Leon Perera
Singapore
“I thank the Nominated Member, Mr Mark Chay, for his clarification. I did, in my speech, allude to my awareness of the existence of sports scholarships and I mentioned a few, nor in my speech did I claim that there is no Government support for these less well-known sports.”
“Sorry, again. I acknowledge that, of course, no system is perfect. I think we all acknowledge that. My colleague Assoc Prof Jamus Lim presented data on the performance of different countries in sporting excellence, government spending relative to gross domestic product (GDP) per capita.”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I would like to ask one short supplementary question. I am wondering if the Government will consider requiring or mandating private companies to provide an elderly or parent care leave to some extent, or flexible work arrangements that will allow for time for eldercare and parent care duties?”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Just one supplementary question for the Senior Minister of State. He referred to the service quality framework that the Government uses vis-à-vis SingPost because SingPost is a Government licencee.”
“I was suggesting that the determination of consistency of the Ministerial Code of Conduct be done by an independent organisation. It could be the AGO, it could be a judge or retired judge or someone else to put that imprimatur of independence. I was not suggesting either or. You may disagree with that.”
“At the end of the day, healthcare is, and will remain, must remain, a profoundly human endeavour. There is no more important goal in healthcare than attracting, retaining and bringing out the best from our great healthcare workers.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,226 lines we hold for Leon Perera, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 15 of 25.
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I just have four supplementary questions for Minister Chan Chun Sing. Firstly, on TFP, does MTI monitor the outliers of TFP – those countries which are performing above the OECD average on TFP – to look at patterns that we might possibly be able to learn from? For example, there is a fair bit of academic evidence – not conclusively, of course – to suggest possibly that the research and development (R&D) share of GDP could actually be an indicator of TFP growth and high TFP contribution. Is that something that MTI looks at – the outliers of TFP – and what we could learn from them? Secondly, in terms of the health of the economy, which the Minister spoke about, what is MTI's sense looking at forward economic indicators, such as the Purchasing Managers' Index (PMI), confidence indicators, the totality of forward-looking indicators in terms of whether the economic growth is going to improve or actually stagnate or decrease in the first quarter of this year, looking at the forward-looking indicators that we have? Thirdly, the Minister also spoke about PMETs, and one problem that many Members of the House do come across in our work is this phenomenon of underemployment of PMETs who lose their jobs for whatever reason in their 40s or 50s and end up taking a job at a substantially lower pay which may or may not fully utilise the qualifications they have. Would the Minister consider looking into creating an underunemployment indicator to measure how we are doing in terms of underemployment? There is currently a time-based underemployment indicator, but that just measures part-time work.”
“I thank the Senior Minister of State for her detailed answer. Just one supplementary question. Is the Government looking into battery swapping, as opposed to battery charging, for electric vehicles? Swapping could potentially be an efficient alternative, given that space is at a premium and so on and so forth? So, is that being looked into?”
“I thank the Minister for his reply. Just a few supplementary questions in relation to electronic game development and e-sports. Firstly, I understand that there are graduate courses, diploma courses, such as DigiPen, as the Minister mentioned. What avenues and platforms are available for Singaporeans to get postgraduate training? Because in order to develop sophisticated and successful games, postgraduate training in the necessary skills should be available. I know some big multinational companies do provide training. I believe that, in general, this training is provided to their own employees and it is not open-sourced and available to everyone. So, what are the avenues that are available for postgraduate training? Secondly, does IMDA or other Government agencies still provide startup grants to electronic game development startups or e-sports startups in Singapore? If so, what has been the trend in the grants given and what has been the success associated with that? Thirdly and lastly, is support given to game developers to market their own games directly to customers independently of a publisher? I ask this because a game development company can go through a publisher in order to market their game, and the publisher then takes a large part of the margin. That is value that otherwise the game development company could capture. Is support given to game development companies and, if necessary, grants? Are they given without requiring them to be allied to a publisher, to be endorsed by a publisher, to work with the publisher, but instead just encourage them to actually market their games directly to customers through platforms like Steam or App Store or so on and, therefore, capture a lot more value and become more financially self-sustaining?”
“I thank the Senior Minister of State for the answer. Just one supplementary question. In relation to my first supplementary question, actually my question was on those documents that have been declassified and released already on to the NAS Online. I think there are 160,000 of two million. For those documents that have already been declassified and already on the NAS Online platform, can they be made available more freely? Because, from what I understand, when you go online to this platform, you can view documents and if you click on it, you will not actually get the document. In some cases, you have to ask for written permission and, in some cases, conditional permission is given. Not all the documents are actually made freely available on the NAS Online – there are 160,000 or so – without conditions to everyone who just wants to access it online. So, can that be considered?”
“Is there a process to review documents which have been held back from the NAS Online, but perhaps, if there were reviewed again further down the line, they could be released, say, in 50 years' time? My last supplementary question is on the definition of researcher. Some of the access is given on the basis of whether you are doing research, whether you are a researcher. I would like to ask what is the operating definition of that? Does one have to be a faculty member in a relevant discipline at a university, or can one be, for example, a private citizen, who has an interest in the matter who wishes to write a book on the matter? Can one be an undergraduate or a graduate student? What is the operating definition of "researcher" that is used to give access in cases where access is given only for research purposes?”
“I thank the Senior Minister of State for her answer. Just a few supplementary questions. Firstly, when records that are declassified – and here, I am also referring to the answer that the Senior Minister of State gave previously to a Parliamentary Question by Mr Kok Heng Leun and that was also helpful – and released into the NAS, I understand the agencies would have already gone through a process to make sure that they can be released into the NAS, as opposed to there being sensitive information that would prohibit that. So, when the record is already on NAS, I would like to ask if the Government can consider making it available to everyone on the NAS Online. I understand right now that there are still some conditions or restrictions. People have to write in to seek approval. That approval is sometimes conditionally given on the basis of whether they are using it for research, publishing it or just using it for personal reference. Can documents that have already been declassified – presumably, those sensitivities are not there or there has been redaction – can those be made more freely available to everyone who would like to view it on the NAS Online? My second supplementary question relates to a timeframe. I believe that after 25 years, these documents are released and they go through a process of review for whether they can be released. At the point of 25 years, there could be certain personal sensitivities, confidentiality obligations, but is there a process to review documents further down the line because those personal sensitivities may not be there, say, 50 years down the line?”
“Sir, just two brief supplementary questions for the Minister. Before I do that, let me declare my interest as the chief executive officer of a consultancy that helps companies invest in India and other countries. Firstly, does the Minister have any sense of the total investment that has been made by Singapore companies in this project to date? Secondly, has there been to date any significant expenditure of state funds in terms of, for example, co-investment or grants to support the companies in terms of the project?”
“Sir, I have two supplementary questions for the Minister. The Minister spoke about innovation capability among Singapore-based enterprises. Is the Minister satisfied with the current trend or direction of innovation capability among Singapore enterprises? Secondly, has MTI done any study that could point to any structural or any other impediments to developing and furthering innovation capability among Singapore-based enterprises?”
“Social robotics, wearable technology and other innovations are being used in the eldercare sector globally, including in some countries in the region like Japan, Korea and China. What efforts are being made by the Government and non-governmental players to study these innovations and aim to bring them to Singapore by way of engagement with companies and not-for-profits, both at home and abroad?”
“As the assisted living model is new, we will conduct focus group discussions to seek views on the proposed concept for assisted living in public housing. We will take in feedback and views from the discussions and I am sure seniors will welcome such an option where the model will be sustainable for the service providers. We will work towards a launch for an assisted living pilot site for public housing in Bukit Batok next year." Sir, the assisted living model is new to Singapore but far from new abroad. In advanced countries like Finland and Japan, assisted living facilities (ALFs) are growing faster than nursing homes. A 2016 survey by the Lien Foundation and Income found that nearly 50% of almost 1,000 respondents were willing to stay in ALFs. I would urge the Government to accelerate the launch of new sites. Assisted living, at its best – and to be sure, not all existing ALFs in the world represent that best by any means – but at its best, assisted living promises to marry autonomy with good quality medical care and social connectedness. It could be a key pillar for successful ageing. In building this pillar, we have the opportunity to work with local enterprises and startups to develop know-how in operating ALFs in the Southeast Asian cultural context, know-how that could be exported to the region in future, where ageing is a major challenge in countries like Thailand and Malaysia, to the benefit of our economy. Secondly and lastly, eldercare is a field that has seen a good deal of innovation through the application of technology and new business models to increase choice, reduce cost and raise productivity. In fact, productivity is a key challenge for this traditionally labour-intensive sector.”
“And this could have amounted to a far greater drain on the state's coffers downstream in terms of hospital subsidies, MediShield Life premium subsidies, MediFund disbursements and so on. The cost of providing financial assistance should also be seen in the context of the opportunity cost of not providing it. If older Singaporeans lack help to age with purpose and dignity, we could lose out in the vital role of elderly Singaporeans as contributors to the workforce and to the economy as employees, entrepreneurs and customers. Let us not forget the significance of older Singaporeans as role models, mentors, counsellors and caregivers, even when not working. When elderly Singaporeans cannot afford to leave the house because he or she cannot afford a mobility device, for example, he may be unable to work, he may be unable to be a customer for a neighbourhood business, he may be unable to help his family. As we move towards a future where one in four Singaporeans will be aged over 65, let us strive for successful ageing, both for older Singaporeans and those of us not yet old. Having said this, I have a few questions and suggestions regarding our whole-of-society approach towards successful ageing that is of indirect but nevertheless unmistakable relevance to the concerns that underlie this Bill. Firstly, what is the progress towards launching assisted living facilities? It seems that other countries are far ahead of Singapore in this respect as the concept dates back to the 1980s. During the Committee of Supply debate this year, Minister Lawrence Wong said, "Typically, in such assisted living apartments, there will be more communal and shared spaces for residents to interact with one another.”
“Please allow me to quote a short passage from Atul Gawande's moving book "Being Mortal", where he talked about one of the founders of assisted living Keren Brown Wilson in the United States (US) state of Oregon in 1980 in a concept she championed. I quote, "The services were, in most ways, identical to the services that nursing homes provide, but here the care-providers understood they were entering someone else's home and that changed the power relations fundamentally. Her philosophy was to provide a place where residents retained their autonomy and privacy of people living in their own homes, including the right to refuse strictures imposed for reasons of safety or institutional convenience." For all pathways, financial assistance should be available that is means-tested and also automatically inflation-indexed based on inflation trends and fiscal resources. Facilities catering to a range of budget should be nurtured. The Korean Silver Town model, which I have spoken about in this House, includes a range of facilities, offering different prices and the different degrees of government support from government-run facilities to purely private profit-driven facilities. The facilities in such an ecosystem should be provided by companies, not-for-profit voluntary welfare organisations and, where necessary, government agencies. Not all eldercare services should be provided by or paid for by the government. Where fiscal cost is required, it should be seen in the context of not providing such assistance. It could lead to elderly people living alone becoming cut off and gaining access to medical services only when it is too late when catastrophic conditions set in, for example.”
“But with our demographic pyramid looking the way it does now, where the ratio of younger people supporting elderly people in more or less every family is much lower than it was, say, 30 years ago, it is no longer possible to view the question of an ageing society solely through the prism of family responsibility alone. What would such a vibrant ecosystem look like? It should, of course, include employment for those who want to continue to work. This group has the right to employment opportunities unscarred by the stigma of ageism. And it should include social support for high levels of activity and social engagement for all older Singaporeans, whether working or not. The ecosystem we strive for should include strong capacity for institutionalised care in nursing homes and step-down care facilities to provide care at harmonised and high levels of quality, not to mention elder-friendly facilities in existing and new HDB flats where some progress has been made. It should include pathways for ageing-in-place – home care and day care should be widely available geographically, with a variety of providers offering an environment that is competitive and rich in variety and experimentation. Fifthly, it should include options for assisted living. Facilities which allow a high degree of autonomy for residents, with shared activity programmes, round-the-clock medical support available on demand, and proximate mixed facilities catering to various age groups so that older Singaporeans do not feel cut off. How does assisted living differ from nursing homes?”
“CareShield's acceptance would benefit from similarly transparent guidelines binding on the CareShield Life Council rather than the Council simply having discretion to make such decision and inform the public after the fact. Fourthly, will the Government consider reducing the onerous three ADLs test to two ADLs test using the Long-term Care Fund to administer premium subsidies to defray and defer increment hikes that may be necessitated by this change? Next, moving on from points made in the 2018 debate in this House, I would like to raise several new points and questions. Firstly, holders of ElderShield supplements will continue to be served by their existing ElderShield supplement insurers. Does the Government envisage that a competitive CareShield LIfe supplement scheme market will emerge providing competitive premiums and supplements in exchange for higher or less onerously determined payouts? And, if so, are there any steps being taken to facilitate this? Secondly, clause 15 states that in the event of premium rebates been given, refunds for grants will be recovered. Just to clarify the mechanism for this, does this mean that if the state has provided the grant to reduce the premium and future premium rebate is given to that CareShield Life policyholder, the grant plus interest will be deducted from the premium rebate and returned to the Long-term Care Fund? Lastly, because the changes to this Bill concretise the optimum effects of our ageing society, we should work towards the creation of a vibrant ecosystem that supports many different pathways for the rising number of Singaporeans embarking on their ageing journey. In the past, the mantra for ageing was that the family members should take care of their elderly.”
“Firstly, we reiterate our call that premium should be set at equal levels for men and women as the advantage of sending the signal of gender equality in major public policy formation outweighs the disadvantages explained by the Government. Secondly, will the Government publish the actuarial model behind the setting of premiums such that Singaporeans can assess these assumptions and can be aware of how these assumptions track against future realities as the years go by? This kind of transparency will ensure greater public buy-in by providing some assurance that premiums have not been set at too high a level that will tend to over-reserve funds that may either need to be disbursed by way of future premium rebates or which may be retained for the benefit of future cohorts. Such transparency will also pre-empt the spread of misinformation and ill-informed speculation about the CareShield Life scheme, as Member Mr Pritam Singh argued last year. Thirdly, will transparent policy guidelines be given to the CareShield Life Council to determine the extent to which excess funds, if any, are to be disbursed via premium rebates as opposed to reserving those funds for future cohorts so that the system can be seen to be inter-generationally fair? The ElderShield Review Committee Report, in the context of the existing ElderShield scheme, states that the premium rebate is a feature that provides for the three insurers that administer ElderShield to return 50% for the accumulated surplus to existing ElderShield policyholders, if the actual claims experience turns out to be better than what was projected. Premium rebates are considered once every five years.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I declare my interest as the Chief Executive Officer of an international research consultancy that undertakes studies in the field of products and services for the elderly, among other industries. Sir, the CareShield Life and Long-term Care Bill seeks to establish the CareShield Life scheme and the ElderShield scheme under Government administration to provide long-term care financing support for severely disabled persons. The Bill also amends the CPF Act to make provisions for CPF withdrawals for long-term care. Most of the key provisions for this Bill were debated in this House last year as part of the debate on the White Paper expressing recommendations for the ElderShield Review Committee. Subsequent to that debate in the House last year, the Government announced that the ElderShield scheme will be administered by the Government from 2021 on a not-for-profit basis. The insurers will transfer to the Government the liabilities and corresponding assets backing these liabilities for all policies under the ElderShield scheme. During Budget 2019, Deputy Prime Minister Heng Swee Keat announced that a total of $5.1 billion will be earmarked for the Long-term Care Support Fund. The Bill also establishes this Fund. Sir, all these changes are steps in the right direction. The Worker's Party Members debated most of these provisions in the House last year and supported the general move towards risk-pooling for financing elder disability while raising a number of questions and suggestions. I shall make a number of points at this stage to reiterate the views we had expressed earlier.”
“Lastly, my colleague Mr Dennis Tan spoke about the future advent of autonomous vehicles and how this might lead to the obsolescence of the skills acquired by P2P transport drivers. Has the Government given some thought to this? Will the Government consider working closely with the driver community such that when autonomous vehicles are about to be phased in, drivers are notified ahead of time and given some runway and facilitation to reskill and move to a different industry if they choose to do so?”
“" I acknowledge that this discussion touches on general competition policy rather than the P2P per se, but in the context of this Bill and in the light of what happened when Uber sold its assets to Grab in 2018, I would nonetheless like to ask if there will be consideration of measures to prevent a recurrence of a similar outcome. Major market changing M&A deals do not occur all the time and huge changes in market share are not necessarily extremely difficult to measure. Compliance costs related to pre-approving major M&A deals may not be unduly high on the part of either the business sector or the regulator. A mandatory approval regime does not appear to have deterred M&A transactions in the US and the EU. Next, the Bill gives the PTC the power to regulate and set pricing policies for ride-hail services for the first time. In this context, I would like to ask if the regulatory regime for all P2P services will continue to require there to be fixed pricing options available to commuters within the P2P ecosystem, in addition to dynamic pricing. Dynamic pricing efficiently matches demand and supply, going by classical economic considerations. However, notwithstanding the means-tested persons with disabilities (PWDs) taxi subsidy scheme, a fixed pricing option on offer within the P2P industry ecosystem is still of value to lower-income persons who may have ambulatory problems, for example, PWDs. One could argue that dynamic pricing can address all needs, as those with greater price sensitivity can wait for the dynamic prices to fall. However, a fixed price option provides greater assurance and peace of mind to those who really need it, even if it is associated with longer wait times.”
“The CCCS infringement decision about the Grab-Uber case from 2018 stated "CCCS has examined internal documents of the parties and found that Uber would not have left the Singapore market by simply terminating its business if the transaction had not taken place. Instead, Uber would have continued its operations in Singapore while exploring other strategic commercial options, such as collaboration with another market player or a sale to an alternative buyer. The transaction has removed Grab's closest competitor and ride-hailing platform services, namely, Uber. CCCS has received numerous complaints from both riders and drivers on the increase in effective fares and commissions by Grab post-transaction." In 2018, I filed a Parliamentary Question on the matter of relative merits of a mandatory notification regime for M&A deals which is practised in the European Union (EU), US, Vietnam and the Philippines for deals above certain specified thresholds, versus Singapore's current voluntary notification regime where some variant is practised in the UK, Australia and New Zealand. As part of his reply, at that time, Senior Parliamentary Secretary Dr Tan Wu Meng said, "On the other hand, under a mandatory notification regime, all merging parties that cross predetermined notification thresholds have to notify the Competition authority regardless of whether there are competition issues or not. This imposes compliance costs in businesses and may impede common place market activities. It also requires larger commitment on the Competition authority's resources to ensure that all mergers that cross the notification thresholds are duly notified, and to review these mergers.”
“Mr Speaker, the P2P Transport sector Bill regulates both taxi and ride-hailing industry operators, treating them as a single P2P transport sector. Notable provisions include the requirement for all providers to be licensed and the prohibition of driver exclusivity arrangements. On the whole, the provisions of this Bill are a step in the right direction and I do not oppose it. I have a few clarifications to seek and suggestions to make. Firstly, my colleague Mr Dennis Tan spoke about competition policy in relation to the P2P sector and, in particular, whether the CCCS infringement decision in 2018 would still apply after this Bill is passed. I note that within the PHC sector, Grab currently has a market share that has been estimated at approximately 80% last year. This kind of market concentration is unhealthy and would allow the vendor to have an unusually high degree of bargaining power vis-à-vis both commuters and drivers. I understand other players are present and ramping up, such as Gojek, for example. Can the Government provide an update on two questions? Firstly, what is being done to interest more players, or to support local startups, to enter the PHC space to increase competition? Secondly, in relation to the sale of Uber's Southeast Asian business to Grab in 2018 which was a subject to the CCCS' infringement decision, what steps will be taken to minimise the possibility of a large concentration of market share arising in future as a result of mergers and acquisitions (M&A) deals and against sound competition policy setting considerations?”
“I thank the Minister for his answer. Just one supplementary question. If we look at valuations of unlisted assets in the private equity sector, these valuations, which are done according to standard accounting practices, have been associated with a certain amount of volatility and change over time. I think it is in our interest to make sure that the portfolio valuations of the Sovereign Wealth Funds come as close as possible to the value that could be realised if these unlisted assets are sold eventually or if the unlisted company is actually publicly listed. So, in the interest of achieving that kind of realism, would the Government consider requiring the Sovereign Wealth Funds to, in addition to publishing portfolio valuations based on these accounting practices for unlisted asset valuations that the Minister described, also publish more conservative figures for valuing the unlisted assets based on the cost of the acquisition, so as to serve as a kind of check on the extent to which that valuation would be realisable in the future?”
“Mr Speaker, just one supplementary question for the Senior Minister of State. The Senior Minister of State alluded to studies that show that one has to use reusable packaging or reusable bags a certain number of times before you improve on the carbon emissions, vis-a-vis using single-use plastics. I think such data has been cited also previously. Would the Government consider making public the studies that it is using that lead to such data, the methodology behind those studies, the limitations of those studies and to put that into the public domain, if it has not done so already?”
“I thank the hon Minister for his question. I can only speak on my personal view on this and my view would be that a certain amount of spending is certainly justified and that spending has to be calibrated based on the benefits that we receive back. That was the point of my question, to understand what that spending is. If I recall correctly, there was one incident when the Speaker talked about a quote from former Vice President, Joe Biden, who said that, our spending is a reflection of our priorities. So, what we say about our policy goals and objectives is one thing, but our spending really concretely reflects that. So, my question was really understanding what is that spending and whether it is calibrated and whether it is the right balance point. I think, basically, every society has to find the right balance point on a question like "How much are you providing in spending for foreign students versus local students?" Now that the Ministry has provided this figure, which is nominally about $230 million, I think that comes to about 1.8% of MOE's budget, which is maybe about 0.3% of the total national Budget. Is that too high or too low? To me, it seems on the high side. But I do keep an open mind because I think if the Government can provide reasons that this practice generates, for example, economic multipliers, that we attract foreigners to stay here who would not otherwise come. If there is data on what other governments are doing, if the spending is comparable on the part of other governments so that there is reciprocity – we are doing our part as good global citizens – I would certainly keep an open mind to say that that figure and the balance point are the right ones.”
“Does the Ministry actually look at, over time, the impact of the spending on foreign students and what are, for example, economic multipliers from retaining high quality foreigners to work in the workforce vis-a-vis an alternative, such as recruiting foreigners on the open market to come and work here without making that spending on foreign students in the education system?”
“I thank the Minister for his comprehensive reply. I just have a few supplementary questions. Firstly, the Minister clarified that the figure given for scholarships is, so to speak, if I can use a phrase, "a nominal figure" and it does not reflect the actual costs. I appreciate that response for the $130 million for scholarships. I would like to ask, what would be the nominal figure for tuition grants – that was also asked or implied in my first written question – so, I would like to ask that. I do appreciate that that is also, likewise, probably going to be a nominal figure for the reasons that the Minister shared. So, that is my first question. My second question is relating to comparisons with other countries. In the original Parliamentary Question reply last month and also as the Minister has clarified, there is some element of reciprocity, so Singaporeans students also benefit from aid. I think some of the cases the Minister cited are aid given by universities rather than aid given by governments and states. Some of the universities that the Minister mentioned have large endowments and they provide funding to international students who need it, including Singaporean students. So, given this point of reciprocity and being part of the network, can I ask if the Ministry tracks or does the Ministry know what is the comparable amount of governmental spending that other developed countries actually provide to foreign students studying in their countries proportionately as a percentage of their education budget? Is that something that is looked at? That is my second supplementary question. The third and last one is really on how the impact of Singapore is measured.”
“The third and last one, the Minister mentioned that compared to some of the existing remedies, the penalties and the powers are actually a scoping down. I think clause 45 of the Telecommunications Act (TA) and the BA were mentioned. Clause 45 of the TA, very briefly, let me read it: "Any person who transmits or causes to be transmitted a message which he knows to be false or fabricated shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction", and so on and so on. Now, there are two senses in which actually the definition of that is widened in POFMA because POFMA allows for a misleading statement to be deemed false, meaning a collection of true statements that are misleading could be deemed false. The TA said just "fabricated" or "false". Also, POFMA says that if you have reason to believe that something is false. The Telecommunications Act just says that he knows to be false; so, he must have knowledge, not reason to believe. The BA, and I refer to Prof Goh Yihan's submission, does not apply to non-licensees, it does not apply to websites run by individuals, persons communicating via closed platform groups like WhatsApp, Telegram and so on. In this regard, vis-a-vis the criminal penalties against individuals, which is in section 7 of POFMA, POFMA will appear to widen powers and penalties, insofar as that is concerned vis-a-vis TA and BA. So, I would just like the Minister to comment on that.”
“I thank the hon Law Minister for his comments. Just three brief clarifications. Firstly, I would just like to ask the hon Minister to comment on the argument I made in my speech about circularity. I think it has been said that the Ministers make decisions, Part 3, Part 4 directives, they will be held to account by the electorate, they are accountable to Parliament. I did make the argument that, actually, by using a Part 4 directive to stop the circulation of potentially embarrassing information, the presence of a chilling effect on free expression – which I think we have talked about – the possibility that efforts at investigative journalism will be cowed due to the lack of a public interest defence within the Bill, as a result of that, potentially embarrassing information may not come into circulation and that may, in fact, partly insulate the Minister from electoral accountability and may even affect the composition of the Parliament that is meant to hold the Minister accountable. So, I just wanted to ask for the Minister's comment on that. The second one is very simple. I would like to ask the Minister: what recourse would a victim of Government-originated fake news have? Here, I am not talking about defamation action that could be taken against individual Ministers. I am talking about fake news that may originate from a Ministry, from a Government agency. I know the Minister said that this does not happen very much, it is a question of scale. It could happen, it may happen more in the future. What recourse would a victim of such Government fake news have? POHA is apparently not a recourse, defamation may not be a recourse.”
“There are individual issues at stake, but we could balance that against the societal issue. Would the hon Member acknowledge that actually the point I was making was not so much that it is bad for the individuals but that it actually chills free speech, it may lead to self-censorship, it may lead to self-censorship affecting political discourse and, therefore, by implication, political outcomes? So, there are very large societal and political issues at stake. It is not just a matter of balancing individual against social. So, having said that, I thank the hon Member and I, respectfully put forward these requests for clarification.”
“I thank the hon Member Mr Murali Pillai for some of his references to my speech and the speeches of my colleagues. I would respectfully just ask for a few points of clarification. Firstly, Mr Murali Pillai referred to the Government bearing a legal burden because the Government has an obligation, as has been stated, to outline the reasons behind exercising a Part 3 or Part 4 directive. Would the hon Member acknowledge that it would only become a legal burden, as in a pleading before the Court, if the respondent actually went to Court? And would the hon Member acknowledge that there are, I think, many respondents who would not take up the burden, would not want to take on the Government in Court for the reasons that my colleagues have shared? That is my first point. My second point is that the hon Member referred to POHA Courts dealing with matters that are perhaps less important in the bigger scheme of things than POFMA. I actually understand where the hon Member is coming from. I think there is a grain of truth there. I would not sort of wave that off. Would there not be a further argument for the Government, the state, the society to actually invest in developing judicial capacity, structures and processes even more for the administration of POFMA than what has already been done for the administration of POHA? We recognise that POFMA is dealing with actually more important societal or political issues as opposed to POHA, which is dealing with individual cases, that affect individuals only. And the last point really is, I think, the hon Member mentioned that I talked about the effect on individuals of receiving a Correction directive and it could affect their reputation and so on.”
“Sir, we in the WP do not oppose for the sake of opposing. But we oppose when we see something that does not support elements of the national interest like this Bill. (In English): In conclusion, Sir, purging destructive falsehoods from the public square is the right thing to do. But this Bill is a cure worse than the disease. When we look ahead post-POFMA, we see a country where only the rich and brave may dare to speak up. In time, the chill on free political speech may also affect our young people in our schools and higher education institutes. Will they come to self-censor their thoughts and their expressions to align with the Government's narrative? Will they internalise the fear of not diminishing confidence in the Government as section 4F of POFMA details? What will this mean for Singaporeans becoming independent thinkers who can navigate a world of disruption? Bear in mind what the hon Member Prof Lim Sun Sun said about how, among the general public, people are now using POFMA as a verb, "I will POFMA you". Sir, the problem of fake news needs a surgical tool welded by objective, non-conflicted surgeons to strike at the diseased organ and not the healthy limbs. But this Bill is not a carefully crafted tool, it is a blunt weapon, handed to a conflicted surgeon, able to cause a great deal of collateral damage to the democratic body politik in this country. The Bill, as it stands, needs a radical overhaul, not just minor tweaks. We do not oppose for the sake of opposing. But we do oppose when it is right for Singapore and this is one such time.”
“Sir, we recognise the need for a surgical tool to fight fake news, which is why my Party Leader, Mr Pritam Singh, argued for an alternative regime, a regime with broad definitions and powers in POFMA are curtailed by virtue of the Government requiring judges to approve Correction Orders at the point of implementation, which is closer to one aspect of the model being debated and implemented in France. Resources can be provided to ensure that duty judges provide fast, prima facie decisions in time-sensitive cases. The Court should be the first arbiter and not the final arbiter. Sir, in Malay, please. (In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] This Bill may reduce the reporting of information seen to be critical of the Government. It can also be misused by an irresponsible government, if Ministers, who may be seen to have their own political agenda, issue correction directions that are written in a way that will embarrass their critics, or they may even commence actions to take down the news that was published as well as stop the circulation of information that can embarrass the Government. Sir, under this law, the Government decides whether a particular item of news is considered to be false or otherwise, and it is the responsibility of the person who issued the statement to prove that it is not false, and this must be done in Court. The WP requests for a fake news law that places the responsibility of proving falsehoods on the Government, and not the person who issued the statement. The Courts must be the first arbiter in making the decision, and the Ministers should not be given dangerous powers, such as those stated in this Bill, powers that can be misused by an irresponsible government to retain their power.”
“What if such a rouge government exploited the reluctance of many Singaporeans to sue the Singapore Government in Court to its advantage? What if such a government exploited the lack of a public interest defence to suppress genuine and responsible investigative journalism? Do we serve future generations of Singaporeans by passing such a law and passing into the hands of the government of the day such a powerful weapon not knowing how it might be used? When asked about the possibility of a future rogue government abusing POFMA, the Law Minister said, and I quote, "I cannot vouch for how a future government will act." Some would say, and the Law Minister also said in the same interview, I am not taking it out of context, that a rogue government or a Minister who abuses their POFMA powers will be held to account in elections. A number of PAP Members of this House have made a great deal of this point. But Mr Speaker, Sir, this ignores the fact that a rogue government can precisely use POFMA powers to stop voters from learning negative information about their actions which could be a factor in those very elections. The powers can be used to partly insulate against electoral accountability. To say Parliament is a check against abuse is neither here nor there. The abuse may affect the composition of the Parliament itself. Mr Speaker, Sir, this argument is, to a large extent, circular. Some might say that chilling free speech a little is the right price to pay for preventing foreign powers, extremists and opportunists from destroying our communal harmony or even our independence as a country.”
“Next, let us look ahead to the future post-POFMA in respect of politics. Singapore will be a country where any Minister can determine in the first instance what is truth and falsehood – in the first instance. Post-POFMA, ours will be a country where Ministers with the political interest they are seen to have, can correct statements they deem misleading, but the very same Ministers will not be subject to the stringent, immediate and broad strictures of the POFMA law. Ministers and Government spokespersons can say what they want, including misleading statements with a partisan political character. What is the restraint on the Government here? Can victims of possible Government falsehoods go to the POHA Courts? Evidently not. They can sue for defamation, but again, how many would do that? Would defamation apply to statements made by Ministries and agencies as opposed to Ministers? How long would that take? What if a falsehood perpetrated by a government affects the outcome of an election? Would a positive defamation verdict for a victim of government fake news after the election help? Section 4F describes diminution of confidence in the Government as one definition for falsehood being harmful to the public interest, a feature of this law that is different from most similar fake news laws or draft laws in other countries. Is vesting powers this broad in the Government of the day, from now to when this law is repealed, if ever that day comes, the responsible thing to do for future generations of Singaporeans? What if a rouge government uses these powers to stifle criticism, block the circulation of embarrassing information about lapses, abuses or corruption, perpetuate fear and entrench itself in power?”
“There should be a public interest defence whereby a statement that was "false", according to the strict standards of POFMA, that is, it could have been deemed misleading at the time that it was made, may still not be an offence, or would be a far smaller class of offence carrying smaller penalties if made in good faith using a defensible process and to serve the greater public interest. Sir, let us look ahead to the post-POFMA future. Will practitioners in the media industry and academia err on the side of caution? Does that help Singapore's reputation as the global business, research and development and knowledge hub? Will scientists and public health professionals with a different view from the Government on the public health impact of e-cigarettes, for example, hesitate to publish clinical research showing harm reduction to confirmed smokers for e-cigarettes out of fear that they may be subject to Correction order because they did not also publish in the same statement facts about how many young first-time smokers are taking up e-cigarettes in the US and, hence, that research will be deemed a misleading collection of true statements? As a result, will they refrain from publishing such facts due to the personal consequences they will have to face? How does the impoverishment of policy debate that may ensue from that help the formation of good policies? How do we mitigate the risks that the academics and the media may come to see a need to soft launch their ideas before publication with Government officers to minimise the risk of POFMA action or, worse yet, simply self-censor or water down outputs that disagree with the Government's narrative and hence may be deemed to undermine confidence in the Government under section 4?”
“Many citizens will not have the stomach to risk a Correction order or a criminal charge even if they are confident about their facts, as many will not want to take on the effort, time, cost and risk entailed by a legal appeal, let alone a full-blown judicial review action. Under POFMA, the burden of proof falls on the person saying something, not the Government for saying that something was false. Many will choose not to take up that burden and simply not speak up. Next, Sir, section 11 raises a related issue. Its language regarding Correction statements is broad. A Correction statement must be worded "in the specified form and manner" specified by the Government. Is there any requirement that Correction statements be as concise, factual, reasonable and non-pejorative as possible? Where is the requirement of proportionality in wording Correction statements? Next, look ahead to the future. A price we pay for this Bill may be to live in a country where alternative media activists and journalists are afraid to bring certain information to light, possibly information about lapses, abuses, scandals or corruption, because they need to protect people who have shared information confidentially but are too afraid to be named. In this case, under section 7, potentially, even the expression of public suspicion on the publishing of information from confidential sources by reputable journalists and writers using accepted, investigative and journalistic methodologies, may attract criminal penalties. The POFMA Bill, as it stands, lacks a public interest defence, something the UK is reportedly considering including in its eventual fake news law.”
“When we bring in the risk of massive fines and lengthy jail time under section 7 for a single offence of "having reason to believe" that one statement is false or harmful as POFMA defines it, which includes undermining confidence in the Government, and with no threshold of significant impact on public interest specified in the law, the risk, Mr Speaker, Sir, is not just chilling free speech, but of hurling it into an industrial freezer. By free speech here, I refer particularly to public speech regarding policies and politics that may contain criticisms of the government of the day or the ruling party. I note in passing that for offshore sponsors of deliberate online falsehoods like state actors or offshore extremists or sectarian groups, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to subject them to these criminal penalties. The burden of these penalties and the fear they generate will fall primarily on domestic actors, on Singaporeans. Of course, penalties for harmful falsehoods are necessary. I want to be clear about that. But when the penalties are severe and attached to language like that in sections 2 and 4 and with Ministers as the first arbiters of truth, the prospect of chilling public political debate is very real. What would Singapore look like if most Singaporeans avoid commenting publicly in ways that may be seen as critical of the Government and its narrative? What may take hold is self-censorship and the restriction of online comments in favour of verbal conversations amongst friends or talks held amongst small groups. And the reason for this is clear to see.”
“And this is setting aside section 17, Part 5's circumscription of the scope of what has been said will be fast and cheap POFMA High Court appeals to exclude consideration of the degree to which public interest is impacted, a point which my colleague Mr Dennis Tan and which my Party Chairman Ms Sylvia Lim will expand on. This lack of a threshold of significance stretches the risk of abuse of POFMA powers to correct matters which have a very minor impact on the public interest. Next, my colleagues have spoken about the chilling effect POFMA may have on free speech. This is not political point-scoring. It is by virtue of this Bill's peculiar cocktail of three things, of section 2, defining what the Minister deems a misleading presentation of facts, not only false claims of facts, as correctable. That is one. Two, section 4F defining harmful falsehoods as including those that diminish confidence in the Government. And thirdly, section 6, which establishes Ministers as the decision-makers of truth and falsehoods in the first instance. It is through the combination of these three aspects of POFMA that this Bill is likely to chill free speech and debate about the Government, policies and politics, particularly, expressions of views that run counter to the Government narrative. Why do I say this? Look ahead to the future. Correction and takedown orders could damage, if not destroy reputations and careers, for journalists, activists, academics, public intellectuals, politicians, professionals of various kinds. In fact, for many, many citizens. If your post becomes subject to such orders, what would your employers think, your lecturers and tutors, your professional colleagues, friends, spouse, business associates, partners and customers?”
“How do we deal with statements like, for example, "Housing and Development Board (HDB) flats are more like rental flats than owned assets since lessees lack strata titles. The HDB controls many aspects of what you can do with your flat and the value declines over the long-term towards zero dollars at the end of 99 years". Sir, Minister Lawrence Wong denounced a similar notion as legally and factually wrong. Would such a view be deemed subject to a Correction Order under POFMA? On POFMA, a falsehood can be deemed grave enough to warrant correction or penalty for being a misleading collection of facts, even if it does not contain one single false statement of fact. If this wide definition of misleading facts is maintained, the Courts should at least be the first arbiter of truth in respect of formulations, such as this one, rather than Ministers who have and will be seen to have their own political interest, a point I will come back to. Next, section 4 sets out various criteria by which false statements are deemed harmful to the "public interest". However, the language lacks any reference to a real risk threshold. In section 4, it would seem that anything that impinges on national security, public health, public finances and so on, in however microscopic or indirect manner, would be upheld as vulnerable to corrections or penalties. The language of section 4 states "expedient" and "necessary". But expedient and necessary for what? To what degree of harm to those things? Should section 4 not be worded to define "public interest" with reference to a real risk posed to the things described? In lieu of this, any statement having however minor an impact on the things described would qualify as correctable. How could meaningful judicial review thus operate?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, all Members in this House and both the WP and the PAP agree that fake online news is a danger that modern society must address. We have seen what happens elsewhere when falsehood fans sectarian hatred, swing elections and harmed national security. We need tools to limit the reach of truly dangerous falsehoods spread by malicious actors. But while we agree on the goal, the WP and the PAP disagree about the means to achieve that goal. We disagree because we look ahead to the future of this country after this Bill is passed and we see a country where too much power is vested in the hands of any and every Minister. We see a country where free speech debate and thinking could become stifled, especially on the very important matters of public policy and politics on which so much health in national life turns. We disagree because the cure that the PAP Government has placed in front of us could lead to outcomes worse than the disease. As the hon Member Mr Pritam Singh said, section 22 of POFMA defines falsehoods as statements of facts that are false or misleading, not false and misleading. So, a misleading statement can be deemed false by a Minister by virtue of omission of facts. Sir, in political, intellectual, legal, academic public debate, individuals often present facts that support their arguments and devote less time and space to facts that tend to support the opposite argument. This has been the case for centuries. Yet, section 2 suggests that a particular collection of facts may be construed as misleading if the "opposite facts", as it were, are not given what the Minister thinks its sufficient weight. The same Minister may not correct statements made by the Government or its supporters that present mainly their facts as it were.”
“What I am saying to the hon Minister is that a simplified process can be created to absolutely minimise the lead time between the Minister and the Court to get a decision. There is a certain amount of lead time, in any case, for the internal conversation between civil servants and Ministers in such cases. What we are talking about is the additional lead time between the Minister and the Court to get that decision to break the virality. So, I would put it to the Minister that a process can be defined that is very simplified to minimise that lead time.”
“If the Courts are sufficiently structured and resourced and the process is defined to enable that to happen, then the answer is yes.”
“That is precisely the point. In some cases, the judge will not agree. If the judge feels that he is being asked to make a prima facie decision, but he is looking at it on a balance of probabilities and he feels that the Executive is over-reaching or the Executive is abusing its power, so he may not agree in that case. And that is precisely the value of the check.”
“Yes. So, I would take it that necessary capacity can be created. We can create a special class of Courts, duty judges. Capacity is a question of resource planning. So, with sufficient resources applied, necessary capacity can be created. Next, there is an issue of process. And I think the Law Minister alluded to the fact that while the Government will have to word the submission, even an ex parte submission to the Court, and that is time-consuming, and while this is going on, the clock is ticking away and the falsehood is viralising and so on. But within the Ministry, or the Statutory Board or agency, the civil servants also have to word the submission to the Minister or communicate with the Minister. Can we not create a process whereby the communication, the form and the format of communication between the civil servant and the Minister is very similar to the form and format of communication between the Government and the Court in those very time-sensitive cases, to obtain an initial prima facie decision? So, my point there is that I think, at the level of process, a process can be created to minimise the time lag from Ministry to Court. I would put it to the Minister that a process can be created in that way. And I think we have addressed the issue of capacity and we have addressed the issue of process. The Minister has been talking about the current situation, right now, with the capacity we have and the process we have. If we can add more resources and capacity, and we change the process to make it expedited to arrive at that prima facie decision to stop the viralisation, I would put it to the Law Minister that that is perfectly conceivable. And I also want to address the other point that the Minister made, that in some cases, the judge will not agree.”
“I thank the Law Minister for his explanation. And I think that there are a number of points that the Minister made which relate to judicial capacity, for want of a better term, and process. I would imagine that, based on what the Law Minister has said, he can envisage that the necessary capacity can be created to deal with such a caseload, based on what Law Minister said.”
“I would like to pose a clarification to the Law Minister. I had intended originally to pose a clarification to Mr Cedric Foo. But I think in light of the Law Minister's comments at this point, I will just pose some clarification to him. It is quite simple. Is it the position of the Law Minister and the Government that our Courts could not be sufficiently resourced, structured, if necessary a new process, a new expedited process created, if necessary a new process for assigning judges created, additional capacity created? Is it impossible? Is it inconceivable that this could be done in the future in order to issue interim prima facie decisions in urgent, time-sensitive cases under POFMA? Is that impossible by definition? By definition, is that impossible in the future if we take all these steps to put in the resources to put in the process, if necessary create a special of class of judges and so on, so forth. Is that impossible by definition? I would add that in other jurisdictions, to the best of my knowledge, and I may stand corrected, in other jurisdictions, for example, in some states in the US, it is my understanding that an arrest warrant has to be approved by a judge under certain circumstances. These arrest warrants are very time-sensitive and the judge has to make a decision on the balance of probabilities whether to arrest the person. That is a serious matter, whether to arrest a person in extremely time-sensitive circumstances. Sometimes, late at night, the law enforcers will go and see the judge. Because that system has been created and structured and resourced in such a way that it is possible. So, that is my clarification.”
“Just an additional point of clarification to the hon Member Mr Vikram Nair. He mentioned that the process of a judicial review of directives under POFMA would be unworkable because there would be hundreds of cases of fake news every day. Is the hon Member suggesting that the powers in POFMA are likely to be exercised? Does the hon Member envisage that these powers are likely to be exercised several hundred times every day?”
“I have one supplementary question for Second Minister Indranee Rajah. Minister Indranee Rajah alluded to the infrastructural changes that are happening in the NUS now, the retrofitting of the shower cubicles, the locks, additional security cameras and so on. It is a shame that it took this incident of Ms Monica Baey coming forward before these changes are actually made, given the number of voyeurism offences that have taken place in the previous years. My supplementary question would be, are these infrastructural changes to enhance security being done across the board for all the IHLs? And is there a timeframe for this to be carried out?”
“I thank the Minister. The purpose for which I am suggesting the debarment can be considered is essentially protection of the Government's interest because if debarment can be considered for companies involved in past public sector offences. Well, if the company has been involved in past private sector corruption offences, then, presumably, that creates a possibility that they may also expose the Government to some risk if they take on a public sector contract. So, my purpose is basically protection of the Government, and to have a debarment process that considers both Government and private sector past corruption offences because past private sector corruption offences may be grounds to suppose that there is some risk even if that company were to undertake a Government contract.”
“I should just thank the Minister for her response. Just to clarify on that, my purpose is for the purpose of debarment because past public sector corruption cases are potential grounds for debarment because of various risks that the Government may be exposed to if the tender is awarded to that company. So, why would not past private sector corruption cases also similarly give rise to grounds for potential debarment under the SCOD debarment procedures?”
“I thank the Minister for her reply. Just some further clarifications. I understand the Minister has said that specifically with regard to the procedure for debarment, Government contracts – public sector contracts – are taken into consideration, not private sector contracts and there are other mechanisms or processes in procurement where private sector corruption in the past can be taken into account. I would just like to sort of go deeper on this point: why can the debarment process run by SCOD not take into account past private sector corruption offences? Why is it only taking into account past public sector corruption offences? Will that be something that the Government is prepared to review, going forward?”