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 48 of 51.
“I am, therefore, announcing that the Government intends to further extend the ban on smoking in a number of public areas. Today, the ban on smoking in public swimming complexes, open air stadia and community clubs is enforced as a house rule. My Ministry will officially extend the ban on smoking to public swimming complexes, open air stadia and community clubs by 1st October this year. Currently, smoking is also banned in queues as it is difficult for non-smokers in queues to avoid second-hand smoke. For the same reason, we will be extending the ban to bus shelters, bus interchanges and public toilets by 1st October 2005. Sir, my Ministry also plans to extend the ban on smoking to entertainment outlets such as pubs, bars, discos, nightclubs and KTV lounges. In the case of entertainment outlets, it is difficult for patrons to avoid second-hand smoke as these are enclosed areas with limited air circulation. Many countries have begun to recognise the threat of second-hand smoke in entertainment outlets as a potential health hazard. California was one of the first to ban smoking in pubs and clubs. The Republic of Ireland imposed the ban in early 2004; pub-owners will now be fined if their customers are caught smoking indoors. The UK government has unveiled a White Paper proposing a ban on smoking in most pubs in England by 2008. A number of other countries are also following suit. Sir, we have been conducting public consultations on the issue. The results of the consultations conducted so far indicate strong public support for a complete or partial ban on smoking in entertainment outlets. A Health Promotion Board survey conducted in December 2004 showed that 69% of those surveyed supported a ban on smoking in at least one of the entertainment outlets.”
“In fact, second-hand smoke is a toxic cocktail consisting of over 4,000 chemical compounds, 200 of which are known to be poisonous, and more than 50 have been identified as carcinogens. People with allergies and asthma are particularly sensitive to second-hand smoke. It aggravates their medical condition. Even healthy people are not spared. Second-hand smoke can cause eye, nose and throat irritations, as well as headaches, nausea, coughing and wheezing. Mdm Phua mentioned about the effects on children. Yes, second-hand smoke is especially harmful for babies and young children. Infants and young children exposed to second-hand smoke are more likely to suffer chronic respiratory illnesses and impaired lung function as well as experience more frequent occurrences of chronic coughs, phlegm and wheezing. The body of evidence on the health hazards posed by second-hand smoke is increasing. A 2002 landmark study by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of the World Health Organisation (WHO) has concluded that there is clear scientific evidence of an increased risk of lung cancer in non-smokers exposed to second-hand smoke. This increased risk is estimated at 20% in women, and 30% in men, who live with a smoker. The danger is higher in entertainment outlets. In fact, a study in the Journal of the American Medical Association has shown that the level of second-hand smoke in pubs and bars can be up to 450% higher than in homes with at least one smoker. Sir, Mdm Cynthia Phua has asked if we would extend the ban on smoking to even more public areas in the future. In view of the dangers posed by second-hand smoke, my answer to Mdm Phua's question is "Yes".”
“Sir, we must continue to act decisively against smoking and, in particular, make an extra effort to stop the young from picking up the habit. Mdm Phua's suggestion of working with the primary schools is a good idea which I would ask NEA to look into. Sir, the Minister for Finance has already announced an increase in excise duty on cigarettes to discourage smoking. In parallel, my Ministry is reviewing the ban on smoking in public places. The Government introduced the ban on smoking way back in 1970, initially in public buses, cinemas and theatres. This was progressively extended to many other public areas including lifts in 1973, amusement centres in 1982, fast-food outlets in 1988, air-conditioned restaurants in 1989, air-conditioned barber shops and hairdressing salons in 1992, air-conditioned workplaces in 1994, queues in public places in 1995, and air-conditioned shops in 1997. The reason I am reiterating this is to demonstrate that the Government has committed itself to increasingly protect non-smokers from the effects of second-hand smoke. Sir, the ban on smoking was not always welcomed by smokers and businesses. Smokers were inconvenienced and businesses could be affected. But businesses adapted. The Government had to press on, because we know we have a duty to protect the health of our non-smokers. Let me just elaborate here briefly. Sir, second-hand smoke is not something to be taken lightly. It has at least twice the nicotine and tar as the smoke inhaled by the smoker. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) has classified second-hand smoke as a "Group A" carcinogen, along with substances such as arsenic and asbestos. This classification is reserved for substances that are known to cause cancer in humans.”
“Mr Chairman, like Mdm Cynthia Phua, I am concerned about smoking in public places and I would like to ask the Minister if his Ministry would consider banning smoking in public places. Other countries have made moves in this direction and Singapore should as well. Lung cancer is the No. 1 killer disease for men in Singapore. It is the No. 3 killer disease for women. The link between smoking and lung cancer is quite clear. The problem with smoking is that it does not just affect the smoker. The second-hand cigarette smoke puts non-smokers at risk as well. Smoking is a pernicious and insidious form of chemical poisoning. It kills more slowly than other chemical agents, but no less, surely. I would, therefore, urge the Minister to consider banning smoking in public places. Assoc. Prof. Dr Yaacob Ibrahim: Sir, I thank both Mdm Phua and Ms Indranee Rajah for raising this very important issue. Sir, the Government has always viewed smoking as a serious health issue. We have put in place measures to discourage smoking and protect non-smokers against the harmful effects of second-hand smoke. Sir, these measures have been effective in bringing down the proportion of smokers in the population. Currently, only 14% of our population are smokers, down from 18% in 1992. The decrease is particularly significant for males. Among males aged 18-69, the proportion of smokers has decreased from 33% to 24%. However, we see a worrying trend of young females picking up smoking. Over the same period, the proportion of smokers among females aged 18-24 almost tripled from 2.8% to 8.2%, in contrast to a reduction from 29% to 24% for males in the same age group!”
“So many of the operators are actually not supposed to be operating them. Occasionally, when they were caught, they would come and appeal to us. The licence cannot be transferred. On the other hand, there are no new licences issued, and they have been making a living out of these stalls for a while. So these are really the cases. The other issue is that we can work with the town councils to identify areas or potential locations, where these vendors could be located and that may not pose any competition, as some are selling along the streets, and every evening, you will see a long queue of people buying the Wanbao. Assoc. Prof. Dr Yaacob Ibrahim: Sir, on Dr Khor's second suggestion, we can look into that to see how we can work together with the local agency. On the first point, we have to bear in mind that certainly, in some cases, these are licences held by the parents, whose children would have grown up and chances are that they probably would not be interested. Dr Khor and I are familiar that some of these transfers came into effect without us knowing it, and therefore we have to clamp down. I understand the concerns of Dr Khor and Ms Indranee Rajah, and I promise both Members that we will take a look at this much closely.”
“I want to seek clarification on the newspaper vendors. As the Minister may recall, during the Presidential debate, I had raised this issue. And in that particular case, my resident was asking to take over an existing licence. So the explanation that it might inconvenience people does not really apply in that case because it is an existing licence. It is just that he was not allowed to take over. What that really suggests is that there is a policy reason behind it. I would urge the Ministry to consider issuing more licences. Assoc. Prof. Dr Yaacob Ibrahim: Sir, as we mentioned in the reply, we want to try and move some of the street hawkers of the streets into customised places where they can sell newspapers. But, at the same time, those who are holding newspaper licences are allowed to renew it on a year-to-year basis. In the specific case she mentioned, the licensee has asked for the licence to be transferred to another person. These are instances in which we have to look at it very carefully as to whether or not we want to allow the industry to grow or to keep it to a certain size. But I would look into the specific request and see whether a special case can be made. But having said that, we must bear in mind that we do not want it to grow unwittingly because we want to make sure that the newspapers which are being sold in the shops and supermarkets are not, in a sense, threatened by the street vendors. Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan: Sir, just a point of clarification on the newspaper vendors again. The cases I am referring to are all transferred. Actually, they are not supposed to be transferred. But many of the original licensees are not operating the stalls anymore because they are either getting on in age or they do not want to operate since they were given in 1994.”
“Sir, I would like to ask the Minister what plans MND has for Singapore's urban redevelopment and for making Singapore a distinctive city. Distinctive cities are not products of a single feature, but a combination of good urban planning. You need architectural design, gardens, parks and, most importantly, that intangible factors, which some people refer to it as an X-factor which gives the city its own particular identity. With New York, for example, you immediately think of buzz and energy; Paris, you think of a romantic city; London, you think of history. So my question is: what are we doing in Singapore to create and develop our own unique urban imprint? Revamp of Orchard Road”
“Sir, like my parliamentary colleague, Dr Tan Boon Wan, I would like to inquire of the Minister whether under the recently announced policy change of allowing town council funds to be used for lift upgrading, LUP will now be extended to low-rise blocks. The policy to-date is that there is no LUP for low-rise blocks, on the basis that it is not cost-effective. But this creates a lot of hardship for the elderly in the low-rise blocks, including those who are disabled, whether chair-bound or with arthritis or joint problems. The lack of lifts effectively confines them to their own corridors, and I hope that there will be a policy review to provide LUP for low-rise blocks.”
“Sir, in some cases that I have seen, families are threatened with repossession within a year of their purchase of their flats. While I understand that we should leave the commercial banks to operate freely within the open market, we should be mindful of the implications to Singaporeans. Many are unaware of what they are getting into. I think we should pay close attention to the issue before we revert to the early days of having to deal with families losing their homes. As we pride ourselves as having a high percentage of home owners, I hope we will not get into a situation of having to deal with a larger number of home losers or move into rental flats once more.”
“Yes, we acknowledge the rationale behind the policy, ie, HDB is not in the business of lending money. Sir, with the new policy implemented, the HDB flats are no longer as secure as they used to be. We know that the commercial banks have the first charge in cases where flat owners cannot make good their mortgage payments or when they are declared bankrupt. In other words, they will lose their flats should the commercial banks take action against them. Sir, my fear is beginning to come true. A couple of weeks ago, a resident came to see me asking me for a rental flat. The reason is that she had been given notice by the bank to vacate her flat by March, as she has not been able to make good her loan payments. There are many others who are facing legal action at various stages. I am afraid to see more evictions of these cases, as these cases are really on the verge of losing their flats. This is something that I fear most when the new policy was implemented. In this regard, I would like to ask the Minister whether HDB tracks the cases of those who take up loans from commercial banks and who are at risk, through default payments, of losing their flats. How many are currently in this category operationalised by banks taking legal action against them already? Also, how many flat owners have had their flats repossessed by the banks since the policy was implemented? 1.45 pm On a related note, Sir, I would like to ask the Minister whether HDB or MND has plans to help Singaporeans better understand the implications of them getting loans from commercial banks and the risk that they have to take. This is especially so for cases who choose to downgrade due to inability to pay for their current mortgage loans.”
“Sir, I would like to call for a review of the HDB policy of not allowing single mothers to rent HDB flats. If the policy objective is to discourage single mothers from having babies, it is not working because the problem is recurring. And, in any event, I seriously doubt that the unavailability of rental housing is a consideration at the point of conception. They do not sort of sit back and think, "Oh, I shouldn't do this because I can't rent a flat." If we say that the number of units is limited and we have to make a moral judgment as to who should get it, then we should extend this policy to fathers who father illegitimate children as well. This policy operates harshly and creates unnecessary hardship on single mothers. HDB's primary role is to provide housing for Singaporeans who are in need of it. And if a mother is seeking to rent a HDB flat, it usually means that she cannot afford to rent in the open market or to buy one and that she does not have family support for whatever reason. I would therefore call for a review of this policy. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Acting Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports (Dr Mohamad Maliki Bin Osman): Sir, when I was a student social worker back in the late 80s, I was confronted with a rude shock of flat evictions. Yes, I saw Singaporeans being evicted from their flats because they were not able to pay their rentals. Of course, HDB tried to minimise the impact by informing social workers of the impending eviction. The families were devastated. Some tried to protect their children from the crisis. Sir, I fear that history may repeat itself. I am referring to the situation of flat owners now having to secure mortgage loans from commercial banks.”
“Sir, I would like to thank the Minister and the Senior Minister of State for their replies and, in the light of the responses, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $1,850,310,090 for Head P ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. The sum of $461,509,500 for Head P ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates.”
“I would like to ask the Minister what strategies we have in place to deal with this growing problem. I would also like to highlight the concern that it is not just people of low educational levels indulging in this. There is anecdotal evidence that there are career professionals who indulge in it and in particular they go to neighbouring countries to have substance abuse there and then come back to Singapore. So I would be grateful if the Minister could outline what strategies we have to deal with this problem. Community Safety and Security Programme”
“The first is on vice. One of the problems that has been recurring, or at least which my residents come to see me, is to express concern about foreigners coming to Singapore on social visit passes and engaging in vice activities, including solicitation and prostitution. Frequently mentioned are visitors from China, although by no means that is the only country from which they may come. Singaporeans are concerned about this because it would appear that vice activities are no longer necessarily limited to the traditional red light districts, such as Geylang, for example. But the activities do appear to be spreading into other areas, like commercial districts and, in some cases, heartland areas. I have received reports from some of my grassroots and residents that there are instances of these women in coffee shops, for example. Some of the uncles do not seem to mind very much, but the aunties are really very upset about it. The main concern here really is we are an open society, and obviously we do not want to discourage people from coming here because we need to develop our tourism industry. But at the same time, of course, there will be people who abuse the privilege that is given to them by virtue of a social visit pass. So the question is: as and when they do these things, what can be done, in terms of enforcement, to reduce the problem? I accept that you cannot probably eradicate the problem entirely. Drug Situation The next question I have is on the drug situation and, in particular, synthetic drugs. Synthetic drugs are a growing problem. I understand that a number of instances of abuse for the traditional substance abuse, like heroin and opium, had been dropping, whereas, on the other hand, for synthetic drugs, they have been increasing.”
“So the question is: what more can we do to raise awareness among the community and to get people to be prepared for emergencies without at the same time being paranoid or over-concerned? How do we strike this balance and what steps can be done towards getting the community to be psychologically prepared to deal with something in the event, for example, that we have an act of terrorism in Singapore?”
“I would therefore like to ask the Minister on what efforts we have made in regional cooperation for counter-terrorism, what direction it is taking, and what we are doing to work with the security forces of the other countries. The next question I would like to ask is how prepared is the Home Team. Over the years, the Home Team has developed. In the past, it was more focused on domestic crimes and sources of criminal acts within Singapore, which essentially means that the Police Force had been focused on local or domestic crimes and where the criminal involved was somebody who was either a Singapore resident, illegal immigrant or a Singapore PR. And the nature of the crime was very localised. However, now with the terrorist threat, the criminal that we may be dealing with is quite different, quite possibly somebody who has international links and contacts, somebody who would be smart, and who has links to international networks. The question is: what has been done, as far as the Home Team is concerned, to equip them to be able to deal with this new type of criminal element that we have to deal with? And the third question is to ask what is his view of the state of the community's preparedness or emergency response. In our division, we had on last Saturday, helped to launch the "Ready Bag" exercise and part of the message behind that was to encourage Singaporeans to get ready themselves and to have their own ready bag. But the general sense, and this was highlighted in the Straits Times' report the following day, is that, by and large, most Singaporeans are very comfortable because they have faith in our Home Team and in our security forces, which is a good thing. But, on the other hand, it might encourage them to feel too complacent.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the total sum to be allocated for Head P of the Estimates be reduced by $100. The cut I wish to make is on the topic of terrorism. Essentially, the thrust of it is to enquire of the Minister what is the state of our preparedness for terrorism in case anything should happen in Singapore. At a recent Home Team seminar organised by the Ministry of Home Affairs, there was a talk by Dr Rohan Gunaratna and a number of things which he said were very elucidating but also gave great food for thought. One of the points that he made was that Singapore has, by and large, been able to control the problem internally and we have got a good grip on the elements that have tried to commit terrorist acts here, in particular, the JI. The concern now though is that the terrorists have moved their operations to the surrounding region, precisely where, it may not be that easy to tell. But the point is that a lot of the planning, the procurement and the developmental stages of a terrorist attack can now be taking place outside of Singapore. And if Singapore is a target, as we believe it is, then it is only the execution phase of a terrorist attack that will take place in Singapore. And that means that our window for detecting something like that becomes very short. As all security forces know, you are only as strong as your weakest link. That means that internally for Singapore, no matter how strong we are, it is not dependent on our security forces alone. It is also dependent on the preparedness of the security forces of the neighbouring countries or countries in which terrorists may be planning activities.”
“Sir, I would like to thank the Minister for Law and the Senior Minister of State for Law for their responses and for clarifying the Ministry's stance and, in the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $121,244,220 for Head R ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. The sum of $226,104,900 for Head R ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. Head B - Attorney-General's Chambers 1.00 pm”
“After further consideration, an amount of about $64,000 was given to reflect, in a way, severance damage, because it was calculated on the basis of what would have been the case as the carpark lots were taken away, and what was the severance damage that was being caused. But even the way of calculation also has moved on, because the Appeals Board, in recent cases like ExxonMobil and others, has also, in introducing the before-and-after method, shown the way forward, in that even if it is not a throughput method - I think this is one way which has been the basis of computation in one particular case - if we take the before-and-after method, even if it is a garden that is being acquired which is part of a road - of course, I cannot say for sure - it is unlikely that compensation would only be nil or $1. So, that is the way to go forward.”
“Clarification on the road zone, Sir. It is true that there is a separate head for compensation of severance damage. But that only works when it is high yielding land, because you look at the value before and the value after. So, if it is a high yielding land, like a petrol station, for example, there will be a fairly decent value. But if it is, for example, residential, and we are talking about a strip of garden, the land value will be quite small. And that is actually what happened in the case of the church carpark. In this, I would like just to refer to the Senior Minister of State's reply to Dr Amy Khor's question on 15th of August 2003, where, in fact, he said that the re-zoning had led to a valuation of a nominal $1, but he also said it is not the Government's intention to change the compensation approach and that the $1 nominal compensation was actually an unintended consequence. And because it has arisen out of an unintended consequence of the re-zoning under the Planning Department, I would therefore ask whether it can be reviewed and we can actually redress it by legislation, either by saying that if it is zoned road, you give it a certain consideration or, alternatively - and this may be for a different Ministry - instead of using a road zoned, either go back to road widening lines or use some other form of delineation for road lines. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, the jurisprudence in this area is evolving, because the Appeals Board has been hearing cases on this aspect even after the Kim Keat Road case. That was the first case that caught our attention and, therefore, the Minister and I and other officials had a review to take a look at it.”
“So, it has an impact on the Land Acquisition Act. Because when you acquire, let us say, the whole of the land and one-quarter of it is zoned "road", in the past you would get compensation for the whole piece of land, but now you get compensation essentially for three-quarters because the last quarter effectively has a zero value, and that is what happened in the case of the car park that was acquired from the church that owned the land. This is an unintentional and unforeseen problem, but it is something that does need to be redressed. I understand that there is a discretionary fund, but that should not be the case. Compensation should be made in accordance with the principles. The third question is whether or not the Minister would consider the reverse Pointe Gourde principle. Basically, if there is an increase in the value of the land as a result of compulsory acquisition scheme, you disregard that. But the converse is not true - you do not disregard a decrease. It means that it is a double whammy for somebody who has the land acquired. I was wondering if the Minister would consider whether it is a matter of policy, so that we would be able to review this. Open Space for Public Use”
“My next cut, Sir, is on the Land Acquisition Act, and I have three points to make. The first point is whether the Minister would consider redrafting section 33(5)(e) of the Land Acquisition Act. That section governs the compensation that is to be paid when land is acquired. And it says that the compensation would be the market value of the land, but it must not exceed the price that a purchaser would pay for it on the basis of either existing use or in anticipation of continued use of the land for the purpose designated in the development baseline referred to in section 36 of the Planning Act. The problem though is when you refer to section 36 of the Planning Act, it does not talk about a purpose. It talks about the development baseline which is a value. So, the two do not match, and it does not actually make sense in plain English. In fact, I would strongly recommend that anybody who wants an instant migraine should try reading the two sections of the different Acts together. You can in a very roundabout way figure out what it means, but it is an extremely convoluted way of doing it. So I would ask if that provision could be amended. The second point I would like to highlight is the problem created by road zoning. Prior to the 1998 Masterplan, there were road interpretation lines. After the 1998 Masterplan, all the road widening lines were zoned roads. The intention behind that was a good one. But the problem was that you have a piece of land which before just had a road widening line. And when compensation is made on the basis of zoning, you take into account the whole piece of land and you compensate on the basis that it is car park or it is residential. But once a portion of it has been zoned "road", the value immediately becomes zero.”
“Because of that uniqueness, it has a certain attractiveness to people when they want to invest in the region, as a law that can satisfy both parties. Sir, I hope that the relevant Ministries, not just Ministry of Law but all the other agencies that promote Singapore law, such as MTI, EDB or even the Singapore Business Federation to which the SIAC reports, will bear this in mind and use this as a tool for marketing Singapore law. I also think that in order to develop our services better, it would be helpful if we had better transcription and translation services which, at the moment, we do not have. And also if the hotel industry could play a part in providing better Internet facilities, secretarial services as well as other infrastructure to promote arbitration.”
“And I would like to highlight three or four points which I think are our greatest strengths, and these are actually intangible in nature. The first point is that Singapore is able to deliver neutral justice, and this is very important because parties, and in particular foreign investors, want to be sure that their disputes are resolved without fear of bias or corruption. At the same time, if a person is a foreign investor from an Asian country, he may not be comfortable to arbitrate in his Asian country. And vice versa, the Asian investor may not be comfortable to arbitration in the western countries, because of homeground advantage. Singapore, on the other hand, has a reputation for being neutral and having good infrastructure for legal services. So that is one strength. The second strength is the high quality of the jurisprudence and legal services available in Singapore. The third strength is the wide choice of counsel that is available to parties. With the recent amendments to the Arbitration Act to make it quite clear that foreign counsel can arbitrate in Singapore, even on Singapore law contracts. Effectively, what it means is that any disputant who wishes to arbitrate in Singapore has a choice of all law firms in the world to represent him. Finally, I would like to espouse, if you like, the advantages of Singapore law as a governing law. You do not need to have a contract governed by Singapore law in order to arbitrate here. But Singapore law has this unique advantage. It is almost exactly the same as English commercial law which makes it acceptable to westerners. But, on the other hand, it is also the law of an independent and sovereign Asian republic, which makes it acceptable to Asian countries.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the total sum to be allocated for Head R of the Estimates be reduced by $100. I would like, if I may, to comment on the topic of arbitration and Singapore as an arbitration hub. Arbitration is different from litigation in the following way. Litigation is a mode of dispute resolution in the court system. Arbitration, on the other hand, is a private, consensual mode of dispute resolution. The difference between arbitration and litigation is that in arbitration, you can choose your judge, you can choose your counsel, you can choose your law and, most importantly, it is private, which means that confidentiality is preserved. This makes arbitration a particularly suitable mode of dispute resolution for regional disputes where, for whatever reason, parties do not feel comfortable taking their disputes to the court of their relevant country. In most cases, it is usually because they wish to preserve confidentiality, and court proceedings, of course, are public proceedings. I feel that Singapore has not realised its full potential to be an arbitration hub in the region and that there is a lot of room for growth for arbitration services in Singapore. It is true that we have made headway since the setting up of the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) and the cases have been steadily growing. In 1997, I believe the number of cases was around the region of 57 or 58. For the past four years, it has been between 82-83. But in the past few years, the numbers have plateaued off, and I think that we have a lot more potential for growth. Singapore is actually uniquely poised to be the arbitration hub for the region.”
“" And that seems like such a contradiction in turn because the idea of becoming an entrepreneur is that you should be able to do it, no matter what the Government does or does not do. But that reflects the mindset that Singaporeans are still going through. We are making that transition from a fairly dependent society to a much more independent one. And some have made that transition, but some are still halfway along that journey. So this is something we need to work a bit harder on. On the ComCare, again, this is another example where I think that there are some improvements that can be made. We have not received the full details of the ComCare but I do remember that when HOPE was announced, HOPE was not a very hopeful scheme because, although it provided some assistance, it did not extend to divorced families, people with more than two children and single mothers. I hope that when the details for ComCare are developed, the primary focus of ComCare would be on how to help people who need assistance as opposed to trying to make it an instrument to give assistance and, at the same time, an instrument of social policy or imposing a whole lot of restrictions as well. Sir, with this, if I may just wrap up. The motion is to approve the financial policy of the Government. The feedback on the policy is that it is a prudent Budget and that it is a good Budget. The point I wanted to make was that it is a Budget that would only work if it is done in conjunction and cooperation with the Government as well as the people.”
“People talk about healthcare costs and say that it is increasing. That is true. On the other hand, when the Government increases the price of cigarettes to $10.70 a pack, there are many people who do not stop smoking and they put themselves at risk in terms of the possibility of getting lung cancer, for example. So, I can understand when we say that Government should inject more into healthcare and look into Medisave and MediShield. On the other hand, I believe that individuals have a responsibility to look after their own health, to maintain a healthy lifestyle. When you think about it, $10.70 a pack, that is about $321 per month which comes up to about $3,852 per year. It is a lot of money. Again, when we talk about making the Budget work, it is personal responsibility as well Government's input. The same with small and medium enterprises. We have heard a lot yesterday about how the Budget is not pro-business enough. It is true that tax refunds will help. It is true that tax incentives can be of assistance. But, at the end of the day, if SMEs really want to take off and do well, they need to get the fundamentals in place, like better understanding of branding, of intellectual property rights, of their marketing strategies and skills, of development of strategies for regional businesses. The one thing that I think Government can do for SMEs is less regulation rather than more rules and regulation. But, ultimately, if you want to create an entrepreneurial society, the onus is on the SMEs to develop that. I remember attending a seminar on entrepreneurship for young people. One of the participants came up and the question asked was, "What can the Government do to help me to be an entrepreneur?”
“In short, if we want this kind of budget to work, it has to be a holistic approach, with partnership from the Government and the people, ie, the Government doing its part on the CPF policies, and the people doing their part, as far as their own personal financial planning is concerned. But one area where I thought that the Government could help, certainly for retirement, is when it comes to the 30-month ban on being able to rent a HDB flat. As many of us know, many Singaporeans are said to be asset-rich but cash-poor. They have invested their money in their houses. Some of them, because they encounter financial difficulties, maybe sell their 4-room or 5-room flat, and then they get a certain amount and, after that, they want to rent a flat. But HDB's policy is that you cannot rent at least for a period of 30 months after you have sold your flat. I think that that policy needs a rethink, because if your CPF is not going to be enough for people when they get old in the long run, it does make sense to allow them to sell the flat, to use the sales proceeds of that, allow them to rent, and then they can use the proceeds for medical bills for whatever other living expenses they have. In other words, it is a form of investment, but you let them use it in a way that allows them to plan for their retirement. Another example of the Government-people partnership is the Lifelong Learning Fund. The Government is to inject $500 million into the Lifelong Learning Fund, which will bring it to $2 billion. But it will only work if Singaporeans are willing to step forward and have the right mindset to learn new skills. It will only work if the employers are willing to employ older workers and give them a chance. Healthcare cost is another example of Government-people partnership.”
“From the individual point of view, that is not that much although, obviously for those in the lower income group, that has a far greater impact on being able to assist them. For utilities rebates for one and two-room flats, they range from $60 to $200, and the total amount being used is $62 million. So, when we look at the numbers in absolute terms, they are huge, ie, $320 million and $62 million. When we look at what we can give each individual household or each individual person, it is much smaller. What does this mean? In terms of fiscal prudence, it means that we can never be extravagant. It means that, yes, we may have a certain amount saved up, but we cannot be extravagant with it, and it is not something that we can just give away liberally. That is one of the reasons why it has to be spread thinly amongst Singaporeans. What does this mean in terms of what Singaporeans should do? Take CPF, for example. The CPF top-ups are welcome. But the truth of the matter is, in the long run, CPF will not be enough, because of inflation and cost of living increases. Housewives, for example, do not get CPF. So, if we want to prepare Singaporeans for retirement in the future, there is only so much that the Government can do. It can do CPF. That part it can implement and calibrate. But there are other things which it cannot do and where the responsibility falls on the individual to do, eg, personal savings and investments, family support, if it is available, and assistance from voluntary welfare organisations.”
“In theory, that sounds good. But, in reality, are the employers prepared to pay this amount? Probably not. Then we will have a situation where they do not get employed at all. The Government's strategy in dealing with this is probably the right one, which is job redesign and encouraging workers to learn new skills, skills redevelopment and skills upgrading. So, in addressing these points in the Budget, one should be fair to the Government, that what it has put in place is something which is aimed at helping Singaporeans. That brings me on to the thrust of my speech for today. I sat in Parliament yesterday listening to Members criticising the Budget for not being pro-business enough. There were also others who said that "We did not get something. I want something." When you listen to it across-the-board, you get the feeling that everybody is saying "I want this little something, give me something" and that the Minister for Finance is like this trishaw rider who has to sit there and there is this big load behind him and he has to pedal furiously with this load behind him. My argument today is that the Singapore Budget is not a trishaw. The Singapore Budget is more like a bicycle built for two. The Minister for Finance has to pedal really hard but, in the backseat, Singaporeans have to pedal just as hard furiously together with him. Let me explain why I say this. It has been described as an inclusive Budget, with a lot of help for the elderly and the needy. When we look at the actual amounts that were being disbursed, for example, for CPF top-ups, for the Medisave top-ups which range between $50 and $350, the total amount is $320 million, which is a lot of money. But when we spread it out amongst everybody, the individuals will get something between $50, $250 and $350.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to take part in this debate. Before I go on to the comments that I have for today, perhaps I could respond to a few of the points made by Mr Chiam See Tong. Mr Chiam mentioned that job creation is at the heart of the economy. He criticised the Government for saying that it wanted to create jobs but, at the same time, increasing the levy for foreign workers. His argument was that increasing the levy would cause employers difficulties because it discourages them from employing foreign workers, which means that businesses will go away. But the point is that Singaporeans have been complaining that they cannot get jobs because the jobs go to foreign workers. So, there is a delicate balance to be struck. On the one hand, you want to make the jobs available to Singaporeans. On the other hand, for employers, they have costs. So, they will obviously go for a cheaper option, if they can. If the foreign worker levy is too low then, of course, they will employ more foreign workers who are willing to do these jobs which some Singaporeans may not be willing to do. If the foreign worker levy is too high, then it would be difficult for them to do so. So, we have got to balance it. The whole idea behind increasing the foreign worker levy is to make it slightly more expensive for the employers to employ a foreigner and, hopefully, encourage them to employ Singaporeans. So, the heart of that policy that the Government has implemented is a concern for Singaporeans and a desire to encourage employers to employ Singaporeans. The second point that Mr Chiam made was on the so-called "dirty jobs". He suggested that, in order to encourage people to take up this kind of jobs, unions should fight for a minimum wage of about $1,000.”
“I choose that over the untidiness because the untidiness I can live with, but seeing somebody who wants to work, willing to work but cannot do so, that is very painful to see. So I would urge the Government agencies to be more flexible in that area. My last and seventh reflection is the need for lifelong learning. I never really thought about this before becoming an MP. But having become one and seen people lose their jobs in their thirties and their forties and the need to retrain because those jobs have gone away, I have realised the deep and urgent need for us to have a mindset that when you start work, the job that you start with will not necessarily be the job that you end with, and that along the way you may have to change jobs not once or twice but several times. That needs a certain mindset of not being afraid to make a change, because people do not like change as a general rule. I know that for myself. But I think that going forward, Singapore standing where it is, on the cusp of a new future, is really going to have to make that mindset change and to internalise it so that going forward, we would not be afraid of the vicissitudes of life that we may face and that we can face the future as a strong, integrated and harmonious nation.”
“The reason why he asked me to write was because he had tried to sell newspapers and was given a summons. So I wrote to NEA and asked for a licence. NEA's response was they had stopped issuing licences since the 1970s. And I was wondering, if they had stopped issuing licences, then why are they issuing summonses? So it did not seem right somehow. I then decided to refer the matter to the Zero In Process (ZIP) at the Prime Minister's Office. I am quite a good customer of the ZIP at PMO because I refer all these things to them. They then wrote to MTI and asked MTI to liaise with NEA to get this newspaper licence for my resident. I could not believe that this man who is disabled and wants to work, he does not want welfare, he wants to be independent, and he just wants a licence to do that, and I have to invoke the PMO, the Ministry of Trade and Industry as well as the Ministry of the Environment in order to get him that licence. I still have not heard from them by the way. I am not sure what the reasons are for not wanting to issue new licences for newspaper vending. But that is a very suitable job for some of the elderly, especially those who are not very ambulant. With a stroke of the pen, you could create several jobs straightaway. So I think that there is certainly some room for agencies to look into allowing the elderly to do this kind of job and that can be done just by issuing a licence to allow them to do so. If the concern is that there is some untidiness and you want everything to be pristine and clean, then my response is that if I had to choose between some untidiness on the one hand and the dignity of the individual and his ability to be self-reliant on the other, then I choose the latter.”
“In his Address, the President did highlight that Singapore should be an inclusive society and that we should look after the needs of all, including integrating the disabled. I think that much is done for the disabled but we could certainly do more to integrate them into society. At the moment, there is, for example, no special school for the physically disabled. I understand that in some other countries, there are. This may help if we have one to prepare them for working life, and to prepare them to integrate later on into society as a whole. I would urge the Government to look into more ways in which we can see how the disabled can be made self-reliant and economically independent, because that has much to do with their self-esteem and making them feel part of and integrated into society as a whole. My sixth reflection is that we do very well when it comes to broad policies on the economy. But I think there is a need for greater flexibility and creativity when it comes to creating jobs for lower skilled, older people. In his Address, the President spoke of nurturing growth areas such as biotechnology, nanotechnology, financial and professional services. I have no quarrel with that at all, which I think is an excellent direction. However, we must not forget that there is a group of those who will not benefit from these growth areas, and these are the low skilled, non-English speaking elderly. And, here, I echo the call of some of the other MPs who have spoken about helping the elderly. I will just give you an example. I have a resident. He speaks only Hokkien. He uses crutches and he wanted a licence to be a newspaper vendor. So he came to see me at my meet-the-people session. And I then wrote to NEA for a newspaper licence for him.”
“Moving on the fourth reflection, I think that we could do with better integrated infrastructure planning. The relevant agencies like HDB and LTA do very well on their own. But after a while as an MP, I realise that they could probably do better if they talked to one another a little bit more about certain things. I will just give Members an example. I look after the Strathmore estate area which is along Alexandra Road as well as Blocks 5 and 6 at Farrer Road. And in both these cases, the roads outside these blocks have now been expanded to become semi-expressways, which means that traffic is moving along at a very fast pace. But in these blocks, I have old residents and they want to get across the road. The traffic lights are quite far away because these are semi-expressways. I wrote to LTA and said, "Please, can we have a traffic light?" LTA replied, "No, because it is a semi-expressway. But you have a pedestrian bridge." And I said, "But my residents have hip problems, leg problems, bone problems. It is difficult for them to get up the pedestrian bridge." When it comes to infrastructure planning, I think that it would be helpful if HDB and LTA take into account the demographics and consider the fact that there are elderly, for example, and try to make provision for them at the outset. Because when you try at a later stage, now for example, to do an underground pathway, it is very expensive and very difficult and the cost is not easily justifiable. But as and when estates are built, I think this is something that should be factored in right at the beginning and agencies should talk to one another to see how we can give Singaporeans a better infrastructure. The fifth reflection I have is on the disabled.”
“In the second place, he cited that as an example of the climate of fear. I do not think there is a climate of fear in Singapore. That is one. Two, I think that if encountered with people who have that concern, the correct and proper response is to tell them that they should have the courage of their convictions, because we cannot move forward as a nation unless our people have the moral courage to stand up and say what they believe in. Speaking up for what you believe in does not necessarily mean that you are going to be attracting a whole host of terrible consequences. If there is one thing I have learnt, it is that the Government does listen. Of course, sometimes they can listen a little harder, but they do listen, and they do take on board suggestions and comments. In fact, so much has happened since the last election in terms of taking on board feedback, that it almost feels like a different world. You think about it - 5-day work week, civil service benefits for women, removal of the quota for female medical students. So many of the suggestions that were put forward in the Remaking Singapore Committee Report have been taken on board as well as those on the ERC. So there is nothing wrong with speaking up. The only restriction, if you like, is that what you say should not injure others. The right to free speech does not give you the right to harm or hurt others by your words. It does not give you the right to say things which are untrue, but there is no reason why a person cannot stand up with sincerity to say what they believe in and, as I have learnt, that is taken on board. It may not be the case that everybody's wishes can be acceded to, but if it can and it is reasonable and practical, I have seen that it is taken on board.”
“Although she was not a Singaporean, so many people got together to look for her. What this means for Government is that amongst Singaporeans, there is a huge well of untapped goodwill and untapped desire to do something, provided they feel that they can make a genuine difference. And this is the key thing to remember when we talk about engaging the young, because if we want to engage the young, then they must feel that the contributions that they put forward, whether it be in terms of ideas or feedback, are actually taken on board and translated into some concrete action. They must feel that whatever it is that they are participating in has a concrete result which can be seen. This leads to the other point of active citizenry. I think that many Singaporeans are not aware of the number of avenues that are available for them to serve, eg, in grassroots organisations, CDCs. I certainly was not aware before I became an MP of the very many avenues in which one can actually step forward and make a difference. So I would urge the Government to continue to call on the people of Singapore to step forward, give them something positive in which they can make a difference, and I think that we will have a strong and genuine response. The third reflection that I have is that to succeed as a nation, we have to be a people of conviction, and to have the courage of those convictions, not easy when you are a small country. While I was sitting in Parliament the other day, I listened to Mr Chiam See Tong as he made his speech, and he spoke of the three university students who came to see him and did not want to give their names. In the first place, if a person does not give his name, it is a bit difficult to help him.”
“But in 2004, we had two tragedies on a national level - the Nicoll Highway disaster and the Biopolis industrial incident. And then at the close of 2004, the tsunami disaster which fortunately did not hit Singapore but we were not left untouched by it. What I have learnt from these things is that as a small nation, we always have to be prepared for the unexpected. We cannot always sit back and assume that everything will go well, that the Government will always get it right, and that life will always be comfortable, which means that, as a people, our mindset is one that needs to be prepared for the unexpected. This also leads me to a concern that I have as to whether we are sufficiently prepared in terms of emergency preparedness. I do know that the Government agencies are working very hard, but I do not get the sense that the average Singaporean in the street would actually be ready to deal with a major disaster if one should occur in Singapore. I think more can and must be done to prepare Singaporeans, and I think that Singaporeans, as a whole, should take on more individual responsibility and initiative in thinking about how to respond to such a disaster should one ever occur. The second reflection, something else which I have learnt in the course of being an MP, is that although Singaporeans complain a lot and although at every feedback session they will tell you about all the things that can be done better, at heart, Singaporeans have a genuine desire to make a positive difference. We saw this in the response to SARS - the number of people who actually came forward with fund-raising. We saw this again in the response to the recent tsunami disaster. We also saw it, for example, when the little girl, Huang Na, was missing.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I join this House in thanking the President for his Address which laid out the seven priorities of the Government of the Republic of Singapore. I found the number "seven" significant because "seven" has a certain significance in numerology, in religion as well as in the ancient world. You have the seven wonders, for example, of which we have our very own, the seven pillars of wisdom, we have the seven heavens. So I thought that in response to the President's Address, I would offer my seven reflections as a first term MP on the things that I have learnt since becoming an MP. Before I became an MP in the 2001 elections, I was an average ordinary Singaporean. After I became an MP, I am still an average ordinary Singaporean but with a lot more work. But what I have since learnt as a result of this work are several things. First, that we can never, as a nation, take anything for granted. I became a Member of Parliament with the batch which included the seven Ministers of State - the magnificent seven, another seven - we came in after the world-changing events of September 11. This was followed by the JI arrests and then we were immediately faced with the challenge of preparing Singaporeans to face the new threat posed by transnational terrorism whilst, at the same time, trying very hard not to polarise our multi-racial and multi-religious population. At the same time, we had to deal with the economic downturn, the need to help affected residents to find jobs and financial assistance. And just when things seemed to be getting better - we thought we turned the corner in 2003 - we were hit by SARS and things went into an economic tailspin, not to mention the fear that gripped the public because we were fighting an invisible foe. We recovered from that.”
“And if the ISP does actually take down the offending material, then the court's options to deal with the ISP are a bit more limited. But in the case of new section 193B, there is no similar provision for taking down of offending material. And I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify what is the rationale for that. It would also mean in relation to new section 193B that copyright owners must resort to court action to compel the ISP in such a situation to seek relief or remedy. And if some clarification on that could be given, it would be extremely helpful. With these comments, Sir, I support the Bill.”
“The new section 136(3A) extends criminal liability to ordinary users if the infringement of the copyright is wilful and either one of the following: (a) the extent of the infringement is significant; or (b) the person does the act to obtain a commercial advantage. "Commercial advantage" is defined fairly well in the Act but the word "significant" is still a little loose. The concern here is: what is significant? Because the impact on the ordinary user can be quite great. An innocent user or someone who is not very well informed but acting innocently may inadvertently find himself facing a criminal charge. It is true that new section 136(6A) does give some guidelines as to what may be significant infringement. It cites, for example, the volume of infringing copies. But what kind of volume would attract criminal liability? For example, if one downloads two songs, that may not be significant. But if one downloads three, is that significant? What about the value of the infringing copies? What value would attract criminal liability? And the other guideline is whether the infringement has a substantial prejudicial impact on the owner of copyright. But how do you measure substantial prejudicial impact? Some guidelines on the meaning of "significant" would be helpful, particularly since the intent behind this section is to criminalise illegal use by end users, ie, non-commercial exploitation. The third point that I intend to raise relates to the new proposed section 193B which deals with transmission, routing and provision of connections by Internet service providers. The provisions in relation to new sections 193C and 193D allow for a copyright owner to request an Internet service provider (ISP) to take down offending material.”
“From a practical viewpoint though, I wonder if it might be helpful if the Act could also set out a minimum sum of statutory damages claimed because the intent behind the provision for statutory damages is to make it slightly easier for the copyright owner to recover compensation because of the burden of proof. So to the extent that this is the intent, having a minimum sum or perhaps a form of guidance on the amounts recoverable would be helpful because, if not, the copyright owner is still put in a position of having to prove the actual damage within the $10,000 or $20,000 limit. And the same comment would apply to section 253 of the Act which also provides for statutory damages. There is another provision which deals with statutory damages. This is section 261 that relates to the removal or alteration of rights management information (RMI). In that provision, section as well as section 261F, there is a cap on the amount of statutory damages to be awarded. It states that it should be not more than $20,000. However, the Bill does not specify whether it is $20,000 per device or measure or whether it is $20,000 in total. It would be helpful if this could be clarified. I move on now to the second point which is the proposed amendment of section 136, and that is criminalisation of infringements which are not commercially motivated. At present, Singapore's copyright law only criminalises the commercial manufacture, commercial importation, distribution or sale of infringing copyright material. Where non-trade activities are involved, Singapore's copyright law only criminalises distribution of infringing material that is of a degree that has a severe impact on the copyright owner.”
“I rise to speak in support of the Bill. The majority of the proposed amendments are certainly very welcomed. I should also declare my interest as a lawyer and a practitioner. There are three points in respect of which I would like to seek clarification from the Minister. The first relates to statutory damages, second, the criminalisation of infringements which are not for commercial advantage and, third, in relation to the take down requirements relating to transmission, routing and provision of connections by Internet service providers. I will take the first point, which is the proposed amendment to section 119 that deals with statutory damages and, in fact, statutory damages run through certain other provisions of the Act as well. At present, when a copyright owner takes civil action against an infringer and intends to extract compensation, he is required to prove the actual damage that the infringer's act has inflicted on him or, alternatively, he can seek an account of profits made by the infringer in monetary terms. In copyright disputes, however, in practical terms, proving such damage or getting an account of such profits can be difficult. For example, a copyright owner may face difficulty in proving how many copies of his work have been distributed over the Internet. With the introduction of statutory damages, the copyright owner can recover compensation even where the proof of the actual extent of infringement may be difficult. So to that extent, the amendment is welcomed. However, the provision, as drafted, states that the plaintiff can claim statutory damages amounting to not more than $10,000 for each work or subject matter and not more than $20,000 in the aggregate, unless the plaintiff proves that the actual loss exceeds $200,000.”
“Sir, I thank the Minister for his response. That was not specifically my question. My question was: for Special Operations Officers, to what extent are they expected to be able to respond to emergency, for example, and in order to be able to do that, it requires a certain familiarity with the area? So it is not a question of access to car parks.”
“My question is this, Sir. I am just a bit concerned. If the officers are patrolling, they must know the points of ingress and egress and, generally, the access routes to the area. So, my question is: what is the extent of their responsibility?”
“If I may ask the Minister a couple of supplementary questions. Firstly, apart from projecting the image of strong presence, what specificallythe Special Operations Officers intend to do? Are they merely just to patrol or are they expected to be able to respond in the event of an emergency? The reason why I ask is that during the National Day Investiture, when I was in the area, I was not able to find the car park entrance. To be fair, of course, that was my fault. But I actually asked one of the Special Operations Officers where the entrance was. To be fair to him, he was extremely helpful and cooperative for which I gave full credit, but he did not know where the entrance was. So he asked his officer who did not know where the entrance was and they then asked, I think, either a parking valet or somebody else nearby who did know. So I gave full credit to them for the helpfulness.”
“Sir, that does not answer my question, which really is that sometimes, in order to get achild,the family unit needs to have housing. So I was just wondering if the Ministry would consider a review of that policy.”
“May I ask theMinister ofState whether, in view of the fact that there are some available rental units,MND would consider a review of the policy, whereby it does not allow rental of units to families whereone spouse is a Singaporean and the other is non-Singaporean, unless there is a Singaporean child. The reason I ask this is that usually you need a roof over your head to engage in the activity that would result in a Singaproean child. And, there are cases where there are low income families who come to see me with this difficulty, and it is a genunie hardship for them. So, I am wondering if MND would review that policy.”
“Sir, business process outsourcing is very much a buzz word nowadays. There is concern in America, for example, that it is moving out to low-cost countries. It is very often associated as a role that is played by large countries with low-cost population. But I was wondering if the Minister could care to comment on whether there is a niche role that Singapore could play in business process outsourcing, particularly in the area of IT, communications, design or media, because it appears that this is one of the areas which could contribute to employment in Singapore overall and that is something in which the creative industries could come into play. Online Gaming Industry”
“Sir, I am fully in support of the idea of an Arts School. The arts is important to Singapore to nurture and develop our creative talent. One point I would venture to suggest though in respect of the curriculum of the Arts School is that it should also have a practical commercial aspect to it because arts is not in the abstract. And you need funding for arts, you need to be able to market it. For example, if you were doing fashion designing, it is not just a question of the creativity of designing it. You have to get the financing for your product and to be able to market it and deliver it in a timely fashion. I would just like to ask the Minister for his comments, assuming we go ahead with this, what the input of the curriculum would be, and whether there would be a commercial and practical aspect to the education as well. Cultural Ecosystem”