Josephine Teo
Singapore
“The Government's risk-calibrated approach to data security in artificial intelligence (AI) systems was explained in a written reply, given on 9 January 2024, to related questions asked by Dr Tan Wu Meng and Mr Gerald Giam.”
“Access to frontier models is helpful for specific use cases, such as advanced research and cybersecurity. However, these form a small proportion of artificial intelligence (AI) demand. For most industry, Government and research uses, capable models are already available.”
“The Government tracks the development of technical standards for identifying artificial intelligence (AI)-generated content, including watermarking and digital provenance approaches, as part of broader efforts to manage AI-related risks.”
“Upon receiving a valid report of intimate image abuse, the Commissioner of Online Safety is empowered by law to direct Online Service Providers (OSPs) to disable access by Singapore users to the specified harmful online material. This direction may be extended to cover identical copies found on the platform.”
“The Government is committed to keeping children safe online. We have announced plans to extend age assurance requirements to designated social media services, including requiring platforms to keep users under 13 off their services.”
“Under the Online Safety (Relief and Accountability) Act 2025, the Commissioner of Online Safety is empowered to issue directions to platforms to remove specified harmful content, including intimate image abuse.”
The complete record
Every one of 2,900 lines we hold for Josephine Teo, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 40 of 58.
“Mr Chairman, I beg to move the amendments* 1 to 4 standing in the name of the Minister for Home Affairs, as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement. The amendments proposed to various definitions in clause 2 are aimed at supporting the key change in this Notice, which is to make clear that MINDEF and the SAF have command and control over all deployments of SAF servicemen in support of civilian authorities during a serious incident under POSSPA. Amendments 1 to 4 update the definition of "law enforcement activity" to include activities carried out by SAF servicemen using powers under section 201C(9) of the SAF Act. Today, SAF servicemen may already be deployed under section 201C of the SAF Act to assist civilian authorities like the Police. The amendments made clear such activities can be considered law enforcement activities under POSSPA. [(proc text) *The amendments read as follows: (proc text)] [(proc text) (1) "In page 9, lines 1 and 2: to leave out 'or servicemen'. (proc text)] [(proc text) (2) In page 9, line 4: to leave out 'or'. (proc text)] [(proc text) (3) In page 9, line 8: after '(b);', to insert 'or'. (proc text)] [(proc text) (4) In page 9: after line 8 to insert – (proc text)] [(proc text) '(d) the exercise of any power under section 201C(9) of the Singapore Armed Forces Act (Cap 295) by a serviceman, or the carrying out by a serviceman of any activity in preparation for or directly in support of the exercise of that power;'". (proc text)] [(proc text) [(proc text) Amendments agreed to. (proc text)] (proc text)]”
“Mr Chairman, in respect of amendments 1 to 4 as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement, may I seek your permission to move them together as the amendments are related?”
“Mr Speaker, if a serious incident as envisioned in clause 3 has happened, does the Member not think that the public would demand an explanation? Does he not think that the public would already expect a report to be tabled? And that even without a PQ, any self-respecting Minister knows that he has to respond. I do not think you need to write it into a Bill. The Minister will have to stand for election. We do not know what timeframe, but he will have to, at some point. And if he has not thought about accountability, something must be seriously wrong. So, I am quite baffled by Mr Kok's insistence on this point. It is a concern that I am not quite sure I understand fully because there is already nothing that prevents Parliament from debating incidents. Far smaller-scale incidents have been discussed at length in Parliament. And when a serious incident happens, I cannot imagine that it will not be brought to Parliament for discussion. [(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)] [(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)] [(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mrs Josephine Teo.] (proc text)] [(proc text) Bill considered in Committee. (proc text)] [Mr Speaker in the Chair] [(proc text) Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill. (proc text)] [(proc text) Clause 2 – (proc text)]”
“Mr Speaker, I would like to ask Mr Kok Heng Leun what would prevent him from filing a Parliamentary Question (PQ) to ask the Minister to account for his actions. He does not need a procedure for that. He can already do so.”
“Mr Speaker, I thank Mr Kok Heng Leun for his two questions. I hear what the Member says about illustration (d) and I think the purpose of a debate on legislation is very often to illuminate on what is in the Bill so that Parliament has a record of the intent of the movers of the Bill. And the explanations that go into the Hansard constitute part of the interpretation of the Bill. So, whilst I understand the nature of Mr Kok Heng Leun's request, I hope he appreciates that what has been said in this House, in the course of this debate, forms a substantial basis for us to have a proper interpretation of the Bill. That is to the first question that the Member asked. To the second question on accountability, Mr Kok Heng Leun is looking at it from the point of view of whether or not you trust the individuals. How do you hold them to account? I would put to Mr Kok to look at it from the point of view of the person who has to exercise these powers. What is the weight of the office that he will feel? His immediate thought is, “This is serious stuff. I have to make the call. I can be asked a question in Parliament and probably not just one. Can I justify this action?” Is this not accountability? Does this not already encapsulate what Mr Kok says? As I have said, it is not a low threshold at all. If it were such a low threshold, if it was so easy for the Minister to be able to activate POSSPA, or the powers, then I do not think, in 60 years, the number of times in which you can attribute POSSPA powers to have been invoked, to be countable on one hand. That would not be the case.”
“Having explained what "large scale public disorder" means, I will explain what it is not. Where possible, we will, indeed, use existing laws to deal with such situations. For example, in Singapore, public assemblies are allowed in accordance with the law. This comes under the framework of the POA. The Police regularly grant permits for public assemblies: last year alone, over 900. We have also set up the Speakers’ Corner for Singaporeans to organise events and demonstrations without having to apply for a permit, as long as certain conditions are met. Many events take place at the Speakers’ Corner. POSSPA cannot be used against demonstrations if these demonstrations do not cross the threshold of threatening "large-scale public disorder", or "serious violence". For example, the recent student demonstrations at Dublin Scioto High School in Columbus, Ohio. About 200 students sat outside the school in silence to protest gun violence in the wake of the Florida school shooting in February 2018. There was no violence or large-scale public disorder in this example. If such an event happens in Singapore, it can be dealt with using baseline policing powers. The POA will be sufficient. In fact, this is what we have done in the past. An example is the 2013 illegal protests at Merlion Park. Around 100 foreigners gathered to protest the 2013 Malaysian elections on two different days. They held up signs and chanted slogans. We issued a total of 74 conditional warnings under the POA. POPA was not invoked then. So, our record is clear and consistent – we have never used POPA against political dissent.”
“Mr Louis Ng asked if we could put a number to what is considered "large-scale". His question is understandable, but there is also no easy answer. The size of the protest is one of many factors. It depends also where the protest is conducted, how it is conducted and its consequences on Singapore, whether intended by its organisers or not. As Mr Gan Thiam Poh has pointed out, a "peaceful demonstration" can quickly degenerate into violence and threaten public safety. An example is the London Riots in 2011. It started off as a peaceful demonstration against a court ruling. But degenerated into rioting, looting, setting buildings and vehicles on fire. It spread to several cities over the course of the summer, including Birmingham, Leicester and Manchester. In its trail, there were five dead and 205 injured, of which 189 were police officers. Property damage was estimated at £200 million, and the impact on the economy was significant. Another example is the Charlottesville rally in 2017. This took place against the backdrop of the controversial removal of Confederate monuments in parts of the United States (US), in response to the Charleston church shooting in 2015. It started with a protest against the removal of a Confederate monument from a public park. Protestors chanted racist slogans while carrying rifles and banners. The protestors clashed violently with counter-protestors. The Virginia governor declared a state of emergency in order to have additional powers to safeguard public safety. One of the protestors rammed a car into a group of counter-protestors, killing one and injuring 19. By the time the violence was over, there were three dead and at least 38 injured. The point is this: peaceful intent does not guarantee peaceful outcomes.”
“To do this, the Police may need to order nearby premises to close, impose a cordon, and direct people to stay out of the area. The POSSPA powers are necessary to do this. No other laws have such provisions for such a situation. Another example which occurred in Singapore: in the aftermath of the Little India riot, we activated POPA and used the POPA power to regulate conduct to stop the consumption of alcohol in public places in Little India. Given the large crowds on weekends and public holidays, alcohol was assessed to be a significant risk factor for public disorder. The Police did not have the power to do this outside of POPA until this Parliament passed new legislation under the Liquor Control Act to regulate the consumption of liquor in public places. Mr Louis Ng, Ms Sylvia Lim and Ms K Thanaletchimi asked, how about the CSO? Will it be used for the scenario set out in illustration (d)? Let me be clear. The CSO is not meant for peaceful assemblies. Ms Sylvia Lim said that law enforcement operations in large-scale public disorder would not tactically be sensitive to warrant CSO. I agree. I have explained in my earlier speech that strict conditions must be met before the Commissioner of Police can issue a CSO. It must be to protect the safety of the public or law enforcement operations. This confirms Mr Christopher de Souza's understanding also. I have also explained in my earlier speech that not all the powers become automatically available once the Minister issues the Activation Order. The Commissioner of Police must assess which of the powers are necessary to deal with the situation. So, it is not the case that when there is large-scale public disorder, all the special powers of POSSPA will be used to deal with the incident.”
“I do not think so. In fact, in such a situation, it is more likely that the Police will be asked: "Why are you allowing this chaos to unfold?", "Are you not worried something worse will happen?", "Can't you do something to prevent an escalation?" The Police will have to make a judgement call. If they stick with existing policing powers, can they bring the situation under control? What if the chaos spins out of control and there is loss of lives? If they assess the need to seek powers under POSSPA, do they have enough justification? What if they invoked POSSPA, and were, in fact, able to restore order but were then accused of having over-reacted? That they misjudged? That there was no need to have used POSSPA? There are no easy answers. The Police will have to judge, the Minister will have to judge and decide. This alone is not a low threshold to cross. Since Independence, POPA has only been used once. This was after the Little India riot and, even then, it was tightly scoped to control the consumption of alcohol, to calm the situation and prevent further violence. The Police did not use any other power in POPA, even though they could. Ms Sylvia Lim, Mr Henry Kwek and Mr Kok Heng Leun asked why existing powers in other laws are not enough to deal with the large-scale public disorder scenarios described in illustrations (d) and (e). Let us take illustration (d), although most of it applies to illustration (e) as well. This is a large and protracted demonstration that is causing significant disruption to Singaporeans. The demonstration keeps growing and things could get chaotic. The Police may assess that they need to take measures to reduce the risk of property damage or prevent the crowd from further building up.”
“We will only invoke POSSPA if the situation deteriorates, and the threat of large-scale public disorder or violence becomes imminent. If a protest is really peaceful, there should be no concern whatsoever about falling within the third limb of "large-scale public disorder". Illustration (d) in clause 3 makes it clear what we mean by "large-scale public disorder". I should just quote to Members what it actually says. It goes like this: "a sit-down demonstration for a cause attracts a large group of sympathisers who voluntarily join the sit-in. For over a week, the group grows and the demonstrators start to occupy the publicly accessible paths and other open spaces in the central business district. Their presence starts to impede the flow of vehicular and pedestrian traffic and interfere with normal trade or business activities in the area". There are several parts to this. The protest was protracted; over a week. It involved a large and growing group. They occupied public places in the CBD. The last sentence is worth repeating. The demonstration "starts to impede the flow of…traffic and interfere with normal trade or business activities in the area". The illustration shows quite clearly that not every protest will meet the high threshold to be considered a serious incident. What is required? There must be significant disruption to ordinary Singaporeans trying to go about their daily business. People – motorists, commuters, passers-by, shopkeepers, workers – are agitated. The tension is rising. If it is not diffused, things could quickly turn chaotic. Some observers think such a situation is not intolerable, well within acceptable threshold. Mr Kok Heng Leun suggests that that situation should not be treated as a "serious incident". Is that the view of most Singaporeans?”
“Mr Speaker, I thank the Members for speaking in support of the Bill. They raised many useful points which I shall try to address. Several Members asked about the definition of "serious incident", specifically the inclusion of "acts causing large-scale public disorder" and the illustration (d) in clause 3 which describes such an incident. Ms K Thanaletchimi asked whether non-violent, passive protests are covered under the Bill. Ms Sylvia Lim, Mr Kok Heng Leun, Mr Ang Wei Neng and Mr Louis Ng asked why the same powers to deal with terrorism are also available for large-scale public disorder. Outside of the House, there were even assertions that POSSPA will be applied to "peaceful demonstrations". The narrative goes something like this: first, the law allows POSSPA to be unlocked by the Minister for "peaceful protests". Such protests can attract crowds of all sizes. There is no definition of what "large-scale public disorder" means, so the law could be applied to peaceful protests involving a small group of protestors. Therefore, the law potentially allows the oppression of protesters and will have a chilling effect on society. We have come across such assertions outside the House. These assertions misrepresent what POSSPA is about. Let me explain why. There are three limbs under the meaning of "serious incident": a terrorist act; serious violence affecting the public; or large-scale public disorder. The third limb, large-scale public disorder, is the subject of focus. It is not new, by the way. POPA already provided for it since 1958. In any case, peaceful protests are not the target of POSSPA. Let me say that again – peaceful protests are not the target of POSSPA.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. In Singapore's case, I believe the latter is better able to serve our interests and I hope Members can support this view. Mr Speaker, with your permission, I would like to give my concluding remarks in Mandarin. (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Singapore is an international hub and a multiracial and multi-religious society. We have a good reputation; the society is stable, and people generally feel safe. Because of these attributes, we are a prized target for terrorists. Being able to successfully attack Singapore will give terrorists significant advantage in advancing their cause and reputation, and it will be a major victory for the terrorists. In other cities, we have seen the impact of terrorist attacks on the public. We studied their security responses carefully. We concluded that our laws need to be strengthened. POSSPA will give our security forces the necessary powers to respond effectively to serious incidents which threaten public safety, such as terrorist attacks, and protect our people. (In English): Mr Speaker, we did not introduce this Bill in a vacuum. We did so only after studying the terrorist attacks that had taken place in other countries, and the limitations and problems they faced in dealing with the attacks. At the same time, in requesting for the special powers in the Bill, we have put in place safeguards. But even as we debate the extent of the special powers, let us remember that we will never really know whether our preparations go far enough, until they are put to the test in an actual incident. The bottom line is this. It is up to us to safeguard Singaporeans and Singapore if and when we come under a terror attack. In this, we must not fail. Mr Speaker, I beg to move. [(proc text) Question proposed.”
“Members may ask why we have not carried over the provision in POPA section 3 subsection (5), which allows Parliament to annul the proclamation by the Minister by resolution as a safeguard. There is no sinister reason for this. Even without this provision, Members can question the Minister if they believe an Activation Order should not have been issued or should have been annulled. Parliament has not been and is not prevented from holding Ministers to account for decisions or policies, just because there are no specific provisions in the law. In any case, judicial review of the Minister's decision to make an Activation Order remains an avenue to curb improper use by the Minister of his powers. But let me return to why we have the Bill in the first place. In a fast-evolving incident, such as a terrorist attack, time is of the essence. In the Paris attacks of November 2015, the first incident occurred outside a football stadium. Within minutes, there was shooting on the streets. Long before anyone could make sense of what was going on, hostages had been taken at a theatre. To save lives, the Police will have to act fast. Should we build in additional layers of approval, for example, to require Parliament to confirm the Minister’s activation or the Commissioner's authorisations even while the situation is unfolding? Or is a better approach to enable the Police to act swiftly, effectively and in good faith, and be held to account after the crisis is over?”
“After a serious incident has been resolved, we would want to work with the affected communities to return to normalcy as soon as possible. Mr Speaker, I have explained the reasons for this Bill, the additional tools the Police will need in a serious incident and how these powers can be accessed. By necessity, the provisions of the Bill are crafted broadly. This is because the threat situation continues to evolve and, quite frankly, the methods deployed by terrorists are increasingly hard to predict. Through POSSPA, we will provide the Police the tools they need to respond effectively to a serious incident, and some degree of latitude in exercising the special powers when they are activated. But are there any safeguards against abuse? First, as I described earlier, there is a two-tier unlocking mechanism in POSSPA. Not all of the special powers will be used in every case. Even after the Minister has issued the Activation Order on the request of the Police, the Commissioner must apply his mind, and decide: (a) which of the special powers are needed to respond to the serious incident, (b) who may exercise these powers, and (c) which area, person or vehicle these powers may apply to. Second, the law also sets out clear criteria which must be met by the Minister and the Commissioner of Police before they issue the Activation Order or Special Authorisation. Third, even on the ground, the law sets out clear criteria and limits for Police officers to adhere to, in their exercise of these powers. For example, the basis for removing a vehicle, and how they may remove a vehicle from a target area, are set out quite clearly in clause 24 (1) and (2). Police officers are also subject to internal guidelines and rules of engagement in their exercise of powers.”
“After considering the Police's assessment, the Minister can issue an Activation Order under clause 8, if he is of the opinion that: (a) There is a serious incident occurring, or one has occurred, or there is a threat of a serious incident occurring, in Singapore; and (b) The exercise of any power in POSSPA is necessary to substantially assist in preventing the incident or reducing the impact of the incident, or to control, restore and maintain public order. Both conditions have to be met before the Minister can issue an Activation Order. The Activation Order unlocks a range of special powers, which I have explained earlier, which the Police will need to deal with during the serious incident. But it is important to note that these special powers will not automatically come into force upon the issuance of the Activation Order by the Minister. Each special power has to be specifically unlocked by the Commissioner of Police only as and when deemed necessary. Under clause 11, the Commissioner of Police issues a Special Authorisation that can target a specific area, person, and/or vehicle. The Commissioner may declare more than one target area, target person or target vehicle, depending on the operational need. The Minister for Home Affairs will publicise the Activation Order in accordance with clause 8 subsection (2), for example, through the media via press releases, and online and social media platforms. The duration of each Activation Order is capped at one month, after which, the Minister must make a new Activation Order if he assesses that there is a need for a new Order. We do not intend to use the POSSPA powers for longer than is absolutely necessary.”
“Clause 48 will expand the range of offences which allows the Police the use of lethal weapons as reasonably necessary to effect the arrest. The use of lethal weapons is not taken lightly, and the Police have been careful at all times to first exhaust other means. Its record speaks for itself. This high standard of care will be maintained even in a serious incident. Let me reiterate, lethal weapons can only be used after all available options have been exhausted, or when it is absolutely necessary, such as for time-critical situations. The use of lethal weapons remains subject to internal procedures and rules of engagement. Finally, Sir, we have also enhanced the penalty for failure to comply with the Police's directions or orders under the Bill. This will now carry a maximum imprisonment term of two years, or $20,000 fine, or both. This is to reflect the seriousness of the offences and is in line with similar provisions, such as the Infrastructure Protection Act. Mr Speaker, I have explained in some detail the various tools which the Police will need to deal with a serious incident, and which are provided for under POSSPA. POSSPA pools together the necessary tools and places these in one coherent piece of legislation. How will the Police gain access to these tools? When an incident has happened or is being threatened, the Police will deal with it using their baseline policing powers. However, if the incident is serious, and the Police assess that they need the special powers under POSSPA, they will recommend to the Minister to activate POSSPA.”
“This was provided for under POPA, section 6. It has been updated to allow the Police to set up a cordon within a private place. Secondly, the powers of requisition under clause 35. This was provided for under POPA, section 11. During a serious incident, the Police may require the use of equipment, electricity or space within a premises or land in the target area. We have retained the compensation framework in POPA. This is in clause 36. Thirdly, the use of lethal weapons as a last resort. In every circumstance today, lethal weapons can only be used after all other available options have been exhausted, or when it is absolutely necessary, such as for time-critical situations, where the safety and security of the public are at risk. This remains the case under POSSPA. When a serious incident has occurred, or is about to occur, the Police will use all available force options to deal with the incident, including lethal weapons as a last resort. There are two parts to the updated powers. Part 1, the use of lethal weapons in certain circumstances, which was provided for under POPA. Under POPA, the Police can use up to lethal force, as reasonably necessary, to prevent persons from entering the cordoned area. Clause 18 will expand this to allow the Police to use lethal weapons as reasonably necessary to prevent persons, vehicles or vessels from entering the cordoned area or to remove them from the cordoned area. Similarly, clauses 19 and 20 allow the use of lethal weapons as reasonably necessary to enforce road closures, and disperse processions and assemblies in the target area, for example, to end an armed skirmish between protestors. Part 2, on the use of lethal weapons to effect arrest and prevent escape from the arrest.”
“Clause 15 similarly empowers other law enforcement officers and civilian assistants to support the Police operations. This is new. Law enforcement officers refer to officers from other Home Team agencies, such as the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA), the Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB) and the Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF). The Police may also ask civilian assistants, such as the Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) volunteers and private security officers, to help, for example, to man an outer cordon, away from the incident location or hot zone, or prevent persons from entering the cordoned area. This allows Police resources to be diverted to more critical tasks. I should highlight that nothing in POSSPA obliges civilians to assist the Police, and neither will the Police request for civilian assistance where there may be danger. The Police will only rely on civilians who are able and willing to assist. In other words, a civilian can refuse to assist, and no action will be taken against him. As spelt out in subsection (4) of clause 15, civilian assistants can only exercise a limited set of powers. They are not allowed, for example, to use lethal force. Under clause 51, law enforcement officers, SAF servicemen and civilians who are assisting Police Officers are granted protection from legal liability. This is so long as they act in good faith and with reasonable care. This legal protection extends to members of the public who are complying with the Police's orders or directions. POSSPA also retains and updates the existing provisions from POPA. These provide tools which are still relevant for Police operations. I will talk about some of the key provisions that have been updated. First, the powers to impose cordons under clause 18.”
“As military premises are sensitive locations, the Police will work closely with the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) to manage any serious incidents affecting these premises, so that there will not be a need to use the clause 27 power in such circumstances. Mr Speaker, the fourth set of tools are provisions which empower SAF servicemen, other law enforcement officers, and civilian assistants who are supporting the Police in dealing with the serious incident. During a serious incident, we may need to tap on additional resources to assist the Police. There are established plans for SAF to assist the Home Team in responding to serious security incidents. Under POPA, SAF servicemen were authorised with powers of search, arrest and to set up cordons. This empowerment of SAF servicemen remains essential, and the Bill retains this, with an updated suite of powers needed by SAF servicemen. However, I will be introducing a Notice of Amendment later at the Committee stage to move these provisions for authorising SAF servicemen from POSSPA to the SAF Act. This is to ensure a clearly defined command and control by the Ministry of Defence (MINDEF) and SAF over all deployments of SAF servicemen in support of civilian authorities, including the POSSPA powers which SAF servicemen can exercise. The POSSPA powers can only be exercised by SAF servicemen if: (a) an Activation Order under POSSPA has been issued; and (b) the Police requests for assistance from SAF; and (c) after the Minister for Defence issues the relevant orders under the SAF Act. So, there are three parts to it. It is clear however, that the Police will lead and coordinate the overall response, with the assistance of SAF servicemen.”
“Where the Communications Stop Order is sufficient and effective, there will be no need for a Direction to withdraw telecommunications services. The telcos were consulted. They understood the need for the Direction. Their main concerns were how to operationalise the Direction, and how to communicate the disruption to clients. The Police will work closely with the Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) and the telcos to develop plans and conduct exercises to ensure that a Direction can be implemented effectively. Mr Speaker, today, the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) empowers the Police to conduct enquiries in relation to a crime. The second tool, in clauses 16 and 17 of the Bill, provides enhanced powers to stop and question individuals in a target area. The Police may need, for example, to ascertain the purpose for their presence in the area or to get information which might help the Police in their operations. Under POSSPA, refusal to provide the required information will be an offence. This is to empower the Police to get as much relevant information as possible in a timely way. The third tool helps the Police to manage buildings in the area affected by the serious incident. Where it is necessary to close the premises or restrict entry, the Police will generally work closely with premises owners. It is not a problem if premises owners are cooperative. If, however, premises owners are uncooperative, clause 27 provides powers to the Police to direct premises owners to close the premises, restrict entry or provide information and documents relating to the premises.”
“Should the onus be on the Police to identify everyone who is filming and stop them, or should the onus be on individuals not to arouse suspicion of their intent? So, let us not be blindsided. We hope we will never have to issue a CSO. If ever there was a need, half measures will not cut it. Even with a CSO, we can only reduce but not fully eradicate the risk of unauthorised communications. That is something we need to bear in mind. Mr Speaker, apart from the CSO, clause 28 empowers the Police to intercept unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and autonomous vehicles or vessels (AVs) in and around the target area. UAVs and AVs can be used for surveillance, and even as weapons. Under today's laws, the Police can take down UAVs and AVs only if they are clearly posing a threat to public safety and security. The additional powers in POSSPA will enable the Police to prevent compromising security operations, by taking down any UAVs and AVs in and around the target area. Clause 32 updates the existing POPA section 9, which allows the Minister to issue a Direction to withdraw telecommunication services in a target area. This is also aimed at preventing the compromise of operations. Instead of issuing the Direction to the now-defunct Telecommunication Authority of Singapore, it empowers the Minister to issue the Direction to the Telecommunication Licensees (telcos) instead. We recognise the significant impact on the public if and when clause 32 is invoked. There is, therefore, a higher threshold in place. The Direction can only be issued by the Minister. This is unlike other special powers that, once unlocked by the Activation Order, can be authorised by the Commissioner of Police. Clearly, these powers will be exercised judiciously.”
“Clause 30 allows the Commissioner to make such an order only if he assesses that the communication of information about the target area or law enforcement operations compromises the operations or endangers the safety of people during the operations. The Police will publicise the CSO and state clearly the time that it becomes effective, and the boundaries of the target area. A breach of the CSO is an offence which carries up to two years' imprisonment, or a fine of up to $20,000, or both. Having said that, let me give this assurance. The CSO is not aimed at civilians who, for example, may be caught in a hostage situation, and are trying to get information about their predicament to security forces by any means possible. They are not the intended targets. Instead, we are trying to stop irresponsible communication of ongoing security operations which may endanger lives, such as those of the hostages. Some have asked, "What if someone was merely filming and not transmitting? That, surely, should not be a problem." The problem, I am afraid, is that in a situation that warrants a CSO, the Police will not have the luxury of time to confirm that everyone was merely filming to document the event and that no one was attempting to share valuable intelligence with the terrorists. The more important question is this: when lives are at stake, should we hope for the best or must we assume the worst, that someone, somewhere, had malicious intent? Even if the Police were to order anyone they can see holding a camera to stop filming, as they can under the POA, what about people with small devices which Police did not notice amid the chaos?”
“During a serious incident, the Police will need every help they can get to be able to successfully execute their mission to save lives. POSSPA, therefore, contains special powers, to reduce the risk that their operations are compromised by unauthorised communications. Of these powers, the power to make a Communications Stop Order has garnered the most attention following the introduction of the Bill. I would, therefore, like to spend some time to explain this power carefully. Clause 30 empowers the Commissioner of Police to issue a Communications Stop Order (CSO) which requires a person to stop making or communicating films or pictures of the target area, and to stop communicating text or audio messages about law enforcement operations in the target area. The CSO is not an information blackout throughout a terror incident, as some have portrayed it. It is location-specific. The CSO will only apply to coverage of the target area. It is limited in duration. After the security operations are over, the CSO will be lifted. Even with a CSO, post-incident reporting is still necessary. Therefore, the Police will allow selected media access to incident locations, so that the events can still be recorded for subsequent use. We had conveyed this arrangement to senior editors and reporters of our local media at various engagements last month. We have also informed some of the foreign media here of our plans and how we will do our best to facilitate coverage. I should add that the CSO is a discretionary power which can only be exercised by the Commissioner of Police under specific conditions.”
“POSSPA will expand the scope of POPA beyond public order, to enable the Police to also use it for serious incidents affecting public safety, such as a terrorist attack. This is necessary because there may not always be public order problems in, say, a manhunt following a terror attack, such as in the Boston Marathon bombings. The term "serious incident" is clearly defined in clause 3. In addition to large-scale public disorder, "serious incidents" include terrorist acts and acts of serious violence affecting the public. What are the additional powers provided under POSSPA that will enable the Police to protect public order and safety, in the event of a serious incident? I will, first, talk about the new tools introduced in POSSPA. The first set of tools deals with modern technologies which can endanger the safety of the public and security forces. Sixty years ago, when POPA was enacted, there were only landline telephones. Today, we have smartphones, the Internet, 24/7 television news channels, and drones. Everyone with a smartphone can broadcast, and very many do, sometimes with wider viewership than regular media channels. Such modern technologies have been both a boon and a bane for the Police. One clear example when they can hinder Police operations is during sensitive tactical operations, like hostage rescue. The Police need to have the element of surprise over the perpetrators, so that the latter will not start to harm the victims in anticipation of the Police's response or prepare themselves to defeat Police action. The best-laid plans for the Police can be thwarted by a stray tweet or social media livestream, but the existing laws, such as the POA may not allow the Police to deal adequately with such risks.”
“In several overseas incidents, police forces had appealed to the public not to transmit or broadcast videos of ongoing operations, to protect the safety of their officers and the public. But this is usually not effective. Cases of individuals and media knowingly transmitting and broadcasting are common, even when they are told that the information may lead to the loss of lives. Mr Speaker, these overseas examples show why our laws need updating. They happened in developed and cosmopolitan cities like Singapore. New threats call for new measures to better protect Singaporeans and save lives when we come under attack. Having explained today's threat and why we need POSSPA, let me outline the situations where POSSPA can be activated, what tools Police will be given in this Bill to respond effectively to a serious incident, how these tools will be activated, and safeguards against abuse. POSSPA is an evolution of POPA. POPA was enacted in 1958, and there have been no major reviews of POPA since. It was designed to deal with large-scale communal riots, such as the serious racial clashes in Penang, during the Centenary Celebrations in Georgetown in January 1957, the year before. Under POPA, Police have special powers to deal with serious threats to public order, for example, to impose curfews and disperse assemblies. As there is already a legal framework within POPA that contains the necessary special powers in one Act, MHA is updating this framework to ensure that we remain effective to tackle the evolving security threats. As I explained through the examples, the security threats and challenges have evolved. In addition to large-scale public disorder, we also have to deal with violent extremism. MHA is, therefore, proposing to repeal POPA and replace it with POSSPA.”
“On that same day, a third gunman walked into a Jewish supermarket, and took hostages. In total, 17 were killed and 11 injured. The French Police had to pursue the suspects over many areas quickly to prevent them from killing more. The point is this: incidents can evolve very quickly; the theatre of operations also shifts quickly. Had the Charlie Hebdo incident taken place in Singapore, POPA would be inadequate, even if we expanded its scope to apply to a terrorist attack. The Minister would have to make new proclamations to bring the powers to bear in every new incident area every time the operations shift to the new location. The Police response would be much less timely. Another problem was the live news footages showing police officers ready to storm the supermarket to rescue hostages. Let me show another photo. In this photo, Members can see how the police were gathering outside the supermarket and they were getting ready to storm the place. But the terrorist was able to open fire at the police officers as soon as they started moving in. He was waiting for the precise moment to strike, and he could. In a situation like this, the terrorist had every possibility of watching every move of the police’s operation, as it happened. This would compromise the tactical options that the police could take and risk the success of the operation. It also put the lives of the officers and hostages in greater danger. The US Homeland Security Advisory Council studied this incident and published a White Paper in 2016. One of the lessons the Council pointed out was the need to reduce the risk of information about police tactics being leaked and compromising operations. We would be wise to learn this lesson for Singapore, too.”
“First example, April 2013, Boston marathon. The bombings killed three and injured about 260. The Boston Police narrowed the suspects to a pair of brothers, Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. The police ordered an extensive manhunt. In the residential area of Watertown, the suspects got into a shootout with the police. Tamerlan was killed and 15 officers were injured. Dzhokhar escaped and the police had to mount a house-to-house search. During this time, the police issued a voluntary stay-in-place request within a 20-block area. Despite this request by the police, some residents still ventured outdoors. Part of the reason could be because, as you can see in the photo on the right, there was no large-scale public disorder and the streets did not look dangerous. The fact that the fugitive Dzhokhar was armed, had shot and killed one police officer, was not obvious. Regular people who ventured outdoors, in spite of the police request, unknowingly affected police operations, which became much more difficult to manage. They also put their own lives at great risk. Had the Watertown manhunt taken place in Singapore, POPA could not have been activated because there was no public disorder. We would not, like the Boston Police, have been able to enforce a curfew in the search area to facilitate the manhunt operation and keep people safe from danger. Second example, January 2015, gunmen attacks in Paris. On 7 January, two armed attackers entered the headquarters of the French satirical newspaper, Charlie Hebdo. They killed 12, injured 11, and then fled. Several shootouts took place, as the police pursued them across north-eastern France. The two gunmen were killed two days later, after police stormed the building in which they were hiding.”
“In answer to the first question, I stand corrected, but there is no cap to the claims that can be filed. To the second question, as I said in my earlier reply, even if the respondent does not turn up, it does not prevent the claimant from bringing the matter to the tribunal, and the tribunal will look at the validity of the claims and, if the tribunal is convinced that the claimant has filed a valid claim, then the fact that the respondent did not show up at the hearing does not prevent the tribunal from awarding full payment as claimed to the claimant. In the case of the Member's resident, if there are some particular situations that we are not aware of, I invite the Member to let me know and we will look into it.”
“Mr Speaker, I think we take things one step at a time. Rental units, we decided to do for all for a very simple reason, because the unit does not belong to the tenant. And there are also more movements; people move in, people move out. That is not quite the case for studio apartment. They are owned property. And if we extend it to the studio apartments, then the argument could also be made what about for seniors living in their own homes elsewhere, not in studio apartments? So, for the time being, the decision is very clear. We would do so for rental households.”
“I thank the Member for asking those two questions. The first answer is yes. I made the announcement and I had explained then that between HDB and SCDF, they have reached an agreement. Because of the unique circumstances of rental flat tenants, we have decided that the installation will be for all rental units. To the second question, if Er Dr Lee Bee Wah did not ask that question, I would be rather surprised. It probably would have been someone else in disguise. I would be very happy if Nee Soon South was in the first phase. But if it is not in the first phase, then it would be in the second phase or perhaps in the third phase. The good news is that everything would be done by 2021.”
“Mr Speaker, the Member asked a very good question. It is actually quite difficult. When you think of a vegetation fire, the fact is that it would not have started immediately, let us say, when a cigarette butt is discarded. It would take some time. So, hypothetically, even if someone happens to be at the right spot, at the right time, and manages to capture on camera or through video someone who had thrown a cigarette butt, it is not so easy to establish whether that particular fire started as a result of that particular littering incident. There are no easy ways to prevent, except to appeal to people's civic-mindedness, except to make it a habit of reminding people that whenever you discard a cigarette butt, whether it is in a housing estate or anywhere, that could lead to some other situation, such as a fire. That is why NEA takes a very strict view of littering, especially when someone were to throw a cigarette butt. I am sure, as Members of Parliament, we have received appeals from our residents who tell us, "It was just that once" or "I wasn't thinking". But yet, NEA will have to take a strict view and really because, if it does result in a fire, it is not so easy to prove who did it. And yet, the damage could be serious.”
“It will depend on the claims of losses, in this case, that the employee puts up, and then the ECT will have to assess. I think it is very hard to say in the absence of facts of the case.”
“Mr Speaker, I shall try and answer all three questions. The first is on two different sets of dismissals. One, on constructive dismissals or forced resignations, the answer to the question is yes. The ECT will look into these. The second set has to do with non-renewals of contracts and non-confirmation during probation. These are not the same at all because, in such instances, there was already an agreement that the contract would come to an end, if not renewed, or there may not be continued employment after probation. These two types of situations do not fall within the ambit of wrongful dismissals, but, if any contract terms were not met, then the employee can certainly bring the matter up to the Tripartite Alliance for Dispute Management. So, that is on the first question. On the second question on whether the employer should be required to give reasons even when terminating a contract with notice or salary in lieu of notice, well, in most employment contracts, the employee may resign with notice and not provide reasons. So, the same applies to employers. They can also terminate with notice and not provide reasons. But this does not stop the employee from taking up the matter with MOM or the Tripartite Alliance for Dispute Management, if other contract terms were not met, or if he believed that his dismissal was wrongful in some way. On the third question on FAQs, the short answer is yes. MOM will work with our tripartite partners to do so.”
“Sir, there are a range of remedies. It really depends on the facts of the case. It depends on whether the employer was able to substantiate the claims and, if he is unable to, the employer may be ordered to reinstate the employee, to provide compensation. And if the employer does not comply with the order, then he can also be prosecuted. As to what the compensation should include, it is up to the ECT to assess and that will also depend on what was presented to the Tribunal by the claimant in terms of the range of losses suffered.”
“Mr Speaker, in response to Mr Yee, they will first have to apply for a Category I massage establishment licence. Then having secured the massage establishment licence at Category I level, they can ask to be considered for extended operating hours. The Police will look into the various factors, for example, proximity to residential areas because the stipulated hours were introduced in the first place in response to concerns about massage establishments operating 24 hours near residential areas. The Police will also look at the track record of the operator, whether they have been able to observe, adhere to the conditions that were previously set for them. And, of course, if relevant, the Police will also ask for feedback from the community.”
“Mr Chairman, to the question on Maternity Protection, our women should feel secure that they can remain in work even when they get pregnant. Our laws provide sufficient protection against dismissal during pregnancy as well as Maternity Leave. We do get referrals to look into cases and we will take the errant employers to task. If Mr Louis Ng is aware of specific cases, we will certainly look into them. It does not always require for us to sign on to the ILO's Convention. We are party to the declaration that the ILO has, and we have a very long-standing partnership with the ILO. But all of the ILO Conventions are very binary in nature. When you sign on to one Convention, you must accept every single clause that is specified in the Convention. The difficulty is that, sometimes, we are party to other treaties or agreements that would make it very difficult for us to adhere so strictly to all of the items specified. As a country that values very strongly our commitment whenever we sign on these international conventions, we do not take them lightly. But let me assure the Member that the laws in Singapore already provide adequate protection to women who become pregnant, as well as when they are on Maternity Leave.”
“Mr Chairman, the answer to the latter question is, yes, they can appeal for either the quantum or eligibility. Both types of appeals are seriously looked into. I accept the fact that, regardless of housing type, people can have complicated family arrangements. There have been cases where we have reviewed and drawn the conclusion that they are worthy of higher support from the Silver Support. So, that can be done. As to the Member's other question about whether the flat type is cut too finely, well, service and conservancy charges are dependent on also that type of clustering. So, from that perspective, it has not been a difficulty.”
“Mr Chairman, I have to address Ms Thanaletchimi's question. I should say that these interventions can evolve over time. We will take the suggestion and we will look at it. If there is a good reason for us to have a separate Tripartite Standard, yes, I think so, but let us take a look at it. I should also just supplement my reply to Dr Intan Mokhtar. In the private sector, it is very hard for the Government to intervene. But I cannot imagine why in the private sector, the employers would not figure that they should reward according to talent. If there are specific instances where someone has been discriminated against, I will be very interested to find out.”
“Mr Chairman, as I had explained, it is not entirely clear to me that there are, in fact, very significant gender pay gaps, after you have controlled for occupation and for years of service. The best thing that we can do is go back to what will enable the women to make progress in their careers, which is not to exit, and the way in which to do it is to make FWAs available to them. I should just make a small point. I looked at the public sector data and it was quite interesting. Certainly, among the superscale officers, there is no difference between the male and female officers. For the other grades, as I had mentioned, sometimes, it has to do with the composition, what kinds of work they are doing. I hope that addresses the Member's question.”
“Also, if we look at the whole slew of measures that can be taken, by far, the one that perhaps will make the most difference is the availability of FWAs because the reality of their lives are that, at home, there will still be responsibilities to be shared. Even if they have a spouse, a partner, who is willing and able to chip in, very often, exigencies require them to take time out. How do we best enable persons with caregiving responsibilities, not just women, to remain active in the workforce? That must be the thrust of our efforts.”
“Mr Chairman, I thank the Member Ms Jessica Tan for giving me an opportunity to say a little bit more about how we look at the data. I asked to look at the data within the public sector and it was quite interesting. For a particular scheme of service, in fact, the median pay of the female officers was higher than the males. So, I wondered why. And as it turns out, the composition of the females and the males in the workforce also matters a great deal. It turns out that the nature of the work performed by females in the public sector lend themselves to earning higher pay. What I would say is this: when we look at the gender pay gap, whether it is numbers compiled by ValuePenguin or whether it is even based on our comprehensive Labour Force Survey, we should not take it at face value. The fact that more women might have exited the workforce and, as a result, in terms of cumulative length of service is perhaps not as high, that contributes to the gender pay gap. Composition of the male workforce and the female workforce, and what kinds of work are being done, also matter. If we dug deeper and looked at the gender pay gap within occupations, and then controlled for years of service, I half suspect that the gap is not going to look as high as it does. But having said that, putting all of those things aside, it is still the right thing to do for us to enable as many women as possible to stay in the workforce, give them a chance to grow their careers, and not to have to choose between family and work. That is the right thing to do to enable them to fulfil all of their aspirations for work and family, and we will press on to do that.”
“Mr Chairman, to Mr Ang's question, at present, if we look at the profile of the SEPs who took up self-employment work more recently, they are quite a mixed bag. They include those that he highlighted, such as media freelancers. They also include people who have taken up work like private hire car driving. The main thing is that it depends on whether they are doing it as their primary livelihood. If they are doing it as a primary livelihood, then we are, of course, more interested in whether this is their preferred model of work. If they are doing it as a secondary form of employment, it is something that they decided to take on to earn an additional stream of income, we do not have any issues with that. But we agree with the Member that it probably makes good sense to reach out to career counsellors, those who work with students, in particular, whether they are at the polytechnics or universities, or even other institutions, as well as our own career coaches, to help them appreciate what it is like to be a freelancer and the challenges that are faced, so that they can give correct advice. So, this is something that we can follow up on.”
“Mr Chairman, the long-term unemployed includes those who are PMETs as well as rank-and-file. They are also of various age groups. To Mr Low's question about whether they get help from WSG as well as NTUC-e2i, the answer is yes. I shared that, last year, we helped 6,600 of them. For those persons who are helped, the help to them was real and not imagined. As for profile, I am not sure exactly what Mr Low is seeking. But if he could let me know, we will try and find out and share with him.”
“Mr Chairman, I would like to thank the Member for sharing his concerns about the dance community as well as the stage technicians. We will certainly be very keen to get in touch with the associations that they belong to and to explore ways in which we can promote the adoption of long medical leave insurance as a norm for their occupations.”
“A short answer to the Member's question is that as the criminals' tactics evolve so, too, must the Police's repertoire of tools. What I can share with the Member is that the Police are working on it and it will investigate all valid cases of reports, whether they come from the victims themselves or the families of the victims.”
“Mr Chairman, the National Security Awareness survey that was conducted in 2017 may provide some answers that are useful to Ms Rahayu Mahzam. When they were asked if they believed that Singapore is a target for terrorist attacks, 59% agreed or strongly agreed. When asked "Which are the top three potential situations they thought the Government should focus emergency preparedness training on?" 77% said terrorist attacks. But when they were asked if they believed they were well-prepared to handle a terrorist attack if it were to occur in Singapore, only 30% said yes. The Police have also been receiving reports from members of the public on suspicious sightings, and these came through 999 calls as well as the SGSecure app which has a million downloads. And what do all these tell us? I think they tell us that the awareness level is high, but it can be even higher. As for preparedness, it is still a long way to go. That is why we have to press on with the programmes at the community level and also at the workplaces.”
“Chairman, in terms of emergency calls, SCDF now handles about 183,000 calls a year. That translates to 500 calls a day and about one every three minutes. And based on SCDF's projections, the number of emergency services calls will double by around 2030. We will have to find ways to cope. It is actually two things. One, we will have to grow our fleet of emergency ambulances, but we also have to make better use of our limited resources. What that means is that we will have to introduce the tiering of our responses, according to the severity of the cases. The severe cases that are life-threatening, like you have a cardiac arrest or a loss of consciousness, those are of the highest priority. Because in a cardiac arrest – Dr Tan Wu Meng would know this – another minute of delay and you would have about 7% to 10% reduction in probability of survival. So, we need to give it the highest priority. But not every 995 call is a life-threatening emergency. In fact, about 10% are false alarms. As incredible as it may sound, we have had people called us for constipation. If that translates to an average of two non-emergency calls every hour, and someone calls in and you have a cardiac arrest but the SCDF resources are tied up, then we will be in serious trouble. So, we have to prioritise and the target time to respond to different types of calls will not be the same. But unless we do so, no amount of resources will be enough to make sure that the critical cases are always attended to first.”
“Even as we invest in technologies and systems, we will also ensure that our officers are given the necessary training and retraining so that they can continue to contribute effectively in their roles. Beyond our transformation efforts, ultimately, it is the professionalism and dedication of each and every Home Team officer that matters the most. They put in a lot of hard work to keep us safe and secure, even when the rest of Singapore is enjoying our public holidays or asleep at home, and, oftentimes, they go beyond their call of duty to serve our people. The public’s trust and confidence in the Home Team continues to be high. We do not take it for granted, however, and will strive to continue to deserve this.”
“Mr Edwin Tong spoke about having sufficient qualified security consultants for purposes of the Infrastructure Protection Act. Several initiatives are in place. Skills Security Framework offers a career pathway in security consultancy. There is a specialist diploma also in security consultancy that would start next year. He asked if there are other qualifications that can be considered, and the answer is yes. The tripartite partners have a joint stake in the Security ITM and we are confident we will achieve the vision of a security industry that is vibrant, technologically-advanced and competitive. Mr Chairman, if you will allow me, I would like to conclude in Mandarin. (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] In the coming years, we will continue to review and enhance our laws, upgrade our procedures, and focus on the transformation of the Home Team. We will invest significantly in technology to counter emerging threats and improve the effectiveness of the Home Team. Let me share an example. As laptops and smartphones have become common, the number of criminal cases involving digital media has gone up manifold. To investigate these crimes, information and evidence need to be extracted from digital devices, such as handphones and thumb drives. It is not sustainable to maintain the status quo in the way we approach the investigation and handling of evidence for such crimes. Instead, SPF will be introducing a Digital Forensic Kiosk, which allows IOs to directly and more efficiently retrieve, organise and analyse information from digital devices. This kiosk will also be able to scan for possible evidence based on the type of case being investigated. Overall, this will allow our IOs to quickly access evidence and carry out their investigations more effectively.”
“Productivity gains for security service providers, cost savings or better value for service buyers, better employment outcomes for security personnel and a more secure Singapore. Dr Tan Wu Meng hopes that older workers can continue to contribute and I fully agree with him. I have seen how it can be done. Of the 47,000 active security officers, more than half are above the age of 50; and of this group, another half are above the age of 60. So, the security industry is not a profession that shuts out seniors. On the contrary, even with the use of technology, we will see them playing an active role. Technology can help to take over labour-intensive tasks, for example, ground patrols, and it will make work easier for the older security officers who can still have a meaningful role, tap their experience, make judgements when security alerts through video analytics, for example, are presented to them and advise their younger colleagues on the best response. Government support is available for job redesign and WDA offers customised guidance and funding support. Dr Tan Wu Meng highlighted his concern that security training materials are not written in simple English. The security courses are generally accessible to most learners and the passing rate in 2017 was about 90%. The training standards are set by SkillsFuture Singapore (SSG) in consultation with the Police and other industry stakeholders. The course providers have flexibility. For example, they can use videos for instruction and, instead of written tests, they can take oral assessments. Experienced security officers also do not have to attend classroom training or take written tests. They can obtain a Statement of Attainment through an assessment-only pathway, which means face-to-face interviews and role play.”