Kuah Boon Theng
Singapore
“This is similar to the point made by the hon Member Mr Yip. And lastly, will there be other steps taken to ensure that recidivism amongst youth vape users remains low? If so, what are these measures? That said, I support the Bill and look forward to the Senior Minister of State's clarifications.”
“There is nothing more painful or emasculating to a parent than knowing that they cannot afford to get their child more help or they have to sacrifice the needs of their other children to meet the expenses of the special needs child.”
“Today, they may be capitalising on the popularity of Pokemon cards; tomorrow, they will ask their victims to buy and hand over gold bars, hoping that their ill-gotten gains will be harder to trace.”
“The stress of hoping for success before subsidies run out, can only make things worse. An essential part of the strategy to reduce barriers to ART services must include the extension of subsidies to cover services provided by private Assisted Reproductive centres.”
“Just a quick further question. I appreciate the Senior Parliamentary Secretary's point about understanding different needs. But the question I raised was actually specifically for those who require high support needs.”
“The other question I have is, are there any plans to work and collaborate with private providers of special education for young adults with ASD, to explore if more places can be made available to address the short- to middle-term critical shortage of DAC places and possibly to extend subsidies to help more families afford those fees.”
The complete record
Every one of 31 lines we hold for Kuah Boon Theng, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account.
“I thank the Minister of State. I just want to assure you that I fully agree that there is a time and place to ask that question, whether an AMD has been executed and it should not be done at insensitive junctures where the circumstances have not arisen for an AMD to be relied upon. But to the question of confidentiality, I do think that when you are in a position to ask the patient himself or herself, there should not be a concern that there is an issue of confidentiality, because you are asking that information from the patient. But currently, the doctors are not even allowed to do that. And in my question, the scenario I painted is that, very often, those conditions where an AMD may be triggered often arrives in very inconvenient moments, like in the middle of the night. And the feedback I have obtained from doctors is that they literally have to wait because they are not allowed to ask the patient, they are not allowed to ask family members who have that information, and they have to wait until they have the opportunity to call the Registrar to obtain the information. So, I hope there would be some interest in trying to remove that requirement, but of course, re-affirm that it must still be information that is sought at the appropriate time and place.”
“I thank the Minister of State for the information she has provided. By way of supplementary question, I would like to ask if the Minister of State will agree that, in general, the take-up rate for AMDs has been quite slow compared to Lasting Power of Attorney (LPAs). I am glad to see that the numbers have now been boosted to 84,000, but I know it is had a very, very long roll-out, bearing in mind that this legislation is now 30 years old. I accept that what the Minister of State has said, that it is good for those who want to sign an AMD to get advice from their doctors on the implications. But I will make the argument that lawyers, too, are able to give the same advice, of course, provided that the individual has mental capacity and there is no issue of their lack of understanding. The advantage of being able to remove this requirement that one of the witnesses must be a doctor will mean that those who are interested to make end-of-life decision-making will have a one-stop shop, they will be able to see the lawyers, and have both their LPAs and their AMDs signed at the same time and have access to the advice to make informed decisions. So, I hope this is something that the Ministry is open to doing – to remove the requirement that one of the witnesses must be a doctor, so long as there is no issue of lack of mental capacity. And I believe that for Question No 76, which I have raised, it is about the fact that doctors are not allowed to ask their patient, "Have you signed the AMD?". I hope to receive the Minister of State's reply to that.”
“This is similar to the point made by the hon Member Mr Yip. And lastly, will there be other steps taken to ensure that recidivism amongst youth vape users remains low? If so, what are these measures? That said, I support the Bill and look forward to the Senior Minister of State's clarifications.”
“I would therefore like to seek clarification from the Senior Minister of State, in the case of youths in schools who are discovered to be regular vape users, will there be any close collaboration or coordination with parents and schools to implement a structured programme or protocol to help them kick the habit? While the addiction itself can wreck havoc on the student's ability to learn and concentrate in school, I can only imagine that as they go through withdrawal from nicotine and other addictive substances, this could have an equally deleterious effect, especially in the short term, and during particularly stressful periods like exams. It is hard enough for adults to quit, are we expecting fines and warnings or counselling alone to be sufficient to help school-going children and youths do so? As for schools, I would argue that without professional guidance and support being offered, they, too, would be left to navigate these issues on their own. The result may end up being an inconsistent and patchy response. I would therefore like to propose that MOH consider assembling a team of child and adolescent psychiatrists, qualified addiction specialists and professional counsellors, to come up with a national protocol or programme that will provide clear guidance to parents, teachers and schools as they support our youths who are trying to break the addiction of vaping. In fact, if we are going to do that, we should extend it to other forms of addiction amongst school-going kids, like gaming or even pornography. Additionally, I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State if the Ministry intends to track the data of young vape users who are minors, to ensure that nicotine and other addictions are adequately identified and addressed?”
“First of all, I support the provisions of this Bill that would, in essence, treat the use of vapes with psychoactive substances in a way that is consistent with how we approach controlled drugs. The new Part 3 and 3A will introduce amendments to enact stiffer punishments for the trafficking and selling of vapes laced with dangerous psychoactive substances. It will also provide for testing methods to uncover consumption. As for users of vapes, in addition to stiffer fines, there are statutory rehabilitation programmes for users of psychoactive substances and this reflects a very calibrated response, with traffickers and sellers attracting strong punitive action, whereas the approach with vape users has a strong rehabilitative purpose which aims to help people break the addiction, work on their recovery and rehabilitate them back into society. I agree that this is a sound approach. While all offenders have to ultimately be accountable for their mistakes, we must also do our best to support them by providing available help to give them the best chance of quitting an addiction. I do have questions relating to how the Ministry hopes to achieve its rehabilitative objective. While community-based rehabilitation is an available pathway for users of vapes with psychoactive substances, for regular vape users, they will primarily be faced with a fine. And based on current policy, counselling programmes are mandatory for second-time offenders using regular vapes, but there is not much information available on what type of counselling programme will be made available to them and what other form of support will be provided particularly to students with vape addictions.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise in support of this Bill. We have been witnessing the rise of a new public health threat, that of vapes and its variants, especially those laced with dangerous chemicals, such as etomidate. This Bill will play an important role in addressing this threat. And we must act quickly, especially as the lives of many are being upended by the harmful nature of vaping. As we have all heard, vapes are highly addictive, often more so than traditional cigarettes. Our youths have been particularly susceptible, as peddlers of vapes prey on those who are impressionable. More than 3,000 students were caught vaping every year between 2022 and 2024. The high concentrations of nicotine can trigger rapid brain responses, leading to quick dependency. It affects attention, learning and impulse control. And once hooked, trying to stop will provoke intense cravings and withdrawal. Since September 2025, etomidate and its analogues have been classified as Class C controlled drugs under the Misuse of Drugs Act, for a period of six months while we awaited this Bill. This was intended to be an interim measure, and it has given our authorities more power to prosecute importers, sellers or distributers of etomidate e-vaporisers under the MDA and mete out heavier penalties. As for consumers of these products, individuals found using etomidate e-vaporisers or who test positive for etomidate are not simply subjected to a fine, but have to undergo rehabilitation, treatment, mandatory supervision and even detention. But we now need to boost our laws to provide a more enduring framework to tackle vaping, and this Bill does that.”
“There is nothing more painful or emasculating to a parent than knowing that they cannot afford to get their child more help or they have to sacrifice the needs of their other children to meet the expenses of the special needs child. Three, we need to give parents the peace of mind that there is a long-term plan for the continued learning and enhanced meaningful engagement of their special needs adult children. The biggest fear of parents is, who is going to look after my child when I am gone? We need to support the entire family unit, including siblings and extended family members so that they feel ready to shoulder the responsibility of continuing care. In this respect, I support Ms Denise Phua's suggestions. The true measure of our society is in how we treat our most vulnerable and those who care for them. We must commit to a future where no family is left to struggle in the shadows of a waitlist. By providing prompt, guaranteed access to vital services, we are not just helping individual families, we strengthen the very fabric of our community. Care Beyond Caregiving Lifespan”
“Imagine an autism spectrum disorder (ASD) child who has adjusted to the routine of school graduates only to find that there is no ready place for him or her to go to. It would be unthinkable if this happened to our normal school-going students, and yet we expect families with special needs children to wait when we know that the need for predictable schedules is especially important in this group. We will soon be adding another 3,000 SPED school places by 2030. We would not be doing so if the demand was not there. So, while it has been announced that another 500 DAC places will be available by 2030, I firmly believe that this will not even come close to fulfilling the actual demand. It seems like we are perpetually trying to play catch up to a gap in services that is only getting wider. We can and must do better. We need an aggressive expansion of facilities and a commitment to eliminate waiting times altogether. Those who graduate from SPED schools should have ready and available placement options for them to ensure a seamless transition. For this to happen, we need a lot more funding to DAC providers who have to meet the high costs of delivering such services so that they are able to confidently expand their offerings, recruit more trained staff and maintain high-quality care. Two, we must make such care affordable to those who need it. The high cost of DAC fees may be resulting in under-representation of the actual demand. For DACs who cater to those with high support needs, even with present means-tested subsidies, the current fees would still be unaffordable to many in the sandwiched class. This must be reviewed.”
“Twenty-one years ago, I was blessed with my youngest child. My son has autism and is non-verbal. Being his mom has been a joy, but it is also the biggest challenge in my life. In the short time I have been a Nominated Member of Parliament, I have had the opportunity to learn more about the Ministry's plans to support families navigating the complex journey of raising and caring for loved ones with special needs. I am grateful for the assurances that this is an area of priority and a key aspect of our plan to become a more inclusive society. I know that the Government's heart is in the right place, but the key in ensuring that we actually deliver on the stated mission of becoming a more inclusive society is in how we execute our plans. For this, we must listen to the families we seek to serve. Which is why I am going to share my perspective as a parent and a caregiver. One, we must provide a stable and secure care environment. If you care for someone with special needs, you will know how long it can take to get them acclimatised to a new environment. This is why the transition periods are the hardest. All we want is for them to adjust to a school, vocational institute or DAC that can support their needs as soon as possible. Waiting months or years for placement is not just a logistical delay, it results in regression in skills, desocialisation and isolation, and shifts the full burden of care back onto families, often leading to chronic stress, physical exhaustion and even anxiety and depression among caregivers. Upheaval and change is especially traumatic for this vulnerable group. The shortage of places for those graduating from special education (SPED) has been a problem for years.”
“This is often what young lawyers complain about. The revamping of our Rules of Court and the push towards mediation as an alternative mode of dispute resolution has also taken away some of the opportunities for Court advocacy and development of Court craft from our lawyers. We may encourage lawyers to take pro bono cases to gain advocacy opportunities, but the realities of running a practice are such that paid work comes first. Law firms who are prepared to give their lawyers protected time to take on access to justice cases, receive no financial incentive or tax breaks. And if lawyers still have to carry a full caseload, they are unlikely to heap pro bono on their plate. I believe that at the heart of a lot of the stress within the profession, is simply the financial stress of running a business, which is then shifted onto the shoulders of the lawyers who work there. Law is a tough business. We cannot simply focus on the firms that are prepared to make sizeable financial commitments toward modernising their practice. Let us not forget that most of our law firms are small businesses, who have far fewer resources and may need a lot more help. It is my hope that in looking to future-proofing the legal profession and to retain and nurture talent, we will look at more than technological solutions, and understand that the issues relating to morale, career insecurity in the age of AI, financial and business stress are just as important. Strengthening Singapore's Legal Sector”
“Singapore has a strong and trusted legal system that supports our economy, provides stability, builds investor confidence and attracts foreign investment. It fosters a pro-business environment and positions Singapore as a leading global legal and financial hub. To continue delivering an excellent standard of legal services, we need to retain talent within legal practice, and we need advocates who have honed their craft over time who can assist our Courts on challenging cases and develop our own Singapore jurisprudence. Not unlike our total fertility rate, the profession's inability to replace itself in the future, is an existential crisis for all of us, because so much of our success depends on the confidence commanded by our legal system, our judiciary and a flourishing legal sector. Our Chief Justice has announced a slew of initiatives to address these challenges and he will be co-leading with our Law Minister in setting the direction of the Future of the Legal Profession Committee to help the legal profession meet these challenges ahead. Like many of my brethren at the Bar, I look forward to seeing what new plans will be rolled out. We recognise that we all need to play our part, but we also the Government's support. I want to acknowledge that MinLaw has pushed out programmes to help law firms embrace technological solutions to future-proof and deliver enhanced legal services. But embracing legal tech and AI can only do so much. It could add to the stress that young lawyers are experiencing, wondering which aspect of their work will now be replaced and how they will cope with a redesign in their roles and responsibilities. The digital age has quickened the pace of practice and demands from clients have grown exponentially.”
“Mr Chairman, I rise to speak on a subject that is close to my heart. I am a practising advocate and solicitor, and I run my own law firm. Sir, 80% to 82% of law firms in Singapore are classified as small firms, meaning there are only between one and five lawyers in the firm. This means that a good number of practising lawyers are also small- to medium-sized business owners. For some time now, we have been witnessing a hollowing out of the legal profession, because young lawyers entering the profession are not staying and moving up in experience and seniority. At the Opening of the Legal Year last month, our Chief Justice shared that surveys of newly minted lawyers in the last two years showed that around 60% of respondents said they were likely to leave legal practice in the next five years. They cited reasons, such as excessive workload, poor work-life balance affecting their mental well-being, a lack of flexible work arrangements and poor workplace culture. Some leave for better pay and challenging work in foreign firms. The starting salaries for newly qualified lawyers in Singapore are considered pretty high, which is why staff remuneration now accounts for much of the operating costs of running a law practice. Despite this, after a few years of practice, for many firms the exodus begins. Even the large law firms are complaining that after investing in the training of their best and brightest, these young lawyers are leaving for foreign firms who pay even more. Some may say, if lawyers are indeed able to find other employment, what is the issue? If we are unable to retain talent, this will have a profound implication in the longer term.”
“Today, they may be capitalising on the popularity of Pokemon cards; tomorrow, they will ask their victims to buy and hand over gold bars, hoping that their ill-gotten gains will be harder to trace. Scammers will increasingly use Generative AI to create ever more convincing phishing emails and deepfake voice or video calls for impersonation. We need to strengthen our legislative levers to allow Singapore to act more effectively and decisively against scammers. I look forward to hearing from MHA what systemic changes we will need to effect and how can we further strengthen our regulatory frameworks, to provide more tools to combat scams?”
“Mr Chairman, to counter the scourge of increasingly sophisticated scams, the implementation of targeted legislative mechanisms is essential. Our laws must continue to provide authorities the power to effectively disrupt and disable criminal activity and infrastructure and create upstream defences to prevent or limit losses suffered by victims. In the last few years, Parliament has enacted the Online Criminal Harms Act, the Law Enforcement and Other Matters Act and the Protection from Scams Act. These laws have empowered the authorities to, amongst other things, issue directions to online platforms requiring action against fraudulent accounts or content; criminalise the misuse of SIM cards and the handing over of bank accounts or Singpass credentials to be misused by others; and facilitate the issuance of Restriction Orders to freeze the bank accounts of victims, thereby delaying the siphoning away of funds. We have even introduced mandatory caning for serious scam offences, syndicate members and recruiters, by passing the Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act. And it is heartening to know that for the first time in eight years, the number of scam cases in Singapore has fallen from more than 50,000 in 2024 to 37,308 in 2025. The amount lost to scammers has also dipped below $1 billion although it is still a large amount. But it is some progress. But such progress can be reversed very quickly, however. Scammers are constantly reinventing themselves and will adapt quickly. When public education raises awareness of certain tactics, they will simply pivot to trying something different.”
“The stress of hoping for success before subsidies run out, can only make things worse. An essential part of the strategy to reduce barriers to ART services must include the extension of subsidies to cover services provided by private Assisted Reproductive centres. If subsidies for ART services at public centres are to be increased, it could further overwhelm our public sector healthcare services, which are already stretched thin, and lengthen waiting times for IVF treatment. Even if we provide a slightly lower subsidy for private care, it will mean giving a range of options for married couples – some may choose to seek treatment at a private centre with some subsidies because it is more affordable to them, whilst others who depend on maximum subsidies can access ART services at our public hospitals. We can and must help those who want children but cannot conceive without help. We should strive to provide equitable access to ART, so that not only the better off can afford to overcome infertility. Futureproofing Family Formation Singapore”
“So, if we are going to encourage young couples tying the knot to take early steps to undergo fertility screening – such as hormonal profiling and pelvic ultrasounds for women and semen analysis for men – we should extend generous subsidies and allow MediSave coverage to meet the costs if they are carried out within the first year of marriage, for example, whether or not the tests are performed at a public or private clinic. This could lead to earlier discovery of any underlying health conditions that could affect fertility, such as ovulation issues, endometriosis, pelvic inflammatory disease, low sperm counts or other structural abnormalities, and couples can then receive earlier intervention and treatment. It seems ironic to me that we are telling young couples we will only subsidise the cost of tests that could lead to the discovery that they have "medical indications" for infertility, if they already fulfil the definition of "medical indications" for fertility testing. I further echo Ms Hany Soh's call to provide higher subsidies for ART treatments and this should be extended to cover treatment at private centres. Right now, Government co-funding for in-vitro fertilisation (IVF) is for up to 75% for three fresh and three frozen cycles, but only if treatment is sought at our three public Assisted Reproductive centres at Singapore General Hospital (SGH), KK Women's and Children's Hospital (KKH) and National University Hospital (NUH). Even so, patients may have to pay upfront cash deposits of up to $5,000 or more, and the coverage varies depending on whether both or one spouse is Singaporean. Many couples have to undergo a number of cycles to successfully conceive and some may lack the financial resources to keep trying if they do not succeed right away.”
“Chairman, several Members have spoken about our falling TFR. This is a pressing issue, not just for Singapore, but for many countries around the world. This is especially challenging because there are a myriad of reasons why we are seeing this falling birth rate. I would like to focus on infertility as a contributing factor. First of all, I support the hon Member Ms Hany Soh's call to promote early fertility screening for couples who are starting their married life together. Her suggestion was actually to partner with ROM. If we are serious about creating greater awareness amongst younger couples that they should not take their fertility for granted, we should also make it easier for couples to pay for fertility tests. Currently, there are no Government subsidies or MediSave coverage specifically for fertility screening, but there are means-tested subsidies of up to 70% for fertility tests at public hospitals if such tests are "medically indicated". What does that mean? This is primarily based on the duration of trying to conceive unsuccessfully and whether there are known underlying health conditions that warrant such testing. The problem is that couples may not be trying to conceive in the initial years of marriage and by the time they are ready, it may take them a year or even longer to realise that something may be wrong. If they are only undergoing fertility testing for "medical indications", it means that any fertility issues are going to be discovered quite late.”
“Just a quick further question. I appreciate the Senior Parliamentary Secretary's point about understanding different needs. But the question I raised was actually specifically for those who require high support needs. And although every parent wants to see their child learn to be more independent, the reality is that for those with high support needs, that is the most challenging category, they are going to need a lot more care. And yes, we all want to delay institutionalised care, but the earlier we are able to get them into a DAC where they are stimulated and they are exposed to activities, the better. So, at the end of the day it does come down to capacity and I know that we have a shortage of people willing to work in this area. I do hope that the Ministry will do more to provide more resources for that.”
“The other question I have is, are there any plans to work and collaborate with private providers of special education for young adults with ASD, to explore if more places can be made available to address the short- to middle-term critical shortage of DAC places and possibly to extend subsidies to help more families afford those fees.”
“I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for his answer. I should declare, first of all, that I am a parent with a child with ASD, who would be classified as requiring high support needs. I am grateful for the data that has been supplied. My understanding, though, is that average number or wait time, can vary widely depending on which type of DAC we are referring to. And in some of the larger ones with more facilities, I understand, that the wait time can be up to five years or more. Is that correct, may I ask? And really, I have two main supplementary questions. The first is whether there are any concerns that what we see on the waitlist may not really be a true reflection of the actual demand and need for these services. And I say this for two factors: one, parents with ASD children want predictability in terms of the arrangements for their care, the environment that they are in. And sometimes, when they are on the waitlist for too long, they can decide to take the child off the waitlist because the child has gotten used to being kept at home, even though it is not ideal. So, that is one factor. The other factor is that DAC costs for ASD, in particular, are quite high. I know that there were announcements less than two years ago that with the fee caps introduced, families that earn $2,800 or less will have their costs managed. But those who earn more than $2,800 a month can pay up to $1,900. So, if you have a family that has a household income of $5,000, they are being asked to commit 40% of the household income to pay for DAC. So, there is a concern that the waitlist does not look so bad because it is not affordable. So, that is the first question.”
“In this Motion, Members are asked if we agree that Mr Pritam Singh’s conduct was indeed dishonourable and unbecoming of an MP, and that his continuation as Leader of the Opposition will undermine the standing of Parliament and public confidence in the integrity of our political system. I invite Mr Pritam Singh to reflect on his own conduct and indicate if he would be the first to agree that he has, indeed, fallen below the standards that should rightly be expected of him, and whether he would respond appropriately by voluntarily agreeing to give up the position of Leader of the Opposition. It would be the clearest sign he could offer this House that he has indeed learned the error of his ways, and he acknowledges that the trust and respect that comes with the position of Leader of the Opposition is one that he now has to work hard to earn back. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I otherwise support the Motion. [Applause.]”
“The other paragraphs of the Motion that relate to Mr Pritam Singh’s conduct calls on each of us to indicate if we agree with the characterisation of that conduct as dishonourable and unbecoming of an MP, and whether Mr Pritam Singh’s conviction and conduct render him unsuitable to continue as the Leader of the Opposition, on grounds that his continuation in this role would undermine the standing of Parliament and public confidence in the integrity of Singapore’s political system. As I have explained, the need to characterise misconduct and consider if it is serious enough to potentially warrant the curtailment or stripping away of certain special privileges is certainly not a decision that is new to me, when I preside over a Disciplinary Tribunal. What I can say is this – when we make our deliberations and vote on the Motion, it must never be based on personal factors but purely on the objective standards of conduct that we are called to uphold and in circumstances where an authoritative finding of guilt has already been made. I trust that all of us will approach the Motion in the same way and make our judgment based on these unassailable principles and sound objective considerations. Finally, I want to say this. We are all human and we all make mistakes. We may commit errors of judgement, maybe even serious ones. The true test of our character lies not in our failings or what we may have done on our worst day. It is in how we respond, whether we are able to openly acknowledge our wrongdoings, show genuine remorse and contrition, not seeking to lay blame elsewhere.”
“Whether we like the outcome or find it disappointing, the integrity of our legal system depends on our commitment to honour the result. And I am glad that following the unsuccessful appeal, Mr Pritam Singh had publicly stated that he accepts the Court’s judgment fully and without reservation, although it now seems that he has clarified he accepts the Court’s decision only because there is no other avenue of appeal, not because he actually agrees that the decision was correct. To wilfully give false answers must mean that the conduct leading to conviction involved dishonesty. The first paragraph of the Motion asks that we affirm that honesty and integrity are fundamental pillars of Singapore’s parliamentary and political system. To this, I say that there should be no question in the minds of any reasonable right-thinking person, that that must be the case. If the public that we serve are to have trust and confidence in our systems, they have every right to demand that honesty and integrity be the fundamental pillars by which we conduct ourselves and Parliament’s business, and there should be no hesitation on our part to support paragraph 1 of the Motion, as well as paragraph 6 of the Motion, which calls upon all MPs to uphold their solemn duty to respect and abide by the law, act with integrity at all times and honour the trust placed in them by Singaporeans. I would go so far as to say that if we were to vote on each paragraph of the Motion separately, if anyone were to vote “no” to paragraph 1 and paragraph 6, that would automatically raise serious questions about their fitness to serve.”
“The special privileges that we receive as lawyers and doctors can be taken away, if we do not live up to the standards of honesty and probity that is expected from us. So, I ask this. What more, if one is an MP in service of the public? What more, if one is the Leader of the Opposition, who has been specially conferred with the privileges and respect that comes with that special position? Surely, the standards of conduct for the profession of Parliamentarians cannot be lower than that which is expected from the legal or medical professional. And what the Chief Justice has alluded to about professional bodies always seeking to regulate themselves and having processes to enforce standards is, to me, what this Motion is all about. It is not enough for any profession to simply claim to have standards of conduct and declare itself an honourable profession. To retain the trust and confidence of the public, we must be prepared to call out behaviour and conduct that has fallen short of those standards, hold people to account and consider appropriate sanction or measures that must be taken. In considering this Motion, we look to the decision of Justice of the Court of Appeal, Steven Chong, who dismissed the appeal lodged by the Leader of the Opposition and upheld the conviction on two charges of wilfully giving false answers to a Parliamentary Committee of Privileges. Upholding the rule of law means we must accept the finality and authority of our Court judgments. The District Judge rendered his decision only after weighing all the evidence, hearing the parties’ submissions and applying the law without fear or favour. His decision was in turn scrutinised closely by a very senior appellate judge, who was satisfied that the conviction must be upheld.”
“In July 2017, the Honourable the Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon delivered the 23rd Gordon Arthur Ransome Oration entitled, “Law and Medicine: Professions of Honour, Service and Excellence”, in which he referenced lawyers and doctors as the “sibling professions of law and medicine”, who serve critical functions in contemporary society. He called on members of both professions to, among other things, “appreciate and commit to their shared calling to public service”, and “to serve with excellence in ethics as well as competence, so as not to betray the trust of the laypersons who rely on professionals to safeguard their interests and welfare”. In another important speech he would go on to deliver in March 2018 entitled, “Medicine and Law: Comparative Perspectives on Professional Conduct and Discipline”, our Chief Justice will go on to say, and again, I quote, "It is for the sake of the protection of the public, therefore, that the professions have always sought to regulate themselves and to punish those of their number who are guilty of misconduct. In this regard, formal disciplinary proceedings provide not only a means for a profession to enforce its standards, but also an avenue for it to communicate to the public, as well as to underscore to its members, the values and ethos which undergird its work." The point I wish to make is this – anyone who has taken the Hippocratic Oath and been conferred the privileges of medical practice, and anyone who has been brought up in the best traditions of the bar, and that includes the Leader of the Opposition, will know very well that we are called by our profession to act with honour and integrity.”
“Just to explain to Members that findings that would justify such a referral for disciplinary action include cases where the advocate and solicitor: one, has been convicted of a criminal offence, implying a defect of character which makes him or her unfit for the profession; two, has been found guilty of fraudulent or grossly improper conduct in the discharge of his or her professional duty, or guilty of certain breaches that amount to improper conduct or practice as an advocate and solicitor; and three, has been guilty of misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor as an officer of the Supreme Court or as a member of an honourable profession. That list is not intended to be exhaustive. I should also mention that as legal counsel, I advise the medical profession, which is another profession that is held to high standards of ethical conduct. Doctors, dentists, nurses and allied health professionals are also subjected to self-regulation in the form of a complaints and disciplinary process. If allegations of professional misconduct are proven and due cause is shown, a doctor's privileges to practice could be suspended or revoked. And like lawyers, doctors can be disciplined by their own professional body, even if the doctor has already been separately held accountable in a Court of law and convicted for a criminal offence. One is accountable to the law, in a criminal Court, but must also be accountable to one's own profession. Indeed, the professions of law and medicine have much in common.”
“Mr Speaker, I rise to speak on the Motion as a Nominated Member of Parliament (NMP) and a non-partisan Member of this House. I do not personally know the Leader of the Opposition. This being only my third day in Parliament, I have so far not had the opportunity to meet Mr Pritam Singh and make his acquaintance. Indeed, I have not had the chance to meet with most of my Parliamentary colleagues, so with your permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to briefly explain my own background. I am an advocate and solicitor who has been in practice for over 30 years. My profession – the legal profession – is an honourable one, and its members are held to high ethical standards to act with integrity and honesty, to uphold justice and to preserve the public's trust. I am one of the Senior Counsel who sit on the Panel of Disciplinary Tribunal Presidents on the Law Society of Singapore disciplinary cases. This means that when a complaint is made against a practising lawyer alleging professional misconduct and the matter is deemed serious enough to warrant investigation by a Disciplinary Tribunal, I have from time to time been appointed to preside over such cases. In considering these cases, the Disciplinary Tribunal must first be satisfied that the charges of professional misconduct are proven beyond reasonable doubt. The Tribunal must then consider if due cause has been shown that would warrant referring the lawyer to the Court of Three Judges, for consideration of disciplinary action.”
“I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State if he can confirm that, indeed, contributors and users of the National Electronic Records System will be given some latitude, especially in the initial period, as they adapt to the new changes and expectations? In addition, I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State if the Ministry intends to continue focusing on patient education efforts that will, in my view, be essential if we want patients to feel secure and have faith in how their sensitive health information will be handled. We are unlikely to gain all the benefits from this ambitious initiative if too many of our patients resort to setting controls on access due to fear or misconceptions. Patient education, therefore, needs to continue to be a priority and we must continue to listen to and address their concerns and build their trust.”
“National health records can provide a back-up source of essential health data when patients are poor historians or are otherwise unable to provide information to their doctors, but it is not a replacement for the traditional way in which doctors interact with their patients through direct communication, which is so important if we are to build a strong doctor-patient partnership, one that is based on trust. Integrated care also does not mean that we should expect doctors to routinely have to trawl through and read NEHR records before they even exchanged the first word with the patient. We do need to ensure that the healthcare professionals who are users of the system see it as an asset, rather than a potential quagmire where missteps will engender swift punishment and legal liability. As for patients, they need to have trust in the National Health Records System and believe that it is there to serve their needs and safeguard their interests, and not at the expense of their privacy or autonomy. Many concerns from the ground remain, for example, that time is needed for their practices to be compliance-ready, that they need technical support to deal with cybersecurity threats or simply to familiarise themselves with recommended practice guidelines and the statutory obligations that will be put in place once the Health Information Act comes into force. I can attest to the fact that senior Ministry officers who were present to hear these concerns from the ground have been extremely understanding and reassuring. They have signalled that flexibility will be exercised and allowances given in the event of non-compliance due to teething problems during the initial stages, and these problems could include delays in implementing adequate systemic safeguards.”
“The Workgroup, which I co-chaired, has since completed its work and issued a set of guidelines setting out the core ethical principles relating to our national health records, and proposing reasonable professional standards to be observed by all contributors and users. The draft guidelines have been made available, and I understand it will be published at such time when the HIB makes its successful passage through this House. To formulate these guidelines, there were numerous engagement sessions arranged by the Ministry involving various stakeholders, for example, the Academy of Medicine, the Singapore Medical Association and the Singapore Dental Association, as well as nurses, pharmacists and allied health professionals. As co-chair of the Workgroup, I was present at most, if not all, of these engagement sessions to hear and address the concerns from the ground and to obtain constructive feedback. We also took into account the interests of patients, the need to respect their autonomy in terms of who they would grant access to their national health records and the sensitivities associated with certain types of health information, for example, conditions that are stigmatising or affect employment opportunities or one's insurability. I am heartened to see that these issues have been specifically addressed in the Bill, which provides for access restrictions and makes it clear that access to our national health records should not be for employment or insurance purposes. Some have mentioned that patients do not like to be asked repeatedly about their medical histories. But there is a need to emphasise that the primary source of health information remains with the patient.”
“Mr Speaker, within the healthcare industry, the HIB has been much discussed and long anticipated. This vision of achieving nationwide contribution of health information into a central repository is a truly ambitious and challenging goal. But as with all things new, it has not come without its fair share of fear and trepidation from the ground. For years, our public sector healthcare institutions have been contributing to the NEHR. However, there are still private clinics and other healthcare establishments that have yet to modernise and digitise their patient records. And I agree with Members who have spoken so far that for those who struggle with new technology, it is particularly daunting to navigate the journey of digital transformation. In this respect, I know that Ministry officers have been making the necessary preparations for a long time. Through various stakeholder consultations, the Ministry came to realise that many medical practitioners had concerns about the potential increase in medico-legal liabilities arising from the mandatory contribution of health information and the wider accessibility of that information to other healthcare providers. And so, in late 2022/early 2023, the Ministry appointed the National Electronic Health Record Guidelines Workgroup and tasked the Workgroup to come up with a set of guidelines that would provide clarity on the professional responsibilities and obligations of healthcare professionals in terms of their contribution to, access and use of our national health records.”