Kok Heng Leun
Singapore
“When we talk about earning trust, it is not just about sitting there and say, "Hey, show me you can be trusted". It means one needs to reach out to connect in order to express trust.”
“I thank the Senior Minister of State for the reply. I have some supplementary questions. I ask this question in light of all the interest in history debate, and I have heard from historians that they would like to have more access. So, are there actually barriers for researchers to access this information?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, before I speak, I would like to say this on behalf of all my Nominated Member of Parliament (NMP) colleagues. We were talking about it. We would also like to express our thanks to the House, to the Government and to all our fellow Parliamentarians for your patience, for your generosity.”
“I thank the Minister for the Report. My condolences to the family. I have one clarification and one question. The first clarification is the part about the conducting officer asking them if they had seven hours of rest. The troop apparently did not respond to that. Did the COI talk about why they did not respond to that?”
“Okay. Teachers have a job to fulfil to the best of their capabilities and that is true. But they are human, too. So, do not treat teachers like you are a customer, that they are salespersons at your beck and call.”
“I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the answer. Mine is a follow-up to the question. Is there a desirable student-to-teacher ratio that the Ministry is trying to achieve?”
The complete record
Every one of 261 lines we hold for Kok Heng Leun, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 6.
“When we talk about earning trust, it is not just about sitting there and say, "Hey, show me you can be trusted". It means one needs to reach out to connect in order to express trust. The public space, being a space where strangers meet strangers, means we have to be able to trust by connecting and not by segregating or being territorial or tribal. Any honest and truthful artist works on trust. Why? Because without which they would not put their artworks in the public to be critiqued, to be judged. An artwork is a personal and deep expression of self. And to show it to the public, one must trust the audience. It is this gesture of faith in our capacity as artists, as human beings, that we want to reach out to people and to hear and get their response. Artists have great faith in audiences. Likewise, I hope the audience, the public, the Government, everyone, would have the same faith in the artists. Art practices in everyday spaces are an expression of this trust and this connection.”
“So, what should we do if there are complaints about artistic work being placed in a public space? Let me quote from ACSR, page 18: “There is scope to let the community take greater ownership of our arts and culture activities, facilities and development, in order to harness Singapore's creative capacity. Unfortunately, much of our cultural development is currently perceived as being directed 'top-down'. Our people need more space and support to initiate artistic and cultural activities from the ground-up, with the Government playing a more catalytic role in facilitating connections and allowing emergent subcultures and creative communities to thrive.” I support the Government in this vision. But we know that while we are at the infancy of this development, there have been disputes and disagreement like the "Golden Staircase", Mr Oh’s installation at the void deck in Chong Pang, amongst others. So, here I would humbly like to propose that the Government should form an independent body, almost like an ombudsman, to look at such disagreements. The independent body should include legal experts, artistic personnel and various stakeholders to address these disagreements, to investigate complaints, but, importantly, to set up dialogues and conversations between complainants and the artists. This is how public spaces should be managed. It is about dialogues, sometimes with disagreement, but the intention is to include, not to exclude. I would like to end my speech on this issue of trust. I hope that this Government would trust that artists in Singapore are very responsible people. A lot of times, when they make work, they do works that are personal with a lot of committed beliefs.”
“In the case of artistic expression, is it (a) aesthetic, which can be subjective; (b) moral, which has a level of subjectivity, too, and which has certain aspects covered under legal terms; or (c) political, which should be distinguished from legal? What are all these considerations that help decide if that work can be done in public or in everyday spaces? What if there was a case where an artistic expression does not flout the law? Should or can it then be permissible by default? Or if permission were sought for such an artistic expression that does not flout the law, would it be granted? If a group had applied for a licence to blindfold themselves and sit in the train silently, holding the book "This Is What Inequality Looks Like", would that be permitted? Would it also be allowed if it is done without applying for a permit and licence? It is a quiet piece; it does not create any disturbances; it is performance art in the public. What if there are some complaints from certain members of the public to the work? Does it then mean that it should be taken down, or the performance being stopped? Can an individual or a group who disagrees with a particular artistic work or message then advocate for it to be removed in the name of it being in the public space? So, who is this public? What is this public space for? For which public? The right to a city, this is an idea proposed by French sociologist Henri Lebefreve who talks about, if a city, which also includes the public space, is meant for the public, it should be safe and permissible for everyone to be there, to interact, to exchange information and ideas, as long as the exchange does not incinerate and create disorder. That is a right to the city, a right for everyone.”
“Yet, I also would agree that Singaporeans are not so spontaneous because I think we have been culturally and politically conditioned to be cautious. The many laws, like Public Order Act, that caution people from gathering, from getting together for a cause, permits and permissions needed to express, to perform, all these narratives that Singapore needs to be orderly have conditioned our mindset, inhibiting us, making us fearful of being spontaneous: what if I break the law, what if people get offended, what if people complain? And many, many "what ifs". Deputy Speaker, there are a lot of instances where art works well in public and everyday spaces. Forum theatre in the heartlands dealing with difficult issues, like end-of-life concerns, discriminations of migrant workers, domestic violence, all these have happened in public spaces without incidents. In one of our recent works, THE LESSON, which talked about how one makes difficult choices on land issues and what is a democratic process, people stayed to participate, debate and are respectful of one another. Crowd events, such as Night Fest and so on, where there certainly is not a high ratio of security for the crowd it attracts, would go on peacefully. I would say that the populace knows how to experience and understand art in these places. Can art happen beyond the 30 places prescribed by the Government? Only when art can happen in ordinary and everyday places, then can we claim, as in the Arts and Culture Strategic Review (ACSR) report, that art is everywhere. Then there is still the question of what kind of work is permitted and who can decide on them.”
“Have we become over-zealous in our effort to make sure that these public spaces are well kept, thereby taking away the spirit of spontaneity of an artistic space? That is an irony, indeed. So, how can these privately owned public institutions allow such spontaneity? What about the use of everyday spaces for the arts? There are permits and laws that prohibit certain kinds of activities or expressions, such as the Public Order Act, Public Disturbance, Obscenity Act, and so on. These laws do articulate to an extent, and to a measure of certainty and interpretation, the scope of what is legal or permitted by the authorities. But let us consider a hypothetical situation. On a weekday night, a musician outside Toa Payoh Library – you know there is big square there – practising his guitar. His skill was so good that he attracted people gathering around him. He responded because it was fun and he asked them to start to move and dance. So, people gathered. Is this permissible? People may say that this is a hypothetical situation and Singaporeans are not so spontaneous. I disagree and agree. I disagree because after many years of artistic practices in public spaces, I find that Singaporeans want to tell their stories. They want to express and connect with artists. That desire is innate, deeply human, to be with one another, to do things spontaneously. In the early years of our forum theatre performances, we had to beg people to come up to make interventions or to expect our friends to come up to make interventions. But now, people, audiences, come up voluntarily. When we set up tables for conversations on end-of-life issues, people would sit and share and will not stop until we tell them that we have to end by 10.00 pm, because that is stipulated in our performance licence.”
“Here, I learnt to debate, to listen, to know that there are so many art forms, so many possible artistic practices, so many different opinions that it is important not to judge, but to know that we are all different – we have different opinions and we can co-exist. The Garden was a place that needed no permissions. In fact, many years later, I realised that the people who used the Garden, whether the artist or the audience, gave permission to one another to try things, to be different, to disagree, to agree and, most importantly, to gather. That is why it became such an amazing public space for artists and audience. And I do not remember me, being an arts administrator there managing the Garden, having to do any policing. Now, on the point of permits and permission, within conventional spaces, certain conditions of the space and use may already determine how art is developed or presented. I have to say that it is to the credit of some of these public arts institutions, like the Esplanade, National Gallery, which have gone the extra mile to reach out to audiences to place-make these public spaces. However, would these huge public institutions, where artists gather, where artists would meet and talk about ideas, allow people to be spontaneous? What if when dancers, while discussing their future work at the foyer, start to move to demonstrate ideas, then followed by some improvisations that come along in response to the movements? Would this be allowed in such institutions? I have checked with some of the artists and there are stories where they told me that they would be stopped by the security guards. And the reasons cited would be that such activities or behaviour would create disturbances to other visitors.”
“And, indeed, it is a home for many artists and many different arts practices. There was this sense of free spirit where conversations flow, things happen. It is a place that celebrates spontaneity, respects artists and their work. It also respects audience by honouring them as individuals who are generous even when they may have different tastes in and preferences on art. I would like to focus on the Substation Garden, which is an outdoor space of The Substation where the public would come, artists would gather. Hence, it is a public space. On a busy night, there would be a set-up in the garden to prep for a performance or a hard rock gig with very noisy sound tests. There will be people after watching a piece of theatre in the Black Box, they will be gathering in the Garden, discussing what they saw, debating what they liked or disliked, expressing their frustration over some impenetrable work. In the same Garden, artists like Zai Kuning, Tang Da Wu, Amanda Heng, or academics like Lai Ah Eng would be at the Garden, probably talking to one another after a conference, while some people may be practising on their guitars, or basker Roy Payamal would be practising his juggling skill in the Garden. Street performing artist Roy did not need to ask permission to practise at the Garden. Roy made sure that whenever his juggling ball flew out of his hand, crossing the path of anyone there, he would pick it up and, in his very gentle manner, would smile apologetically. Why did I take such pain to describe The Substation Garden? Because it was here that I learnt about what makes a space, a place and what makes a good public space.”
“This distancing, what we call an aesthetic distancing, stimulates queries, investigation, reflections and, on many occasions, even actions, to realise the reinvention. Such art practice interrogates our everyday being. It comes with some inconvenience, but necessary to stimulate our creative and imaginative being. As I have said before, creativity comes from ruptures, from interventions, from challenging norms, perceived notions and habits. And when such art practices happen in everyday spaces, it becomes all the more immediate, because everyday places are public spaces that allow people to interact and be in communal engagement with one another. As a small nation city, we have quite a substantial population, we have a lot of built-up areas – flats, huge shopping centres, office buildings. And with so much focus on economic and consumeristic activities and successes, public spaces for everyday interaction and communal engagement are important. As Peter G Rowe, a Professor at Harvard University’s Graduate School of Design said, “[A sense of community] makes me feel as though I’m part of a human race, not the rat race!” When familiar everyday space is filled with excitement and surprises, one becomes rejuvenated and excited. One becomes attentive to things around us, not taking them for granted. Hence, art as life, in everyday places, is one important way to reconnect to our spontaneity, to rediscover our curiosity, to repair our relationships with space, things and people. Now, I will talk about permits and permission related to the use of this space. But first, let me recall my early years when I was working at The Substation, founded by Mr Kuo Pao Kun. By the way, today is the 16th death anniversary of Mr Kuo. The Substation is also called "The Home for the Arts".”
“Art is art. We are familiar with art when it is "art". We understand them sometimes as something material, like a painting, sculpture, an installation, or an event over a specific time, like a performance or movie screening. We are familiar with these arts being produced and presented in conventional spaces, such as a theatre, gallery spaces, cinemas, screening rooms, studios and so on. Of course, there are occasions when these works are presented in alternative spaces. But there are also defined spaces, like in a church, in a quarry or in a cemetery. Purpose-built art spaces are crucial, like the Esplanade, National Gallery Singapore, Singapore Arts Museum, The Substation, Centre 42, amongst others. These are privately managed public spaces, providing focused spaces for developing and appreciating artistic expression. They congregate audiences and supporters of the arts, therefore, creating also a sense of community. They have become iconic sites and attractions in their own right, not only for locals, but also for visitors from the region and abroad who are interested in finding out what our artistic community is doing. But art is not just what occurs in these spaces. Human capacity for expression is not limited to just these spaces. Art is not just artifice – which it also can be – it is also about life. When artists take art beyond conventional spaces, they seek to engage with the expressions of the everyday and in sites of the everyday. Here, the gestures and relationships of our everyday spaces and activities become the material of art. Art as life helps us to understand ourselves, allows us to reinvent ourselves. When art happens in everyday places, the space and the gesture, the expression, all become a curio.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, before I speak, I would like to say this on behalf of all my Nominated Member of Parliament (NMP) colleagues. We were talking about it. We would also like to express our thanks to the House, to the Government and to all our fellow Parliamentarians for your patience, for your generosity. Through all these debates, we have actually felt that it was a very, very enriching experience. Thank you very much. [Applause.] Now, I can give my speech.”
“I thank the Senior Minister of State for the reply. Can I check, is it true that certain documents would only be allowed for certain researchers to look through, that you actually do select researchers and not open to all researchers?”
“I thank the Senior Minister of State for the reply. I have some supplementary questions. I ask this question in light of all the interest in history debate, and I have heard from historians that they would like to have more access. So, are there actually barriers for researchers to access this information? If there are, what are the kinds of barriers that come about? Secondly, are these documents categorised in terms of sensitivities? So, for some that the agencies may think are sensitive at this moment, are there timelines to look at declassifying them? Thirdly, would it be possible that instead of not allowing public access, some of the documents can be redacted, so that the sensitive parts can be covered up and then people can access them? The last question: have all Government documents been passed to the National Archives over the years?”
“I thank the Minister for the Report. My condolences to the family. I have one clarification and one question. The first clarification is the part about the conducting officer asking them if they had seven hours of rest. The troop apparently did not respond to that. Did the COI talk about why they did not respond to that? Was there a reason why they did not? That is the first clarification. The second question is, I wonder if there is a daily log of the activities that the troops go through that would have been recorded every day so that that would include how many hours of rest that they have or any extra activities that have been added on. Is there such a daily log that has been placed so that we could check on it, at least, for the conducting officer?”
“A few things. One is to seek clarification. It is about the PSLE. My problem with PSLE is more of it happening at the age of 12. For children at that age, going through that experience can be quite traumatic. I understand the need for national examinations so that we know, we can allow students to, up to some point, be assessed and then, find the kind of things that they want to go for. Is it possible that we consider, like in some other Scandinavian countries whereby basic education should last more than six years? It can start from six to 16 and, during that process, especially when we have this 21st Century Transformation Plan, where there is so much content in there, that, within those six years or even more and when there are examinations and national examinations in between, the process of learning actually cannot be deep enough. Because you will be moving from learning a bit to preparing for examinations. And I think perhaps the Ministry should start thinking about – that, in the long run, that we should have this shift. The second thing is about play which fellow Members have talked about, purposeful play. It is just scary that every play becomes purposeful. Then, you would not be playful. Sometimes, whimsical play is equally important because it is only when it is whimsical, that we actually make greater discovery.”
“Okay. Teachers have a job to fulfil to the best of their capabilities and that is true. But they are human, too. So, do not treat teachers like you are a customer, that they are salespersons at your beck and call. Rather, see them as equals, because that is what they are trying to do: to work with you and not for you, all for the benefit of your child. Finally, I will say that there is hope and all is not lost. There is room for change and collaboration and that is why I am so deeply thankful for this Motion so that we can take in all these thoughts and ideas and hope that the Government will seriously consider making a huge revamp of our education system.”
“However, with increasing demands on how lessons should be taught – for instance, new pedagogical approaches, such as inquiry-based learning, or "Teach Less, Learn More" model – teachers who are products of our previous education system have found it challenging to move into these methods. It is not for the lack of trying or an unwillingness to try, but that they need more time to adapt and experiment. Unfortunately, while these new approaches, taken on to alleviate pressure and produce more well-rounded students, are beneficial, the runway for teachers to adopt them and produce the same results is simply too short. Hence, I think we need to give more space for teachers to learn and experiment, and a way to do this is to relief them of their administrative duties. Afinal word for the parents. I am a parent, too. I know intimately the pressures of parenting and I am familiar with the worries any parent has about the well-being and performance of our kids in schools. But let us be honest. Parents are equally responsible in the education of our children. In our bid to make a living, to ensure that we best provide for our children materially, have we become so caught up with work that there is a trade-off in our time spent with them? Have we also passed on that role of education fully to teachers, rather than undertake part of it ourselves? In doing so, have we become the source of stress for teachers, constantly checking on them, harrassing them, being critics of them and as if we know better and can tell teachers how to teach the children better? So, here is my plea to parents like myself. Parents, take a step back. A teacher has to take care of more than one class of students. Your child's teacher has more wards than just your kid.”
“But I want to talk about assessment again, which I think is an important aspect of learning. Yet today our assessment methods are still focused on the quantity that students have learnt, rather than the quality of their learning and retention. Many of us are aware of diagnostic assessment, where assessment is used to diagnose students' needs, so that the learning process can be improved to help them acquire knowledge better. In short, diagnostic assessment is less about KPIs, more about taking the interest of each individual child at heart. It means education to harness his or her skills, to address his or her needs and to encourage and groom each child's unique strengths. If we adopt this fundamental shift in thinking about assessment, it will change how lessons are being taught and, subsequently, how individual learning journeys can be scaffolded. It changes the relationship between teachers and parents, between teachers and students, and amongst students themselves. It becomes an approach that is not about competition and not about fighting to be the best, but more about discovery, collaboration and being the best together, rather than alone. I will talk about the educators who are instrumental in shaping our young people. I have worked with teachers for many years and we have heard about how much they have done and a lot of event-organising they have done. In fact, there is a joke that goes around that if they want a second career, they can consider being event-organisers. I know from personal encounter that most teachers are incredibly passionate about teaching and draw their greatest pleasure from daily interactions with students.”
“Children who studied so hard yet could not get the results he wanted and became angry and smashed a chair. This is not normal. This is not right. I am a product of such kind of education. The competition, the exam, the pressure that comes with shame and fear. And I still have nightmares of not completing my examination. Maybe some of you would have too. It was only in theatre that I found the meaning of collaboration. When we are working in productions, when we use the best of our abilities to make the most meaningful work. Theatre-making provides a different model of learning: working with each other's strengths, respecting each other's differences, incorporating different opinions for the sake of trying to present a complex world of existence. I always think that theatre-making is an alternative schooling model. One builds on collaboration, not competition. We should seriously consider slaughtering this sacred cow of the PSLE. The Scandinavian system has provided certain possibilities for us to look at. Of course, I am not saying that we simply emulate their system. Naturally, for any change, there is a need for plenty of political will and the Government and people must commit to such a change. But as a start, I think it is important to begin discussing this process of change, so that we can chart a roadmap forward, as well as addressing parents' anxiety over the issue. With that, I really support fellow Member, Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng, for her suggestion on the masterplan. This masterplan should include looking at classroom sizes, assessment models and the capacity of teachers. I would not talk about classroom sizes because my colleague, Ms Kuik Shiao-Yin, has talked about it.”
“Humanities and the cultivation of curiosity is not only reserved for the academically inclined. Unlike the situation during my time in school, you no longer need to be more proficient in language and writing to be studying literature or the arts. Rather, curiosity is a leveller – it is present whether you are academically inclined or otherwise and it should continue to be nurtured, regardless of how smart, or privileged you are. But I can imagine what a rebuttal to this might be: do we have time to be curious? How do we make time for quality learning through discovery and having deep discussions on the humanities? A parent of a young boy once told me that her kid had initially enjoyed preschool, which was full of play and discovery. But the moment he went to kindergarten, the pressure of academic pursuit reared its ugly head. By the time he was in Primary 3, when the PSLE loomed ominously ahead in the coming years, the honeymoon period was over. She noticed that her son had lost his sense of curiosity. Is PSLE really necessary? I am aware that this question has been mooted before, but I believe it is important for us to ponder more deeply about it even now. If young students have to prepare for a major examination after an initial six years of study, does it impede their ability to learn deeply, discover and investigate? I think we need to fundamentally agree on what is important in the education of our young people. Is it deep learning and interaction? If so, can we rethink the current system to make time for these aspects, rather than rush them through national examinations that determine their paths at so tender an age? I have heard sharings of young people talking about how PSLE is such a scary thing.”
“In today's competitive, results-oriented world, we tussle to be Number One all the time. This narrative has also permeated our education system and has become part of our cultural DNA. We may laugh about how Singaporeans are kiasu and kiasi, but, in accepting these traits with humour, we are also legitimising these self-serving attitudes and behaviour; we have normalised this race for instant gratification, for accolades, when we are winners and not second best. So, to ensure results, we instil discipline and rigour. We tell our young people, yes, it is good for you to try new things, but make sure you get those grades or you will fall behind in life. We remind them that life is a competition, fulfilment is to be the best. But is competition the best way that we can be? I seriously doubt so. Like it or not, competition creates silos and alienation. We are a small nation of 5.6 million. Should we create a race to the last for 5.6 million individuals, so that some privileged ones amongst us, or some able-bodied amongst us, can be the best? How about harnessing our collective capabilities instead through collaboration, so that we, as a nation, can move mountains at no one's expense? Can our education system reflect an ideal of how we want our society to be, like what fellow Member, Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng, has just said? In my opinion, the schools are places where we can learn such life skills, that there is much merit in collaboration. A proliferation of competition can lead to a cancerous situation. In removing competitive elements from our education system, schools can become more inclusive and equitable and young people can discover the full potential of their innate curiosity.”
“He certainly knew all the right steps to do so, but, interestingly, he would deliberately permit himself to take detours, try alternatives, until he met with an obstacle. Was he wasting his students' time as he meandered and hit roadblocks? Not in the least. In fact, his trajectory was illuminating, because as he traced his steps back, he talked about why this path did not work and how we could perhaps try another path instead. His deep curiosity was infectious and I remember it fondly until now. Curiosity is about getting lost, but allowing oneself to do so without fear. Any inventor or artist will tell you the same thing: that the fun part of creation is when you are trying to find your way around, when you are experimenting and discovering the world in the process. There should be no fear in that, but, rather, we should become accustomed to the promise that it brings with it. Once again, the question is: where is the best and safest space to allow young people to be lost and explore? The answer, again, is our educational institutions. They are well-equipped to guide young people, young explorers and creators in life, as they find their own individual paths. Through these detours, they can discover curvatures and gradients instead of a straightforward movement from Point A to B. They can explore shapes and shades and become more three-dimensional in their outlook. Unfortunately, our education system is so preoccupied with quick results that there is little time permitted for such holistic growth and exploration. I do not know how many teachers can do as Prof Lee did in my Mathematics classes. I do not know how many young people get to benefit from that curiosity, so that they learn what does not work as much as what can.”
“Allow me to quote Paulo Freire, the pedagogue who advocated Problem Posing approach, dialogic learning and critical pedagogy. To him, dialogue "cannot exist without the profound love for the world", and Problems-posing Education "affirms men and women as being in the process of becoming". So, a good critical thinker is someone who has a curiosity in how human beings think, act and feel. This desire to understand another person’s perspective, objectives, fears and hope is the first step towards critical thinking and then towards empathy. The study of humanities will go a long way in developing our critical thinking skills. As such, I appeal to MOE to deepen its efforts in ensuring that the humanities are studied deeply and widely. It should and must be an integral part of our pedagogical approach towards knowledge acquisition and the overall formation of our youths. I spoke earlier about curiosity being a building block of critical thinking. I believe that people – young and old alike – are inherently curious folks. We want to know how things work, why policies are made, when something will affect us and how extensive that will be. Yet, as the saying goes, many may buy into the notion that "curiosity kills the cat". Asking too many questions is sometimes seen as diverting energies in something that is irrelevant; it sidetracks from the task orientation. In a world that seeks efficiency, maximised profit and maximum satisfaction, it is easy to take the beaten and proven path, but, by doing so, we have sacrificed our natural instinct for curiosity as well. I remember how my Mathematics professor in NUS, Prof Lee Peng Yee, proved theorems during lectures.”
“Without this, we will likely have a generation of people lacking in empathy, believing only in one's value and unable to comprehend or accept vulnerability in human existence. In fact, even in the study of science, technology, mathematics, the focus is not merely on the discovery of theorems, theories and inventing things. Rather, great scientists and inventors view nature with awe and are constantly searching for humanity's relationship with nature, to understand rather than to alter it. This is because they are acutely aware that the search for truth is a quest in humility. We search because we are ignorant. And in acknowledging our imperfection and ignorance, we open our hearts and minds to learn and improve. As Lessing, the philosopher, put it succinctly: it is not the truth that a man possesses, or believes that he possesses, but the earnest effort which he puts forward to reach for truth which constitutes the worth of a man. So, where would be the best place for such complex studies of the humanities happen? Naturally, it is in our educational institutions, which provide a safe space where our young people can grapple with these conundrums in life, ponder deeply about differences, and come to a better understanding of and empathy for others. This is also how educators help develop critical thinking in the young. In Singapore, we have been emphasising the importance of critical thinking. But critical thinking is not just about differentiating what is good or bad, or what works or not. In teaching critical thinking, a lot of emphasis has been placed on the methodology of problem-solving. That is to say, one learns to analyse the problem, then suggest solutions, before evaluating its results. There is also an emphasis on dialogic learning.”
“Why should the louder voice always be the one abided to, before all sides tell their story and come to a point of agreement with negotiation and mediation? Is it that the complainant's version of truth is the singular one everyone else must accept? The world does not comprise only one simplistic moral or ethical view. Just like how we look at one object by not only observing the parts that are lit, but also those defined by shadows, so it is that the world comprises different shades, contexts and perspectives. I bring this up because discourse is something fundamental and integral in education, specifically in the study of the humanities. Through Literature, History, Geography and the Arts, we develop a keen sensibility for nuances, differences and complexities. Take, for instance, the Dream of the Red Chamber, which, when studied from a humanistic approach, is not just a literature text to be examined. Rather, it is a very nuanced study of humankind, of society, of politics, of culture and art. We discover that being human, through that book, means having to deal with the different aspects of living: social, political, emotional, psychological, spiritual, physical, carnal and meta-physical. Yes, the Dream of Red Chamber does talk about carnal desires. We learn that power of empathy, by seeking to understand and deeply appreciate how each of these characters are like and, of course, including their shadows. Why is this important? Because we do not want a future society without empathy. Education plays such a crucial role here, because our young ones should be given the opportunity to explore in schoo,l under the guidance of teachers, so that they learn at a tender age about the complexities of humanity.”
“Amongst the responses included: a call for transparency, that truths should not be distorted just so that some can achieve their personal goals; a plea for kindness to others, especially those who are different from us; and an exhortation for everyone to collaborate and work together, rather than pursue self-serving gains; and one particularly poignant call by this young lady who said, she hopes, we, as human beings, do not lose our faith in humanity. All these hopes, shared by youths, are heartening because they point to a few key points: open-heartedness, teamwork, deep listening and engagement, all of which are essential for true, constructive discourse. Yet, in recent times, when there is disagreement, people resort to one of two modes: either to "agree to disagree" and just leave it at that; or to "disagree" vehemently, engage in keyboard warrior tactics on the Internet, or wage a litany of complaints on other channels. There is no discourse. There is no empathy or desire to listen. It is you versus me, us versus them, my truth versus yours. I am reminded of the recent incident of a group of people organised under a Facebook group accusing The Esplanade of "promoting bestiality" when the latter displayed an artwork of Singapore artist Vincent Leow at the Community Walk on the third level of The Esplanade. The artwork was subsequently removed. But what is disconcerting is that that was a simplistic misreading of an artistic work. Is this the sort of discourse we want for our future, a reactionary one that seeks to ban works, complain, call out, label and shame without dialogue? Why does one group so quickly jump to impose its moral value on others?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, first, I would like to declare I have worked as an arts educator, teaching in school, teaching in NIE, teaching teachers and communities over the last 20 years besides being an arts and cultural practitioner. I am speaking about the Motion today on imagining Education for Our Future, I think we should examine present trends, which will help us forecast possible future scenarios, should the situation remain the same. So, what do we see today that can impact on our future? Technological advances have given cause for worry, in terms of economic disruptions and adverse effects on human interactions and interpersonal relations. Ideological and sectorial conflicts are on the rise, leading to confrontations, polarisation and violence. Rampant capitalism and consumerism, left unchecked, are also widening the inequality gap in our society. The above troubling signs might seem pessimistic, but, as my favourite writer 木心（Mu Xin) says: "悲观是一种远见". Pessimism is a form of foresight. In identifying possible negative outcomes, we can then work harder collectively to come up with new ways of addressing these crises before they become reality. I say "collectively" because I believe it is essential for us to break away from the sense of alienation many of us feel when faced with these challenges. To do that, we must better understand the complexities of these disruptions, so that we can present better suggestions to tackle them. To better understand the future that young people wish to see, recently, I asked a group of youths about their hopes, dreams and concerns.”
“I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the answer. Mine is a follow-up to the question. Is there a desirable student-to-teacher ratio that the Ministry is trying to achieve? Secondly, usually in a day class, if you have many hours of working, it is actually very stressful for teachers, especially when you are working with students with special needs. Is there a maximum number of hours a teacher can teach within a day, so that they can have a reprieve and have breaks in between? Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: The unique state of affairs of the disability sector is that the nature of work is complex and it varies from student to student. As such, we are very mindful of the needs of the students. For some who have high care needs, we will put more staff to be involved. We are also mindful that staff also need reprieve. As such, depending on the setting, NCSS and the Ministry of Social and Family Development work closely with the VWOs to see how we can provide the support, not only to the kids but also to the teachers. So, my answer is, it varies.”
“Because we have listened with compassion, because we have not assumed that our privilege gives us the ability to offer all the right answers every single time, because we know that, through this long engagement, we would build trust. In this way, we can address disagreements with empathy and generosity.”
“Governance is not just about what we expect of the Government, but also what we demand of ourselves as citizens. We should not just think that our rights as citizens are merely about voting in the leaders. As critical citizens, we must be able to express our views about issues of concern. We should be able to engage in discourse with reason, passion, humility and empathy. Discourse amongst people, between different sectors or between people and leadership should not be about winning arguments or about flushing out the other views. It is not about shaming, name-calling or bullying. Rather, discourse is about understanding and learning to live with the others. We have acknowledged in this House many a time that the world we live in is getting increasingly more diverse. In fact, instead of saying that we are now living in a world of "us versus them", "majority versus minority", I would say that we are living in a world that is made up of disparate minorities. We must look towards a heterotopia, a space for all that embraces these differences we have. But there is a trade-off in this. Maybe we will be less efficient in managing all these differences. But I strongly believe that efficacy is more important than efficiency. We cannot just simply invoke this often-used mantra "agree to disagree", so as to expedite decisions. We need to find the time and a way for us to listen to and understand each other long enough so that we are able to agree to disagree, meaningfully. And then, our disagreements will still resurface, but when they happen in future, these differences will not be contentious.”
“I have talked about vulnerable listening in the last speech I made during the Budget debate and, here, I would like to add one more quality to that, to look at the way we behave culturally. Paulo Freire, through this experience, developed an approach on how to work with the underclass, the people who are oppressed. He said that one needs to listen with compassion and, importantly, one needs to be humble when listening. As we listen, we need to know that we hold positions of privilege. We need to acknowledge that knowing the facts or being intelligent does not mean we can solve all problems and offer good solutions. To take a recent example: in trying to save Ellison Building from being demolished and then rebuilt again, various civil society and heritage experts came in to offer solutions. URA and LTA agreed that they would need to listen deeply, to be more attentive to the needs of all parties and acknowledge that they may not know the best solutions. Through these negotiations, I am glad we have come to a good decision for the future of Ellison Building. Good leadership is about humility. Being a good leader is not about showing how visionary you are, but about letting people be part of that visioning process. Lao Zi, in 道德经, or The Way, has these wise words for leaders: 不自见，故明；不自是，故彰。To paraphrase, one should not be prejudicial or you will lose your objectivity. With humility, one can then attain and allow for greater possibilities and discoveries. At the same time, we, as the people, must be critical citizens so that we can demand for good leadership. In fact, I would even go so far as to say, without good and critical citizens, we will not be able to get good and responsible Government and leaders.”
“We cannot talk about inequality without first acknowledging that some of us are more privileged than others. If we want to address inequality, we must acknowledge the systemic factors that allow for unequal distribution of resources and opportunities. We must think deeply about how we have all -- in some way or another -- contributed to the persistence and growth of inequality. Hence, is it accurate when we say that meritocracy is the way to help keep inequality in check? I do not believe so. In fact, the social stratification we see in our midst only reminds us of the imperfection of meritocracy. Meritocracy must be not an end to itself. Rather, I believe that it is merely one of the means to a greater end. So, what is this greater end? It is to ensure that Singaporeans and anyone living and working in Singapore are given respect and dignity as an individual being. By that, I mean respect for his or her emotional, spiritual, physical, social and political well-being. And to achieve this, mere economic policy would not be sufficient. We need a cultural shift to think about things humanistically. I think that all of us sitting here in this House would admit that we are the privileged today, even if some of us may have come from a less-than-privileged background. In fact, we may even use ourselves as an example of how meritocracy can work. We might say, “If I have made it, then others also can or will.” Yet, a statement like that does not acknowledge that each of us faces different challenges, which may affect the options we have and alter the paths we can take in life. So, how do we discern these differences?”
“These are the same amenities that the man himself did not get to enjoy, but which Friere had become accustomed to. Then, the man said, “Now, Doctor, look at the difference. You come home tired, Sir, and I know that. You may even have a headache from the work you do. Thinking, writing, reading, giving these kind of talks that you’ve given now. That tires out a person too. But Sir, it’s one thing to come home, even tired, and find the kids all bathed, dressed up, clean, well fed, not hungry. Yet, it's another thing to come home and find your kids dirty, hungry, crying, and making noise. And people have to get up at four in the morning the next day to start all over again -- hurting, sad, hopeless. If people hit their kids and even ‘go beyond bounds’, as you say, it’s not because people don’t love their kids. No, it’s because life is so hard they don’t have much choices.” It was a sobering sharing for Freire, but he felt very misunderstood. So, he complained to his wife but in response, his wife said, “Could it have been you, Paulo, who didn’t understand them? They understood you, but they needed to have you understand them.” There are two issues here. Firstly, it is really very difficult to acknowledge that one is in a privileged position, whether it is white privilege, Chinese privilege, class privilege, male privilege and so on. To acknowledge it means you are admitting that you are where you are at in life not solely because of your merit, but because your privilege has -- knowingly or otherwise -- helped to get you to this position. That knowledge might make us indignant, especially if we were never conscious of our privilege, let alone think that it is part of why we are successful.”
“Thank you, Deputy Speaker, Sir, for allowing me to respond to the President’s Address. First, I would like to thank the President for the Address. I have heard many in the House speak about inequality and the urgent need to address the growing gap between the wealthy and the less privileged. Let me start by reading an excerpt from a book that has greatly influenced my own theatre practice and which I feel we can learn a lot from. The book is "Pedagogy of Hope" written by Paulo Freire, who is a Brazilian pedagogue-educator. In the book, Freire recounts a talk that he did for workers about freedom, authority, punishment, reward and dialogical education, based on his own research and field studies on the ground in Brazil. During the talk, Freire argued for a dialogical loving relationship between parents and children in place of violent punishments, especially amongst the underclass. After his talk, a man, aged about 40, looking worn-out, asked to speak. After he had praised Freire for his nice work, which presented complicated ideas in simple terms, he posed a question to Paulo Freire. I quote the question: “Dr Paulo, Sir, do you know where people live? Have you ever been in any of our houses, Sir?” And then, this man began to describe their houses: the lack of facilities and extremely minimal space within which the families must cramp into. He spoke about how lacking they were in basic necessities. Freire had visited these houses but never lived in them. Then, the man asked another question, “Doctor, I've never been over to your house, but I’d like to describe it for you, Sir.” The man then started describing Friere's house, complete with its amenities: running water, rooms for his children and his personal needs and so on.”
“Mr Speaker, whenever we talk about "tough training", one of the things that is affected will be their mental state, the psychological state. May I know in this COI, will we be looking at the mental and psychological state of the soldier at that moment? And especially important because I think in this kind of situation, particularly when there is tough training, the psychological state would actually affect the physical performance. It can be not just on an individual level but affecting an entire section, platoon. Under this kind of situation, a soldier may just push himself to the extreme. So, I hope that maybe we can also look at, in the future, how do we have more psychological support in the army, in the training.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I am actually responding to my hon colleague Mr Darryl David talking just now about artistic freedom and artists at work. I just want to clarify that most artists do not make work in order to express artistic freedom. I think artists make work because they pick up on things that they think are of great concern to them. That is why when they bring up something of concern, sometimes it may not fall within the comfort of certain particular groups of the society. And that is where the dialogue happens. Secondly, it is about the creativity within the container. A lot of the artistic work, while it starts from within the container, the intention is then to redraw the container or even get out of the container. Kuo Pao Kun would always say, and I paraphrase, "Know the frame where you are in, so that you can break away from the frame to create new possibilities". The last thing that I would like to address to the Minister is that I really hope that the Minister, whenever there is an appeal, especially for those unclassifiable, that the Minister see the filmmaker face-to-face. I think that will make the appeal process much more genuine and the conversations and dialogues much more in-depth.”
“So, in light of those concerns, I am, at the moment, not really sure if I can support this particular Bill because there is a difference between classification and censorship. And in this case, I would not say that there is no censorship. There is classification, but censorship do prevail and that is something that I, as an art maker, fundamentally feel is a problem.”
“Why should I, the maker of the artistic work, be the one doing regulatory monitoring and censorship for IMDA?”
“If I am not mistaken, such a video may fall under the definition of a film provided under the proposed section 3 of the Bill and may constitute a party political film under the present section 2 of the FA. It seems disproportionate that such an individual may be criminally liable for the making of such a video under section 33(b) of the present FA. I, therefore, hope that the Minister can consider also amending section 33 (b) of the present FA to address the disparity in the standards, where the making and reproduction of party political films are criminalised, but the making and reproduction of non-party political films are not criminalised under the new amendments. That said, I again would like to thank the Ministry for being very responsive throughout the public consultation period, and for taking seriously consideration of the feedback it received and also have to reconsider and amend certain parts of the amendment Bill in light of the feedback it received. Now, with regard to my own fundamental position on one of the important amendments to this Bill – which is about co-classification – in 2014, IMDA actually wanted to propose a similar scheme for the arts sector. The Term Licensing Scheme was proposed for arts groups to be able to have their own CAs to help co-classify productions. This was rejected by the Arts community, myself being one of them. One of the fundamental issues I have with this co-classification scheme is this: that the censorship and regulation guidelines are set up by the authority. Hence, it should be the job of the authority to man the gates but for artists to submit it so that the authority can decide whether they want it, and whether they will classify it or not classify it.”
“Further, providing the grounds of decision also ensures that the decision-maker is held accountable. Finally, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will turn to the last area of concern pertaining to the continued criminalisation of the making and reproduction of party political films under section 33 of the Films Act. I know that this has not been put up for amendment in this particular Bill. However, it is stated clearly in the Explanatory Statement that one of the purposes of this present amendment to the FA is for "excluding private exhibition, and the making and the reproduction of films". In paragraph 2.15 of the IMDA's public consultation paper, it is stated that, I quote, "MCI/IMDA would like to clarify that the primary regulatory focus of the Films Act remains on the distribution and public exhibition of the films, as these activities have wider and more direct impact on consumers" – which was reiterated by the Minister earlier. Moreover, under the proposed section 2(6), it is expressly stated that the private viewing alone of a film by an individual does not constitute exhibiting the film by the individual. It is clear from the above that private viewing of a film is not sought to be criminalised. However, if a person makes a party political film for the sole purpose of viewing it by him or herself without any intention of publishing or distributing such a film, would such a person be criminally liable? To put it in context, take, for example, an individual who video-records a political rally. The person then edits the video with a video-editing app by adding in some music and politically motivated slogans for his own personal viewing, or just to share this edited video privately with some of his friends.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, in a submission made by a group of filmmakers during the public consultation, they have recommended that the Committee of Appeal be made up of more individuals from the film industry to be appointed to the committee. Presently, only one out of the 15 members of the committee is from the film industry. I also note that the present committee comprises a few civil servants, school principals, professors as well as lawyers. However, given that the Committee of Appeal will be dealing with appeal matters concerning appeals from filmmakers, I feel that having more members from the film industry will be beneficial to the committee, in terms of the relevant experience and expertise that members of the film industry can contribute. To quote from one of the filmmakers in one of the discussions I had with her: "We, in the film community, do have valuable professional perspectives to contribute, as well as feedback rooted in civic and consumer rights". I understand that the appointment of the present Committee will end by June 2019. I hope to understand from the Minister whether he would take into consideration to have a more diverse selection of members of the committee, including those from the film industry, when appointing the next Committee. I have one more clarification that I hope the Minister can address. I note that the proposed section 24 and 24A of the Bill is silent as to whether the applicant making the appeal will be provided the grounds of decision made by either the Committee of Appeal or the Minister. As a matter of ensuring due process and in fairness to the applicant, he or she should be aware of the basis on which his or her appeal is either upheld or dismissed.”
“How do we ensure that the enforcement officers will not be over-zealous in their search for evidence such that the privacy of individuals is not infringed? I turn now to the next area of concern, which is to ensure due process and fairness in the appeals process. I am rather concerned that neither the FA nor the amendment provides that the appellant appealing a decision is guaranteed the right to be heard by either the Committee of Appeal or the Minister. With regard to appealing a decision which is to be heard by a Minister, the proposed 24A(3)(b) merely states that the Minister may consult any person before making his decision regarding the appeal. With regard to the appeal to be heard by the Committee of Appeal under the proposed section 24, the said section did not provide that the applicant has the right to be heard by the Committee. Mr Deputy Speaker, as a matter of ensuring due process and fairness, it is important that such an applicant has the right to be heard by the relevant appellant body, so that such an applicant has the opportunity to make his or her case personally, if any. As I understand it, the current practice is that FAC does give an aggrieved individual who is appealing a decision of IMDA the right to be heard. However, unless the right to be heard is legislated under the FA, there is simply no guarantee such a practice will continue. Another concern that I have with the appeals process is with the composition of FAC. Clause 12 of the Bill, which provides for the constitution of the Committee of Appeal, only provides that the number of members is of, at least 15, but not more than 21 members.”
“I note that under the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC), the Police may exercise its powers of search and seizure only when an arrestable offence is committed. Some examples of an arrestable offence under our Penal Code include rioting and voluntarily causing grievous hurt. I note that the offences under the FA are nowhere as severe or violent as the examples of arrestable offences which I have just cited. Moreover, there is nothing in the FA nor in the amendments to this Bill which provides that the offences under the Act are arrestable. I would like, therefore, to understand why, despite the fact that the offences under the Act are non-arrestable, and, despite the fact that these offences are not as severe as arrestable offences, then why enforcement officers and the Police are permitted to search and seize without warrant. Moreover, what I feel is particularly egregious is the fact that an enforcement officer may exercise such intrusive powers without warrant, powers that are traditionally within the purview of the Police. In addition, I would like to understand what prompted the Government to provide for such a devolution of powers from the Police to enforcement officers and to potentially other undefined individuals? In this Bill, the expanding search and seize powers allow for IMDA enforcement officers to break into any venue to collect any "evidential materials" as well as "not evidential materials" that they happen to take. We must be reminded that what they can seize are not just DVDs or film reels, but now also include personal digital devices, including mobile phones, personal tablets, laptops, computers and any type of storage devices, including thumbdrives, which will now be materials that can be seized for prosecution.”
“Under the proposed section 34 that is read with section 34A, enforcement officers are given overarching powers, such as being permitted to enter a place "using such force as is reasonably necessary to obtain entry", or to seize any film, advertisement or equipment that may be evidential material without warrant if the enforcement officers "reasonably suspect" that certain offences have been committed. Fundamentally, I believe that such sweeping and intrusive powers should only be granted to the Police who are the custodians of law and order. Moreover, I am concerned whether we are giving too much power to enforcement officers who, as compared to our Police, might not have the operational experience and expertise to effectively discharge such powers. I further note that under the proposed section 34(11), an enforcement officer may be assisted by other individuals in exercising enforcement powers under this Act. It is not clear from this section who such "other individuals" refer to, nor are such "other individuals" defined under the Bill. Can the Minister clarify who these "other individuals" refer to? Do such "other individuals" refer to IMDA licensing officers and/or classification officers or are they non-IMDA officers? What are the situations which the Minister would envisage the assistance of such other individuals, and can the Minister clarify what are the powers which such individuals can exercise while assisting enforcement officers in discharging their duties under the Act? Apart from the fact that the enforcement and Police Officers are exercising sweeping powers, I am concerned that such powers may be exercised without a warrant under section 34A(2) if such officers suspect that certain offences under the Act are committed.”
“With so many interests at stake, it could be a case whereby interventions can happen even at the creative process, as early as scripting stage, editing stage, to cut out more, in order to fit lower age-restriction ratings and, in this equal system, the filmmakers may find themselves in a disadvantageous position with lesser bargaining power and have to compromise their artistic vision. Creators should be allowed to make works that can best express their stories and engage consumers and leave the regulatory and censorship monitoring to the authorities and be allowed to appeal if they think an age-restriction rating is too strict. But, as we can see in several cases, the consumers are not well-served by this amendment, and can, in fact, be shortchanged by this. This is because distributors are incentivised to cut out shots to achieve a lower age-restriction rating and, hence, reach possibly larger audiences. But consumers may not be fully informed on what they are missing, even when they are still paying for full-price admission. The fact that the film has been censored is usually not advertised on the promotional collaterals put out by the distributors and cinema operators. So, a rating that is displayed at the box office where consumers buy their tickets would usually be stated simply just as PG13 but, in fact, certain scenes may have been taken away. Instead, maybe it should be accurately reflected as "PG13 [Edited]". At the same time, external CAs will be penalised if they classify it wrongly, hence, it will inadvertently lead to them being more conservative in the way they classify. I want to now turn to the proposed sections 34 and 34A of the Bill which confers IMDA enforcement officers with intrusive and excessive powers.”
“Such clarity is important to ensure a creative environment in which the film industry will not be inhibited by unknown legal perimeters and to cultivate an environment that encourages diverse narratives and perspectives to be explored through the films. I agree with the Minister that, actually, films talk about what we are and who we are and are important cultural tenets of this society. On a related note, as regards the proposed section 16 which permits the Minister to refuse classification, I would like to clarify whether this means that the Minister would refuse classification of a film that falls under the proposed section 16, or does it mean that such a film will be given a "Refused Classification" rating? Again, I think the way we put the terminology becomes very important so that it would not cause confusion. Mr Deputy Speaker, I am also concerned about the introduction of a co-classification scheme. This convenience has been welcomed by the businesses, mostly by the distributors, as it shortens the processing time when they can classify their own Parental Guidance Suggested (PG) or PG13 films, instead of waiting on the IMDA classification division. However, the film community is not just made up of these distributors. In fact, the scheme may not benefit filmmakers or consumers. As it is now in Singapore, some production companies are also distributors. One of them has just bought over even a cinema chain. So, a three-in-one production company, distributor and exhibitor.”
“Having spoken to some filmmakers, they have expressed concerns that the lack of clarity of the above terms may have the unintended effect of restricting and impeding how to produce their films, since they do not know whether the content of their films may have crossed the boundaries such that it becomes against national security and, therefore, refused a classification. In turn, this may cause the film industry to self-censor on the kind of films that they may produce. I, therefore, hope the Minister can provide some clarification or guidelines as to what constitutes a film that contains "material prescribed", or one that is "against national security". On the definition of "national security", I note that it is not impossible to provide some clarity on its contours. Take, for example, the Public Order and Special Powers Bill that we debated just now. The Bill has specifically set out several situations that constitute "serious incident" that may affect public order and security. Further, under the proposed section 15(5), the provision sets out several guidelines as to what will be taken into consideration in classifying a film. Although section 15(5) does not strictly relate to issues of "national security" or "prescribed materials", it does show that it is possible, at the very least, to provide examples of what would be taken into account in reaching a particular classification decision. Even if it is not possible to give a clear definition of what constitutes "prescribed materials" or what is “against national security”, at the very least, the Minister can set out what it will take into consideration in determining whether a film is against national security or contains those prescribed materials.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak on this Bill. IMDA sought consultation last year with the film community. I thank IMDA for going all out in that concerted effort even before the amendment was being put out, extending the consultation deadline, and that was very helpful. With that, during the consultation, the film community has put out a position paper whereby 48 filmmakers, and half of them well-known filmmakers, have raised their concerns. So, in my speech, I would address some of these concerns that were put up by the filmmakers which were also addressed by my colleague, Mr Zaqy Mohamad, just now. Some will seem repetitive, so do bear with me. I will highlight three main areas of concerns. The first area of concern pertains to whether several amendments may restrict the creativity boundaries and artistic space for the filmmakers. The second area is about the sweeping powers given to IMDA enforcement officers. The third area would pertain to the need to ensure due process and fairness in relation to the appeals process under FA. Let us look at the first area of concern. There are several amendments to this Bill that I feel might potentially stifle the space for creativity and the artistic work by filmmakers. Under the proposed section 16, a film that is, among others, "against national security" or that "contains any material prescribed", will be refused classification. I note that there is no specification of what is the definition of "material prescribed" nor is there a definition of what is "against national security".”
“Of course, we can always file a PQ in Parliament, but I am just seeking a kind of procedure rather than each time relying on the PQs. And we only meet once a month for that. So, in that moment, as soon as it can, if possible, I do not find that it is a problem to submit a report.”
“Thank you, Second Minister, for the reply. With regard to the second reply, I think we are sort of in the same place and, in a way, I do agree that it is a heavy and difficult decision. That is why I think that the more difficult and heavier it is, the procedure of accountability becomes even more important. That is why I am not suggesting that we have to call Parliament up to have a deliberation on that immediately. But, in certain circumstances, if Parliament needs to sit to deliberate on something really important, I think Parliament has that moral responsibility to do that. In this particular case, I am talking about a report after the activation would really be very important to actually lay out how the decision was being made, the threshold we need, without asking for Committees of Inquiry (COIs) and things like that. So, it is just about a certain procedure so that we could also respect the kind of heavy responsibility that these people are making, and they are affecting every individual, at least within that vicinity, of course, also the whole of Singapore.”
“I thank the Second Minister for her reply. I was listening very intently to her argument. There are two points which I still feel a bit uncomfortable. One is the definition of the "illustration" in question, which was illustration (d). Just by the mere words of it, to be honest, I do not sense that kind of seriousness as the Second Minister has described and her subsequent elaboration of what the situation could be. So, I would like to ask maybe, in this Bill itself, there should be some change of wording in that part of the illustration whereby it is not just about a disruption to daily businesses, but a protracted disruption. That would make it sound in terms of the severity, in comparison to what the Second Minister has said. At the same time, when things are still quite peaceful at that moment, any kind of Police intervention may, under this Bill, actually cause even more problems subsequently. That is the first clarification. The second one is about asking for accountability from the Minister and the Commissioner. I think just because this Bill is so severe in terms of the action that comes with it, I am asking if that is really not because there is a mistrust, I guess a kind of accountability. That is why, in my speech, I did say that as much as time can permit without affecting the expediency of the Police action, I think even an official report on the decision of the Minister or the Commissioner would be very important to be submitted to Parliament in that process. I think that is what we really need in terms of accountability. And by putting such a procedure in place, it actually places all of us, or even the Parliamentarians here, plus the Commissioner and the Minister, to a kind of accountability that is open and transparent.”