K Shanmugam
Singapore
“Bank accounts are frozen when there is reason to suspect that the bank accounts are involved in illicit activities, including money laundering activities.”
“The Singapore Police Force does not track the requested data. Distinguishing artificial intelligence (AI)-generated content typically requires more detailed forensic examination which may not be necessary in every investigation and may also not be conclusive as to whether AI-generative tools were used.”
“The Building and Construction Authority’s Code on Accessibility provides baseline requirements for accessible and inclusive buildings. It stipulates a minimum width of 1.5 metres or 1.8 metres for primary accessible routes, depending on the building type.”
“The Road Traffic (Motor Vehicles, Driving Licence) Rules under the Road Traffic Act set out the scope of the medical assessment required for motorists aged 65 and above who wish to retain their driving licences.”
“When a Police report has been made, the Police will investigate to determine if a criminal offence has been committed. If there is reasonable suspicion that a case is scam-related, the Police can direct online service providers to restrict Singapore users' access to the relevant online activity under the Online Criminal Harms Act.”
“Through intelligence sharing and coordinated enforcement actions, the cross-border operation disrupted a transnational drug trafficking syndicate and downstream drug trafficking activities, with the UK arresting seven persons so far and further investigations underway.”
The complete record
Every one of 4,552 lines we hold for K Shanmugam, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 29 of 92.
“The Prisons, and MHA as a whole, mobilises large number of volunteers to work with our prison inmates. For Prisons, the tagline is "Captains of Lives" because we no longer look at prison as a place where we just guard people. We want to make a distinct difference to their lives such that when they come out, they can actually reintegrate back into society. That involves a number of different approaches: one, assess them when they come in into different risk categories, decide what kind of rehabilitative approach would be best suited for them and, of course, all of this applies only if they stay for some time in prisons; those in there for a few months may not benefit from these approaches. Then, there are different programmes depending on whether they are in an early stage of incarceration, middle stage or late stage. It does not end there. We got to try and handhold them after they leave prison: we find them jobs, try and encourage them to keep their jobs and give other kinds of interventions. And those with family support, those who have other kinds of community support including religious support, we find that the recidivism rates are generally lower. So, what is necessary also beyond prisons officers, MHA officers and civil servants doing it is a substantial community support when they are in prison and when they are out of prison. So, in prison, for example, if you take the different communities, on a non-religious based approach, we have a wide variety of volunteers. But, of course, many religious groups also come in and offer their services and we find that they actually make a big difference. And we mobilise them.”
“Members can cast their eyes over the slide. It may be too simplistic to share these race-based statistics as the reality is more complex. Another commented, "It is not good to publicise such statistics, no matter which community is involved." Members can see the different comments. Overall, the community leaders were clear. They said you should not simply look at the racial breakdown. It would not take into account other contributing factors which could have led to a person committing a crime. It would also detract from the improvements made by the respective communities. And we take these views quite seriously. Overall, they agreed that the race-based inmate and crime statistics should continue to be shared in closed-door settings with community leaders and groups, so that we can address the issues as a community. It is the Government's as well as the community leaders’ considered assessment that race-based inmate and offender statistics should not be released. We will continue our current approach of disclosing such information on a selective basis, where doing so would be useful and positive for the community and society. If any Member has a different view, having heard the views of the community leaders, you are welcome to explain why.”
“Annex 1 sets out the list of stakeholders we engaged with. We specifically went and asked the various community organisations on their views on releasing such information: race-based statistics on criminal offenders and inmate population. It is a very substantial list. We consulted many different groups and community leaders, sought their views. The unanimous view – and I underline "unanimous view" – was that it would not benefit our community and Singapore’s society. And it would encourage stereotypes and harm community relations. Some of their comments I have asked to be reproduced for Members’ reference. Sir, Annex 2.”
“In some other instances, the judgment lies in not releasing the data. The Government has on these considerations taken the approach not to release race-based statistics for prison inmate population and criminal offenders. Sir, with your permission, may I display some slides on the screens?”
“Through the M3 network, the initiative by Minister Masagos, we have also released specific statistics on the Malay community, like the number of Malay graduates from Institutes of Higher Learning, the number of Malay professionals, managers, executives and technicians (PMETs) and the recidivism rate of the Malay inmate population. The Government also releases race-based statistics on drug and inhalant abuse through CNB’s annual reports. Why do we, for example, release those statistics? We do so to effectively mobilise the communities into action. By working with the community, we are then able to come up with interventions that are better suited for different communities. While I deal with this, I should also say that the Malay and Indian communities have seen improvements in terms of educational attainment and literacy rates over the last decade. The Malay community has made significant progress: the number of Malay university graduates has doubled and the proportion of Malays working as PMETs has also increased. Going back to the point on releasing data on drug and inhalant abuse and whether this could lead to stereotyping, the answer is yes. But this is where judgement comes in. Our assessment is that in these cases, the upside of spurring the community to take action outweighs the negative of potentially deepening the stereotypes. We consider the implications on each community and proceed based on judgement and assessment. Let me share some examples. The Dadah Itu Haram campaign and the Malay-Muslim Organisations (MMO) Rehabilitation Network are examples of how the Government was able to partner the Malay community to join hands with CNB and Singapore Prison Service (SPS) to combat drug abuse and prevent reoffending. We have seen positive results with our efforts.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Member for the question. In all these matters of public disclosure, for that matter, any other Government action, any decision by the Government has to be guided by what is in the public interest and that includes assessing what information should be made public. And, really, we do not take an ideological position on these matters. So, in certain respects, releasing data can adversely impact the community and society and this particular question relates to one such example. The fact is minorities are disproportionately represented in the prison inmate population and in crime statistics. The Government has been careful about publicly releasing such data with the racial breakdown, because it might deepen racial stereotypes. I say "deepen", specifically because it is not as if these stereotypes do not exist. They exist. Our concern is releasing the data would deepen those stereotypes. So, if Government were to release data on racial composition of our prison inmate population and criminal offenders on a regular basis, we really risk hardening the stereotypes. Over time, the concern is that that will undermine our efforts in building harmonious relations amongst all the races and, really, will make it harder for us to achieve racial harmony. This is not to say that the Government does not release any race-based statistics at all. We have done so in our population census, which includes key indicators broken down by ethnicity, like resident population, marriage and fertility, education, home ownership and religion.”
“The Member's question on the incidents of cheating at the 2020 Bar Examinations has been addressed in the reply to Question Nos 3, 4 and 5 and published in the Questions to Oral Answer section for the 9 May 2022 Sitting.”
“This group of private healthcare workers are serving the general public, as part of the national healthcare framework dealing with COVID-19 and not just their private clients. MHA will continue to regularly review this list of Public Service workers under POHA.”
“Under the Protection from Harassment Act (POHA), offenders who are convicted of harassment are liable for a fine of up to $5,000 or an imprisonment term of up to six months, or both. Where the victim is a public servant or Public Service worker, the punishment is higher – offenders are liable for a fine of up to $5,000 or an imprisonment term of up to 12 months, or both. In more egregious cases, offenders can be charged with other offences under the Penal Code, where the punishments are higher. For example, under section 332 of the Penal Code, offenders who are convicted for voluntarily causing hurt to a public servant are liable for an imprisonment term of up to seven years and are also liable for a fine, or caning. One hundred and seventy-five, 185 and 114 cases of harassment against public servants or Public Service workers were prosecuted for offences under POHA in 2019, 2020 and 2021 respectively. We do not track the average sentences of such cases. The Member asked whether POHA can be expanded to protect other frontliners like private healthcare workers. To clarify, any offender can be convicted of harassment under POHA, regardless of who the victim is, including private healthcare workers. For the purpose of additional protection, POHA classifies individuals as Public Service workers if their job serves the general public and not just patrons of a private business or establishment. These include healthcare professionals in public healthcare institutions, such as public hospitals and polyclinics. Most recently, in 2021, we expanded the list of Public Service workers, for the purposes of additional protection under POHA, to include private healthcare workers directly involved in COVID-19 operations.”
“The Safe Driving Course was introduced in 2015 as a voluntary programme to help motorists who have accumulated demerit points, but not yet liable for suspension, improve their driving behaviour. The course was revised on 1 November 2017, to widen the eligibility criteria and raise the number of demerit points expunged from motorists' records, so that more motorists would be able to benefit from attending it. From 1 November 2017 to 28 February 2022, 41,278 motorists had signed up for the Safe Driving Course. The course has seen some success in improving driving behaviour among participants. Since 1 November 2017, 78% of motorists who had completed the course remained offence-free for at least one year after completing the course. Motorists whose licences were suspended are not eligible for the Safe Driving Course. Those with licence suspension of less than 12 months will have their licence automatically reinstated at the end of their suspension period. They do not need to apply to reinstate their licences. Motorists whose driving licences have been suspended for 12 months or more, will have their licences revoked. They would be required to retake the necessary driving tests of competency before they can drive again.”
“The intent of a birth certificate is to serve as a certification of the registration of a live birth and as an identity document for the child, which can then be used for administrative purposes, such as the provision of Government services. Hence, birth certificates are not issued to stillbirths. For stillbirths, once the Registration of Births and Deaths Act 2021 comes into force, a digital stillbirth certificate will be issued to the parents.”
“As of 31 March 2022, there are 195 inmates who are, currently, incarcerated for sexual assault offences with sentences of 10 years' imprisonment or more. Of these 195 inmates, 95 of them have been imprisoned before. Of these 95, 22 of them have, at least, one prior conviction for a sexual assault offence. We do not track the number of people in our population who had been incarcerated for sexual assault.”
“MHA has previously provided our reply to a similar Parliamentary Question filed for the 4 April Sitting. To date, the Government has not detected a coordinated hostile information campaign (HIC) targeted specifically at Singapore. Nevertheless, the Member's question is opportune to remind us that we should continue to be vigilant against efforts to draw Singaporeans into inauthentic discussions online and that these efforts seek to otherwise influence or divide us through hearsay, rumours, half-truths or misleading statements. The Government will continue with its efforts to build up a well-informed and discerning public through various public education efforts that strengthen our information and media literacy skills, so that we know how to discern the veracity of information that we encounter online.”
“The Residential Property Act (RPA) prohibits foreigners, including Permanent Residents (PRs), from purchasing landed residential property. Currently, Singapore Citizens are not subject to any restrictions on the purchase or ownership of landed properties under RPA. There are strict criteria for a foreigner to become a Singapore Citizen. Only a small number have been granted Singapore Citizenship after obtaining Singapore Permanent Residency (PR) through the Global Investor Programme (GIP) since its introduction in 2004. This group of citizens, who first obtained PR status through GIP, accounted for a total of 21 landed property purchases over 18 years from 2004 to 2021. By comparison, over the last seven years, there has been an average of 2,400 landed property transactions annually. I note the Member's concerns regarding the landed residential property market. This is something we review regularly. We will continue to work with the MND and other relevant agencies to monitor the situation and take the necessary measures.”
“It was a question by Ms Joan Pereira on the safeguards to protect members of the public from recalcitrant sex offenders. Sir, I had said in my reply to Ms Joan Pereira that preventive detention (PD) sentences can range from seven to 14 years. [Please refer to "Safeguards to Protect Members of Public from Recalcitrant Sex Offenders", Official Report, 5 April 2022, Vol 95, Issue 61, Oral Answers to Questions section.] I misspoke. PD sentences range from seven to 20 years. Thank you, Sir.”
“Mr Speaker, with your leave, may I correct a factual error in my reply at the 5 April 2022 Sitting to Question No 6?”
“I think the points made are interesting. As to whether they need close supervision, at the age of 23 or 25, I do not think you need to have close supervision to know that you ought not to be cheating in an examination, because, being Singaporeans, they would have gone through examinations for the most part of their lives and one hopes that this was not earlier practised. I think there are some merits in some of the other points about requiring them to do some service to the community. But these are not things that are decided by the Government. We can decide as a matter of policy in future under the law, but for these specific cases, these are matters that are between the Attorney-General's Chambers and the Law Society to make suggestions and for the Courts to decide.”
“My apologies. On whether it should be a question of second chances, I think the way we ought to approach it is this. The first point should be: what is the offence and who committed the offence? The offence here is cheating – which is serious. Who committed it? Trainee lawyers – that is also serious, doubly serious. You start with that and the message has got to go out to others that all of this will be dealt with very seriously. I do not think anyone can dispute that. Second, at the same time, what is the right penalty? As I have said, that is before the Courts, so, we need to be careful. But I think we can say this much. These are young people. Does that mean that we forever prevent them from practising? I think most people would say that would sound very harsh. So, what is the appropriate penalty, taking into account the seriousness of the offence, but also their age and should they forever be prevented from being lawyers, being called to the Bar? I think most people would think that is probably too harsh. Should they face significant sanctions that bring across the seriousness of the conduct? I think most people would agree with that. Within that framework, how the Courts decide, I think we have to wait and see.”
“Mr Seah Kian Peng's first question is: why did SILE not put in safeguards earlier? Sir, I cannot speak for SILE. I assume that they, perhaps, expected lawyers to be more honest than what has turned out to be the case, at least, with regard to some of them; and, prior to COVID-19, examinations were usually conducted physically. So, I do not think SILE has that much experience conducting it in this format. Second, with regard to whether there were earlier cases, Sir, what I can say is: SILE says that it has not found situations of such cheating. I drew a distinction between that and whether something like that has actually happened.”
“They are expected to act in the best interests of the clients they advise. They are also officers of the Court, meaning they owe a very high duty to the Court. They have to be honest, both with their clients and with the Court. They have to act with the highest standards of probity to ensure that they can be relied upon with utmost confidence. That is not just as lawyers advising clients, but in every other aspect of their conduct. Cheating is a serious derogation from the basic principle of honesty. I think all this can be said without too much contention. There are levels of seriousness when lawyers behave dishonestly: misleading clients is serious, lying in Court is serious, lying on oath is serious. Some of these carry potential criminal consequences. There is also other conduct which, if it is unbefitting of a lawyer, whether or not in the context of advising a client, can also be taken up. These are basic principles. I am sure Members, including the Members who have asked the questions, would accept that any such conduct is quite unacceptable. What happens to the particular trainee lawyers' applications, how they will be dealt with – the Courts will decide, taking into account the views of the respective institutions, which will put forward their views.”
“Thank you, Sir. Sir, the Singapore Institute of Legal Education (SILE) conducts the Bar examinations in Singapore. SILE has said that it has put in place additional safeguards to prevent cheating. It has introduced remote proctoring for examinations that are conducted online and SILE's position is that, apart from the 11 cases which have been uncovered, they have not found any other cases of cheating in the subsequent rounds of the Bar examinations. But, of course, the fact is that there is a difference between whether it has happened and what they have found. But they have not found anything else. As regards these particular trainee lawyers, SILE has required that all of them who cheated are to repeat the preparatory course and/or the Bar examinations in the next year. The Attorney-General has objected to their applications for admission because of the cheating during the Bar examinations and the Court has adjourned their hearings for admission. So, what does that mean? It means that their applications to be admitted to the Bar will be heard at some time in the future, when the adjournments end. To get admitted, they will need to convince all the stakeholders involved that they are fit and proper to practise law before they are allowed to do so. As with all admission applications, the High Court has the discretion to rule on whether a particular applicant should be admitted or should not be admitted, taking into account the views of the Attorney-General, SILE and the Law Society. We need to be careful about how much we discuss here and I have to be careful of what I say because the applications of the trainee lawyers who cheated are still pending in Court. In the circumstances, what I can say is this: lawyers are fiduciaries.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I have your permission to answer all the Parliamentary Questions related to the recent incidents of cheating by trainee lawyers during the 2020 Bar examinations together? That would include Question Nos 3, 4 and 5 in the Order Paper from Mr Seah Kian Peng, Ms He Ting Ru and Ms Hany Soh, as well as Question No 11 for Written Answer from Mr Ang Wei Neng filed for today's Sitting.”
“The SPF and SCDF do not track the calls by whether they come from landline, landline residential or mobile phone.”
“In 2021, there were 23,931 cases of scam reported. Of the scam victims, 0.2% were Long-Term Visit Pass holders, 15.5% were Work Permit holders, and 1.6% were S Pass holders. The Police work closely with non-governmental organisations, dormitory operators and embassies to share anti-scam advisories with the foreign workers. These include advice on the steps they can take if they have fallen victim to scams. Advisories are also translated into the foreign workers' native language, where appropriate. The Police's outreach efforts focus on raising awareness of the tell-tale signs of scams and providing prevention tips. MOM also provides anti-scam advisories and resources to foreign workers. For example, by disseminating anti-scam advice in their native language to foreign workers who attend the Settling-in-Programme upon arrival in Singapore.”
“Under section 125 of the Penal Code 1871, it is an offence for a Singaporean to wage, attempt to wage, or abet the waging of, war against the government of any power in alliance or at peace with the Singapore Government. Singaporeans' participation in such wars can affect Singapore's national interests in different ways, depending on the nature of the conflict. One impact is that such involvement could be misconstrued as Singapore's participation, or taking sides, in the war. We also do not want Singapore Citizens to engage in violence, except in defence of Singapore. Those who participate in wars of other countries may also pose a threat to national security upon their return to Singapore, depending on the nature of the conflict. Singaporeans who wish to help Ukrainians can do so in several ways. For instance, they may donate to legitimate organisations, such as the Singapore Red Cross, that have been raising funds for humanitarian aid to support affected communities in Ukraine.”
“The number of youths below the age of 30 who were arrested for scam-related offences jumped from 237 in 2019, to 509 in 2020, before decreasing slightly to 493 in 2021. Youths form about half of all scam-related offenders arrested in Singapore. The cases, generally, involved youths acting as money mules. They either handed over control of their bank account, or disclosed their Singpass login details to scammers, or carried out scam-related bank transfers themselves in exchange for a commission. The youths were lured by the quick and easy money that could be made through scams and scam activities. The Police have been working with schools and Institutes of Higher Learning to raise awareness amongst youths on the consequences of crime. These efforts include talks and crime prevention exhibitions. The Police have also been raising awareness specifically of the consequences of being involved in scam activities, such as acting as money mules. This is done through advisories and educational campaigns. For example, last year, the Police collaborated with the National Crime Prevention Council (NCPC) to run a nationwide money mule public education campaign. The topic of money mule was also exclusively featured in an episode of “Hello Police?”, which is a web-series published on social media platforms, to raise awareness on the legal consequences of acting as a money mule and the immediate steps to take if one suspects that he or she has been used as a money mule. The Police will continue to work with our stakeholders to enhance outreach to youths on the consequences of being involved in scam and other criminal activities.”
“From 2019 to 2021, the number of persons convicted for the possession of forged identity cards and forged passports was 51 and five respectively. There has not been a rising trend of such cases. The Immigration & Checkpoints Authority, or ICA, monitors online platforms for possible abuse of ICA-issued documents. It is aware of chat groups on online messaging platforms which advertise the sale of forged ICs and passports. ICA will take enforcement action wherever possible. Anyone with information on persons or platforms claiming to sell forged documents may also inform ICA through its website. ICA would like to remind the public that the possession of forged ICs and passports are offences under the National Registration Act and Passports Act respectively. If convicted, offenders are liable for a fine not exceeding $10,000, or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years, or both.”
“She has the option that she can take the children and leave immediately, go into the safe space, then consider her next steps, instead of facing the threat of violence. It could also include moving to a temporary shelter arrangement while working out longer-term interventions. That gives the parties the opportunity to cool down, provides an opportunity for reconciliation. You really do not want every such situation to end up in the matrimonial Courts. We will also empower specific persons, such as the Director-General of Social Welfare, to apply for Personal Protection Orders on behalf of those at risk in certain situations – like that mother who was clearly being abused but did not want to report her son. This will be very resource-intensive and, therefore, will take time to implement. Members can see, however, what we hope to achieve. In conclusion, Sir, if I may say this, the recommendations in the White Paper serve as a guidepost, not the endpoint of our aspirations for Singapore women. In that context, I have shown you some examples – or I call them vignettes and illustrations – of how things happen in some other countries, some things that had happened, and what it reflects and how the road we have taken has made pretty much some of these things quite unthinkable in Singapore. And that is by choice. It is not something that is preordained. We will need to look again at this White Paper and the recommendations, continually review, see how far we have come. And I hope that we can all work to make Singapore a place where every girl and woman can achieve her fullest potential. [Applause.]”
“A woman was abused by her husband on several occasions – punched her, held scissors to her face, cut her hair while holding onto her head. An elderly mother was abused by her adult son for years, starved, not allowed to shower, physically assaulted. She did not report him to the Police, despite volunteers asking her to, because she said she did not want to affect her son, despite suffering all this abuse. MHA and MSF set up a task force on family violence in February 2020. The task force came up with 16 recommendations. One common situation, for example, is the threat of violence at home or in a flat. The husband is angry, he is threatening violence; the woman fears for her safety. If the Police turn up at that point, nothing much can be done because if there is no actual violence and no imminent threat of violence, then it is very difficult to do anything. Her husband denies it anyway that he is going to hit. The woman and the children stay in the same flat in fear, and then something bad can happen. Once these measures are able to be implemented – the task force's recommendations – MHA and MSF will respond. They will make an assessment. If the situation is serious, if there has been violence, it may proceed as a criminal case. We try not to criminalise all of these situations because that then does, quite often, irreparable harm in the family context. But where it is necessary, it is processed. If there is no actual violence but there is a significant threat of violence, the wife may be offered the option of being moved to a safe space, depending on the facts. It will be her choice even if there is no criminal offence.”
“To summarise my first point, Sir, the impact on norms and values, the internalisation of the idea of equality – I see that as among the most important outcomes from this process. Let me move to my second point on how we deal with violence targeted at women in the family context. On the whole, if you look at women and how they perceive their safety and security, we have done well. I have told the House before, SPF does regular surveys. The 2018 public perception survey showed that 93% of our women feel safe in Singapore. In 2020, Gallup's Law and Order survey, 97% of Singapore residents – obviously men and women – feel safe walking alone on the streets at night. It is the highest in the world. We have made several legislative changes to give better protection to women. Just touching on the changes in the last three years. In 2019, we amended the Penal Code to deal with sexual crimes which use technology; we repealed the marital immunity for rape; we introduced enhanced penalties for offences against victims in an intimate or close relationship with the offender. Usually, women were the victims, even though the legislation is neutral about which sex. In the same year, we amended the Protection from Harassment Act to enhance protection for victims of harassment. The victims are, again, usually women or, quite often, young women. Last year, we increased the penalties for sexual offences, including outrage of modesty. That came into force just last month. We intend to take further steps. But for today's purposes, I will deal specifically with violence in the family context. For violence at home, women, again, are more likely to be the victims. The proportion or ratio is three to one, roughly. Members would have read about some cases which were in the news.”
“Besides this, the same ministry, on 18 March 2020 also stated that only the head of the household should leave the house to purchase necessities. And I think almost in every household, the man assumed that that was them and only them. Fast forward to this year, 22 February, the Malaysian Deputy Minister, again from the same ministry, the Ministry of Women, Family and Community Development, she gave this advice to husbands and wives, that husbands should try the "physical touch" approach by striking their wives "gently" and to discipline them if they do not stop "unruly" behaviour. And wives should seek husbands' permission before speaking. And wives should speak to their husbands only when the husbands are calm and relaxed, and after the husbands have eaten and prayed. In Singapore, let me tell you, if you beat your wives or vice versa, the Police will come looking for you. And Members will not even consider it possible for either MCCY or MSF to issue such statements. People may think this is a joke, but the differences in approach underlie and make a serious point. The path taken in 1961 and continued has led us to a very different place in terms of how we in Singapore view women and what we consider acceptable to say to women about how women should behave. The White Paper pushes us further along that road. Our cultural norms are now different from Malaysia. We have, as opinion leaders, the power to strengthen and solidify those norms with more action. We can look at positive examples from other countries for us to emulate. Many of them are in Scandinavia, not in all aspects, but in some important aspects. There is still much we can learn from others.”
“" On my list of examples, let me also share some things that have happened recently in Malaysia. When I say Malaysia, Singaporeans and, probably, Members of Parliament, too, sometimes tend to say on social issues, Malaysia is not a real comparison because we have taken different paths on social issues. But I make a different point. We were part of the same country until 1965. Our cultures are largely similar. The roads we took diverged after 1965. These were deliberate choices and they have led to very different results, and that is worth reflecting on to consider carefully what path we should continue on and what we can do to strengthen the respect and the idea of equality for women. I will refer to two events: one early in the pandemic and one just a few weeks ago for Malaysia. In March 2020, Malaysia, like Singapore, was dealing with the pandemic. The Movement Control Order, I think, had been in place. The Malaysian Ministry of Women, Family and Community Development posted infographics on social media on how to ensure harmonious households. It was a document that was obviously intended to be serious and it gave advice to wives. The advice included the following: that the wives should mimic the voice of a Japanese cartoon character, Doraemon, when speaking to their husbands; wives should giggle coyly; wives should avoid wearing home clothes and put on make-up; wives should use humorous words and avoid nagging. The ministry's post, as you can imagine, drew a lot of response. As I understand it, Doraemon is a male robot cat, so, not quite sure why women should speak like a male robot cat. There were many takes on the ministry's post. This is one. With Speaker's permission, can I have this video shown?”
“Nothing as graphic as what you see happened in the Australian parliament. He was sentenced to nine months' jail and three strokes of the cane. If you do these things outside Parliament, you are likely to get jailed and caned. I think it is quite unthinkable that something like this can or will happen in a parliamentary context in Singapore but, if it did, a male Member of Parliament is likely to go to jail and be caned for some of the more egregious conduct. We look at it in the context of how we treat women and what the laws are. All of these fit in together to make sure that there is a certain status, respect and expectation of behaviour. That is important. I will refer to Australia in another context. Last year, in one of the conversations that I took part in, there was an Australian lady. I was taken aback by what she said. She said – and these are in the notes that our civil servants take – and I quote verbatim, "to Minister's question on her experience in Australia in terms of career opportunities for women as well as support for mothers, the lady said that Singapore offered much better opportunities and support for women. Companies in Australia often took a male-centric perspective and women tended to be politically disadvantaged, especially in rising to leadership positions." Again, a small vignette. If we move forward to the UK, I can recount to the House what a relatively senior female diplomat from the UK told me. Again, quoting from the notes, "on caregiving, Minister said that we were exploring how we could provide better support. One way was to recognise the caregiving role in monetary terms" – I will skip her name – "said that UK had not seriously discussed the question of monetary compensation for caregiving.”
“If you look at the list, an MP leaning over, grabbing the victim and stuck his tongue down her throat. I am quoting from the report. It is a member of parliament doing this. At an after-work drinks session, a senior party member put his hand up the victim's skirt. A male colleague asked the victim intrusive questions about her personal life and so on. Leaders made jokes about employees' sex life, asked them out for dates, propositioned them. Parliamentarian was completely naked when a worker walked into his office and addressed the worker as if nothing untoward, and so on. For us here in Singapore Parliament, you can understand this is quite unthinkable. I do not mean that in a self-congratulatory way, nor do I seek to draw any conclusions on morality. Just looking at it, factually, our laws and framework and what we expect of behaviour in Parliament, all are different. And the consequences, if you breach our laws, are quite severe. You can expect to be caned if you are a man; and I will come back to the examples here. So, the conduct in the Federal Parliament of Australia, one is tempted to ask: is this the result of a different culture on how women are perceived and can be treated? I do not know enough to draw any conclusions. But Members can see, where we are in Singapore and the road we are on, was and is not pre-ordained. It is because of the choices we made and the work we have put in to treat women properly, with respect. If Members look at the examples, on the right-hand column, in Singapore, just a couple of examples – a man, previously with NUS, holding a PHD. He touched a woman over her skirt during an MRT ride. He was sentenced to 18 days in jail. In another case earlier this year, a masseur molested a customer during a massage session.”
“Over time, if properly acted upon, that can change behaviour on how men and women perceive women and their roles. The current situation in Singapore may look like, well, this is normal, this is the natural order of things. But it is not. Let me illustrate by giving you some examples. In the US, a headline in the last few days caught my eye, that women now have to travel outside the state they stay in, in some places, to get abortions because of tighter and tighter rules on abortions in some of these states. The issue of a woman's right to have a medical procedure autonomy of her body versus a life, is subject to laws in many countries, including Singapore. But it gets difficult when the issue becomes politicised and if you tilt too far away from giving autonomy to a woman over her own body. In Singapore, a woman's autonomy is given considerable weight. If you move to Australia, another matter that has received some attention is the experience of women in the Australian parliament. I am referring to these examples not to criticise other systems and approaches. I am looking at them as illustrations which can remind us of choices we have made, we make on the journey we have travelled and can travel. Coming back to Australia, there were several allegations about how women were mistreated in the Australian parliament. In November 2021, a report, known as the "Jenkins Report", was published on what has happened in the Australian Federal Parliament. It sets out in graphic detail some of what happened, quite shocking really. I have prepared an annex that lists some examples. Mr Speaker, Sir, with your permission, may I distribute an annex to the Members of the House?”
“I think the answer is, it is still work in progress. But the process we started in September 2020 has moved the needle, quite some. The year 1961 was epochal. It was path-breaking. The progress women have made in many fields since then has made the idea of equality more real. From September 2020, the Conversations, this White Paper, I believe, have had a significant psychological impact and moved us further along the path. The scale, the depth of the Conversations and follow-up have registered in our collective consciousness. It has helped in the process of our collective psyche in accepting equality. In law, there is a concept. When you want to know whether something is fundamental and accepted by most, you test it by checking. If I were to ask this question to a group of right-minded people, will they say, "Yes, of course, it is so", or will they express different views? If they will say, "Yes, of course, this is so", then that is your answer. If you apply that to the idea of equality for women in Singapore, after the Conversations and the White Paper, if someone were to stand up in a group in Singapore and ask about equality for women, will people say, "Obviously, yes"? I think so. Or put it another way – in a mixed group of right-thinking people, how many will dare to say, "Men and women should not be equal"? Think of that. It is an achievement that, regardless of whatever one may personally think, if people realise that expressing a contrary view would be against social norms, that means people understand what the norms are. That is important. So, we must not underestimate the power of such collective norm building. The Conversations and the White Paper have helped a fair bit in this process.”
“Thank you, Sir, for allowing me to take part in this discussion for this Motion. We started this process in September 2020. The White Paper is an important marker on this road to equality for women. We have not arrived, but we know the road to travel and the final destination. I do not need to speak about the history of women's rights in Singapore or the issues women face, the details are in the White Paper. They are important, but the topics have been well-covered. I will just make two points. First, the psychological significance of the White Paper and, secondly, I will update the House on our approach to violence which is targeted at women in the family context. First, on the psychological significance of the White Paper. When you try and deal with large issues, like equality of men and women, one, you have to make a list of specific things that need to be done to achieve the end goal. That is important. Otherwise, it just becomes a rhetorical exercise. And the White Paper lists the many areas where more action needs to be taken. The House has discussed them and I am sure will continue discussing them. But beyond that, in a more fundamental way, when we talk about respect for women, equality of women, it requires an internalisation by the majority that these are basic values; that these are values which we cherish, which we hold dear. And I have said, when we started the Conversations in September 2020, that our aim is to work towards a deep mindset change, to build a society where every boy and girl grows up imbibing the value of gender equality. To get a change in thinking at the individual level and to have it deeply set in is never easy. I will put it this way. Are we able to say that equality for women is part of our culture that is deeply set in?”
“You want him to be in a childcare centre or serve as a security officer? So, let us be careful and let us also be clear what we said and what we did not say in Parliament.”
“Sir, thank you for allowing me to clarify in the interest of accuracy. I think it is important that we are accurate to this House. Going back to Assoc Prof Jamus Lim, he said today, "It is useful for me to clarify that the specific Parliamentary Question that I had posed last year mentioned specifically non-violent offenders, of which are in a number of categorisations, including sexual crimes and misdemeanours. It is a bit of a mischaracterisation to argue to let paedophiles back into the system." So, he is suggesting that, last year, his Parliamentary Question (PQ) excluded sexual crimes and misdemeanours. That is not true. The PQ specifically last year said: to ask the Minister for Home Affairs whether the Government will consider expanding the coverage of the Yellow Ribbon project such that ex-offenders of non-violent crimes will, contingent on an extended period of good behaviour following successful re-integration in society, be eligible for the elimination of their criminal history from public records and hence not report this record for employment purposes. [Please refer to "Expanding Coverage of Yellow Ribbon Project to Include Ex-offenders of Non-violent Crimes", Official Report, 2 February 2021, Vol 95, Issue 17, Written Answers to Questions section.] Sexual crimes were not excluded if they were non-violent, nor were misdemeanours excluded if they were non-violent. My comments, both last year and this year, were based on what Assoc Prof Jamus Lim then asked and suggested, rather than what he thinks he now has asked. That is the first point. The second point: Members will remember the case of Mr Robinson who sent across sexually explicit images to try and groom a child; it is non-violent.”
“Fraud and cheating are also non-violent. So, would the Member consider those people to be suitable to be security officers? Looking at pornography, child pornography is also non-violent. Would the Member agree to such people acting as kindergarten teachers in registered kindergartens? So, let us be clear about this. The Government is very focused in trying to assist, but we are also very clear-eyed about trying to make sure that the vulnerable are protected.”
“So, I will repeat my suggestion here: if Mr Leon Perera or Assoc Prof Jamus Lim believes that ex-offenders – be they child molesters or have convictions for housebreaking – should be allowed to be, say, security officers, without their conviction record being available to employers or that they should be allowed access to highly security-sensitive locations; first, maybe we can try out some private installations which they can suggest, and I am prepared to consider this favourably. If they say, well, it depends on the offence, then, in principle, they agree with the approach taken by the Government and that is what we do now, because we adopt a risk matrix approach.”
“About 650 inmates will benefit from the TAP and Grow initiative in these three sectors every year. This year, YRSG aims to expand the initiative into the Food Services sector. So, both Mr Leon Perera and other Members can see, a lot of effort has been put into this, into helping ex-offenders find and keep decent jobs. It is not clear to me why the focus is on employment of ex-offenders at key security installations specifically, without considering the wider landscape and the efforts by YRSG, which I am sure all Members are aware of. The Member's colleague, Assoc Prof Jamus Lim, made a somewhat related set of points last year. And I told him, do you want convicted paedophiles working in childcare centres? Or those who have been convicted of serious offences, albeit non-violent – to use his language – to be security officers at condominiums? Or would it be better that we have a risk matrix and assess suitability for different jobs and yet help all of them find jobs? We take their livelihoods seriously and we want to help them. I also suggested to Assoc Prof Jamus Lim that if he suggested some condominiums in suitable places, we can consider trying out his suggestions. Get the residents to agree. The proof of the suggestion and how serious it is, is in getting it done on the ground. Since then, I have not heard from Assoc Prof Jamus Lim. Likewise, if Mr Leon Perera thinks it is useful, he can suggest some condominiums to try out these ideas. Then maybe we can take these suggestions seriously and not dismiss them as political soundbites.”
“As any employer will tell Members here, the key issue in Singapore is, actually, a lack of manpower. YRSG provides employment assistance in three ways: placement services, career retention support and engagements with industry stakeholders. On placement services, placement exercises are held in prison to match inmates with suitable employers. The inmate's interests, skill level and incarceration history are considered, to best match them to a job. In 2021, YRSG provided employment assistance to over 2,900 inmates. Of these, over 2,700, or 94% of them, secured jobs successfully. But even after finding a job, some may face challenges transiting from prison to the work environment. YRSG assigns a Career Coach to each ex-offender at work for up to 12 months after their release. And that is Career Retention Support. The Career Coaches engage ex-offenders regularly to set behavioural goals and provide encouragement and work closely with their employers to resolve work-related issues. So, I hope Members will appreciate that quite a lot is done to help them, because we want them to succeed. Of the ex-offenders released in 2020, Career Retention Support was provided for more than 1,700 persons. As at December 2021, 87% had stayed on the job for three months and 70% for six months. And I think, if you compare it across the world, our approach compares with the best around. Third, YRSG actively engages industry and employers on good career opportunities available. Earlier this year, I mentioned the TAP and Grow initiative to this House. Under the TAP and Grow initiative, training academies in prison have been set up in partnership with the Media, Precision Engineering and Logistics sectors. Inmates will be offered jobs by partner employers upon release.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Member for the question. There are several facilities in Singapore that require security protection. The security measures required at these different facilities are assessed by the relevant agencies. Jurong Island and Changi Airport are among the facilities that are considered to be high risk. Anyone who wishes to have access to the restricted areas in these facilities will have to be screened by the Police. We have seen in Singapore and overseas, incidents where insiders used or attempted to use their access for wrong purposes, sometimes with serious consequences. Past offences are a consideration when screening persons for such passes. However, the Police do not rule out ex-offenders on a blanket basis. The factors relating to the offence are assessed. A person with antecedents of concern may also be required to remain offence-free for some time, before he or she is allowed access into such sensitive facilities. The Member may wish to clarify the specific categories of offences and the associated facilities that he thinks should be exempted from such screening, if that is the purport of his question. I say this because it is not clear what the real concern is. Is the concern that these people are not able to find decent jobs, or they are not able to find jobs in specific security-sensitive places? Our approach is to help ex-offenders find decent jobs. Yellow Ribbon Singapore (YRSG) works closely with employers and industry partners, so that an ex-offender can find jobs across a wide range of sectors, and not just at key installations. As at end of February 2022, about 5,800 employers are registered with YRSG to offer employment to ex-offenders, with over 2,700 job listings. There are many job vacancies.”
“I am not saying that it works for every releasee. Some do not want to know us and, obviously, this only works on the basis of consent. And some will not keep in touch. But for those who need assistance – and, again, we do not have the full set of resources to assist everyone – we try and do our best for as many as we can. So, I think I am answering the question that was asked. If the Leader of Opposition's question is do we assess the risk of re-offending in the way that I have described, for the future, that is part of the assessment, but I am unable to give the numbers. The Leader of the Opposition can file a separate question on that, if he wishes.”
“The first question, as I understand it, is whether we are assessing the current detainees, people who are in jail, for their re-integration back into society. As I have said many times in this House and outside, this is a matter of a very serious focus for the Home Team and the Singapore Prison Service, in that we focus a lot on rehabilitation. And in order to do rehabilitation, when someone who has been imposed with a custodial sentence comes into prison, he or she is assessed on a certain matrix of factors to see what sort of intervention is necessary to help the person. Without going into too much detail, they may be classified as low-risk, medium-risk or high-risk, for example. And depending on the total set of factors, including the risk within prison and outside, they are given tailored interventions and assistance, job training, education – you name it – different things. Of course, some, based on our assessment, are not suitable for immediate job training, for example. They need other sorts of intervention first, to get them to be in a place where they can be better rehabilitated. So, there are a whole series of factors and approaches, and it is done through the period of detention. But, of course, if they are in there for three months or six months, then these approaches do not work. We are talking about detainees or people in jail for a longer period of time and assessed to be in need of such assistance. So, when they come out, we no longer take the approach that "you are out and, therefore, you are no longer my obligation". The Yellow Ribbon Singapore (YRSG) takes a very detailed approach to try and get them jobs and place them on jobs when they leave and continues with other agencies to try and handhold and assist them thereafter.”
“The safeguards are in licensed vocations, regulated industries or institutions – I mentioned MOE-registered kindergartens and schools. So, employees at these licensed childhood centres, regulated by MSF or Early Childhood Development Agency (ECDA), must be screened. But those who work in enrichment centres or other commercial service providers for children do not need to be screened in today's framework. Even then, in licensed premises, the question is whether all employees need to be screened, for example, cleaners and so on. We know that MOE does a screening for all, including cleaners, but others may not. I have asked my Ministries to look into the screening framework to see how the process can be strengthened. But we need to have a balance between making sure that people have a second chance, but, at the same time, protecting the vulnerable. There are some not so easy issues to consider; for example, what about freelance providers of services – piano teachers or swimming coaches? So, the regulatory framework for that is not so easy to consider, but we will look at it and we will come back before the House.”
“The MAS provides community support, counselling, case management, with supervision for up to two years for inmates who were released and who are at a higher risk of re-offending, or who are in need of more reintegration and support. SPS also works closely with the families of ex-offenders and community partners to support them after their release. We will refer the Member's suggestion to consider lifelong counselling and monitoring for recalcitrant sex offenders to the relevant agencies for them to consider.”
“This, as Members can see, would represent a major change in the way our sentencing regime works, because, today, the Court imposes a sentence and when it ends, the person is released. The UK tried this approach, I have to say, with very mixed results. But I think we can make it work, and the rationale is very simple. A person commits an offence. It is a serious heinous offence, say, raping a young child or a rape followed by murder. The judge can express outrage, he can impose a very stiff sentence, assuming it is not capital punishment. But the judge will not know whether, in X number of years, the person will no longer remain a danger to society. And there have been enough cases around the world where the day after the person is released, literally, he goes out and commits another serious offence. We have had not many, but we have had one or two cases in Singapore, too. So, really, we can only assess some of these cases at the point of release. We sought public feedback on these proposals in July of last year. We are considering our approach. Obviously, we will come back to the House because any such approach is going to require changes to the law. In addition to the above, agencies like the Ministry of Education (MOE) and the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) work closely with the Police to screen those who apply for jobs when they have to work with children in licensed preschools and schools. The Member suggested that MHA consider lifelong counselling and monitoring of recalcitrant sex offenders. Today, a sex offender is given psychological assistance by the Singapore Prison Service's (SPS) psychologists. Those who have committed serious sexual offences can also be put on the Mandatory Aftercare Scheme (MAS).”
“Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for the question. Members know that the law provides for stiff action to be taken and stiff action is taken against sex offenders. Recalcitrant sex offenders receive even heavier sentences. These include longer imprisonment terms and sentences under the Corrective Training (CT) and Preventive Detention (PD) regimes. Under both CT and PD regimes, repeat offenders can be sentenced to imprisonment terms which are longer than the maximum term prescribed for the offence. CT sentences can range from five to 14 years and PD sentences can range from seven to 14 years. Such offenders also undergo longer rehabilitation programmes and supervision. [Please refer to "Clarification by Minister for Home Affairs", Official Report, 9 May 2022, Vol 95, Issue 62, Clarification section.] Members know that we have been extremely focused on this proactively, always looking to see what else we can do to try and protect members of the public, particularly vulnerable members of the public. I had asked the Minstry of Home Affairs (MHA) and the Ministry of Law (MinLaw) to study a new sentencing option, quite a novel approach, to give more protection to the public from dangerous first-time offenders as well as repeat offenders, who commit very serious hurt and sexual offences. The proposal is not quite fleshed out yet but the framework or the outline is that offenders will have to serve a minimum jail sentence, which could be anywhere between five and 20 years. When the jail sentences end, when they have completed it, there will be no automatic release. At the point of release, they have to be assessed as to whether they pose a threat to the public. If they are assessed to continue to pose a threat, they will continue to be detained.”