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 3 of 6.
“However, for the second and third groups, namely, those who are on bad terms with their friends and relatives and those who are not in touch with their kin, their twilight years tend to be difficult. There was one occasion when we organised a seminar on the issue of wills, and many elderly folks rushed to ask the lawyers many questions. However, all the questions were basically about this – "Mr Lawyer, what do you think if I allocate my assets this way?" The lawyers felt perplexed, "Why do they ask my views on how they want to divide their assets?" After several rounds of discussions, I realised that all of them were worried that their family members would feel aggrieved about how the assets were distributed. In fact, the fundamental problem was that they had proceeded with the will without settling their family problems first. A Filipino nurse whom I interviewed before, told me that she was puzzled by what she saw when she started working in Singapore. In Singapore, when an elderly family member falls ill and requires long-term care, the first thing that other family members would think of is to hire a domestic helper to help with caregiving. In her hometown, there would always be a relative who will volunteer to take care of the elderly family member while the rest of the family will pay for the living expenses of this relative. Through the experience she shared, we know that if an elderly family member falls ill, he would not be afraid, as he knows that those around him and those who are close to him will look after him and support him. Many people will say that it is not easy to do that in Singapore, especially when most of our families are small families and there are few siblings whom we can share the burden of caregiving with.”
“You may not be able to button your shirt; going to the toilet becomes inconvenient; you may need help in the morning. And what is most humiliating is that you may have to put on diapers. All these inconveniences and situations can slowly erode the will of a person who used to be full of life and ideals. Over time, he may find that he can no longer face others nor look at himself with dignity, and he begins to feel helpless, fearful and lonely. Looking back at my father's bouts of anger back then, as his son, I did not notice his helplessness, fear and loneliness. Through this process, I begin to wonder: have we understood the process of ageing and dying? If we have a better understanding of ageing and dying, we may be able to help the elderly around us handle the process. Our society must start to pay attention to this and learn to accept and prepare for ageing, as an individual and as a community. Why is this society always celebrating life, celebrating the birth of a child but not paying attention to the process of ageing and dying? A human being’s existence should not be measured in terms of how much wealth he has created but how he has lived every stage of his life with dignity. Secondly, recalling my father's experience, I believe one of the biggest problems is that I was not close to my father. If I was closer to my father, perhaps I would have noticed the problems earlier. In recent years, I have met many old folks through my productions. I categorise them into three groups: those who are very close to their friends and relatives; those who are on bad terms with their friends and relatives, and the third group, those who do not maintain relationships with anyone. For the first group, I think we can still help them if they have friends and relatives.”
“My apologies to the House. I will continue from where I left off. (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] My father retired more than 10 years ago and, five years after his retirement, he started experiencing the onset of dementia. He began to forget things. He would forget what my mother told him despite having asked about it repeatedly, and his temper also flared more easily. To comfort him and also ourselves, we told him that he was just getting old. What exactly does it mean to "become old"? There is a word which is used together with the word "lao" (old) and that word is "shuai" (to be weakened). Put together, "shuai lao" means old and weakened. These two words create a very negative attitude towards ageing. For example, in Chinese, we say, "shuai ruo"(weak), "shuai tui" (to be in decline), "shuai yan" (to deteriorate in looks), "shuai ku" (to wither), "shuai hao" (to be waste away), "shuai jian" (to weaken), "shuai bing" (to become sickly). There are many of these words but, to summarise in Hokkien, it is simply "suay" (unfortunate). Many people refuse to think about the stage of our lives where we age and then die. Perhaps you will think about your retirement, perhaps you will start to do some financial planning, but to really understand the process of ageing is something that all of us want to avoid. Perhaps, we should have realised this fact of life much earlier – birth, sickness, ageing and dying are all essential parts of life. We cannot just pay attention to living, but we need to also understand ageing and the process of dying. We must accept that our healthy bodies will eventually become weak and our sharp minds will one day become slow. Things that we used to do easily may become challenging.”
“Deputy Speaker, thank you for allowing me to speak on this Motion. I will speak in Mandarin. So, while some of my colleagues are putting on the earpiece for translation, I will make a declaration that my theatre company Drama Box and myself have been actively working on this issue of end-of-life care, presenting quite a lot of creative projects that reach out to the elderly and other sectors of the society. Now, my speech in Mandarin. (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] First of all, I would like to thank the Members who moved the Motion. My speech today is based on my personal experience, what I experienced through my work in the arts, as well as my encounters with many senior citizens. My father is 77 years old. When he was young, he devoted his life to work in order to support our family. Like many "traditional" fathers of that era, he was strict and reserved and was not particularly close to his children. He was not highly educated, neither did he have any hobbies in particular, except for playing a game of mahjong or enjoying some drinks with his friends. He retired more than 10 years ago and, five years after his retirement, he started experiencing the onset of dementia. [pauses] (In English): I am sorry. I think I need a break. Deputy Speaker, can I take a break first, and let the other Members speak first?”
“Consistent with the fundamental rule of law principle that all powers have legal limits, scrutiny of the Minister’s decision by another independent arm of the Government − the Judiciary − is an important check and balance. With this, Mr Speaker, and at this moment through this debate, I find myself not able to support the terms that are proposed in these amendments.”
“My position is that the safeguards to prevent an abuse of powers under the CLTPA is not sufficiently robust as the checks and balances are largely undertaken by the Executive, save for the consent of the Public Prosecutor and not by another independent arm of the Government. Let me explain. Under section 30 of the CLTPA, while there is an Advisory Committee that will submit a report with recommendations on the Minister’s order to the President, the Advisory Committee's recommendation remains non-binding. As such, even if the Advisory Committee recommends that the individual not be detained, the Minister is not legally obliged to follow the Advisory Committee’s recommendations. Further, while the President may confirm, vary or cancel the Minister’s orders, the President acts on the advice of the Cabinet which also comprises the Minister who made that order. This seems almost like a case of the Executive checking on itself. So, if and when the Cabinet’s advice contradicts that of the Advisory Committee, how does the President make her decision? What if the President is of the same view as the Advisory Committee, but different from that of the Cabinet, what would happen next? Mr Speaker, while there is no evidence that the powers of the CLTPA have been abused, the commitment to ensure sufficient independent safeguards is not to question the integrity of the decision-maker but precisely to prevent such an abuse and to refine decision-making. Given that detention without trial involves a serious deprivation of one’s liberty, should there not be more oversight rather than less? Moreover, the introduction of the Fourth Schedule to limit the types of offences which the CLTPA is applicable is an implicit recognition that all powers must have legal limits.”
“Mr Speaker, detention without trial is by all means an exceptional measure which I principally disagree with. By further extending the CLTPA, I worry that it normalises and desensitises society to its extreme nature and further entrenches the necessity of the CLTPA. All in all, I hope we keep with the spirit of the CLTPA, which was originally set out only to be of a temporary nature meant to address a unique set of problems arising from a specific period of time. Mr Speaker, I turn now to discuss the proposed amendments to the CLTPA. One of the amendments, clause 3, states that the Minister's decision to detain an individual or subject him to a supervisory order is final. Many Members have talked about it, and the Minister has clarified. However, after going back and forth, I wonder if perhaps this particular change could be reworded or be removed to avoid any more misrepresentations, because we can hear that so many people, and they are all lawyers, who have been asking for clarifications and we do not want in future that it be misread. Mr Speaker, the Minister has unequivocally said that the Judiciary is a co-equal and important branch of the Government. Its constitutional duty in reviewing the legality of the acts of the Executive must be respected and protected by other branches of the Government. Each time the approval from Parliament to extend the operation of CLTPA is sought, the question of the sufficiency of safeguard of this Bill remains in the forefront. We have heard the Minister outlining the six steps of safeguarding.”
“While the threats which the CLTPA address involve a severe nature, it does not lead to an automatic conclusion that the only way to deal with these serious threats is by detaining individuals without trial. It is a policy choice that we make and one that requires robust justification backed by concrete evidence. Mr Speaker, as this House debates the extension of the operation of the CLTPA for the 14th time, I hope that as we continue to justify its existence and relevance to today’s context, we do not forget about having a meaningful debate on the reduction of our reliance on the CLTPA. I note from the Minister's statement that the number of people detained under CLTPA has gone low. However, as its name suggests, this Bill was meant to be temporary. One of the justifications for the retention of this Bill is that there are difficulties with prosecuting those detained, as involved witnesses fear reprisals should they testify in Court. This is a legitimate concern that must be addressed. But it points to a larger discussion as to whether there is sufficient protection of witnesses in general under our laws rather than the continuing existence of the CLTPA. There have been proposed amendments to the Evidence Act and the Criminal Procedure Code to enhance protection of witnesses recently. The Cybersecurity Bill, which was passed yesterday in this same House, contains a provision to protect informants. We should re-evaluate the necessity of the CLTPA in light of these new measures to protect witnesses and consider tweaking witness protection methods to better protect witnesses to offences which the CLTPA are applicable, rather than to continue relying on detaining individuals without trial as part of the overall security strategy.”
“Mr Speaker, unlike speakers before me, they are all lawyers. I am addressing this Bill from a layman's view, as someone who does feel uncomfortable with detention without trial. In the 2017 and 2018 Rule of Law Index compiled by the World Justice Project, Singapore was ranked 13th globally for the Rule of Law, which I think is a good ranking on the state of our judicial system and how much we have upheld the principle of Rule of Law. Today, we are here debating on this very difficult and important Bill, the extension of the operation of the CLTPA. Mr Speaker, I recognise the tensions between wanting to balance protection of the rights of an accused and to ensure that our society is protected against serious crimes and to keep crime rates low. This provision, however, departs from two fundamental principles of the Rule of Law – the right to a fair trial and that individuals should be governed largely by the law and not by discretion. It is true that the crimes which the CLTPA seeks to prevent are no doubt serious and involves complex considerations. But are there other options and measures that might be less intrusive than detention without trial, yet equally effective to address the problem which the CLTPA seeks to achieve? Has the Government, before taking the decision to extend the operation of the CLTPA, considered these options? Can the Government share with the House what these options are and an evaluation of their strengths and weaknesses? Mr Speaker, my point is that if there are security measures that impose less deprivation of the accused's rights and at the same time are as effective as detention without trial in addressing the security issue, then such options that intrude less on the rights of an accused should always be preferred.”
“I also hope that the Select Committee would also look at multiple independent fact-checking bodies that would allow the public to fact-check, cross reference so that they can make decisions themselves. I would also like to ask the Select Committee, when calling out for public engagement, again, to allow more time for consultation. A recent incident was the draft of the Film Act where we had only nine days to make that submission and we had to appeal for another two more weeks for that submission. And I hope that this will not happen. But at the same time, I wonder would the Select Committee consider, because this is an issue of such a broad concern, that there may be disagreement within the Select Committee in terms of what to do, that there should be provisions for minority reports in the Select Committee report. And finally, Rebecca Solnit, in her book "Hope in the Dark" talks about how ordinary people that appear in Superhero movies produced by Hollywood are always portrayed to be passive, clueless, cowardly and helpless, because without the clueless public, Superheroes cannot perform their tasks. But in real life, we realise that people are not that clueless. And I think, in the fighting of online falsehoods, we need all people to be responsible – the people, the Government, the media, the civil society, because we really cannot wait for Superheroes in those crisis moments. 3.25 pm”
“Hence, in this age of social media, the people's responsibility then, must include the ability to discern and make up their mind what news are dubious and what are falsehoods. Media literacy is important and should be inculcated in all levels of society: in schools, in community set-ups, in workplaces and even at home. Any good literacy programme must be taught critically so that those who are learning it will learn how to think critically. So, I hope the Select Committee will look at how to further our media literacy outreach, and not just going to schools, but to workplaces, community and grassroots sites. But I also that this is a wonderful opportunity for everyone to start thinking about these issues, and to ride on the work of the Select Committee that will gain public attention, that the Government should consider, at the same time, put out sustainable engagement programmes on media literacy at all of these sites that I have just mentioned. As the world become more complex, no one person or institution, can claim to hold truth, to have all information. Hence, everyone contribute to providing information to help to discover truths and to fact-check. Fake news preys on the confirmation biasness of its readers. And so, as it travels very quickly, unsuspecting public would be taken in very quickly. So, to help public learn to discern truths, facts and opinions from lies and falsehoods, it is important that there is a high level of transparency of information flowing especially, from authority. The earlier when information is being shared, without prejudicing justice or national security concerns that would help people to know and be able to clear the air.”
“However, I would urge the Select Committee to look at what our present law provisions have as a starting point. Such laws include the Broadcasting (Class Licence) Notification or section 45 of the Telecommunications Act, and specific laws such as the Administration of Justice (Protection) Act, the Protection from Harassment Act, the Sedition Act, and the tort of defamation. The Green Paper mentioned – and just now Minister Yaacob also mentioned –the case of the TRS incident. The relevant authorities have moved swiftly and under the existing laws, dealt with that issue. And, in fact, based on what I have observed, very quickly, that piece of falsehood was quashed and the public understood and knew and did not circulate it anymore. I think this demonstrates that our existing laws and provision have been effective. Based on this, we should start our discussion on whether we need new legislation. I am not saying that these Acts are perfect and do not require review. Indeed, some of these laws give very broad powers to the authorities, and it may be that they should themselves be reviewed but to ensure that the interests of individuals that I have mentioned previously are properly recognised. But one of the concerns about online platforms is that news would spread so quickly. So, when there is a falsehood being put up, how do we respond as swiftly? And to act swiftly and to respond swiftly, we just cannot depend only on law enforcers. No matter how tough the law is, any person with intention to sabotage with fake news or falsehood would still do it, for profit or for malice. Hence, the responsibility of citizens becomes important. To stop the spreading of news, it needs the citizens to be vigilant, to take up responsibility but not to vigilante.”
“The second thing which I thought is really important is, I quote, "Where does biased but legitimate commentary shade into propaganda and lies?" I think this second point is very important for the Select Committee to look at. Because this Government has been advocating for more active citizenry, hoping that Singaporeans would be more involved in discourse and discussions. We have seen more Singaporeans speaking up and, of course, the social media has provided that platform for them to express their views. We do not want a heavy handed approach that will be root out constructive, though at times, disagreeable voices. Hence, I hope that the Select Committee will consider, if there are to be new legislation against deliberate online falsehoods, that it needs to balance the interest of protecting national security and preserving public order with the interests of: (a) enabling individuals to have meaningful discussions on issues of concern, including Government policies, without fear of having action taken against them, and (b) enabling the media, both professional and citizen journalists, to report on such issues of concern. Where the media is concerned, for example, should there be a responsible journalism defence? Thus, if a media outlet acts responsibly before publishing a story, for example, by conducting inquiries into whether an incident did in fact happen, and by approaching the authorities for a comment, should it be free from liability even if it later turns out that the story contains some inaccuracies? Also, provided that the media has made such inquiries, if it is merely reporting what someone else says without endorsing what has been said, should it be free from liability?”
“Thank you, Deputy Speaker, Sir. I am very glad that the Government has put up this Motion to call for setting up of a Select Committee on Deliberate Online Falsehoods. I applaud the Government for taking this approach because this is a very important issue, affecting every Singaporean, young and old, and hence, a call for extensive and in-depth discussion and deliberation is most important. We all know that fake news is not anything new. It has been around since olden times and even now, in present days. It is being used by both state and non-state players to profit, manipulate, divide and to conquer. In 2017, Minister Shanmugam, in replying Members of the House, identified three situations of such things. And I would quote him: "Genuine feedback – it could be in error where the person could have made a mistake but genuine, well-intentioned feedback or complaints because there is a difference of viewpoints, allegations based on an honest belief in certain facts; that is one category. That is understandable. Generally, there should be no consequences for that. The second category where the complaint is justified, feedback is justified and we must take action. The third category is what the Member is focused on, which is false, deliberate, malicious allegations. We are not talking about errors, we are talking about deliberate falsehoods, malice." And so, I would look forward to the Select Committee to look especially into this third category that the Minister has mentioned and examine deeply the consequences of these falsehoods. In the UK, there was a call for submission on the understanding of fake news by the British parliament. And, on the website, you can see that parliament actually wants the British public to define what is fake news.”
“I thank the Minister for his reply. May I ask that when the Minister is doing the consultation, when he is asking for feedback, that more time be given for the stakeholders to actually have conversations with it? Because in some of my past experience, in terms of dealing with consultations, a lot of times, little time is given for us to actually work on it.”
“How many projects or works have actually not been funded due to this ruling?”
“I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for his replies. Just to follow up on the same issue, so I would like to know what is the process like. For example, when there is a work that is deemed to be questionable, what is the process like to make the decisions? In between, are there any recourse, are there any possibilities for dialogue? And a follow-up question would be: just this year, may I know how many projects or works have not been funded because of this guideline?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Second Minister for her clarifications and answers. I have three points. The first point I would like to clarify is that in my speech, I did not intend to say all massage workers are actually providing sexual services. I made in the context of the speech what I wanted to talk about. And exactly what I said was, "In my following speech, I would use the term 'massage workers' to refer to masseuses who provide a happy ending service in massage parlours". So, it is within the context of my speech. So, if there is any misunderstanding, I would clarify that and say sorry to those who felt that what I said have caused injustice to them. The second point is that I am glad to hear that MHA would like to engage sex workers to help them. I would also urge the Ministry to work with the NGOs with regard to that. I can help to do the bridging if need to. Thirdly, I just want to hear MHA's response to this because, from my research on this issue, a lot of time, the men who go to the massage parlour, the male clients, they, in fact, expect such so-called "happy services" from the masseuses. And sometimes, they may even coerce that to happen. What will MHA be doing in such a situation in order to protect the masseuses as well as the massage parlours?”
“However, now that we have progressed significantly, society writ large seems to look down and despise people who have not made it, even though they may have different backgrounds and opportunities. The stigma on sex workers and other forms of manual labourers remains rampant and it only fuels discrimination and sometimes even violence. We need to be able to treat all citizens equally and work together to create an equitable society.”
“My friend has younger daughters. I myself have two kids and have to support them. One of them was a Mathematics Olympian. My husband earns $1,800 a month as an electrician. He works from 8.00 am to 5.00 pm. After work, he goes to the childcare centre and picks up my kids. But I work here at night to earn money for the family". A common theme among many of the women was that they all felt that they would not be doing this kind of work if they did not have to. Many do this so that their children can have a bright future, one that will hopefully be starkly different from their own. These women are textbook cases of the woman who sacrifices for her children. One of the massage workers who was also her own boss said, "Our business here does not affect others. We operate here which is common for this line of business and not in housing areas nor close to schools. Being a PR or citizen, the money we earn stays in this country and it is spent on our family and children who will grow up and contribute to the country in the future. Without much qualifications, this is the only industry we can work in. It is not committing crime, we never "杀 人 放 火 " or set fire or kill. We also care about safety and hygiene despite being in the business. The penalty is too heavy". I am recounting this sharing to the House only to remind us that the displacement is real and genuine and should be looked at and considered. Deputy Speaker, Sir, in the past, there was a common understanding that we all did what we needed to do to survive. People could empathise with one another through their shared hardships.”
“And, importantly, transition into a job where they can earn a commensurate amount of money in order to successfully support their family? Thirdly and correspondingly, through the experience of Project X, I have come to understand that, for many, it is immensely hard to leave the trade but there are amazing success stories of women leaving that industry. There are many factors that determine that: a supportive family, good business and finance acumen, will power and opportunities all played a part in that. In the face of criminalisation, stigma and occasional violence, it creates a series of setbacks, disempowering them. That said, this is based on the assumption that all massage workers want to leave their jobs. We know of women who have done this for most of their lives and absolutely cannot imagine anything different. To be clear, these women do not want to be dishonest or break the law. I will quote some of them who said, "We want to apply for licence but we cannot. Without a licence, we cannot apply for Central Provident Fund (CPF). We cannot apply for Workfare. There is no security. We are all Singaporeans. We have worked here for seven, eight years". Even the Thai worker is also Singaporean, married to Singaporean but her husband does not want her anymore and she has to work and look after the children. There is another one I spoke with who has five kids; she had no place to live, so she lives in those backpacker hostels. She has no money to rent. We had to buy Maggi noodles for her. But now, she has finally found a place to live and it is because she does this job that can help her to support her children. Echoing her voice, another massage worker shared that "Those working here are Permanent Residents (PR) or citizens. We work for whom? We work for our family.”
“Separately, in the past, there used to be these health centres where sexual services were provided alongside massage. Most of these health centres were not allowed to renew their licences. The shutdown of these health centres led to the proliferation of smaller parlours set up by the people who used to work at these health centres. From interviews with massage workers, the proliferation was also because smaller parlours were harder to apprehend for sexual services. If this Bill serves only to push it somewhere else, does the Ministry have long-term plans to ensure that the vice does not happen where we do not want it to be? Secondly, and this relates to a theme that I have always touched on, especially in my previous Budget debate, on the displacement of the marginalised. Massage workers provide sexual services due to their personal circumstances and, to them, it was the most viable way to earn a substantial living through their own labour and to support their families. Project X, which hon Member Mr Louis Ng mentioned, is a local non-government organisation (NGO) that works with sex workers to ensure their safety, physically and emotionally. They have spoken to many Singaporean massage workers doing this for anything between two years and 30 years. The one thing they have in common is that they do not possess the sort of educational qualifications that are privileged in the society we live in, and a job anywhere else would be one with long hours and little pay. Providing sexual services can increase their salaries from between 100% and 500%, or even more. I would like to ask the Ministry if it expects these Singaporean massage workers to leave the trade, are there plans to support them in the transition?”
“Deputy Speaker, I will come to the introduction of this Bill as it is clear that the old Act had been insufficient at targeting non-compliant and unlicensed massage parlours which are often used as fronts for vice. This Bill shows the Government's commitment to ensure that massage parlours are held to the highest standards, which is a move away from previous Acts where parlours can continue to operate even when they have been fined for being non-compliant. That said, I do have my concerns. I would like to thank my fellow Member Mr Louis Ng for voicing some of those concerns that I have. I will be talking along those lines. In my following speech, I would use the term "massage workers" to refer to masseuses who provide a happy-ending service in massage parlours. Based on the Ministry's press statement, the Bill's primary intent seems to be to eliminate vice from massage parlours. The logical extension of this would be that the Bill's secondary intent is to force massage workers to leave the trade. However, this would pose a few problems and questions. Firstly, just because the Ministry wishes for the elimination of vice from massage parlours, it does not mean that it will happen. It is clear that, historically, it is impossible to eradicate vice from any society. The Member Mr Baey Yam Keng was quoted in The Straits Times in 2010 saying that the raids of Geylang have led to vice spreading out into the neighbourhoods. The same article quoted an ordinary citizen saying that Geylang is very quiet now compared to the past. In the past few months, newspaper headlines have been dominated by the raids on brothels in HDB estates, unlicensed massage parlours and fake TCM practitioners.”
“Thank you, Madam. I have two questions. One is for Minister Lawrence Wong. I would like to know, have any other Ministerial Committees been set up for other heritage sites, other than 38 Oxley Road. I think the second question is to the Prime Minister. We have been reading about the confidence in the Government after this whole saga. I think when we talk about confidence, it is not just about what had happened and what had you done. I think what is also important is how do we move on from here. So, assuming after today − and I would think we have a feeling that probably more allegations would come − I can imagine then, the Government would start having to deal with these allegations again. Would that not then affect the function of this Government in some way? So, would not having a COI or a Parliamentary Select Committee for the purpose of setting a platform, setting a kind of agenda, as well as deadlines, such that if Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee Wei Ling were invited to come for this platform and to make their presentations, whether they refuse or they do, that would actually help us to move on?”
“The last words of the play ring very loudly, "The weight of this sad time we must obey. Speak what we feel, not what we ought to say. The oldest hath borne most. We that are young shall never see so much, nor live so long." I hope this incident, whatever its final decision, will only strengthen our resolve to make Singapore exist and its system even more robust, open and transparent.”
“However, in this particular case, it is a bit different from the National Library building because the National Library and Bukit Brown Cemetery were public spaces. But now, we have a private estate where the community believes that it has a lot of historical value. And how do we then balance the need of the individuals as well as the state? In the case of 38 Oxley Road, can a decision be made with wisdom and clarity? Will the closure we all seek ever be fully realised? Many elderly people I meet through the course of my work on end-of-life issues share with me stories about their wills. Although they know what they want, they are very apprehensive and worry about how other family members would think. When I asked them if they have discussed the matter with their family members, they said it is difficult to talk about such things. Such obstacles, combined with feelings of pride and fear and blindness, can lead to decisions that seed future disputes. It is then when conversations become important. And so, in future, when wills are being made, should we not consider having this possibility whereby family members should be part of the process and maybe be a requirement? Of course, there is contention about that. Family does not always have a beautiful utopian image that we like to conjure. Family is all about relationships. Where there are disputes, how do we repair a broken relationship? Honestly, I do not know if it is ever possible, because in our Chinese saying, we have said this, "破 镜 难 圆 ", that is, "a broken mirror can never come together". I would like to end with some words from Shakespeare's King Lear because as I was going through all this, King Lear kept going through my mind.”
“A good closure can only be achieved if our system inspires confidence by being truly transparent and allowing for fair hearing from all sides − Government officials and individual citizens. As such, I would like for Parliament to consider setting up a public inquiry on this matter, maybe through a Parliamentary Select Committee, so that all parties involved can have their allegations and statements articulated and scrutinised equally. It is important for Singaporeans to have an unwavering belief in our system of Government. In a moment of crisis, the resilience of Singapore and our system is at the same time being tested and strengthened. This is a case when the private and the Government disagree. How should we sort this out? And maybe I would suggest for the Government to consider seriously setting up an independent ombudsman to deal with such disputes in future whenever they arise. I have one more point to say and this relates to the emotional aspects of heritage and memory. We all hold on to our memories. We want to remember and preserve things we hold dearly in a specific way. Some buildings and monuments do not only impact individuals but also the wider community. The loss of our national heritage, whether the National Library, the National Theatre, dragon playground or Bukit Brown Cemetery, can be very emotional, affecting not just the mind but the heart and soul of the people involved. Very often, past decisions have been made favouring pragmatism over idealism. Society has had to accept the decisions and just move on. So, I was very glad to hear the Deputy Prime Minister acknowledging that, in the past, such work has been overzealous.”
“It also means all individuals involved should get a fair hearing, their statements carefully studied by an independent panel and these proceedings made fully available to the public as well, precisely because these allegations are serious and that is why we are here today. The Parliament sits here to hear, as we have done, the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister's elaborate statements and I thank them for it. But I would state that it now still sounds like a case of "your words against mine and mine against yours". I believe the public would also want to hear from Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee Wei Ling and all the players involved as well in the same manner as a matter of fairness. As such, Parliament might be the right place to air the Government's position but may not be the right place to settle this issue once and for all, as some of the Members have wished for. So, they may have to consider another independent platform that will allow all parties to present their cases. Some people have spoken of the desire for closure on this issue. But what kind of closure do we want? A good closure is not just about restoring or maintaining faith and confidence in the Government. It is also about the opportunity to scrutinise and interrogate existing systems and structures. We must ensure this mechanism that we want to hold on to such that it will not be misinterpreted in our efforts in disincubating this issue as a calibrated public relations exercise. This is crucial on many levels. We have to show that the system we have in place are robust, with checks and balances built in to withstand open scrutiny.”
“When Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee alleged, and I quote, "we feel hugely uncomfortable and closely monitored in our country", does Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee Wei Ling have any substantial evidence for these statements? Did the Government investigate these statements and, if it had, what were the findings? Were Mr Lee and Dr Lee being interviewed and questioned after they had made these statements? When both Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee Wei Ling alleged that the Prime Minister harbours political ambitions for his son Mr Li Hongyi, again, where is the evidence? What is the Prime Minister's position on this? Since the Government knew of the dispute within the family, why did the state not let the dispute be settled before considering possible actions for 38 Oxley Road? What is the reason for the Government's choice for not taking the probate at face value and focus solely on the historic value of the house? Why must a Ministerial Committee be set up when we have the Preservation of Sites and Monuments Board which can decide on whether 38 Oxley Road should be preserved, demolished or any other options? What is it in this particular case that is beyond the mandate of the Board that they cannot decide or advise and how do we know in future when or whether a Ministerial Committee should be set up to look at preservation of particular sites and monuments? And in the case of the appointment of Mr Lucien Wong as the AG, was the President formally informed of the current AG's former role as the Prime Minister's personal lawyer? If he was informed, then how did the President address this issue of potential conflict of interest? What does "open, transparent and fair" mean? To me, it means being able to find satisfactory and trustworthy responses to the above questions.”
“Mdm Speaker, I find that, this time, writing a speech is most difficult because of the allegations that were there. Much has been said and will be said about this matter, and so, this time, I think I will be terse. On the fundamental level, the 38 Oxley Road case is one whereby private citizens, namely, Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee Wei Ling, are alleging that the Prime Minister and the Government are abusing their powers. I think it is, therefore, necessary for the Government and Parliament to address these allegations in an open, transparent and fair manner. As mentioned in the Straits Times, in our tightly knitted Singapore community, when relationships are complex and interwoven, where duties and private relationships intermingle, how do we ensure that there are institutional checks and balances to prevent any abuse? This furore has raised many questions in the minds of Singaporeans I have spoken to. These are some of the questions that have been directed to the Government as well as to Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee Wei Ling. Let me just share some of them here. Who drafted the last will? Why the rush to prepare and sign the will? And when Dr Lee Wei Ling claimed that the Prime Minister had, I quote, "angrily threatened to gazette 38 Oxley Road", is there anyone else who can collaborate on this allegation? When Dr Lee Wei Ling also alleged that photographers from the Ministry of Communication and Information (MCI) helped Ms Ho Ching photograph and catalogue the late Mr Lee's artefacts, questions arise, like, why documentation must be done when the family is still in a period of grief?”
“I thank the Senior Minister of State for her reply. I just want to ask if the Ministry would still consider the relocation plans that the grassroots committee has actually presented. In fact, they have the "Robinson Petang 2.0", where they have suggested alternative sites, including how to manage the disamenities. It is important to know that what happened here in Sungei Road is that it is a place-making that is very, very genuine and real. By removing it, we are actually taking away that place-making possibility. If there is something that is already ground-up and alive, why take it away? Why not have a relocation, put them there and, at the same time, manage the disamenities which I think is something that we can do?”
“Mdm Speaker, I present to Parliament a Petition under Standing Order No 18. The Clerk has endorsed this Petition as being in accordance with the rules of Standing Order No 18(5). This Petition is presented on behalf of Mr Koh Eng Khoon, Mr Hong Theng Hoh, Mr Sonny Liew and others of like opinion. Including the three petitioners that I have named, there are a total of 792 valid signatures. Madam, the petitioners alleged that the Sungei Road Market, being the only living remnant of the grassroots tradition of free hawking in Singapore, is an invaluable and irreplaceable element of the organic intangible heritage and communal identity of our country. It is also the indispensable means of livelihood of the many dozens of elderly vendors who have few or no practicable alternatives; yet are supporting themselves and contributing to our community and shared social fabric. In light of this, the petitioners ask this House to designate an alternative site to which Sungei Road may be relocated. The petitioners pray, and I quote: "One, designate an alternate site to which Sungei Road Market may be relocated; two, dialogue empathetically, genuinely and comprehensively with the Sungei Road Market vendors; three, refer the issue of relocation of the Sungei Road Market to a Select Committee for further public consultation and deliberation." I will now hand the Petition to the Clerk. [(proc text) Petition handed to the Clerk at the Table. (proc text)]”
“Yes. Secondly, I would like to also affirm that from the speeches that I get and the Minister's response that vigilance is very important and the vigilance of our Police force has helped a lot to actually contain the drug problems. Thirdly, I want to address also the issues about the social gaps which I mentioned in my speech. I want to clarify that it was not a statement to critique the system that we have. However, we have heard in the House quite a lot of times that even with all the social nets that we have put in, all the systems that we have put in, there will be people who have fallen through the nets. In this particular case, a lot of them because of their experience and in that condition, that makes them very susceptible to take up addictions, like drug addictions or alcoholic addictions. So, I am referring to that rather than a critique on the system. What I am concerned is then, in the end, how can we help these abusers and that is why rehabilitative work, for me, is so important. I want to also reiterate that I have equal and not any lesser empathy for the families of the drug abusers. Again, my experience has told me − I have seen a lot of them − it is that philosophical stand, especially in terms of the death penalty, that I have problems with, personally. With regard to all the rebuttals that the Minister had in terms of the whole criminal investigation process, I take the Minister's point. I will go back and do more homework. I think that is very interesting, that is something that I am learning. I will take that and go back and work on it. When we have enough time, we can probably have another discussion.”
“Yes, okay, can. I think I did articulate in my speech that I do think that a strong stance is important in dealing with drug issues. My personal experience when I was young living in Geylang in the 1970s where the back alleys had so many gangsters and drug problems. I have gone through the experience with my mom telling me not to go out by the back alley because it is dangerous. So, those experiences are real for me to say —”
“Yes, but I think some things I need a bit of time to articulate.”
“I would like to thank the Minister for the response to my points. I would like to now then also respond.”
“I hope to continue this conversation with Members in this House and with my fellow Singaporeans at large. 7.18 pm”
“If their minds are occupied with things that require concrete outcomes that they know they can do well in, it is likely that they spend less time thinking of ways to beat the system. When their time is meaningfully spent and they are able to reach their personal goals, they gain confidence and start to think about what they can do for others. Some inmates in the programme have come up with educational workshops using drama for other inmates." Yes, Arts is powerful in helping the rehabilitative process, of building that resilience in them; to face change, to make change, to be the change themselves. For this to happen, it really needs the Prison Service to be able to invite more of these works. I hope we can look at more of such co-operation as proposed by fellow Members, and, of course, managing the process to allow artists to work with these inmates. I would like to stress that it is not about making them an artist, so that they can get a skill. Of course, if they are very talented and want to do so, we will be so happy to have more additions to our artistic and creative community. But the programme builds very important soft skills, as well as resilience, which will serve them well when they go back to society. These programmes must not be short workshops but sustainable ones that would focus on the process. Finally, let me be clear again, Sir, my position on the death penalty is not a dogmatic one. It is not cast in stone and, just as I hope Members who disagree with me would keep an open mind in this discourse, I, in turn, promise to keep an open mind to any new arguments or evidence that my hon friends and other members of society may bring forward. I sincerely hope that the Government would do more to facilitate a more informed public discourse on this subject.”
“He sent this relative who just left the DRC to work in a logging firm in Brunei, deep in the forest. Over there, the relative learned about discipline which took him away at the same time from his previous social circle. When the relative came back to Singapore three years later, he had enough money to start his business. The rehabilitative process is a very, very long one. Visual artist Ms Shirley Soh, who worked with some women drug offenders in her Seeing (from) The Other, a work for the Singapore Biennale 2013, noted this, and I quote, "The most important challenging work with the women inmates was to encourage self- expressions in discovering their own stories of growth, change, inspiration and agency that were equally crucial for these women, many of whom had very low self-esteem and were often poorly educated." At the end of the process, Shirley noted, "Ultimately, what surprised the women inmates was how much the art process was about life and their own life experience and aspirations that were worthy of sharing with the outside world." I saw a performance performed by inmates in the prison centre just last year. It was one of the most beautiful performances I had ever seen. The sincerity and commitment, but importantly, when you look at the faces and hear the voices of these inmates, when they first appear on stage, slightly embarrassed but as the performance went on, you know that the experience of working on the performance had made them stronger, more confident, more aware of themselves. According to Ms Peggy Ferroa, the Arts Educator who worked with them, "Inmates on the programme spend at least six hours a day on week days rehearsing, planning ahead for performances or reflecting.”
“Perhaps the profile of drug abusers might give us some indication that it is in the inadequacy and gaps in our social and economic institutions, rather than the failure of not having implemented more punitive punishment on drug consumption and drug trafficking that the problem lies. Ultimately, the issue of supply needs to be addressed through the demand lens as well, which I agree with the Members. It goes without saying that if we are unable to effectively reduce the demand for drugs, the supply of drugs will continue to creep into our borders. Sir, I agree that we must invest in the rehabilitation of drug addicts. I also want to raise another point − that rehabilitation should also be for drug traffickers and not just for the users. We should also be mindful that many traffickers themselves battle addiction, poverty, unemployment and mental illnesses. In many cases, as recognised by our Courts, they are simply people driven to desperate measures to earn money for their families. They, too, are ordinary people who have fallen through the cracks and are equally capable of rehabilitation and reintegration into society. Let me now speak of the rehabilitative work. Addiction is really very complex. It is not an illness that can be remedied through medication. It is mental, emotional and then it affects the physical being. Once, my company, Drama Box, did a work with inmates in a DRC. In fact, in the work there, what struck us most was their concern, the inmates' concern, of how to find a good support system when they move back to society. In one performance when we moved the play out of the DRC and had it performed by performance actors, an audience member from the public shared his experience of how he helped his relative out of the drug problem.”
“In fact, Sir, it appears, and is accepted by CNB itself, that it is active enforcement, both internally as well as joint border operations by our efficient CNB, that remains the best strategy towards disrupting the activities of drug syndicates and in reducing the supply of drugs from entering our borders as much as possible. Let us also not forget that the reality is that the ones who are being severely punished are largely the drug mules. Drug kingpins that operate beyond our borders, who are well sheltered through a complex network chain, are not going to be the ones personally affected by the harsh drug laws put in place and will continue to send individuals, who are often desperate, to supply drugs into our country. As such, would the death penalty for drug trafficking yield only a slightly higher deterrent effect than alternative punishments? Let us be clear here − drugs are a menace to our society and its use should be eliminated as much as possible. Let us also not ignore the fact that the question of drug use is not just a criminal justice issue but a social, political and economic one. It is a question of the sufficiency of our social and economic structures to ensure that individuals have the social and economic means and support to enable them to lead a dignified and meaningful life such that there is little incentive for them to abuse drugs. It is most telling when in 2015, out of the 1,400 individuals that were placed in the various drug rehabilitation centres (DRCs), 821 individuals had only Secondary school education, 308 individuals had only Primary school education and six individuals did not have any education at all.”
“I would like to speak on the humanity of the families of those executed and those who have their loved ones on death row. While we do not see it, the reality is that our criminal punishment, especially the death penalty, creates a new class of victims in the families of the death row inmates. These family members are innocent people. They found themselves having their loved ones taken away from them through no fault of their own. Most of them are mothers and sisters who have done all that they can to make a decent living for themselves and their families. In a conversation with a former death row convict who was acquitted by our Court of Appeal, I was struck by the poignancy of how he described the impact of the death penalty on his family. He told me this, "When you sentence me to death, you sentence my family to death too". Sir, I do not wish to play down the impact of drug abuse on family members of drug abusers. But just as it is important to recognise and address the impact of drugs on the families of drug abusers, I hope we also consider how capital punishment impacts the families of the condemned. Both groups of family members are equal victims in this process. But if we cannot sufficiently show that the death penalty yields more than a marginal deterrence effect or provide any objective data and evidence, we also have to ask ourselves whether it is necessary, or indeed fair, for us to create a whole new class of victims by carrying out those punishments. So, do we have good and conclusive data and information that can prove beyond doubt that the death penalty and, by extension, such tough laws, would deter drug trafficking.”
“Prof Hor has also pointed out that where there is no access to counsel immediately upon arrest, which could affect the ability of the accused person to defend himself against a capital charge, especially since incriminatory statements obtained by the Police can form the sole basis of conviction, without corroborating or supporting evidence of any kind. While there is, indeed, a rule that involuntary statements are inadmissible, proof of exactly what happened in the interrogation room and of exactly how statements are obtained depends entirely on witness testimony of the Police and the accused. There is no requirement of recording of any kind, even where no defence counsel is present. Furthermore, what goes on during the investigation process is especially important because the statements of the co-accused persons can be used against the accused and can also form the sole basis of a conviction without corroborating evidence, even if the statements are subsequently retracted at the trial by the co-accused. So, in Prof Hor's view: "all these rules and practices taken together must at least cast some doubt on whether there is sufficient due process for the conduct of capital cases." Sir, if every other advanced criminal justice system in the world has convicted the wrong person, there is no reason to think that Singapore is immune to the problem. Miscarriages of justice have been found in systems, such as Canada, Australia, Norway and many others. Why should we think the situation in Singapore is any different? Of course, one may ask: have there been any proven cases? Sir, in my view maybe that is really not the right question. Maybe the right question is whether we should wait until someone is wrongfully executed before we decide to change our position.”
“But because the death penalty is irreversible, nothing less than proof beyond all doubt would suffice if we are serious about ensuring that no innocent person is wrongfully executed. Sir, if our judges themselves can disagree over the question of whether the accused persons in some cases were guilty or innocent, we have to ask ourselves whether we can be absolutely sure that we will always send the right people to the gallows. The answer to me is that, no, we cannot. Just a few weeks ago, our Court of Appeal overturned the conviction of Mr Harven Segar, who was found guilty of drug trafficking by the High Court. But the Court of Appeal was not unanimous. Two of the three judges thought that the Court should acquit the accused, while the third judge thought otherwise. On top of this, there are various procedures within the criminal process, which increases the probability of wrongful executions that can happen or may happen. Firstly, a person charged for an offence of drug trafficking or importation is automatically presumed guilty, once the prosecution shows that the accused was merely in possession of the package containing the drugs. As a result, accused persons have to instead prove that they are innocent, and they have to do this without the resources available to the Police. As Prof Michael Hor has pointed out, "where the presumption is employed there can be no doubt that an accused person can be found guilty and executed in the absence of proof beyond reasonable doubt".”
“Ian Callinan, a former Australian High Court Judge says, "The criminal justice system is fallible. Mistakes occur. Any system that retains the death penalty will inevitably, even if infrequently, cause an innocent person to die. It is not within our capability to avoid the possibility of error. In my experience, the phenomenon of human fallibility is irrefutable and, in my view, must be accorded primacy when weighing the arguments in favour of, and against, the death penalty." Sir, any criminal justice system in the world, however advanced, will make mistakes. It is not a question of having professional, honest and upright judges, Police officers, prosecutors or defence lawyers. However much trust we have in our system, however much faith we have in the people that operate our system, mistakes are unavoidable because humans do make mistakes and, sometimes, genuine mistakes. In a capital case, once the execution takes place and the life of a person is terminated, any mistakes made cannot be corrected. The person's life is lost forever. And as the saying goes, "You can release innocent people from prison, but you cannot release them from their graves". The criminal justice system has itself demonstrated that it is never 100% sure that the person it is sending to the gallows is, in fact, guilty. Secondly, because of the risk factors in the system, even with a very good and disciplined Police force that we have now, mistakes may happen. In normal cases, our criminal justice system requires a person's guilt to be proven beyond reasonable doubt before he or she can be convicted and, in the context of capital cases, sentenced to death. The law has always made it clear that "proof beyond reasonable doubt" does not mean proof beyond all doubt.”
“Deputy Speaker, Sir, first, I would like to thank the hon Members who proposed this Motion. It has allowed me to learn a lot and to understand people on the drug issues. And I agree with the Members on the need to be even more proactive in dealing with drug problems in Singapore. I would also like to pay tribute to officers in CNB for the work that they do in keeping Singapore safe. Our officers often place their personal safety on the line in the course of their work and I think we ought to put on record our appreciation for their sacrifice and bravery. This Motion covers three important points but I will only address two of them. The first one on the Motion of applying tough laws to deter drug trafficking into Singapore. The second one would be my suggestion for rehabilitative work with drug offenders, traffickers and users alike. Sir, the first point of this Motion proposes that this House calls on the Government to continue applying tough laws to deter drug trafficking into Singapore and, by that, it would include the retention of capital punishment for drug offences in the form that it presently takes. First, let me state my position. I do not support the death penalty. It is against my own personal philosophy that I do not believe in a life for another life. I will not want to impose my moral position on this, but I think there are also issues with regard to this matter that I hope we can have more discourse on. I agree that it is important to have tough laws, but I do not believe that capital punishment, as a demonstration of the tough laws and resolution to fight against drug problems, is something that I can support. Sir, capital punishment, as we all know, when it takes place, cannot be remedied.”
“" In short, the state must take on a proactive approach in establishing policies, be they in terms of education, employment or social welfare that promotes a mindset shift towards gender equality. In doing so, we not only strengthen our economy, but also ensure that we help citizens, regardless of gender, to achieve their aspirations, develop a positive sense of self-worth, as well as ensure their long-term well-being. We, as policymakers, must advocate for change and take firm steps to eliminate this discrimination for the betterment of our nation. Virginia Woolf wrote this thought-provoking line in chapter 1 of A Room of One's Own, "Call me Mary Beton, call me Mary Seton, call me Mary Carmichael or any other names you, please. It is not a matter of importance". Yes, women have many different identities, multiple voices and perspectives and cannot be seen only through work, one lens. In the same way, we men have to do that. We have different identities and we can assume many, many different roles. Then, we have a much more enriched human experience. With that, I thank you, Madam. 2.41 pm”
“But equality should not be granted based on time. It should be expected right here and right now. A society that truly embraces gender equality is one that offers protection from harm towards men and women alike. Yet, today, we allow for contentious legislation that permits domestic violence. By that, I mean our laws that exempt marital rape from the criminal offence of rape unless certain conditions are met. How can we turn a blind eye towards a brutal act of violence like rape simply because it is committed by a family member? How can we, as a society, or as policymakers, protect vulnerable members of our society? Our conversation has not even begun to address the rights of the transgender community. It may be an uncomfortable topic for some but, nevertheless, an urgent one. Our stand as leaders and our actions as lawmakers impact how society views and treats the transgender community. The more we talk about these issues, the more embracing and positive we are about their rights, the better they will be treated in school, at work and in their own families. I bring this up because, at some point, we should go beyond gender altogether and just look at human rights the rights of all humans, the equality of all humans. As a forward-looking society, we must take active steps towards a strategy of "gender mainstreaming". This term, established by the United Nations (UN), as a strategy for promoting gender equality, involves "ensuring that gender perspectives and attention to the goal of gender equality are central to all activities − policy development, research, advocacy/dialogue, legislation, resource allocation, planning, implementation and monitoring of programmes and projects.”
“In a greying society like Singapore, this, in itself, should be cause for great concern. Greater strides must be made to bridge this gender divide to ensure the well-being of our female citizens. These policies reflect the gender stereotype that childcare belongs to women. This reinforces the idea that women can, and should, "choose" to "focus on the family", as opposed to furthering their careers. As a result, it entrenches a discriminatory attitude that rationalises income disparity between men and women, hiring policies and even promotion prospects. Is it any wonder then that Singapore's female labour force participation rate is lower than that of countries of similar income levels? Is it also any surprise that women are under-represented on company boards, at only a mere 9.5% of directorships in all Singapore Exchange (SGX) listed companies as of 2015? One of the markers of a first world nation is gender equality and, by that, I mean equality not just in economic terms, but also in social ones. In our efforts to galvanise national economic growth, how can we better harness the potential of over 50% of our population? Statistics from MOM show that women still earn less than men, never mind that they have the same working hours and qualifications. How can we strive towards parity, so that we can reward our best workers according to achievements, rather than their gender? We celebrate when women are appointed to new positions of leadership – the first female Speaker of Parliament, Madam, the first female full Minister. We call this "historical", using phrases like "big strides for women". However, such a mindset is archaic. As it stands, only 24% of people in Parliament are women. Some say it is better than a decade ago.”
“Nobody "naturally" knows how to operate a washing machine, soothe a cranky newborn or help an elderly relative take medication at the correct time, or clean and shower them. These activities, like many, many others, transcend gender. But the sad fact is, we educate girls and boys very differently, with gender stereotyping already taking place at the earliest age. Little boys are told how strong they are and little girls are told how sweet they are. They are told stories where their whole lives and fates are bound up in their gender, instead of being allowed to develop as individuals. I have heard anecdotes from a parent, who shared that her child's preschool teacher had bought presents at the end of the school term. The boys in the class received books about superheroes. The girls received presents, too − books on how to become a princess. How can we change the education system, so that every child, whatever their gender, can develop in the way that is best for them? Can our pedagogical materials explicitly include gender equality, rather than imply stereotypes and biases, both wittingly and otherwise? We see this sort of reductive stereotyping in state policy- and decision-making as well. One clear example is how there is much less paternity leave than maternity leave. This extends even to adoption leave being available only to adoptive mothers and not adoptive fathers, though there is no biological argument about recovery from pregnancy and childbirth or breastfeeding which can justify this. In addition, the lifetime income and CPF accumulation of women are lower than that of men − despite women having longer lifespans. This means women actually have a higher risk of experiencing poverty at old age than men.”