Lawrence Wong
Singapore
“Sir, we will provide more information. I see the value of getting Ministries to put out more information, to share more about how their resources are being used and what outcomes they have achieved.”
“Sir, I agree fully with Mr Azhar that human capacity, human capital is critical. In fact, I would say the long-term potential of Singapore, how far we go really depends on us being able to maximise our human potential. That is key and that is why we have long invested in education. And it is not just about the investments.”
“Sir, we have been maintaining that commitment of 1% for some time now. I do not think it is about saying that we just have to do more and spend more. As many have highlighted, we want to ensure good outcomes from our R&D spending as well. So, we will continue if the outcomes are good.”
“This has never been the case. Temasek, when it started, was always very clear about its mandate from the very beginning – commercial, not doing national service, focused on commercial outcomes.”
“Sir, the MOF economists when they look at fiscal projections use Government's forecast of the economy, which is also published. We would typically use the mid-point of the range and then, of course, because these are in nominal terms, you have to factor for that. And the projections are done on those basis.”
“Sir, I was relieved that Mr Loh said he only has one question, but he asked the most difficult question. To answer the question, we will continue to monitor cost of living across all segments of society.”
The complete record
Every one of 3,205 lines we hold for Lawrence Wong, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 10 of 65.
“And if the President, as I think, Mr Dennis Tan says, intentionally refuses to follow the Cabinet's advice, then that would be grounds for removal and there are procedures set out for such removals. On the issue of remuneration, I confirm that that the President and Ministers may not retain any remuneration or benefits in connection with appointments in their private capacity. The President has not received any such remuneration or other benefits, like an honorarium from the international bodies that he is represented on currently. And should he be offered such benefits, the President is expected to decline it or to donate the sum to charity. This is already the current arrangement for Ministers, and it will continue to be so under the new framework. Again, Cabinet will advise the President, and the Prime Minister will instruct Ministers, to this effect. Then, there were some questions about bandwidth. This is having accepted that the President's roles cover both domestic and international, but I suppose there will be questions asked about emphasis and bandwidth and how you spend the time. These are legitimate questions. And so, in assessing invitations to the President, the Cabinet will consider, among other things, the commitments expected by this international role. Cabinet will also consider the meeting load and travel demands, and whether these are reasonable. So, this will ensure that the President’s holding of these roles remains to Singapore’s benefit and will not, in any way, affect his ability to exercise the rest of his constitutional duties. The Prime Minister will likewise do the same for roles involving Ministers.”
“This Bill allows him to express private views but still serve in the national interest, doing duties that are integral and part and parcel of presidential duties. Then there were questions of possible conflicts of interest. These could arise, for example, if the foreign or international organisations were to take positions that are different from the Government or if a President or Minister were to take steps that are detrimental to the nation’s interest. But such potential conflicts of interest or questions of conflict will be considered in deciding whether or not to support an appointment in the first place. Clearly, it would not be in Singapore’s national interest to support appointments that place the President or a Minister in conflict with their official functions. And furthermore, as I explained in my opening remarks, the President and Ministers will not be able to make any commitments on behalf of the Government of Singapore in the course of such engagements in international bodies. If the questions of conflict do arise later on in the course of an appointment, the individual can take steps to remove the conflict, for example, by recusing himself or herself from a particular decision that would conflict with their official duties. The Cabinet can also advise the President accordingly. The Prime Minister can likewise instruct a Minister. If there are serious questions of conflict that cannot be resolved, the President or the Minister would have to relinquish the appointment. If necessary, Cabinet would advise the President to do so, and the Prime Minister would instruct a Minister.”
“Do they bring benefits to Singapore and Singaporeans? That is what the substance of it is. And from the Government's point of view, the provisions are very clear. This will enable our little red dot to shine brightly on the international stage. It is a plus for Singapore. On that basis, if that is the case, how about resourcing support for the President when he undertakes these international roles in his private capacity or for that matter when a Minister does so? Based on the explanation I said just now, precisely because when the President serves, he is not serving in his private interest, he is serving in the national interest. Therefore, the resourcing support is no different from how the Government supports the President when he undertakes an official trip. This will just be a working trip. He contributes his private views to these organisations, but he is going on these trips on the basis of national interest, not for his private business. In the President’s case, this will include staff support to review the materials, provide briefs for the meetings he attends, as well as funding for the travel costs of President and his delegation as and when there are international meetings. In other words, this is like a working trip; no different from any other working trips the President or the Minister undertakes in the national interest. In fact, while some of the international organisations, the ones I cited, would be willing to pay for the President's cost, we think it is proper that the Government foots the Bill because when we do this, when the President goes on these trips, as I said, it is on the advice of the Cabinet and it is in the national interest that he holds these national appointments. So, remember, private views are not the same as private interests.”
“In fact, we might even have given him latitude to express some independent views while contributing to these organisations. We could have done that. We asked the Attorney-General’s Chamber (AGC). AGC said this is not expressly prohibited by law and if we had taken this approach, people would be none the wiser. The Opposition would not even have objected to it, I assume, from what I gathered from Mr Gerald Giam just now. But is it correct? Is it correct? Our conclusion was that this will not be ideal for us, for Singapore; and neither will it be ideal for the international organisations. Why? Because the nature and parameters of the President's involvement would be unclear. Is he speaking for Singapore or is he speaking for himself? He will essentially be operating in a new, novel and grey zone. And that is why the Government decided it is far better to be upfront, transparent and direct about this matter instead of operating in an area with some ambiguity. We come to Parliament, pass a proper and principled framework and work within this framework going forward. That is the proper thing to do. So, when I heard some of the speeches from Opposition Members and their opposition to this Bill, with phrases suggesting that this is not proper, that somehow it is unconstitutional and that this is some violation of established principles – this is completely unfounded. Nothing could be further from the truth. Let us not use this technical language to camouflage political grandstanding. Let us come back to the substance of what this is about. Ultimately, this is about Singapore, or as Mr Leong Mun Wai would say, "This is for country, for people". So, we have to ask ourselves the substance of these provisions. Do they further the interests of Singapore?”
“So, I hope that clarifies what this envisages, this provision allows the President and Ministers to do. Approving an appointment, when the Cabinet agrees to the President or to a Minister undertaking these assignments, we are doing this for the national interest. We are doing this so that the President can project Singapore’s influence and strengthen our networks in the world, fulfilling his presidential duties. Approving an appointment in its private capacity is a way for us to facilitate the President acting independently to achieve the aims of the organisations, subject to the necessary safeguards of our national interest. You could say – and I think, Mr Gerald Giam and Mr Leong Mun Wai asked just now – this is the first time we are doing this. Yes, it is for the President. Previously, Ministers have served in organisations with the approval of the Prime Minister and when they did so, they did so in their private capacity. There was no legal impediment for Ministers to do so, but now, we are dealing with a novel situation where it comes to the President. The President had in the past served in international organisations in his official capacity before. And the Government could very well, as an alternative to what we are discussing today, have said, "Maybe we should just allow the President to continue holding the international appointments in his official capacity. After all, had been done before, Dr Tan had served so why not continue to do so with President Tharman?" And, indeed, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, this was our thinking. And we only came to the realisation after President Tharman's election, as we were deliberating over the matter. We could have said we will continue with this arrangement, let him serve in his official capacity.”
“But what I want to reiterate, and it is important and a substantive point to reiterate here, undertaking this role in a private capacity does not mean that the President or the Minister is somehow doing some extra-curricular activity, something that is outside of his work duties. That is not the case. When the President serves in this capacity, he is contributing to his national responsibilities, and he is undertaking his presidential duties. As Mr Christopher de Souza correctly said, the presidential office is not a President for domestic or international, it is a President serving both domestic and international interests. A key role of the President is as Singapore's top diplomat. International dimensions are part and parcel of the President's role and how he contributes to Singapore. So, this is not a trade-off, as though doing this is outside of his presidential duties; they are integral to his presidential duties. Another misunderstanding from what I have heard so far is a confusion between private views and private interests. A lot of the comments suggest that when the President serves in his private capacity, he is serving in his private interests. That is not the case. We are allowing him, when he serves under this new clause, to serve in a way that allows him to contribute his private views, subject to safeguards, as I mentioned in my earlier speech. Safeguards are not so much that we control what he says, but we say that he is not able to comment on domestic policies and politics. That is the safeguard. Beyond that, we allow him to contribute independently to these organisations in his private capacity. But when he does so, he does so in the national interest. So, he is not serving in his private interests, he is serving in the national interest.”
“But in any case, setting aside the principle of it as I had highlighted just now, we are doing this out of an abundance of caution. We will not use this provision, and the approval of the President's appointment will be done on a prospective basis. Let me now go through the rest of my remarks on the additional queries and issues that have been raised. There were several Members who asked how the Government would assess invitations for the President or Ministers to participate in these international bodies. The framework that we are setting out makes it clear that the President or the Minister, can only hold a foreign or international role in their private capacities, if it is in the national interest to do so. The critical phrase is "national interest". Then, you might ask, what do we mean by "national interest"? In general, the President or Minister's participation should be helpful in advancing Singapore's standing and interests on the international stage. There should be benefits, be it direct or indirect, to Singapore as a whole or the Government agency which oversees the sector that the organisation operates in. There might also be clear outcomes we want to help progress through these arrangements. For example, the President or the Minister's participation could help advance views that are aligned to Singapore's outlook and approach on issues to help shape the global agenda in areas that are critical to Singapore. These benefits could also take the form of staying plugged into global discussions on topics salient to Singapore or generating mindshare for Singapore among influential thought leaders and networks. So, that is what we would say broadly is in the national interest.”
“Mr Speaker, I will just take this opportunity to wrap up and, in the process, clarify the issues that have been raised. I thank the Members who have spoken in support of the amendment. In fact, many of the questions from Members, if you had listened carefully to my opening remarks, were already addressed in my opening remarks. But nevertheless, let me go through some of these points again. First, on why this does not apply to the Prime Minister. We have got the President, we have got Ministers, but why not the Prime Minister? In my opening remarks, I said we do not intend, the Government does not intend for either the current or future Prime Ministers to serve in international organisations. So, this is not relevant to the Prime Minister. Second, what is the status of President Tharman's current appointments? The present status are the four appointments which I have highlighted just now. They are appointments in the official capacity and they are not unconstitutional. They are made in accordance with the advice and support of the Cabinet. These are not full-time appointments; these are not executive appointments. They are roles as Board of Trustees, advisory roles; so, it is quite different from some of the examples that Mr Giam had cited earlier too. Third, on the issue of backdating, I had addressed that too. But let me go through that again. Backdating, as Assoc Prof Jamus Lim correctly said, should be done sparingly. It is really the exception rather than the norm and we do it very, very rarely. Why so? Because backdating upsets expectations and prejudices individuals who rely on the existing law. And so, if you backdate, then the ones who had relied on existing law may well be prejudiced. But this is not the case here. No one is prejudiced under this backdating.”
“The proposed additions of Articles 22Q and 33A in the Constitution seek to ensure that we safeguard the dignity and status of the roles of the President and Ministers in Singapore, while enabling them to make significant contributions in international bodies and shape global thinking, if these contributions are in the interest of Singapore. In this way, we can make the most of the expertise, experience and personal standing of the individuals we elect to office, so as to advance Singapore’s interests and reinforce our value to the world. Sir, I beg to move. [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]”
“This appointment was approved by the Prime Minister and was published in the Gazette. Senior Minister Teo donates the honorarium he receives from TotalEnergies to charity. There are no general legal impediments to Ministers taking on external appointments today. However, as we are putting a legal framework in place for the President to take on international appointments in his private capacity, we will also create a legal framework for Ministers. This is found in the new Article 33A. The framework is similar to Article 22Q, except that Ministers must obtain the permission of the Prime Minister and are subject to his instructions. As a general rule, Ministers taking on international appointments in their private capacities will be instructed against breaching collective Cabinet responsibility; against making any commitments on behalf of the Government of Singapore, whether formally or informally; and against retaining any remuneration or benefits in connection with the appointment. The new Article 33A will supersede the relevant portions of the Ministerial Code, and the Prime Minister intends to give permission to Senior Minister Teo to continue with his TotalEnergies appointment under the new framework. I should add that the new Article 33A does not apply to the Prime Minister. Previous and current Prime Ministers have not undertaken any such international appointments, and we do not expect future Prime Ministers to do so. Hence, the provision in the new Article 33A only applies to Ministers. In conclusion, Sir, the Bill provides a principled framework to govern how the President and Ministers take on international appointments in their private capacities, if required by the national interest.”
“This Gazette notice will include the term dates of the appointment. Conceptually, the new Article 22Q will be a specific and defined extension of the President’s international role as the Head of State. It is not part of the Elected President’s custodial powers. The President is therefore not required to consult the Council of Presidential Advisers and is not subject to any time limit in deciding whether to take up an international appointment under the Article. I should also mention that, out of an abundance of caution, we have backdated the new Article 22Q to 14 September, when President Tharman assumed office. But, in fact, we do not need this backdating. Because, as I mentioned earlier, President Tharman currently holds his appointments in an official capacity, on the advice and support of the Cabinet, as provided for in the Constitution. Should the Bill be passed by Parliament, Cabinet intends to advise the President that it is in the national interest for the President to continue in his existing international roles in his private capacity, and this will take effect on a forward-looking basis. Sir, I move now to the position for Ministers. Today, Ministers take on external appointments in their official capacity in connection with their responsibilities. For example, when Singapore was a non-permanent member of the UN Security Council, Prof S Jayakumar, as the Minister for Foreign Affairs then, served as the President of the Council. The Code of Conduct for Ministers also permits Ministers to take on external appointments in their private capacities if the Prime Minister considers it to be in the national interest and grants permission. Currently, Senior Minister Teo Chee Hean sits on the TotalEnergies’ International Advisory Committee.”
“Article 22Q(1) will enable current and future Presidents to accept international appointments in their private capacities, subject to three conditions. First, the President cannot contravene the disabilities imposed by Article 19A(1), which include a prohibition on active engagement in commercial enterprises. Second, the Cabinet must assess and advise the President that it is in the national interest for the President to accept the appointment. In making this assessment, Cabinet would be guided by similar principles as those I set out earlier. Third, the President, acting in his discretion, must concur with the advice of the Cabinet. The President cannot accept an international appointment in his private capacity outside of the framework set out in this Article. Article 22Q(2) will enable the Cabinet to advise the President on his execution of such a role so that it is in our national interest, including ensuring that it does not undermine the President’s status as constitutional Head of State or contradict the President’s powers under the Constitution. The President must act in accordance with any such advice. As a general rule, the Cabinet will advise the President against commenting on domestic politics, laws and policies; making any commitments on behalf of the Government or Singapore, whether formally or informally; and retaining any remuneration or benefits in connection with the appointment. Subject to any advice by the Cabinet, the President may act independently in his private capacity. Article 22Q(3) goes on to require the President to relinquish an international appointment if so advised by the Cabinet. And finally, Article 22Q(4) requires the acceptance or the relinquishment of an international appointment to be published in the Gazette.”
“The Attorney-General, however, advised that such an arrangement is currently not clearly provided for by the Constitution. And that is why constitutional amendments are needed to enable the President to take on roles where he acts independently in his private capacity. The provisions in this amendment Bill will put in place a proper framework under which these and future appointments are governed. The framework would not just apply to this President and this Government, but also to future Presidents and future Governments. In developing the framework, Cabinet had regard to the following broad considerations. One, the framework would only apply to appointments in international organisations. It would not apply in the domestic context. In the domestic context, the current position will continue to apply, and the President will not have an independent role outside of the specific discretionary powers conferred on him by the Constitution. Two, any international appointment for the President to act in his private capacity must be justified by the national interest. Importantly, our own policy matters must remain the responsibility and prerogative of the Cabinet. Any appointment must therefore be supported by the Cabinet in the first place. If need be, Cabinet must be able to intervene to advise the President on how he acts in these appointments. Three, at the same time, the President should have a say in deciding whether to take on such appointments. He should be able to decline such appointments if, for example, he considers them to be incompatible with his constitutional functions. And any appointment must be on the public record, in the interests of transparency and accountability. Sir, these are the considerations behind the new Article 22Q.”
“It enables us to be plugged into global conversations and to understand and help shape the thinking that takes place in these important and influential international bodies. But for this to happen, the President must be able to function credibly in these international bodies, by lending his expertise to advance the agenda on broader issues of concern to these organisations. So, we are presented with a novel issue: should the President now be allowed to contribute independently in his private capacity when he takes on these international appointments? That is what this issue is about. Cabinet considered this carefully and we concluded that the President should be allowed to do so to contribute to these international appointments in his independent and private capacity as this is beneficial for Singapore. These are reputable international bodies with global reach, and with eminent persons serving on their respective boards. The President’s continued involvement in these organisations is in Singapore’s national interest. To be clear, when we say that the President serves in his “private capacity”, it does not mean that he is doing this outside of his work duties. These international appointments are core to the President’s international diplomacy role. As Head of State, they are, in fact, how we project Singapore’s influence and strengthen our networks in the world. But allowing the President to serve in his private capacity allows him to act independently in achieving the aims of the international bodies, subject, of course, to the necessary safeguards of our national interest. Such an arrangement would then enable the President to take on appointments that help to expand Singapore’s influence and network, while acting independently on these international bodies.”
“The four international bodies mentioned earlier want their distinguished appointees to carry on with their official roles, and to bring with them their official status and reputations, such as President Tharman’s former status as Senior Minister and now as Head of State. These international organisations want their distinguished appointees to carry with them their official statuses, but they also want their appointees to contribute independently to achieve the aims of the respective bodies. To illustrate, the WEF Board of Trustees includes the deputy prime minister of Canada, the heads of the World Trade Organization (WTO), International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank, and leaders of major private organisations. But these Trustees are expected to give their views independent of the governments or organisations they head, so as to shape the strategic directions of the WEF in keeping with its goals of serving the interests of the global community. Similarly, the G30’s Board of Trustees includes current and former heads of central banks around the world, but they are expected to contribute independently of these central banks. Likewise, the UNHDR Advisory Board and the GCEW expect their members to contribute independently, in the global interest. If the President were to serve in these international bodies purely in his official capacity, then he would be limited to representing the official Singapore position in everything he says. That would not be in keeping with the requirements of these organisations, nor would it be in the interest of Singapore for our President to be so limited, as it restricts our ability to shape global conversations and initiatives. From Singapore’s perspective, there is value to have the President represented on these international bodies.”
“This oversees the governance and directions of the G30, which is a grouping of eminent thought leaders in economic policymaking, academia and the financial industry. Two, Member of the Board of Trustees of the World Economic Forum (WEF). This is an advisory board. It helps shape the strategic directions of the WEF without directly overseeing the running of the organisation. Three, Co-chair of the Global Commission on the Economics of Water (GCEW). This is an independent Commission that was convened to examine and make recommendations to the United Nations (UN) and other international forums on how to improve the way societies govern, use and value water for the common good. Four, Co-chair of the United Nations Human Development Report (UNHDR) Advisory Board. This provides intellectual guidance and advice on the overall vision, direction and messages of the UN HDR. These are appointments that President Tharman held when he was Senior Minister and before assuming his current office. Cabinet has considered the matter and agreed that it is in the national interest for him to continue holding these appointments as President currently in his official capacity. And for the information of the House, the President does not receive any remuneration or other benefits from these appointments. The Government’s original intention was for President Tharman to continue to serve in these international appointments in his official capacity. But after reviewing the matter carefully, we were advised by the Attorney-General that this arrangement was not ideal. Let me explain why this is so.”
“In deciding whether to advise the President to take on an appointment in his official capacity, Cabinet applies the following principles: (a) domestic appointments must be in furtherance of the President’s symbolic and unifying role; (b) international appointments must be in furtherance of Singapore’s national interest; (c) the President’s public life must be carried out in a manner that is compatible with his status and role as the Head of State – he is apolitical and cannot become involved in issues or events that might generate political controversy; (d) in addition, the appointment must not undermine or be incompatible with the President’s discretionary functions under the Constitution, including his custodial functions as the Elected President; (e) the appointment must not contravene Article 19A(1) of the Constitution, which among other things, prohibits the President from being actively engaged in commercial enterprises. The Cabinet will continue to apply these principles in deciding whether to advise and support the President to take on domestic and international appointments in his official capacity. Today, President Tharman is the Chancellor of the National University of Singapore and Nanyang Technological University, and patron of numerous organisations like the Singapore Red Cross, Singapore International Foundation, Philanthropy Asia Alliance and the Singapore University of Social Sciences. President Tharman is also currently holding the following international positions in his official capacity as President, with the advice and support of the Cabinet, and these are: One, Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Group of Thirty (G30).”
“Mr Speaker, I beg to move, “That the Bill be now read a Second time.” Sir, the Bill before the House amends the Constitution to create frameworks for the President and Ministers to take on international appointments in their private capacities if the national interest so requires. Let me first set out the background relating to the amendments for the President. Under the Constitution, the President is the Head of State. As the Head of State, the President performs a vital symbolic and unifying role. He symbolises our sovereignty at home and abroad, and is an important part of our international diplomacy. In performing these roles, Presidents have, from time to time, taken on additional appointments in their official capacities. This is done on the advice and with the support of the Cabinet. For example, domestically, Presidents have served as university chancellors and patrons of charitable or other organisations, lending the prestige of the highest office of the land to worthy causes that unify Singaporeans. Internationally, Presidents can take on appointments in their official capacity in furtherance of Singapore’s national interest. For example, Dr Tony Tan was inducted as a member of the Honorary Senate of the Foundation Lindau Nobel Laureate Meetings in 2012 during his tenure as President. Such appointments reflect the high international standing of the individuals who have served as our President.”
“The Department of Statistics publishes Singapore's Gini coefficients based on household income from work before and after taxes and transfers annually. It is more challenging to include non-work income as such data are more prone to under-reporting and measurement errors. This is why the Department of Statistics has, thus far, not included such data in its computation of the Gini coefficient. The Government will continue to explore ways to better measure household incomes. Regardless of the measurement issues, our approach remains to keep our social support measures progressive and targeted at the lower and middle-income households.”
“SRF is not the only means through which scam victims can seek assistance, as ABS announced that banks have discretionary goodwill payment frameworks for their scam victims beyond the SRF. Depending on the circumstances of each scam case, the sophistication of the scam typology, and the consumer's financial situation, banks have covered part or all of the losses incurred by scam victims. MAS has leaned on the banks to be even more accommodative in applying their goodwill payment frameworks. These goodwill frameworks complement the SRF which is intended to strengthen the direct accountability of FIs and Telcos to consumers when they have breached their defined duties.”
“Besides assigning accountability for scam losses, the important point is that full implementation by FIs and Telcos of their respective safeguards should materially reduce the risk of phishing scams in the first instance. As it stands today, the number of phishing scams has continued to rise in the first half of this year compared to the previous period, but has declined as a proportion of total scam cases, from 17% to 13%. The average loss per phishing scam has also declined by 20% over the same period. The Government will continue to monitor this closely. We have to stem this rising tide of scams and losses. Dr Tan asked if the SRF would consider seniors with limited digital literacy when their bank phased out the use of physical hardware tokens. The retail banks already offer physical tokens for those customers who request them. Separate from the SRF, MAS has asked the banks to assess and implement customer authentication mechanisms that are more resistant to both phishing and malware attacks. When these measures are well developed, we can consider them for inclusion in the SRF. We should see the SRF as part of broader suite of measures that the Government, banks and other ecosystem players have progressively implemented to tackle scams in Singapore. I covered these measures extensively in my response to the Adjournment Motion filed by Ms Lim in September. [Please refer to "Losses from Scams and Malware Fraud: Doing Right by Bank Customers", Official Report, 18 September 2023, Vol 95, Issue 111, Matter raised on Adjournment Motion section.] The Association of Banks in Singapore (ABS) released a media statement on 24 October 2023 outlining banks' efforts to protect consumers against scams, including through anti-scam measures and raising consumer awareness.”
“The Shared Responsibility Framework (SRF) prescribes a set of anti-scam duties for financial institutions (FIs) and telecommunication companies (Telcos) and provides for payouts to victims of phishing scams when these duties are breached. Under the SRF, the FI stands at the top of the waterfall. If the FI does not fulfil any of its four anti-scam duties, it will compensate the scam victim fully for the loss suffered, regardless of whether the Telco has discharged its duties or the victim has taken the necessary precautions. Likewise, if the FI has fulfilled its duties but the Telco has not, then the Telco is expected to bear full responsibility for the loss. Only if both the FI and Telco have discharged their duties fully, will the customer, who stands at the bottom of the waterfall, have to bear the loss. This approach recognises the key roles of FIs and Telcos in preventing scams, and reflects the SRF's policy intent of strengthening their direct accountability to consumers. It incentivises FIs and Telcos to strictly uphold the desired standards of anti-scam controls. The duties defined for FIs in the SRF are built on a broader suite of measures that major retail banks are implementing to strengthen the security of digital banking in Singapore. Based on data collected by the Police, MAS estimates there were about 15,000 phishing scam cases from 2021 to mid-2023, with an average loss of about $3,900 per case. We do not have data on the number of phishing scams that involve potential breaches of duties by FIs. But such data will be tracked under the SRF going forward.”
“This question has been answered in my reply to the Parliamentary Questions related to banking services disruption filed for yesterday's Sitting. [Please refer to "Costs, Lessons and Further Safeguards Arising from Recent Disruptions to Digital Banking Services", Official Report, 06 November 2023, Vol 95, Issue 115, Oral Answers to Questions section.]”
“Singapore's reputation as a trusted financial centre is what makes us an attractive place for investments and business. Therefore, our goal to provide a conducive and competitive environment for legitimate businesses must be matched with an equal resolve to prevent bad actors from abusing our system and tarnishing our reputation. To mitigate the risk of money laundering and terrorism financing, MAS requires banks to conduct customer due diligence before an account can be opened. This includes understanding the purpose of the account and ascertaining the ultimate beneficial owners of companies. These requirements are not new and are aligned with practices in other reputable jurisdictions, as well as standards set by the Financial Action Task Force. They help banks gain a better understanding of the risk profile and needs of their customers, thereby enabling them to not just manage the business relationship in a risk-appropriate manner but also serve their customers better. Banks have established customer engagement processes to obtain the information needed for account opening. Businesses applying for bank accounts can help in this process by providing sufficient information and timely clarifications to questions posed by banks. The due diligence process should not result in undue delays if banks receive sufficient information to properly understand the applicant and assess the risks posed.”
“This question has been answered in my reply to the Parliamentary Questions related to banking services disruption filed for 6 November 2023's Sitting. [Please refer to "Costs, Lessons and Further Safeguards Arising from Recent Disruptions to Digital Banking Services", Official Report, 6 November 2023, Vol 95, Issue 115, Oral Answers to Questions section.]”
“This question was addressed in the reply to the Motion for “Solidarity, Security and Peace – The Israel-Hamas Conflict” on the Order Paper for 6 November 2023. [Please refer to "Solidarity, Security and Peace – The Israel-Hamas Conflict", Official Report, 6 November 2023, Vol 95, Issue 115, Motions section.]”
“Most major retail banks in Singapore already offer hardware tokens for customers. These include the three local banks, DBS, OCBC and UOB, as well as foreign banks like Maybank and HSBC. Although these banks do not provide hardware tokens by default, bank customers can request for a hardware token if it better meets their needs. There is therefore no need for MAS to mandate that hardware tokens be made available to bank customers as an option. Hardware tokens are not a panacea. While hardware tokens that generate one-time passwords (OTPs) are resistant to malware-enabled scams, they are still susceptible to phishing tactics deployed by scammers. There have been many instances where victims were tricked into sharing the OTPs generated by their hardware tokens with scammers who in turn, used them to perform fraudulent transactions. MAS has been working closely with the industry to continuously strengthen the security of online banking. MAS has also asked the banks to assess and implement customer authentication mechanisms that are more resistant to both phishing and malware attacks.”
“Wealth is difficult to track comprehensively as it takes many different forms, including assets that are not publicly traded and thus, difficult to value. In addition, financial wealth is highly mobile across borders and bank deposit data is protected by the Banking Secrecy Act. For these reasons, the Government is not able to measure and track wealth inequality accurately. Nevertheless, we have been proactively putting measures in place to address wealth inequality. This includes wealth taxes in the form of stamp duties, property tax and the Additional Registration Fee (ARF) for motor vehicles. Over the years, we have made these taxes more progressive. For example, we introduced higher marginal Buyer's Stamp Duty rates for higher-value properties in Budget 2023 and raised property tax rates for all non-owner-occupied residential properties and higher-value owner-occupied residential properties in Budget 2022. We also raised the ARF for higher-end cars in Budget 2022 and 2023. We invest in and support Singaporeans in the essential areas of education, jobs, housing and retirement, to help them secure good jobs and accumulate wealth over their lifetime. For instance, our CPF system enables Singaporeans to grow their savings, with higher interest rates for lower balances and additional government support to the lower-income, through schemes like Workfare and the Matched Retirement Savings Scheme. Housing subsidies also provide the less well-off with more support to own a home. Our investments and support in these areas position all Singaporeans to be part of the country's growth, regardless of their backgrounds, with more support for those with less.”
“Singapore supports the principle of non-discriminatory treatment towards persons with disabilities. Accordingly, it is the Government's intention to withdraw the reservation placed on Article 25(e) of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. In December 2022, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) issued a consultation paper on guidelines for financial institutions on fair practices towards customers, including those with disabilities and mental health conditions. Under the proposed guidelines, MAS made it clear that insurers should not indiscriminately reject an application solely based on declared personal information, such as a disability or medical condition, including a mental health condition. Instead, insurers are expected to carry out an objective assessment of every application based on reliable information or data relevant to the risks being insured. However, insurers are not prohibited from declining applications, setting higher premiums or applying appropriate conditions in view of the risks presented by an applicant. For health insurance, insurers assess risks based on a customer's medical history, health condition and health risks arising from any known conditions. Having a robust assessment framework is fundamental to the long-term sustainability of an insurer's business. MAS is carefully considering the feedback received on the proposed guidelines. We intend to finalise and issue the guidelines by mid-2024, and thereafter, will work towards withdrawing the reservation placed on Article 25(e) of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.”
“Disruptions can occur for a variety of reasons and can happen without warning. When they do occur, MAS expects banks to take prompt steps to reduce inconvenience and costs to customers. This includes being proactive and transparent in updating affected customers on the status of service recovery and alternative services. While our banking system is generally robust, customers, too, must plan and prepare for contingencies. They can benefit from having alternative payment options and not be over-reliant on one provider for time-sensitive transactions. Indeed, during this recent service disruption, customers who were able to switch to alternative payment providers or use cash as a last resort would have been less affected. The digitalisation of financial services has brought significant convenience to the public. While some disruption from time to time is unavoidable, we expect financial institutions to build capabilities to safely recover from any disruption within a reasonable time period. Where financial institutions fail to do so, as with this incident, MAS will work with them to thoroughly investigate the incident, apply lessons learnt in our supervisory oversight of the financial industry and take necessary action to further strengthen the resilience of financial service delivery.”
“In addition, they are required to provide to MAS regular system availability reports relating to their critical systems. MAS will also work with the financial industry to incorporate key learnings from these incidents into all banks’ risk management controls, MAS’ future technology risk supervisory approach and the next financial sector business continuity exercise scheduled for 2024. MAS has adopted a tougher stance against DBS because it experienced five disruptions to its banking services in the last eight months. This is unacceptable. As directed by MAS, DBS convened a Special Board Committee earlier this year to oversee a full review of its IT resilience by an independent external expert. The review has been completed and DBS has set out a technology resiliency roadmap to address the findings and improve system resilience. To ensure that DBS keeps a sharp focus on restoring the resilience of its digital banking services, MAS has prohibited DBS from making any non-essential IT changes or acquiring any new business ventures for a six-month period. There must not be distractions that take away the needed resources and attention by the bank to strengthen its technology risk management systems and controls. MAS has also barred DBS from reducing the size of its branch and ATM networks in Singapore until MAS is satisfied with the progress of DBS’ remediation. Another dimension of remediation has to do with data centres, which host the IT systems of not just the banks but also other critical sectors. The Government is studying how best to further strengthen the security and resilience of data centres where lapses could result in a significant impact. Finally, contingency measures in the face of banking disruptions. No IT system is infallible.”
“With the passing of the Financial Services and Markets Act in 2022, which will progressively come into force next year, this fine quantum will be increased to a maximum of $1 million. While the fine quantum is relatively lower compared to those imposed by financial regulators in countries, such as the UK, it is consistent with existing local penalty regimes, such as those under the Telecommunications Act and the Personal Data Protection Act. Besides fines, MAS uses a range of regulatory tools to address lapses in banks’ risk management. This includes additional capital requirements and suspension of specified businesses or activities. In May 2023, in response to repeated outages, MAS imposed a multiplier of 1.8 times to DBS’ risk-weighted assets for operational risk. This translated to approximately S$1.6 billion in total additional regulatory capital at the time. Holding additional regulatory capital comes with costs for the bank. It increases cost of capital, a key metric that drives business decisions, such as dividends and investments. It is a drag on the return on capital which could, in turn, impact credit ratings and stock price of the bank. Banks are also accountable to their customers, but matters of compensation are better dealt with between the bank and its customers as it would be highly dependent on individual circumstances. MAS expects banks to have a fair process to deal with this. Second, remediation. MAS has instructed both DBS and Citibank to conduct thorough investigations into the root causes of the incidents that occurred on 14 October, put in place remediation measures to minimise future outages and strengthen their recoverability in the event of an outage.”
“MAS requires banks to establish IT disaster recovery plans and test them regularly. Banks must conduct disaster recovery exercises with their back-up data centres to validate that critical systems and services can be restored within four hours of an outage. The unscheduled downtime for a critical system affecting a bank’s operations or service to customers must not exceed four hours within any 12-month period. MAS does not oversee banks’ external service providers, which are typically not financial institutions. This is similar to the approach taken by regulators in major jurisdictions. The onus is on the banks to ensure that the external service providers they appoint to support their operations or service to customers can meet MAS’ requirements on operational resilience. MAS also requires banks to maintain close oversight of external service providers, so that they can deliver services with minimal disruptions. DBS and Citibank have fallen short of MAS’ requirements to ensure that their critical IT systems are resilient against prolonged disruptions. While both banks conducted annual exercises to test the recovery of their IT systems at the back-up data centres, the specific issues that led to the delays in system recovery on 14 October did not surface during those tests. I will now elaborate on the accountability and remediation measures taken to uphold the reliability and recoverability of banking services. First, holding banks accountable. Under the Banking Act, MAS can impose a fine of up to $100,000 on financial institutions found in breach of MAS’ requirements on technology risk management.”
“Let me start with the causes and impact of the disruption on 14 October 2023. DBS and Citibank experienced system outages in the mid-afternoon of 14 October 2023 which affected their banking and payment services. These outages were caused by a malfunction of the cooling system in the data centre hosting both DBS’ and Citibank’s IT systems. These IT systems support the delivery of retail and corporate banking services. The temperature in the data centre rose above the optimal operating range, causing the banks’ IT systems to shut down. To restore the impacted services, DBS and Citibank immediately activated their IT disaster recovery and business continuity plans. However, both banks encountered technical issues which prevented them from fully recovering their affected systems at their respective back-up data centres: DBS due to a network misconfiguration and Citibank due to connectivity issues. Services at DBS and Citibank were progressively recovered from 8.21 pm and 7.05 pm respectively on 14 October, but only fully recovered in the early hours of 15 October. The impact of the service outage was wide. Up to 810,000 attempts to access the digital banking platforms of both banks were estimated to have failed between 2.54 pm on 14 Oct 2023 and 4.47 am on 15 October 2023. Approximately 2.5 million payment and ATM transactions could not be completed. DBS reopened its branches from 5.30 pm to 9.30 pm on 14 October to assist affected customers. Both banks provided updates via social media platforms. Let me now address the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS)’s requirements on banks’ business continuity, IT infrastructure resilience and their outsourced services involving critical IT systems.”
“The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS)'s banking capital rules are in line with internationally-agreed standards issued by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS). These rules already provide banks the flexibility to incorporate climate risk considerations when determining the regulatory capital that they are required to maintain. This was also clarified by BCBS last year. For example, a bank should consider a borrower’s exposure to climate risks in its credit risk assessment. This would impact the capital that the bank is required to hold for a loan to the borrower under our risk-based capital rules. The enhancements proposed by the European Banking Authority (EBA) to its capital framework largely reflect these clarifications. Aside from this, EBA has pointed to the importance of international coordination via BCBS for any fundamental revisions to the banking capital framework. This is MAS’ view as well. Beyond capital requirements, MAS has issued guidance in 2020, setting out our supervisory expectations for banks to have sound governance and risk management frameworks to manage environmental risks. MAS is also currently consulting on proposed Guidelines on Transition Planning by banks to enable the global transition to a net-zero economy. MAS is the first amongst global supervisors to do so. A key proposal is for banks to engage their customers on the environmental risks they face and work closely with them to implement effective measures to build resilience to climate change. MAS will continually review its regulatory and supervisory approach to keep pace with global best practices in this area. This includes working closely with other regulators to foster alignment and consistency in international standards.”
“All eligible seniors, numbering over 800,000, have received the Assurance Package Seniors’ Bonus and the 2023 Cost-of-Living Seniors’ Bonus in February 2023 and June 2023 respectively. Seniors who have not received the Seniors’ Bonus are those who are ineligible due to not meeting one of the criteria, like Assessable Income or owning multiple properties. If Ms Mariam knows of residents whose information may not have been updated, please bring them to the attention of the Ministry of Finance.”
“They are not easily reduced to a simple score.”
“The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) works closely with the industry to uplift listed companies’ corporate governance standards. Key stakeholders include Singapore Exchange (SGX) and the Corporate Governance Advisory Committee (CGAC), an industry-led body set up to advocate good corporate governance practices. The SGX Listing Rules and the accompanying Code of Corporate Governance (CG Code) set out the baseline corporate governance standards that all listed companies should adhere to. These include requirements on board composition, director independence and remuneration. These minimum requirements are reviewed regularly by MAS and SGX in consultation with CGAC to take into account latest developments and best practices. For instance, in January this year, SGX announced amendments to its Listing Rules to limit the tenure of independent directors serving on boards of listed companies to nine years, and to require listed companies to disclose the exact amount and breakdown of remuneration paid to the CEO and directors. Mr Louis Chua mentioned the use of the Singapore Governance and Transparency Index (SGTI). In fact the key requirements that go into the SGTI scores are already reflected in the SGX Listing Rules and the CG Code. While scorecards are useful for benchmarking practices across entities, they may not fully reflect the quality of disclosures or governance practices. Take for example, the issue of board diversity disclosures. This requires listed companies to describe how the combination of skills, talents, experience and diversity of its directors serves the needs and plans of the listed company. These are important qualitative assessments that need to be made in the context of the operating environment of the company.”
“Mr Speaker, I thank the Leader of the Opposition for that assurance. I am glad that he will be posting his speech and Mr Giam's speech on the website. I think what is more important is not just the speech themselves but a clear position from the WP that it condemns unequivocable the acts of terrorism by Hamas. And then we are all in a common position on that. And on national security, I fully take on board the points that he has raised. We will and we have been, and we will continue to do this from time to time when indeed there are national security concerns, we take the WP into confidence, we share what they and we would appreciate very much across all political parties, whatever our backgrounds, we stand united as Singaporeans because on such matters, there can be nothing that divides us. But united as Singaporeans, we can overcome all challenges together.”
“All of us, Singaporeans, must stay vigilant too, by reporting any suspicious behaviour or activity to the authorities because in the end, our ability to respond to any terrorist incident depends on all of us as Singaporeans working together. We must remain cohesive and united as a society, so that we can keep Singapore safe and secure. Mr Speaker, the tragedies of terror, conflict, and war are sober reminders to us all. That, above all else, we are more similar than we are different. That we can rise above what divides us, and embrace our shared humanity. I spoke earlier about the exchange of letters between Mufti and the Chief Rabbi of Singapore. Mufti said and I quote: "Our work to put forth a different model of peaceful co-existence, where every community in Singapore can live peacefully alongside other faiths and celebrate diversity, has now become even more critical… Despite the overwhelming challenges, achieving peaceful relations is not impossible and is now the greatest urgency." And I cannot agree more with him. Achieving peaceful relations is not impossible. It is now of the greatest urgency. Singapore has gone through much to get to where we are today. Singaporeans of all races and religions can live side by side. We understand and share in one another's festive celebrations, all of us proud of our multiracial, multi-religious Singaporean identity. So, to every Singaporean, to every Member of this House, I say let us be good stewards, good stewards of our peace and harmony. Let us never take it for granted. Let us work at it consistently, assiduously, daily and let us stand together, now more than ever, as one united people. Sir, I support the Motion. [Applause.]”
“For example, through the Counter-Terrorism Information Facility, we work closely with other countries to share intelligence and to provide early warning against terrorism in the region. The SAF and the Home Team conduct regular exercises, and these have also helped to raise a high level of readiness in our society against terror attacks, be it from air, land or sea. With the ongoing conflict, these efforts have certainly gained greater salience because we know that Singapore is an attractive target for foreign terrorist groups as well as self-radicalised individuals. And while Israel and Gaza may be far away, what happens in the Middle East can affect us here in Southeast Asia and Singapore. We fully expect extremist and terrorist groups in the region to use this conflict to rile up sentiments and radicalise more individuals. Members all know that in recent years, we have detained Singaporeans who fell for pro-Hamas narratives and wanted to take up arms overseas. We have had radicalised individuals who have also planned attacks on Singaporean targets and since the conflict started, regional Internet traffic on extremist sites has already gone up three-fold – because we track these sites, we know the traffic has increased and we have also observed an uptick in anti-Singapore rhetoric, including violent threats against Singapore by regional extremist elements online. So, amidst this conflict, it is more urgent than ever that we prepare for all contingencies. That is why our security agencies are on heightened alert, and we have put in place additional security measures as a precaution.”
“And, Sir, indeed, in situations like this, we must stand united. Politics must stop at the water's edge and that means on external matters where national security is at stake, political parties should not try to outflank the Government just to score political points. Let us not risk our precious unity for short-term political gain. Not when our collective security and fundamental interests are at stake. All of us owe this basic duty to Singaporeans. At the end of this debate, I hope all of us, everyone in this House – PAP, WP, PSP as well as all Nominated Members – wilI support the Motion and we can have a common pro-Singapore's stand on the matter. This is not politics. This is our national security. Several Members also asked about the economic and security implications of the conflict on Singapore. Sir, we are monitoring the economic situation closely. For now, the direct economic impact is small, because of our limited trade and investment linkages with Israel and Palestine. But should the conflict between Israel and Hamas broaden into a regional conflict in the Middle East, there will certainly be wider implications, especially on oil and food prices. So, we must be prepared for more uncertainties ahead and we are updating our drawer plans should the situation take a turn for the worse and we are impacted. On the security front, Singapore can draw lessons from what has happened. The surprise attack by Hamas caught Israel off guard. It is a potent reminder that we must always be vigilant. And that is why, since 9/11, we have raised our defence capabilities to respond to terror attacks.”
“We should strive to listen to and empathise with one another, especially when we disagree and have different views and we should not hesitate to call loud inflammatory language which seek to turn communities against each other. In this way, we can collectively strengthen the peace and social cohesion that is essential to the Singaporean way of life. I am glad that all Members of the House are with the Government on this, as we have heard in all the speeches so far. The WP and the PSP have put out their Parties' position on this matter and, indeed, their positions are consistent with the Government's position, indeed, the national position. We were a little concerned at first with the WP's statement for the reasons highlighted – because it stopped short of condemning Hamas; it referred to it as a "military operation" rather than a terrorist act. The Leader of the Opposition, Mr Singh, has explained the context and the circumstances behind the WP's statement, so we understand, but I am sure Mr Singh would also appreciate, without the benefit of his explanation earlier, there was ambiguity about that statement. There were questions raised about the WP's stance on the actions of Hamas and some might even ask whether the WP had deliberately overlooked this just to appear more sympathetic to the Palestinian cause. So, I am very glad that Mr Singh has stood up and explained the WP's position clearly and has condemned Hamas' acts as acts of terrorism. And, perhaps, if he is so minded, Mr Singh might update the WP's social media platform to reflect this position so that there is no ambiguity about the matter whatsoever. This is not a trivial matter. This is not just nitpicking at words. It is a key point of principle because national security is at stake.”
“When the conflict first erupted, as all of you know, Mufti Ustaz Dr Nazirudin Mohd Nasir wrote to the Chief Rabbi Mordechai Abergel in Singapore, who later replied to him, and both expressed empathy and solidarity with one another. The Inter-Religious Organisation brought together various faith leaders to pray for peace and the safety of civilians in both Israel and Gaza. On such emotive issues, it makes all the difference to have religious leaders who understand what is happening and what is at stake for Singapore. They are able to guide their flock and help to hold the social cohesion and trust between our different religious groups. Some may think that this guidance is not necessary. But they are mistaken. Just look at what is happening elsewhere. The more extreme religious leaders on all sides also tend to be the ones who are more emotional, more vocal in pressing their case, in advocating their own narratives. Those calling for peace, dialogue and engagement tend to be the ones who are drowned out or silenced. What is the end result? The end result is not more light but more darkness, not more peace and harmony but more division and hatred in society and we certainly do not want that to happen in Singapore. So, we should be very, very grateful for the leadership shown by our religious leaders like Mufti and Chief Rabbi. I thank them for their leadership, and I call on all Singaporeans to emulate their examples, and ensure we never let anything divide us or drive a wedge in our society. All of us, as individuals, can all do our part too. The Government will continue to provide safe spaces for such sensitive conversations to take place, but we should do our part to be respectful and constructive in our dialogue and discourse, both online and offline.”
“Singapore is not immune to such divisive forces. In the month of October alone, the Police received eight reports of offensive remarks or actions targeted at members of the Jewish or Muslim communities in Singapore. Eight may not seem like a large number to you, but in just this one month of October, we have received almost the same number of related reports as we did in the preceding nine months of the year combined. So, it is a very sharp spike. That is why we cannot afford to be complacent. We know from our own painful history how disastrous ethnic and religious strife can be. That is why we have worked so hard over the years to foster social harmony across our different communities. We have built up networks of friendship and trust across different community and religious leaders through platforms like the Racial and Religious Harmony Circles. We regularly promote inter-faith and inter-ethnic dialogue to bring together different communities and to respectfully discuss sensitive issues of race and religion. Our schools and IHLs are also involved to teach our young to interact with one another in a safe and respectful way, and to help them to understand global issues in the context of Singapore's unique multicultural milieu. So, I am very glad that our community and religious leaders understand what is at stake. Our religious leaders, in particular, are expressing their views in a way that shows sensitivity, compassion and kindness; so as not to destabilise peace and harmony in our society. They have led many positive efforts to emphasise unity, not division.”
“For example, we have criticised Israel's settlement activities in the West Bank as violations of international law. We have also voted against Jerusalem being recognised as the capital of Israel. Indeed, such unilateral moves by Israel detract from the two-state solution. That is partly the reason why more and more Palestinians feel that violence is the only way to achieve their goals. The international community must therefore give Palestinians reasons to think otherwise. A non-violent path to an independent Palestinian state must be made unmistakably clear. Then the ideas of organisations like Hamas and its belief in the use of violence and terrorism can truly be defeated. In all that we do, Sir, Singapore will act in accordance with our national interest and we will consistently choose principles and international law. That is what makes a small nation like us a credible, reliable and trusted partner on the international stage. Beyond upholding our national interests, we must not allow external events like these to divide us. Because in such conflicts, individual passions are bound to be aroused. In this age of social media, images, videos and stories will be frequently propagated online specifically to rile up emotions and sow distrust. This can turn a faraway conflict into an emotionally charged issue that can easily spiral out of control, even here in Singapore. We have already seen instances of hate speech and religiously motivated attacks elsewhere in recent days. In France, a teacher was fatally stabbed by a Russian-Muslim attacker amid rising tensions between the Jewish and Muslim communities there. In the US, a six-year-old Palestinian-American was fatally stabbed and his mother wounded by an American in a religiously motivated hate crime.”
“We also urge Israel to facilitate the supply of food, water, medical supplies and fuel in Gaza. And we will do our part to assist in global relief efforts. I am glad that many Singaporeans have responded to the calls for assistance, including by donating generously to the fundraising appeals by the Singapore Red Cross and Rahmatan Lil Alamin Foundation. These are concrete and practical things we can all do in Singapore in response to this human tragedy. Meanwhile, Singapore's long-standing support for a two-state solution remains unchanged. We believe that the Palestinian people have the right to a homeland and that Israel has the right to live within secure borders. A negotiated two-state solution is the only way for Palestinians and Israelis to live in peace and security. Realising this may seem difficult, now more than ever, but that should not deter us from continuing to support the international community's efforts in this area. Both the Palestinians and Israelis know our position and our principles well. We have good relations with the Palestinians and have committed substantial technical assistance and support to the Palestinian Authority over the years and we will continue to do so. We also have a strong, long-standing relationship with Israel. Israel helped build up the SAF during our early years and we continue to cooperate closely with them across many areas, including in science and technology. So, we are friends with both Israel and the Palestinians. But it does not mean we support everything each side does. Instead, we consistently take a principled position, in line with international law and in support of global peace and security. On that basis, we have voted in favour of many Palestinian-related resolutions at the UN over the years.”
“That is not just one time. They are prepared to repeat their attacks. The Palestinian people have many historical grievances which we empathise with. These need urgent resolution. But there can be no excuse, no justification whatsoever, for the wanton acts of violence and terrorism by Hamas. We must condemn these terrorist acts unequivocally. Let us be clear. It is in our national interest to do so. To compromise on this stand would be to compromise our own security. Second, Israel has a legitimate right to defend itself. This right to defend one's citizens and territory is a fundamental right enshrined in the UN Charter. In this case, it means Israel has the right to take action to prevent Hamas from attacking again. But in exercising this right, Israel must comply fully with the letter and spirit of international humanitarian law and the rules governing the conduct of war. Under the Geneva Conventions, it must respond in a proportionate manner and do its utmost to protect the security and safety of civilians. In other words, no matter how gruesome the acts of terrorism committed by Hamas, they cannot justify a disproportionate response by Israel that imposes collective punishment on the Palestinians in Gaza. If Israel violates international humanitarian law, it risks losing the moral high ground and undermining its own cause both domestically and internationally. The discussions around these international rules can be fraught and subject to differing views and perspectives. But from a humanitarian point of view, the catastrophe now happening in Gaza is horrific and unbearable. Our heart goes out to the Palestinian people. That is why Singapore supported the latest UN resolution calling for a humanitarian truce, leading to a cessation of hostilities.”
“For years, Iran has been funding, training and arming Hamas as well as other militia in the region, including Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Houthis in Yemen. It is certainly no coincidence that the brutal attacks by Hamas happened just after Israel normalised relations with the UAE and was in negotiations to do so with Saudi Arabia. Hamas must have anticipated a strong Israeli response when it launched its attacks. In fact, it may well have counted on this so as to rally people in the Middle East to its cause. But any country facing such attacks must respond. Indeed, it is distressing to see the military response by Israel now taking such a terrible toll on civilians in Gaza. The issue threatens to spill over into a much larger regional conflict with major global implications. In the end, after all this, who are the victims? The victims are the Palestinian people themselves, who are being used as pawns and human shields amidst this proxy fight amongst bigger and regional powers. All this is a stark reminder to everyone in Singapore. We live in a dangerous world with complex geopolitics everywhere. We want to be friends with all. We do not import foreign quarrels or politics here. We do not want to choose sides. Instead, we always choose what is in the best interests of Singapore and Singaporeans. Both Ministers Vivian and Maliki have both laid out at length Singapore's position on this matter. I will not revisit everything they have said, but let me emphasise two important points that bear repeating. First, what happened on 7 October by Hamas was a planned and coordinated terrorist attack – the brutal massacre of civilians and the taking of civilian hostages. Hamas has said they are ready to repeat these heinous attacks to "bring about the annihilation of Israel".”
“Mr Speaker, I rise in support of the amended Motion and I thank Members of Parliament Vikram Nair, Alex Yam and Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim for moving this Motion. Sir, we are witnessing the terrible tragedy unfolding in the Middle East. The international community is urgently trying to manage the situation – to expand and sustain the flow of humanitarian aid into Gaza and to minimise further loss of civilian lives. Singaporeans, too, are following the events closely. We are all horrified by the violence. Our Muslim community in Singapore feel it more strongly because of the empathy and compassion for the Palestinian cause, but no matter our race, our religion or our background, all of us cannot help but grieve that so many lives have been lost and many more remain in danger. As we try to make sense of what is happening, we must recognise that what we are seeing did not erupt overnight. As many have already explained, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a deeply complex one. It is a long-standing feud going back at least decades, if not centuries, involving multiple state and non-state actors. The conflict is not just between Israelis and Palestinians or between people of different faiths, as Minister Vivian had explained just now. It is a political battle for territory, self determination and identity. What is at stake, also, is the broader balance of power in the Middle East. Throughout history, this land corridor between the Mediterranean coast and the vast Arabian desert has been the battleground of ancient kingdoms and civilisations. You go back to the Egyptians, Babylonians and Romans to the Ottomans, the British and the French. That battle for regional influence continues today, including between Iran and its Arab neighbours.”