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 33 of 92.
“Beyond racial and religious harmony, we must also continue to safeguard social cohesion between other groups of the population. They could be organised along lines of language, socio-economic status and other groups. The Bill, therefore, amends section 267C of the Penal Code to cover this. Section 267C today only covers the use of documents or electronic records. It will be amended to cover speeches and other forms of communication, because they are equally relevant. The Bill raises the threshold of section 267C by requiring proof of a mental fault element. The person must have intended for the violence or disobedience to the law or breach of the peace to occur, or knew or had reason to believe that these were likely to occur as a result of his words or actions. Compared to section 3(1)(e) of the Sedition Act, the offence threshold for the amended section 267C will be higher. The Bill also amends section 267C to define the phrase "counselling disobedience to the law" as providing instruction, advice or information that promotes disobedience to the law. The amendment is intended to provide greater clarity on the scope of the offence and its application. Next, I will touch on the amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code. The offences currently under the Sedition Act are arrestable. It allows the Police to move quickly. Once the Sedition Act is repealed, to ensure that the Police can continue to be effective in investigations where particularly social cohesion is concerned, we propose to amend the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) to make the following offences arrestable. Section 298 of the Penal Code, which criminalises the deliberate wounding of any person's racial or religious feelings.”
“I think if it is, a lot of people including many in this House, would be considered criminals. It had not been done away sooner because some of the other provisions were relevant. But over time, as other laws come into place, which were originally covered by the Sedition Act, including: "(a) conduct which impugns the integrity and impartiality of Judges or undermines public confidence in the administration of justice in Singapore", have already been dealt with under the common law of contempt, but now there is the Administration of Justice Act; "(b) inciting violence with the objective of effecting change to policies in Singapore" have now and for some time found a place in other legislation; and "(c) ill-will or hostility between groups of people in Singapore". But one aspect, which is not in any other legislation, which remains relevant and has not been dealt with, therefore, is conduct that promotes feelings of ill-will and hostility between different groups in the population, not just along racial or religious lines but other lines as well. So, racial and religious lines are already covered but other classes of the population are not covered. We will, therefore, be making related amendments as we repeal the Sedition Act. We will be making related amendments to the Penal Code and the Criminal Procedure Code to ensure that that aspect to safeguard social cohesion in Singapore is maintained. Sir, let me just touch on the amendments to the Penal Code. We now have laws that deal with conduct that threatens racial and religious harmony, as I had said. They include sections 298 and 298A of the Penal Code as well as, of course, the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time". This Bill repeals the Sedition Act and makes related amendments to other legislation. The crime of Sedition has its origins in English common law. It was originally designed to protect the monarchy and the British government from civil unrest and dissent among its people. Sedition laws were first introduced in Singapore through the Sedition Ordinance 1938, when Singapore was a British colony. The Sedition Act, in its current form, has its roots in the Sedition Ordinance 1948, which was introduced by the British to the Federation of Malaya in 1948 in part to curb local opposition to British colonial rule. The Act criminalises conduct with seditious tendencies. Those tendencies are defined in section 3 of the Act including: (a) bringing into hatred or contempt or exciting disaffection against the Government; (b) exciting citizens or residents to attempt to change in unlawful ways, any matter legally established; (c) bringing into hatred or contempt or the exciting of disaffection against the administration of justice in Singapore; (d) raising discontent or disaffection amongst the citizens of Singapore or residents in Singapore; and (e) promoting feelings of ill-will and hostility between different races or classes of the population in Singapore. [Deputy Speaker (Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo) in the Chair] Some of the key aspects of the Sedition Act are no longer relevant and have not been relevant for a long time. Those provisions have not been used for prosecution. Those provisions which remained in the law up to today, have not been used for a long time. For instance, the excitement of disaffection against the Government should not be criminalised.”
“There were 5,134 Police reports on family violence in 2020. Police started to track such reports to assist the Taskforce on Family Violence to better understand the situation and develop recommendations to tackle family violence. Family violence cases are varied and complex. As there could be more than one suspect and victim in a family violence case and there are many types of family relationship, it is not meaningful to break down the suspect-to-victim relationship for each case.”
“Since 2015, the Singapore Prison Service (SPS) has been collaborating with POSB to assist ex-offenders to open and maintain a bank account upon their release. They are given a discharge letter issued by SPS, which lists selected POSB branches that they can visit to open a bank account. Under this collaboration, the service charge that would usually be incurred for not meeting the minimum account balance will be waived for up to a year. The account holder simply needs to present the discharge letter, and an employment referral letter from Yellow Ribbon Singapore (YRSG) or a letter of employment. To ensure that ex-offenders without a bank account are still able to receive their wages, YRSG works with employers to make alternative arrangements, such as issuing salaries in cash cheques in the first month of employment, so as to give the ex-offenders more time to open a bank account. Ex-offenders who have just been released can seek interim financial assistance at SPS’s Family Resource Centres (FRCs), located at the Prison Link Centre in Changi. To facilitate the receipt of financial assistance by ex-offenders who do not have a bank account, the FRCs disburse cash, vouchers or EZ Link cards to them, as necessary. The FRCs will refer the ex-offenders to Social Service Offices (SSOs) for further financial assistance if required. As part of the process, the SSOs will guide ex-offenders in creating a bank account to facilitate their receipt of financial assistance.”
“From 2018 to 2020, the Registry of Moneylenders received 75 complaints pertaining to the conduct of debt collectors engaged by licensed moneylenders, including the harassment of borrowers. The number of complaints has remained stable in the past three years. In the same period, 2,429 persons were prosecuted for harassment related to unlicensed moneylending. The Police do not track the number of prosecutions of harassment cases that are related to licensed moneylenders. As for the trend in harassment by unlicensed moneylenders, the number of reports rose from 4,608 in 2018 to 5,281 in 2019, but fell to 3,336 in 2020. The majority of these unlicensed moneylending harassment cases involved non-damage and non-confrontational methods, such as sending messages, phone calls, and placing harassment notes in letterboxes.”
“Under the enhanced bizSAFE framework, businesses are required to incorporate terrorist attack scenarios in their risk management plans. We have held seminars and produced SGSecure guides to help businesses develop and review their security measures and contingency plans. As of June 2021, more than 63,000 business entities have appointed their staff as SGSecure representatives to work with the authorities and drive SGSecure programmes in their workplace. Counter-terrorism exercises have been conducted with business entities to sharpen their operational responses. Such exercises are also conducted in retail malls involving anchor tenants such as supermarkets. The Government will continue to review our security measures as the terror threat evolves, and to strengthen community vigilance, preparedness and resilience through the SGSecure movement. Despite all we do, there can be no guarantee that a terror attack will not eventually succeed. Hence, we must also be prepared as a society to come together, support each other, and stay united in the aftermath of an attack, and not allow such to divide us, as is their aim.”
“The Government has strengthened our counter-terrorism capabilities and measures over the years. These efforts must be sustained even when an imminent terrorist attack against Singapore appears unlikely, as is the case now. We have enhanced our intelligence capabilities to try to detect radicalised individuals and terror groups early. We have strong Police presence on the ground to deter attacks, through vehicular and high-visibility foot patrol in public places. These patrols also provide fast response when an attack happens. Further Police resources will then be activated, including Rapid Deployment Troops (RDTs), who are trained in counter-assault and will respond swiftly on motorcycles to navigate through traffic gridlock. In addition, frontline Police officers are being progressively trained and equipped with pistols, providing officers with higher firepower as compared to revolvers. The Police have installed more than 90,000 police cameras in public residential estates, towns and neighbourhood centres, and areas of high footfall island-wide. We aim to have more than 200,000 cameras across Singapore by 2030. This boosts the Police’s capability in dealing with terrorist incidents. Ultimately, a vigilant and prepared community is our strongest defence against terrorism. The SGSecure movement has helped to sensitise, train and mobilise the community to deal with terror threats. We will continue to work with partner agencies to enhance the preparedness of our neighbourhoods, businesses, schools, workplaces and places of worship. For example, together with MOM, we have engaged business entities to raise their preparedness in dealing with security incidents.”
“Trained volunteer community befrienders from the Family and Inmates Through-care Assistance Haven (FITRAH), an office under MUIS, provide families with befriending support. Families of inmates who require assistance are also identified by SPS. During regular interviews with prison officers, inmates can share issues faced by them or their family. Inmates can also speak to Visiting Justices who visit the prisons monthly, or to SPS volunteers. Once family needs are raised to the attention of prison officers, referrals will be made to SPS’s Family Resource Centres (FRCs) for assistance. For more complex cases, referrals are made to SSOs or FSCs for in-depth and longer-term interventions. SPS has also worked with MSF and FSCs in 2020 to identify and triage newly admitted inmates whose families require more support. These families are then referred to the FSC nearest to their residence. Over the years, funds have been set up to assist inmates to better meet their family’s financial needs. For example, members of the Board of Visiting Justices have come together to create a small fund called Inmates’ Families Support Fund (IFSF). For inmates who opt for support, the IFSF provides a dollar-to-dollar matching on the work allowances remitted by inmates to their family. This is more to cater for a temporary need. As stated earlier, the primary support comes from the several Government initiatives, targeted at the needy. Yellow Ribbon Emergency Fund provides some financial support to ex-offenders who have just been released from prisons, as well as their family. SPS works with community partners to disburse the assistance.”
“Families may encounter challenges, such as financial difficulties, in coping with the incarceration of a family member. The Singapore Prison Service (SPS) collaborates with community partners to identify and assist such families. All newly admitted inmates, including those under remand, are encouraged to participate in the Yellow Ribbon Community Project (YRCP). This is a grassroots-led programme where trained grassroots volunteers visit the inmates’ families and check if they need any help. The families may be referred to community resources, such as Social Service Offices (SSOs) and Family Service Centres (FSCs) for further assistance. On average, over 60% of newly admitted inmates have requested to participate in YRCP. The wide range of assistance provided by the Government including through the SSOs and FSCs, as well as other agencies, is the primary form of support. Depending on the facts and circumstances, these can cover housing, education, healthcare, as well as other daily needs. YRCP’s efforts are over and above these. Since its inception in 2010, the YRCP has grown from 74 volunteers, to over 1,100 volunteers, and reached out to more than 16,000 families. There are several YRCP initiatives. One of these is the annual distribution of “Booster Packs” containing grocery vouchers to needy families. Bookstore vouchers are also given to school-going children aged 6 to 12. This outreach has benefitted over 2,000 families. Another initiative under the YRCP is the collaboration with M3 agencies—MUIS, Mendaki and MESRA—to support Malay/ Muslim families. For example, families with young children receive tuition support from Mendaki while those facing financial difficulties receive Zakat assistance from the mosques.”
“From 2011 to 2020, the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority investigated a total of 1,746 work pass holders for overstaying offences. Of these, 1,027 were subsequently charged and convicted. For the others, depending on the facts, such as whether they had reasonable cause for overstaying, and the duration they overstayed, ICA had imposed a composition fine or issued a warning.”
“Now, Sir. I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a third time.”
“Sir, I beg to report that the Bill has been considered in Committee and agreed to with amendments.”
“Sir, I beg to move, that, the first amendment in page 165, line 28: to leave out "section 49", and insert "sections 49 and 71 (2)". The second amendment in page 165, lines 28, 29 and 30: to leave out "may prepare a notice informing about any designation made under Part 4, or any", and to insert "must prepare a notice informing about every Part 3 direction (except that technical assistance direction) given, every designation made under Part 4, or every". The third amendment in page 166, line 3: after "fact of", to insert "the giving of Part 3 direction,". Sir, I have explained it. I have also noted Mr Perera's request for the Government to consider on Technical Assistance Directions. That will be considered carefully. [(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)] [(proc text) Clause 116, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. (proc text)] [(proc text) Clauses 117 to 119 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. (proc text)] [(proc text) Clause 120 – (proc text)]”
“Sir, as earlier mentioned, we have no issue with Mr Giam's proposal to include members of the CEC or equivalent of any registered political party. And I have given my views on the other amendments. I have also given my views on Mr Perera's amendments.”
“Sir, I beg to move, that in page 115, line 18: to leave out "section 89", and to insert "sections 89 and 116". [(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)] [(proc text) Clause 71, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. (proc text)] [(proc text) Clauses 72 to 74 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. (proc text)] Clause 75 –”
“Sir, I beg to move, that, the first amendment in page 110, line 19: to leave out the word "or". The second amendment in page 110, after line 19: to insert – "(f) a senior political party official of a political party; or". [(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)] [(proc text) Clause 66, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. (proc text)] [(proc text) Clauses 67 to 70 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. (proc text)] Clause 71 –”
“Sir, I beg to move, that in page 108, line 14: after "subsection (2)", to insert "or (3)". [(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)] [(proc text) Clause 65, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. (proc text)] Clause 66 –”
“Sir, I beg to move, that in page 108, line 2: after "who is", to insert "a senior political party official or is". [(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)] [(proc text) Clause 64, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. (proc text)] Clause 65 –”
“Sir, I beg to move, that in page 105, line 9: after "political office holder", to insert "a senior political party official". [(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)] [(proc text) Clause 62, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. (proc text)] [(proc text) Clause 63 ordered to stand part of the Bill. (proc text)] Clause 64 –”
“Sir, I beg to move, that in page 96, line 28: after the phrase "political office holder", to insert "a senior political party official". These are consequential to the amendments we have made to clause 14. [(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)] [(proc text) Clause 58, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. (proc text)] [(proc text) Clauses 59 to 61 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. (proc text)] Clause 62 –”
“Sir, thank you. I beg to move, the first amendment, that in page 86, line 19: "after in relation to", to insert "a senior political party official or". The second amendment, in page 86, line 22: after "lent to", to insert "the senior political party official or". The third amendment, in page 86, line 27: after "benefit of", to insert "the senior political party official or". And the fourth amendment, in page 86, line 29: after "used by", to insert "the senior political party official or". Sir, these amendments are consequential to amendments to clause 14 to include "members of the central executive committee of political parties or equivalent". [(proc text) Question put, and agreed to." (proc text)] [(proc text) Clause 51, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. (proc text)] [(proc text) Clauses 52 to 57 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. (proc text)] Clause 58 –”
“A point of order, Sir. On clause 47, we agreed in principle to part of the stepped-up countermeasures on PSPs, the Transparency Directives, all except the TAD. And our position is that the proper place to do this, without affecting the coherence of the Bill, is to amend clause 116. Members would be aware that under clause 116, the Competent Authority is empowered to make transparent his or her decisions regarding designating of PSPs. So, if any amendment is to be made to require that as a matter of course as opposed to discretion, the amendment to the Bill should be to clause 116. So, while we agree in principle to part of it, we propose to reject the amendment proposed to clause 47 but we will reflect it later at clause 116. I just wanted to have that recorded.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, in page 42, after line 19: to insert – "(f) A member of the executive committee or similar governing body and political party, whether or not he or she is also a responsible officer of that political party (called in this Act a senior political party official);". Sir, I have given my reasons earlier and do not propose to repeat them.”
“Mr Speaker, I intend to move amendments* to the Bill in the Committee Stage. The amendments have been distributed to the Members earlier on and as inadequate notice has been given of these amendments, I would like to seek Speaker's consent and the general assent of Members present to take these amendments in the Committee of the whole House.”
“Sir, the position is clear. When the law says "on the recommendation or advice of the Cabinet", then the President acts in accordance with the advice given by Cabinet. The point I made is that the High Court Judge who will head the tribunal is independent, has security of tenure, is someone whose job is in the Supreme Court. And his primary appointment, the first appointment is approved by the President. So, let us get that clear. Thank you, Sir. 10.17 pm”
“I believe in Singapore, it will dissipate very quickly because we are such a small place, everyone understands everything pretty much in broad terms. Whether bringing in some of these institutions will add to trust is a conversation we can have as long as it is not a priori argument: if you have it, trust will increase. That is just not true. You have to ask, is it really going to? Why? Why do you say that? Or is it actually going to affect the performance of the Government in such a way that actually trust will go down? Finally, who checks the checkers. I think Mr Perera must be aware the CPIB can investigate anyone including the Prime Minister. When the CPIB wants to investigate the Prime Minister, there is a higher authority they report to, independently. The CPIB can investigate me and any Minister. And the man who was considered – or Mr Lee Kuan Yew had publicly said, "Where will I get another Teh Cheang Wan?" because he solved the housing crisis. If you were to consider one of the inner core of Ministers, Mr Teh Cheang Wan would have been in the inner core of Ministers. Powerful, heavyweight Minister. What happened when there were allegations? Mr Lee Kuan Yew told him, when Mr Teh wanted to see him, "I am not speaking with you. Let the CPIB investigate." That is Singapore. That is why our trust levels are high. [Applause.]”
“First, on the first four questions. On the first question, 30 days and whether there will be a time limit. It is difficult to commit to a time limit for the Minister to respond, simply because it depends on the facts and the kind of evidence that needs to be assessed. But what we can commit to is that it will be done as expeditiously as possible. On the stepped-up measures, I explained it in my speech, I responded. On the trust levels, I think finally we are beginning to get to some sort of narrowing of the gap. So, let us agree, you have all these institutions, Freedom of Information and the kind of media that they have and the ombudsman, does not automatically mean trust levels go up. In fact, trust levels have been declining. It may be because of other problems. And I think there is a kernel of accuracy in what Mr Perera said. And the kernel that I extract is this: each country has got to look at its own situation and decide what works for it. A country like China with 5,000 years and a single race – different considerations. A country like the US – different considerations. A country like Singapore with 700 square kilometres – different consideration. I think if we can agree on that and that therefore, we need to factor in what works for us, then the next question is, why have trust levels been so high in Singapore? They are very high. Why have they been high? There is a trust based on performance. There is a trust based on probity. There is a trust based on how leaders behave. There is a trust based on how powers are exercised. So, anytime there is abuse, there is corruption, there is lack of probity, there is a performance deficit, trust will dissipate.”
“Sir, I do not intend to keep repeating my opening speech. I think Mr Leong has got to, I would suggest he goes and listen again or reads and the answers are all there. And it is not just one senator. I suggest he read some material that has been given. Thank you, Sir.”
“Ninety-seven percent were on their radar. How many people have been killed? I said there were 22 incidents, including the Charlie Hebdo incident. Scores of people have been killed. The entire country brought to a standstill. Paralysed with fear. These are choices. There are trade-offs. So, I explained the trade-offs we make.”
“Whether they have suffered it from the countries they have named, we do not express a view because it is not our business to go and say they were attacked by X or Y or Z. But all the evidence that was laid out this afternoon – I talked about an Australian parliamentarian who was said to have been suborned by foreign money and making a statement on South China Sea that is contrary to his own party's position – what do you call that? When we say that Singapore itself has been subject to foreign interference recently, are you saying that what we are saying is untrue? There are reports that the Indian electric infrastructure was brought down as a result of an attack from outside of India. There are reports of foreign inspired attacks in a number of Asian countries, which I think you can see both in the Select Committee report and if you read the newspapers. The third point he makes is, well, the Judge is appointed by the Minister and basically the approach is, trust me. No. The Tribunal is appointed by the President, on the advice of the Cabinet. It is headed by a High Court Judge, who has security of tenure, and he is a Judge of the Supreme Court. He does not owe any obligation to the Government. Mr Leong asks why is it possible that other countries can have judicial review and we cannot. Well, I gave an answer. It is a question of what those countries can do and if you look at New Zealand, they have not had to face very severe threats. For the first time now, they are facing different types of threats. In the absence of an Internal Security Act, they have to allow this man to be free for years outside and one day, he goes into a supermarket and knifes people. Do you want to wait for that? If you take France, I said 80% of the attackers were known to the security forces.”
“Thank you, Sir. Sir, I do not want words put in my mouth. I did not say there was little consultation with Singaporeans nor did I say let us have the law first and then, go and explain to Singaporeans. I think I said a number of things in context and I would ask Mr Leong not to misquote me. I did not say it in those terms nor did I mean it in those terms. The second the question is, is FICA effective in protecting us, given all the other resources that the Government has at its disposal? And Mr Leong says give us examples of Asian countries which have suffered such an attack. Sir, again, I am not usually at a loss for words. But is the suggestion that somehow because we are Asian, Asian countries will not be affected by foreign interference? Is that the suggestion? I will suggest Mr Leong reads the French report and that he reads the Select Committee report. And I can tell him in the annexes we gave out this afternoon, while the names are not there, some of those countries are Asian. It is absolutely shocking to hear that the suggestion of foreign interference in Taiwan and Australia are jokes. I think, in the case of Taiwan, of course, it is a territory, or it is said to be a territory; in the case of Australia, it is a country. Those places will be very surprised that someone in Singapore thinks the attacks on them, for which Australia has passed legislation, very draconian legislation on reporting requirements. I said this afternoon, you are an ex-parliamentarian, your obligations are very onerous. I think no one who knows the facts will say what Mr Leong has said, that it is a joke that these places have suffered foreign interference.”
“Sir, I was listening very carefully when Mr Leong spoke and my blood pressure went up quite significantly when he said detention without trial. That phrase is there, I am sure it is captured in the Hansard. Detention without trial, trial in absentia and no judicial review. So, I just order and the person is arrested and detained, and he has got no rights of review. And now, Mr Leong says clause 99. He reads English, I read English, I can tell him that neither clause 99 nor any other clause in the Bill has detention without trial. Not just that, he says "There he goes again". When Mr Leong refers to provisions in FICA, I asked him which provisions. When Mr Leong says you can detain without trial, he says it, I asked him which clauses. So, we will take it that his position is that clause 99 allows the Minister to detain without trial. I can assure the House, he is reading something which I do not know anything about.”
“Yes, I am sorry, Sir. Sir, can I ask through you for Mr Leong to show me which clause allows for detention without trial in FICA, please, as he suggested? Detention without trial, trial in absence and no judicial review for such detention. Since his senior lawyers have advised it, he should be able to tell me which clause.”
“Well, Sir, I will answer to the extent that I understand the questions. On the first point, what is the hurry? I assume now, Mr Leong, we are talking about the same legislation because the legislation you talked about just now seemed to be a very different one. Do you understand that almost everything you said earlier about this Bill is actually untrue and inaccurate?”
“Assoc Prof Lim asked me about the phraseology "the authorisation by Minister for anticipatory direction". I think the phrase used is "suspects or has reason to believe".”
“So, we have put in, we think, a strong check through the appointment of a High Court Judge with extensive powers. We have drafted this to deal with a very large threat which is clear and present here. It is not in the future. It has happened, it is happening all around us and it will happen to us. It is not for nothing that the French study Singapore and showed it as a test case or one of the case studies. So, our task is to continue to explain to people how this law works and, over time, just as with the many other pieces of legislation, if the Government operates it properly and honestly, it will be understood. If it operates it wrongly, the people will express their views in a variety of ways. I think Mr Perera said, "Trust in institutions should be built up". I think listening to Mr Perera over the years, his ideal state, if you take the UK or the US, they have all the things that he says we should have – Freedom of Information Act, they have all these other bodies, many things go to the courts, they do not have an Internal Security Act. Can anyone tell me why the trust in their Congress in the US, I think, is now down to, perhaps, a single digit or maybe low double digits? Why is the trust in the Government in Singapore so much higher? So, let us, again, get real. Trust depends on how you exercise your power and your track record. Trust depends on whether people's lives have really improved and whether you work to improve people's lives. Trust depends on whether you have the courage of your convictions, in the face of some opposition, to say this is the right way, this is the way I will explain and I will do it for the benefit of people. Trust does not depend on putting in a series of legislation, just copying others whose trust levels are abysmally low.”
“But there are also situations where it is not so clear, and that is where you build in the proportionality test. And it seems to me quite a few of the commentators do not understand the proportionality test. That is why I made it a point to say AGC advised me; that test is there. When you do not understand the proportionality test, then you say, "Oh dear, it says 'collaboration', so, any collaboration with a foreigner on a matter that is of importance to Singaporeans could potentially run afoul", because you misunderstand the proportionality test. Beyond that, there is a second vein. Again, there are people who fall into those who deliberately push this line but there are also a large number, genuine people, honest people, who are genuinely concerned. I would not say a large number of people are concerned with this Bill. In fact, our assessment is that, by and large, a large number of people understand, a vast majority of Singaporeans understand the need for FICA. So, of the very small group who are concerned, a significant number you can put down as honest people who, either for impressionistic reasons or other reasons, may have had some misunderstanding and like the two Nominated Members of Parliament who spoke up, say, is there a possibility of abuse. And that lies behind some of the points that have been made outside. Yes, if you apply the law as you say it should be, and if you apply the proportionality test correctly, yes, then it will be done properly. But what if you abuse your power? And my answer to that, I gave an extended analysis this morning about how abuse can take place under any legislation. Your question is, do you give the power and what are the checks you put in.”
“And viewpoints tend to be impressionistic; and often impressionistic viewpoints tend to be inaccurate. But for good reasons – people have busy lives and they have a limited bandwidth. They absorb whatever they can absorb. I do not know about Assoc Prof Lim, but if I was not doing this job and I was a lawyer in private practice, I would also have very limited time to understand what is going on in Parliament, which Bills are coming up. I will probably have, perhaps, a little bit more than the average layperson's understanding. But all our viewpoints tend to be impressionistic on areas that we are not directly dealing with because we all have busy lives. And then, there will be a small group which will go out to deliberately misinform and confuse the population. There will always be that group and I have indicated that some of that has been happening too. Quite apart from that, on language, let me try and explain to Assoc Prof Lim one more time. It is going to be 10 o'clock but I will try again. I said in my Opening Speech, I think I said out of 10,000 people, you are trying to catch that one case. Even in that one case, the foreign agency will try and make it look like it is a normal case. So, the facade will be normal, everything will look normal. In fact, if they are worth anything, they will make it look very normal. So, you have to have definitions; just because it looks normal does not mean that you do not have the powers. How do you go behind that, how do you deal with it. So, that is why you say it is to foreigners' involvement affecting public interest. The way in which it is done, I have explained the framework. If the idea is hostile information campaign, foreign state agency, payments, covert activities, I think it is quite clear.”
“When someone took Nancy Pelosi's speech and re-did it to make it look as if she was drunk and slurring, Facebook also felt that in the interests of free speech, that does not breach their community standards. When attacker in the New Zealand mosque was killing people and livestreaming his attack, Facebook said it did not breach its community standards and it felt that attack should continue to be livestreamed, until there was such a furore and uproar that they reversed course. So, I do not know. I do not know what their definitions are. I do not know what are the different types of medium they considered. So, I cannot comment exhaustively, nor can I take it at face value that if they say, so it must be so. Maybe they do not know what happened. But we noticed activity, we draw certain lines. We have intelligence experts. We have people and they have come to the conclusion that the sudden spike in activity on a variety of platforms, specifically targeted for specific messages to be absorbed by our Mandarin speaking population was a very clear indication. And I am not going to all the details. As I said, we are a price taker, we do not name countries, we cannot afford to. Another question by Assoc Prof Jamus Lim is, do I believe there is a misunderstanding by all those who have raised issues? Or is the language indeed vague. There are different points. I think in any debate, again, after long years of experience in Parliament, my view is on any debate, it broadly breaks out into some who are honest and they understand; a large group who do not follow very carefully and may have views which are not accurate. How many people read very closely? How many people look at Bills? How many people look at even the detailed newspaper reports?”
“Let me try and deal with those points. On the first point, do we believe that there was a foreign state involved response. We believe it to be so. So I think Assoc Prof Lim's real point is, "Facebook says, there is no such thing. You say there is. Doesn't that throw into question your credibility of assessment?" Let me try and give Mr Lim some examples, or at least one example. At many stages, Facebook has denied something only to come back and reverse itself. I am not saying, therefore, they do not really mean what they say when they have not seen any state attack. I also pointed out that Facebook is not the only medium. There are a variety of other medium, other than Facebook. And I do not know if they have considered a complete survey. We were watching all the different media that was used. Now, in Sri Lanka, and I think this was 2017 or 2016, on Facebook, Sinhalese were calling to gather together to go and kill Muslims. The Minister for Communications in Sri Lanka called up Facebook to say, can you do something about this? This is a riot being organised on Facebook in order to kill other people. Facebook told him this does not affect our community standards. So, I do not know. Their definition of what is or is not a foreign hostile activity, may well be different from ours. So, if I organise a pogrom to go and kill people, that apparently does not breach Facebook's community standards. And Muslims were killed. Does Assoc Prof Lim think that a responsible state authority should outsource the way it handles law and order to Facebook, whose primary concern is, how much money it can make with the best thrill in the world?”
“And if there are other suggestions to make it robust without affecting the secrecy and confidentiality, we will be very happy to consider.”
“I will answer that shortly. The reason is, our assessment was that here, a lot of the evidence we will rely on would probably be based on highly sensitive information that comes from our partners; by definition, partners meaning from outside. They could be from a variety of different intelligence sources. As I said, I am not saying we have the human assets but a variety of different types of assets. And our view was this. While the actions we take are nowhere near as serious as the Internal Security Act, nevertheless, in some ways, the Internal Security Act is often focused on the people within and we will be able to have our own evidence that would be able to be used. Here, we would have to depend on other types of evidence, other sources, whether our sources or partner sources, and there is a great deal of requirement for secrecy and confidentiality and this should not go to the Court process at all. But we all agree there needs to be a robust process for making sure that the process we set up can properly look at what the Minister has done. So, the direct answer to the question is we assess that that the kind of information we will be looking at and assessing on deciding would be much, much, much more confidential and secret. And really, in ordinary circumstances, it would be known to no more than one or two persons. And we have to rely on that kind of information, sometimes for this. But if there are suggestions on how we can make it more robust, because we want it to be robust. That is why we have a High Court Judge sitting there. As I said, even though it is not in the Bill, I have asked the Chief Justice for names. So, he will give us the names. The President will appoint.”
“Because Singapore believes in the law, so we put forward the law, we give ourselves legal powers, but in reality, the kind of threats we face, the kind of adversaries and the resources they have in terms of manpower are far greater than what we have. So, that, and our people have not even begun to realise what the problem is and the nature of the problem despite all the speeches and the conferences and the seminars and the Select Committee hearings. If anybody else from the Workers' Party wishes, I will give you the references to my different speeches where I have expressed my views so that I do not have to keep coming back to the speech once every year or two years. [Applause.]”
“But making the exceptions where necessary and I took you through the exceptions. To me, the best example of how this operated in practice is when I saw how the Americans were struggling with it. They had an ideological commitment to due process. Everyone must be tried. Everyone must have a lawyer. Everyone must be given a full trial. But then, they have these, I do not know, hundreds or a thousand plus terrorists whom they do not want to give a trial to. America was never under an existential threat as a result of 9/11; never like the threat that we faced. But when they did it, they said Guantanamo Bay is in Cuba, our rules and laws do not apply there, there is no due process, we lock them up and we throw away the keys. That is why I said, let us get out of this colonisation of our minds. Let us look at what works, what is fundamental. Checks and balances are important. But what is wrong with the checks and balances we have built in here? So, yes, I am not embarrassed to say that I had certain views, straight out of law school the first four years. The only mistake is I should not have become a Member of Parliament when I was 29 years old. I should have waited a bit longer. But I am not embarrassed to say those were my views and those views have changed because of the realities of life, not because I became a Minister but because over time, long before I became a Minister, I saw how laws are meant to operate and where the exceptions have to be made. So, as I sat with my officers and drafted this and with the AGC, yes, there were parts that I wished were different. But that threat we face, as I said, are people armed with bazookas and I described this legislation as a toy gun.”
“It is halved and the reason is as society develops, as society progresses, as there is stability, as there is order, the law takes stronger and stronger roots. If you get that wrong, you will neither have law nor order. So, I began to understand why we have a strong commitment to the rule of law, a strong commitment to the separation of powers and at the same time, in specific areas, there are some exceptions. For example, I said the Land Acquisition Act. Your property could be worth millions of dollars. The Government could acquire it and you could be asked to leave. It is socialism in action. It is a social policy and there is a need for that. Even today. Would we in Singapore be where we are if we had taken the Indian approach and every matter goes up to the Supreme Court on land acquisition and it takes years to deal with it? So, I saw the genius in the adaptations that our system has made or the founding generation has made, being very strict in building up our judiciary. You look at all the countries in the post-colonial world. They inherited the institutions from the British – a civil service, a judiciary, laws, schools, education. What have they done with it? Most of them have gone down the tube while they have grand rhetoric. What has Mr Lee and his team done with it? Built up the judiciary. If we do not have a commitment to the rule of law, do you think our judiciary will be ranked as it is today? Internationally? Built up our civil service so that it is a strong, outstanding, excellent civil service. Built up the other institutions, including SAF, the Police force, our education system, our middle class. All of these were built up with the foundations of bringing order first and making sure that the law and the commitment to the rule of law are there.”
“Do you want us to take the risks? Will there be a possibility of a leak with a Tribunal? Much, much, much less. To the point of being close to zero. That is the big difference. What has made me change my mind? If a man looks at the facts, the real world and refuses to change his mind, he is either stupid or he is ideological. I am neither. I think. Even if I say that of myself. So, you see 9/11. You look at the way the Americans have dealt with it. You see the issues in Western Europe. You see the issues around the world where lip service is paid to all these grand concepts but the societies live in utter misery, where rule of law is a concept for lawyers but it does not operate in the real world. And you ask yourself. So, I look at all of this experience practising in the Courts and too many years as a Member of Parliament. Long conversations with the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew, discussing, I would say arguing though it is not easy to argue with him, discussing, tough discussions and then I began to understand the meaning of his original speech to the Law Society when he said, "Law and order, I reverse it. Order first, before law." Because if you do not have order, you cannot have law. When we all read it, we think we understand it. But I do not think we really do. You need to really imbibe what is the meaning of that. If you cannot have the CLTPA and arrest the gangsters, how are you going to have law? It will be a paper law. But if you can bring order into society, then your law will take full effect. Look at the state of our society. Look at the number of people under the CL today compared to the number of people under the CL even 10 years ago.”
“I have said it in respect of the original MRHA. I have said it in respect of the CLTPA and I have said it in respect of the Internal Security Act. Why? This is fundamental. This is important. I have given this answer to your colleague, Mr Dennis Tan, when he asked me, probably trying to suggest that I am being inconsistent. A person who is prepared to be thinking about issues sometimes has to change his views when he is faced with the real world and experiences. In 1989, I was a lawyer four years out of law school, four years after being called, and like many other lawyers, my assumption was every problem, the solution is in the Courts. Just like Mr Pritam Singh and others, I also take the separation of powers very seriously. The constitutional principles, the independence of the judiciary, all of these, I take very seriously. We imbibed this in law school. I believed in it, I believe in it and I believe we try and uphold it. So, any time when there is an approach that seeks to cut back on judicial review or take away the powers of the judiciary, my instinctive reaction is negative. I do not like it, I do not want to do it and I instinctively try and see if there is a different way of doing it. Which is why when the MRHA was originally brought in, I expressed my discomfort within the bounds of what is possible for the backbench Members of Parliament of the ruling party. Likewise, I expressed my concerns about the CLTPA. Likewise, I expressed my concerns about the Internal Security Act. Likewise, today, I said, if we can find a better model, I will be the first one to do it. Tell me a better model. Going to the High Court for FICA is not a better model. I think, Mr Pritam Singh, based on what he says, he obviously does not deny that there will be leaks.”
“Mr Speaker, I will deal with the first two points and one of my colleagues will deal with this last point on NGOs and designations. On what the Second Minister said, I thought I was quite clear. What she was saying and this is an answer I myself looked at, previously. We have seen the experiences of other countries. We have to consider what further measures are necessary. For example, what levels of transparency in funding, support and leadership and for whom? The public has a big part in this to shape the proposals on these further measures to give the eventual safeguards their strongest support. What does that relate to? What have we been doing with the public for the last three years? We have been engaging in extensive consultations. In fact, we have taken into account the viewpoints that have been given to us by a wide variety of actors. But if we talk about whole-of-society, this is not the end. It is the beginning. We will face a major attack at some point. We need to bring the entire society together. We need to do a lot more to bring and shape public thinking. So, there is a long haul ahead of us and the public has to be involved in that. The public has been involved, primarily, experts, in the thinking through of the Bill too. On the second point. To take that and say – that means for the drafting of the Bill, the public will be involved and how come it was not involved – that is a misreading of that statement. Let us go to the second question, which I think is the crux of the difference between the Government and Mr Pritam Singh and his party. He quoted what I said in 1989. I did not only say it in 1989. If you went back and checked, I think I have said it at various points – 1989, 1990. I have said it just for the record since it is all in Hansard anyway.”
“That is why we are elected and we are in Parliament here to debate what is the best way possible for the people. We talk about consultation. We have had consultations for three years now. Mr Singh read out an answer given by Second Minister Josephine. Yes, she said we will consult. We have to bring people in, and this is what we have been doing from the Select Committee hearing. For three years we have been doing that: conferences, Select Committee hearings for over eight days, if I recall rightly, discussions in Parliament, speeches, extensive discussions. So, we agree entirely on the principles. In fact, if this Government had not stuck to those principles, fundamentally, and had not recognised that that is the foundation of our existence – rule of law, separation of powers, doing things according to the law – we would not be here. Not just the PAP. PAP would have been long out of power but Singapore would not be here. So, yes, Executive powers must be subject to checks and balances. The question is in what form and that depends on what is appropriate for the situation. When the Courts are not suitable, we have introduced other types of bodies or tribunals with statutory imposed safeguards. The further safeguards here, like requiring a Supreme Court Judge to consider the matter. I have taken this House through various pieces of legislation, where we have vested powers in tribunals as an alternate to the Courts as a form of check and balance. And we also have a series of cases where ouster clauses have been upheld by the Courts. These relate to areas which are traditionally regarded as non-justiciable. National security and foreign relations are classic areas.”