a director has been disqualified from acting as a director. However, I emphasise that companies only need to report a director's disqualification after becoming aware of the director's disqualification and companies have 14 days to do so. Both Mr Edward Chia and Mr Lee Hong Chuang asked if financial reporting and auditing requirements could be simplified for SMEs. The current regulatory framework already provides for this. For example, small companies can prepare their financial statements using a simplified financial reporting framework. The Companies Act also exempts companies from audit requirements if their revenue, assets and/or employees are below certain thresholds. ACRA will continue to review these compliance requirements to see if more companies can benefit from these simplified frameworks or exemptions. ACRA is also studying how to make digital filing for financial statements simpler. On the suggestion by Mr Edward Chia and Mr Lee Hong Chuang for a grace period for companies and individuals to comply with new requirements in this Bill, most of the provisions of the Bill are only targeted to be commenced after six months. This will give companies and individuals time to prepare. In addition, when ACRA enforces these requirements, it will do so in a measured manner and ensure that any sanction is proportionate to the circumstances of the breach. Next, let me address Mr Chia's questions on data protection. He asked whether replacing the right to inspect the Registrar's physical documents with electronic access would change the scope of personal and company data exposed to the public. To clarify, the amendments do not expand the scope of access to personal or company data.”
“Mr Speaker, I would like to thank Mr Edward Chia and Mr Lee Hong Chuang for their comments and support for the Bill. They have spoken on two main themes relating to compliance costs for companies and the importance of data protection, and I will address these in turn. Let me start by addressing Mr Chia's and Mr Lee's comments on the importance of striking a balance between strengthening corporate governance while ensuring compliance costs do not unduly stifle business growth. The Ministry of Finance and ACRA regularly review the corporate regulatory framework to reduce compliance costs for companies. In my opening speech, I mentioned that the Bill removes the requirement for a company's registered office to be open for at least three hours every business day. Let me explain how this can help reduce compliance costs for SMEs. By removing the requirement, we are giving companies more flexibility in managing their operations and reduce unnecessary staffing costs. For example, some companies can cease engaging corporate secretarial services, if they were engaged solely to meet the minimum operating hours requirements, even when their business operations do not actually require the registered office to be open. Most of the amendments relating to strengthening the regulatory framework for companies are existing obligations under the Companies Act. Companies are already required to file their annual returns and maintain proper accounting records. Mr Edward Chia mentioned that the Bill introduces stricter reporting and notification requirements. The "new" reporting requirement Mr Chia mentioned relates to the amended section 173A of the Companies Act. Currently, section 173A requires companies to report changes in position-holder details within 14 days.”
“Mr Speaker, Question Nos 3 to 27 cover an important topic, but I notice there is less than 25 minutes left to the end of Question Time. As it is an important topic, I am going to move to extend Question Time so that the issue can be properly addressed and supplementary questions can be raised. Mr Speaker, may I seek your consent and the general assent of Members present to move that Question Time at this day's Sitting be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No 22(1) so as to enable the Questions for Oral Answer to continue until the completion of Question No 27, including relevant supplementary questions thereon.”
“You can depart from it, but that should be the standard for what is the expected norm, and the Government has the ability by putting in certain clauses, firstly, to practise it for ourselves, but also to signal to the market what is considered fair. And of course, if we get feedback that clauses are not fair or too onerous, then we can always review and adjust as needed.”
“That said, Mr Ang's supplementary question raises a broader issue, which is that of fair contracting. The Government is actually encouraging the industry, especially the construction industry but across the board, to have collaborative contracting and fair clauses. The old way of approaching contracts is very much a win-lose. The lawyers on one side will want to get everything for their client. The lawyers on the other side will obviously want to do the same. But contracts for such procurement should not be win-lose. You should try to see how you can make it win-win. Because if every party has a vested interest in the contract to make it succeed, that would be better. And if it is completely one-sided, then after a while the other side will either not want to participate or the relationship will break down. And this needs a change of mindset. Many of the contracts out there, especially in the private sector, which are not mandated by Government, are in old standard forms. It is very difficult to get lawyers to shift from standard forms. They like their precedents. My message, really, to the industry, especially the built environment industry, is that we are trying to effect change. That change is collaborative contracting where it is win-win, and fair clauses. That leads to the question of what is fair. Usually, that is a matter of negotiation. But it is difficult when you have parties who have uneven resources and of different sizes. This is the reason why the SCA and other Government standard contracts can and should be the base reference.”
“So, on the point about making unlimited design changes, I had shared earlier that under the SCA, which is what the Government follows, the one that is used for construction-related consultancy services, agencies will pay for additional services not covered by the contract, such as further changes after design sign-off. Then, with respect to unlimited liability, in November 2024, we added an option in the SCA to limit consultants' contractual liability. And then, as announced by Minister for National Development Mr Chee Hong Tat, last month, we will be making this mandatory starting from 1 December 2025. So, in other words, going forward, there will be limited liability. Though these changes have only been applied to the SCA, agencies are expected to be fair to suppliers in all their contracts, facilitated by standard contract templates, such as the Tender Lite Conditions of Contract. And on the question of milestones, Government agencies typically make payments to their suppliers at specified milestones during the course of the project. For instance, construction contractors are usually paid every month, based on monthly progress payments. MOF has also provided agencies with guidelines for more frequent payment milestones. Besides this, the Government has introduced Tender Lite to simplify procurement in tenders with estimated procurement value up to $1 million. This makes it easier for businesses, especially SMEs, to access Government procurement opportunities. MOF has worked closely with partners, including the Singapore Business Federation, the Association of Small and Medium Enterprises, and sector-specific trade associations to develop Tender Lite. We will continue to partner industry to look for ways to ease doing business with Government.”
“I thank the Member for his supplementary question, which raises a couple of important points. Let me address them in turn. The first is to make a distinction between SUSS and Government. Strictly speaking, SUSS is an autonomous university (AU). AUs are independent corporate entities and not Government agencies, and this gives them the autonomy to handle operational and corporate service matters according to their own policies and procedures. Nevertheless, AUs are expected to adhere to fundamental procurement principles – of value-for-money, transparency, and open and fair competition; and we encourage them to align broadly. So, I just wanted to make that distinction, because in the particular instance that Mr Ang is referring to, I would not go into the details because it is between different parties, but my understanding is that those contract terms are not in exactly the same terms as the Government standard contracting terms. That is the first point. The second point is that for such contracts, there are really three broad groups. One is pure Government. Then, there are those which are not exactly Government, but like SUSS or other agencies, are expected to follow Government, but have much broader leeway to depart or set their own terms. And then, third, there is the private sector. So, I will come back to these three, but just let me address first the specific queries that Mr Ang had raised. We do recognise the need to support enterprises in this economic environment, even as we continue to achieve value-for-money for public spending.”
“From May this year, we already expanded the scope of CDA use to cover all preschool incidental charges stipulated in the Early Childhood Development Centres (ECDC) Regulations 2018, including optional enrichment programmes offered in-school. This was to provide more financial support for preschoolers to fully tap on the learning opportunities offered by their preschools. This is similar to how students are able to tap on Edusave for enrichment programmes organised by their schools. To safeguard the use of CDA funds for preschool fees and incidental charges, it is not advisable to open up CDA funds for enrichment programmes offered outside of preschools. CDA top-ups are a broad-based measure to help families with their cost of child-raising. Lower-income families may receive further means-tested subsidies, such as additional preschool subsidies. Lower-income households who require additional financial support may also approach Social Service Offices for financial assistance.”
“Eligible Singaporeans who are temporarily without fixed residential addresses are not excluded from Government schemes. Every Singaporean household is eligible for one set of Community Development Council (CDC) Vouchers per tranche. This is based on their National Registration Identity Card (NRIC) address. Some Singaporean households might be unable to claim their CDC Vouchers for a variety of reasons. For example, when more than one Singaporean household resides in the same registered address or their registered address is not a residential address. Such households can approach any community centre or club for assistance, bringing along relevant documentation, such as a tenancy agreement, to show that they are from a separate household. The enhanced Climate Friendly Households Programme aims to encourage households to adopt energy- or water-efficient appliances for the place of residence, by helping to defray part of the cost of eligible products. Each place of residence is entitled to one set of Climate Vouchers. Singaporeans who have rented out their properties will not be entitled to vouchers for those properties, but they will still benefit from the vouchers claimed at their current place of residence.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I move, "That Parliament do now adjourn." [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)] Strengthening the Mental Resilience of Our Young”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will not belabour the point, but I just want to wrap it up by saying this. There is actually a difference between saying that Mr Deros was not specifically sought out. Not specifically sought out is one thing, but "gate-crashed" really implies – not even supposed to be there, not invited. And what the facts do show now is that he was invited by the ustaz, and that the ustaz had informed Mr Faisal. So, I think, in short, had this been known in April during the elections and made known to the voters, I think it might have put a different colour on the circumstances then. And also, it is an odd word to use – "gate-crashed" – if you have not actually verified that. I am not sure that the statement that "gate-crashed" means "did not seek out", actually makes sense. But I leave it there.”
“I thank Mr Singh for that clarification. It is quite clear that – Mr Singh has clarified it now – because he says the knowledge that Mr Deros was included in the group was given to him on 21 October. What I want to know is, because Mr Singh had said during the elections that Mr Deros had gate-crashed the meeting, and Mr Singh had said the same thing on 14 October 2025; because on 14 October what Mr Singh said was, "I mentioned quite clearly during the elections that he had gate-crashed the meeting", I just want to know during the elections in April and on 14 October, on what basis does Mr Singh say that Mr Deros had gate-crashed the meeting?”
“I thank Mr Singh for his clarifications. So, now I move to the first point on this question of gate-crashing. And I was not sure that I quite understood Mr Singh's clarification here. In light of the clarification, because I think it is important to go back to the original statement. The original statement, which was stated in Mr Singh's clarification on 14 October, he said, "I mentioned quite clearly during the elections that he had gate-crashed the meeting that Mr Faisal Manap was having with someone else." So, "gate-crashed" actually implies that you are not invited and that really, you are not supposed to be there. But I think we have heard – firstly, today, that in fact, there was a WhatsApp message and the ustaz had shared with Mr Faisal Manap one hour before the meeting that Mr Deros would be present. So, would it be fair to say that it is wrong to say that Mr Deros gate-crashed that meeting?”