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 5 of 25.
“Mr Speaker, Sir, my Adjournment Motion speech today will address the issue of ensuring a culture of accountability to students and staff at our Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs). I was moved to give the speech by having met many young people over the years, be it at my Meet-the-People Sessions or during my constituency walkabouts, house visits and other events in the Serangoon ward of Aljunied GRC. Current students, teachers as well as the alumni have also reached out to my volunteer team and I to share their ideas and suggestions which they often feel are not being reflected or heard at the decision-making level in IHLs. I am proud of them for standing up and speaking up for the welfare and rights of their colleagues, their fellow students and juniors. In this speech, Sir, I hope to share some thoughts and proposals that have been inspired by what they shared. Sir, accountability is something we speak about in politics, but its dynamics at IHLs – which I will focus on for my speech – is quite different because of the power structures and rules in place. Which is why my speech will focus on IHL boards and management being more accountable, specifically to students and staff. Against this, it could be urged that IHLs are not democracies any more than companies are. Why is there need for some degree of accountability and transparency about decision-making? The reasons for why this is important may be self-evident to some, but I will spell those out. For one, IHL management, as with the management of any organisation may have blind spots to what students and staff need. An example is how mental health challenges faced by students are very different from those staff faced and different too from those faced by older adults.”
“But can we succeed in moving the needle towards this ideal, so that more and more and more of our national discourse gradually becomes like this, not in a straight line, maybe a zig-zag, messy line, but moving more and more towards a dominant paradigm that says that we can respectfully agree to disagree and tomorrow we will still be fellow Singaporeans, still be brothers and sisters, still defend the political centre and push those spewing hatred, bigotry and violence to the fringes? Can we hold different views that may never be reconciled and have those views respectfully played out in civil discourse, bearing in mind the place of our laws and the place of freedom of speech and religion in a healthy balance, bearing in mind that we are all citizens, equal before the law? Can we move forward by respectfully agreeing to disagree without demonising the one we disagree with but embracing him and her as our fellow citizen, our colleague, our brother and our sister? Can we do this, Sir? I think we must. I do not know for a fact that we can or will. But I do know this. From my discussions I have had with my Workers' Party colleagues who have expressed or will express different views from mine in Parliament today on 377A, I would like to say that I am optimistic that Singapore can do it. Why? Because my colleagues and I strive together for a democratic society. We work alongside each other. And on this issue, we debated, discussed, learnt from one another, agreed to disagree with respect and humility and affection, and we decided democratically.”
“How can we move forward as one united people, as a democratic society? Surely, the answer to that question is to cultivate the ability for Singaporeans to talk to each other respectfully and rationally, to decide on important matters that way, to decide our politics that way, to decide our laws that way, to agree to disagree that way, when perfect consensus cannot be forged – as it cannot on a range of issues, not only on section 377A. For example, in this House we debated the issue of hiking GST versus alternative revenue-raising mechanisms that the Workers' Party put forward. We did not find consensus but there were points of agreement. But in that GST debate, the debate turned on rational argument and ultimately philosophic considerations of a secular nature. Here, the debate comes down to matters of deep personal conviction that is less easily resolved with reference to agreed facts. Will we succeed in cultivating the ability to respectfully disagree on such matters where much of the rest of the world has failed? Will we succeed in preserving our unity and not allowing these disagreements, that are so hard to resolve by debate, to become political rifts? Sir, we will not, not completely and not by making straight line progress. These views are very deeply rooted and passionate on both sides.”
“As a human being, I close my eyes and imagine if I lived in a world, where what I deeply feel and who I love are held to be fundamentally wrong by many or most of my fellow human beings, are at odds with the social mores I see everywhere around me, reflected in the media, culture, education, religion. I imagine being in that place. The pain that comes from that sharp disconnect between the inner life and the outer reality cannot be described in words easily. That inequality needs to be addressed. Sir, I would like to move on now to the amendment to the Constitution. Sir, this amendment to the Constitution which has been tabled today, holds that Parliament has the right to decide on the definition of marriage. I see no reason to disagree with this. On a matter such as the definition of marriage, which is deeply cultural, the law should be made democratically by the people of Singapore, whose voice Parliament reflects. Such laws should be made by the legislature, which is accountable to the people directly, and not by the Courts, which have no such direct accountability. Sir, the Workers' Party Chair, Ms Sylvia Lim, has made some important arguments about why this amendment is unsatisfactory, in a sense redundant and sets a bad precedent. I agree with the points she has made, which come from a good lawyer's understanding of constitutional law; and I say this as a non-lawyer. Nevertheless, as a legislator, I believe that the amendment does signify a correct principle, one I agree with. And I believe that it is a useful signifier to establish, however imperfect the mechanism and wording of it may be on grounds of legal scholarship. So, I support it on that basis. Mr Speaker, Sir, in conclusion, where do we go from here?”
“As I said earlier, the mainstream of opinion among Singaporeans who want to retain 377A is not to call for its active enforcement and not to condone bullying and discrimination against LGBTQ individuals of any kind. This is a huge point in favour of the common ground, the strong middle in this debate. And I would argue that as the mirror image of that, those who questioned LGBTQ relationships on the grounds of religious faith or deep personal conviction should have the freedom to espouse their views respectfully, making clear that they regard everyone equally as a citizen, but they hew to their deep personal convictions on this matter. They should not be cancelled. They should not be demonised. To criticise a choice someone makes in their personal life is not tantamount to criticising, denigrating or disenfranchising that person. But this depends, of course, on how that criticism is made. I recognise that. Already, as it stands, some religious teachings do constitute criticisms of certain acts not deemed illegal. Likewise, those of a different persuasion, those who believe in LGBTQ equality have the right to respectfully criticise opposing views. Is such respectful speech where we agree to disagree even possible? I will return to this topic in the last part of my speech today. Before I leave the subject of repealing 377A, Mr Speaker, Sir, I must say that it is my personal conviction that every individual should be treated equally regardless of sexual orientation. Why? I personally believe that the principles of equality and fairness demand this. I say that as those are rational principles, but I also say that as a human being with the emotional make-up that that entails.”
“But this leaves the door open to a future government and Attorney-General's Chamber (AGC) to reverse this stance. More importantly, such an approach to the law, in my mind, places too much power in the hands of the Government and the AGC to decide what laws should be enforced and what laws should absolutely not be enforced. It leaves too much to prosecutorial discretion and too little to the rightful province of Parliament in making these laws and the Courts to interpret them. To keep a law that has a serious impact on the lives of many Singaporeans on the basis that it is a marker that will not be enforced by the current Government is not in my opinion, how we should go about making good laws. Markers can be created and conveyed respectfully in other ways without incorporating them into our laws. Which brings me to the last part of my speech on 377A, the part that addresses the subtext. Will removing 377A mean that in the wider society, those of a religious persuasion or who are otherwise persuaded, cannot express their views freely about LGBTQ+ relationships, which may be prescribed in religious faith? Sir, the freedom of religion is protected under our Constitution. Article 15 protects the right of each Singaporean to profess, practise and propagate their religion. Freedom of speech is also protected by Article 14(1) of our Constitution. Making these arguments about 377A – I also want to make another argument – those who question LGBTQ relationships on the grounds of religion or other considerations rooted in personal conviction should be free to express their views respectfully.”
“For example, some have made points about public health, some about our ability to reproduce as a nation, some about the undesirability of importing liberal values from the west and so on. However, let us recall, this is a debate about keeping or throwing out 377A as a symbolic marker, not about actively enforcing it, where there is no disagreement. If we retain 377A as a symbolic marker, should we also introduce other laws into the statute books as symbolic markers without enforcement such as, for example, for illustrative purposes, laws encouraging healthier sexual behaviour, or laws encouraging Singaporeans to have enough children to lift our total fertility rate? Or laws to oppose liberal cultural ideas? I do not think we should and I do not believe anyone is calling for this. Therefore, by the same token, there is a case to repeal 377A as unnecessary because symbolic markers are not inserted into our body of laws for other issues of importance. And also, because free and respectful conversation about symbolic markers can and should continue completely independently of the law and criminal penalties. Such respectful conversations have a place. I shall return to this in the later part of my speech. There are other better ways to register our views on matters of conscience, ways that are pursued outside of the realm of laws and criminal penalties. Sir, my next argument for supporting a repeal of 377A is that retaining a law that is not actively enforced, based on the word of the government of the day, is unsatisfactory and dangerous. No doubt, the current Government has declared that it will not proactively enforce 377A and the Attorney General has said that the Public Prosecutor will hew to this.”
“In explaining my own vote today, I would like to address both these issues in turn. Before I do so, I would like to record my thanks to the Leader of the Opposition for lifting the whip in this debate and thus allowing Workers' Party Members of Parliament (MPs) to speak and vote according to their conscience and deeply held values. Workers' Party MPs do have a majority view but I support the right of each MP to vote according to their conscience on retaining or repealing 377A as a moral marker. Sir, you do not get an issue that is more entwined with conscience than this. Yet, as I said earlier, no one in the Workers' Party is calling for 377A to be actively enforced. Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to move on to my own view on repealing 377A. I support the repeal. First, I would like to talk about the rightful place of the law in policing private acts between consenting adults. My own view is that there is a public sphere where the law has the right to intervene in private behaviour that has public consequences, even when that private behaviour is consensual on the part of all participants. For example, we have the offence of statutory rape where sex with the minor is criminalised. The minor may have consented, but the law recognises that the minor does not have the maturity to meaningfully consent. And I agree with this. Most of us would. But my own view is that the law has no place to intervene in private behaviour among truly consenting adults, provided there is no other public consequence thrown up. Sir, I have received feedback from a number of Singaporeans, including my own constituents, who believe that consenting LGBTQ+ relationships do have such public implications.”
“I suspect that this would be the case for all other Members of this House, who can be taken to represent the political mainstream. Let us stop and reflect on that for a second. That is hugely important. No one is saying discrimination is okay; no one is saying bullying is okay; no one is saying violence is okay. That is what unites the vast majority. Some on the fringe on either side may not agree but no one in the mainstream disagrees. Despite our worst fears, in my humble opinion, Sir, the middle ground on this issue is strong. And Mr Speaker, Sir, given that no one is calling for the active enforcement of 377A in this debate, as we move on to unpack the issues, we must hold fast in our hearts to that realisation, because it is the truth that unifies and heals and strengthens. So, what then is at stake, if it is not practical enforcement? What is at stake is the existence of 377A on our statute books as a moral marker, as a symbolic marker. And as I said in my recent speech on national symbols, the debate is not less important for that reason. It is far from trivial. It is important because symbols matter. Mr Speaker, what divides us in this debate is whether to keep or throw out 377A in our body of law. I would like to argue that there is another issue that divides us, which is a subtext to the debate, a subliminal factor if you like. And that is the concern that if 377A is repealed and that moral marker is no longer, will those who do not view LGBTQ+ relationships as being consonant with their own personal values, will such people be cancelled from expressing their view, will the expression of their views, say religious views for example, be considered to be acts of hatred and discrimination?”
“We can look at the culture wars in the USA, for example, an oft-quoted example, where differences in values, often with the religious dimension have become political and polarising. Another example, possibly is Turkey, where differences in values with the religious dimension have had huge political ramifications in the past and still do. Politics is and should be about the contest of ideas, robust respectful debate about what is best for the country is a good thing, as most Singaporeans would probably agree these days. The truth, what is best for our country in our time emerges from such disagreement. Other things are needed for political progress, but there can be no progress without respectful, robust political debate. But major political divides around values or on matters of conscience and religion are a different matter, to some extent. Such debates are often impossible to settle with reference to an agreed set of facts. So, as we chart a path forward on these issues before the House today, before the country today, it is worth recalling a few truths that almost no one would disagree with on either side of the questions before us. Let us recall a few things that unite us. Firstly, Singaporeans will have to decide these debates ourselves. The touchstone in our hearts should be what is best for and what is possible in this country we love, not some other country we know about. Secondly, I believe that no one in this debate is calling for the active enforcement of 377A. I know that this is the case for my colleagues in the Workers' Party, who have a different view from mine on 377A and with whom I have had many lively and meaningful discussions from which I have learned a great deal.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to start by asking a simple question. What if you were born into a world where your actions marked you out as being in minority because most people do not want to do what you do? An unpopular minority. What if you were able to live your life in the society you were born into, but at the back of your mind, you could never get over this niggling fear, this fear that one day, the majority might turn against you, might bully you, might discriminate against you or worse? Each of us can close our eyes and imagine that we live in such a world. And then imagine a different world, a different situation imagine that you hold dearly to a viewpoint as a matter of conscience, a viewpoint that others believe is deeply offensive and hurtful, even though to you it is a view that does not call for hurt towards any other human being. Rather, it is a view about what sorts of behaviours should be held up as moral markers in our society. Imagine that you cannot speak about that point of view that you hold, on pain of being cancelled, abused, or attacked on social media or worse. Each of us can close our eyes and imagine that we live in such a world too. Sir, proponents of either side in the 377A debate may identify with either one or the other scenario, or perhaps some may identify with both scenarios at once. That is what is at stake in this debate. Are we to be divided between people who cherish the freedom to act in a certain way versus those who cherish the freedom to espouse views that are deep matters of conscience and never the twain shall meet? Will this be an unbridgeable chasm in our Singapore? We have seen what such divisions about values can do in other countries.”
“I thank the Senior Minister of State for her reply. Just a few supplementary questions. Firstly, no doubt, there are differences in the methodologies used in these studies. Would the Government consider developing a particular yardstick based on the methodological best practices out there, in order to derive an estimate for what is the health impact, the mortality impact of air pollution? My second supplementary question is what policy levers are available to the Government and what policy levers does it use to induce facilities that have made air pollution to scale back and reduce that air pollution? And this is important given the effects on human health which can be particularly bad for industrial pollutants. Thirdly, what is the progress of the Government towards achieving the WHO guideline for PM2.5 pollution, in the air, which I believe the Government has stated as a goal? And lastly, when does the Government estimate we would be able to hit this WHO-preferred guideline for PM2.5 air pollution?”
“To be sure, electronic games can nurture positive traits, such as strategic thinking, information processing and mental agility. But the elements in some games which suggest that players can pay to play, but with randomised results, could well result in mental habituation and attraction towards gambling later in life. If the Government will not ban such elements outright, as I hope it will, I hope, at the very least, that it would mandate warning labels on games that would draw parents' attention to the potential links to problem gambling. That would serve as a nudge to game developers to remove such elements from their games. I hope that such measures can be incorporated into the subsidiary legislation for this Bill or to another Act.”
“A report produced by researchers at the universities of Plymouth and Wolverhampton in UK, as reported by the BBC in April 2021, found that loot boxes "are structurally and psychologically akin to gambling." According to the study in the UK, "Of the 93% of children who play video games, up to 40% opened loot boxes. Twelve out of 13 studies on the topic have established 'unambiguous' connections to problem gambling behaviour…The big spenders – the crucial 5% for the industry – can spend more than £70 or £100 a month on the boxes", the report said. A report from the Norwegian Consumer Council from May 2022 suggests that some of these in-game gambling-like elements "contribute to a sense of anticipation and reward and are presumably designed to trigger dopamine releases that keep the player opening packs." Madam, my concern is that, aside from young children spending money in something that is potentially of little benefit, there is the risk that our young children playing these games, or perhaps a significant minority of them craving that dopamine hit, could experience changes in their brain chemistry that would render them more susceptible to problem gambling as adults. The studies I cited shows that there is some evidence to support this. Madam, problem gambling is a serious social problem. While it affects a small percentage of the population directly, the financial losses and social harm they generate can easily affect their family members and loved ones. I am glad to note that the Gambling Regulatory Authority announced in August this year that it is looking at loot boxes. I hope that stronger action will be taken against such elements in games, beyond just a dollar cap.”
“And perhaps video clips and other communications material can be rolled out to a mass audience featuring such anti-bullying ambassadors. Next, Madam, let me move onto the subject of loot boxes and other gambling-like elements in electronic games. Madam, I have asked several Parliamentary Questions about this subject. The most recent was in 2019 which elicited the reply that the Remote Gambling Act (RGA) would apply to loot boxes, only if the loot thus obtained could potentially be converted into real world money. To quote from that 2019 reply, "Given the randomness of the prizes in loot boxes, they are a game of chance. However, whether the loot boxes are considered a form of gambling under the RGA, depends on whether there are in-game facilities that allow players to convert game credits or any in-game items, for example, weapons and skills, to real-world money or merchandises." I also spoke about this subject in the 2020 MHA Committee of Supply (COS) debate, pointing out that loot boxes, a consumable virtual item used to redeem a randomised selection of further virtual items, are increasingly seen, in some quarters, as a form of gambling. I highlighted that from a study by academics at the University of York, there is some evidence linking loot boxes to problem gambling. Belgium has banned loot boxes purchased using real money. The UK National Health Services (NHS) have also called for the industry to ban loot boxes. Its mental health director Claire Murdoch warned that these were in danger of "setting kids up for addiction." Since my 2020 speech in this House, fresh research has strengthened the evidence of a causative link between loot boxes and problem gambling.”
“I would suggest that for now, the problem can be addressed through education and would like to call on MOE and the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) to explore this. There are helplines for young victims of bullying, including cyberbullying, such as Tinkle Friend by the Singapore Children's Society, which does good work and deserves support from all of us. I am also aware that cyberbullying is addressed in the current curriculum relating to cyber wellness in schools. However, how effective has this been? I would urge the Government to conduct further research into this area and study innovative programmes that have worked around the world. In particular, we need targeted education in primary and secondary schools that helps students to recognise that as bystanders, they have an important responsibility to step in and stop bullying, or at least to not cooperate and to flag out potential issues to teachers or others in authority positions. Encouragingly, the PISA study I cited earlier found that 94% of Singaporean students agreed that it is a good thing to help students who cannot defend themselves. But does this translate to bystanders pushing back when bullying actually happens online? This needs to be studied. The role of bystanders here is crucial. For this kind of education to work better, I am wondering if we can enlist students who have stood up to bullying, either as victims or bystanders, to be anti-bullying ambassadors who give talks in schools as to what they experienced, what they did, how they coped and also, when and how to bring the authorities in, as opposed to necessarily escalating every single situation to people in authority. 6.57 pm”
“Madam, page 9 of the Bill excludes certain services from the scope of the Bill, including SMSes and, in part (e), "an electronic service where the only user-generated content enabled by that service is communication between two or more end-users that is of a private or domestic nature." This would imply that the law excludes bullying that takes place among a group of children, where one or more children bullies one child on a chat group, on say the victim's Instagram page. Madam, children are a group where cyberbullying can have a very serious effect, given their lack of maturity and lack of life experiences in accessing resources that could help them. A large-scale National Institute of Health study in the United States (US) found that "the child participants who experienced cyberbullying were more than four times as likely to report thoughts of suicide and attempts as those who did not." I think this subject of youth mental health, in the context of social media, has been the subject of much public discussion and much research and rightly so, as many experts are tending towards a view that there is a connection between the very extensive social media usage that we are seeing among young people, and the kinds of mental health issues that are coming to the fore. Madam, how to deal with this very difficult question – and I confess that I do not have a legislative magic bullet to suggest here. I am not advocating for law enforcement agencies to police private conversations in a way that compromises privacy, could itself be subject to executive over-reach and could corrode our children's capacity to spontaneously interact with one another as well as learn social lessons thereby.”
“It is a very positive move for MCI to formally refer to the use of research in this manner, since this area of online harms is a rapidly evolving space and since more research needs to be done on the effects of certain online activities, particularly on children. Mdm Deputy Speaker, I will now move to talking about online bullying of children. Madam, this is a serious issue in Singapore. A 2019 Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) study found that 26% of Singaporean students reported being bullied at least a few times a month, compared to an Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) average of 23%. This is not a small number by any means. Madam, this subject is somewhat personal to me, as there were short periods of time in both my children's primary school life when they were bullied by friends. It is traumatic for the child and can leave lasting psychological scars. But it is also hard on the parents, arousing feelings of concern, frustrations and yet, helplessness. Why do I say helplessness? Because sometimes, the parents feels that they cannot address the problem with a sledgehammer, by coming down hard on the bullies, who are themselves children and may not fully understand what they are doing. The effects of cyberbullying can be deadly. In America, a girl called Megan Meier committed suicide three weeks before her 14th birthday and her suicide was attributed to cyberbullying on the social networking site MySpace. I think the Minister had referred to this example as well. Her classmate's mother had created a fake MySpace account, pretending to be a teenage boy, Josh. "Josh" messaged Megan on AOL Instant Messenger (AIM) saying something very hurtful. Megan killed herself shortly after.”
“But at paragraph 4 of the First Reading speech, the June 2022 survey by MCI found that, "Sexual content, cyberbullying and violent content were the top three types of content that respondents felt the young needed to be protected from most". And I was actually not referring to the speech, but to the statement from MCI. It would seem that the proposed Bill might not address the first two concerns in a sufficiently specific manner. In Canada, there is an offence of sharing intimate images without consent. I hope the subsidiary legislation can be more specific about these two types of egregious content. Next, Madam, I note that at paragraph 8 of the Ministry's statement. it is stated that "The Codes of Practice may require Regulated Online Communication Services (ROCS) providers to put in place measures on their services to mitigate the risks of danger to Singapore users from exposure to harmful content and provide accountability to their users on such measures." I would like to ask the Government how this accountability will come about. Will the Government commit to public consultations when new Codes of Practice are issued? This is hinted at in section 45L(2), but it is not a requirement. I hope that, given the evolving nature of online harms, as well as the need to balance privacy and free speech concerns, that a proper consultation process will be the norm in future before new Codes of Practice are issued. Next, Madam, part 9(d) of the same statement refers to how ROCS providers should collaborate or cooperate with the conduct of research studies by experts approved by IMDA. Such research would allow IMDA to understand the nature and level of the systemic risks in the ROCS, and the evolution and severity of such risks. Madam, I support this provision.”
“In addition to such measures and perhaps embedded in the Codes of Practice, I wonder if there could be a system where users of OCSs can first report content on the platform that is egregious and/or seriously harassing, to the OCS itself. If the OCS fails to take action within a stipulated time frame, say seven days, then there could be a mechanism whereby the complainant can raise this issue to the IMDA and ask the IMDA to issue the appropriate directions in relation to such content. This draws on the Australia's Cyberbullying Scheme. One of its features is that a person may make a complaint to eSafety about cyberbullying material that targets an Australian child and this acts as a safety net, because they must have first reported the material to the relevant online service provider before taking the step. In addition, if the OCS fails to investigate or take action about that content reported by a user within the stipulated time frame, there could be penalties for the OCS. While there are already reporting platforms or tools on most, if not all, of the OCSs, such a requirement embedded in a Code of Practice would create some legal pressure on the OCS to further investigate and act on user notifications or reports of egregious content in a timely manner. Next, section 45D defines "egregious content". While this section does contain some specific definitions of egregious content, there could be other types of egregious content where more specificity would be welcome, as my colleague Mr Giam and other Members alluded to. In particular, I think that the definition of egregious content given here in the Bill does not adequately deal with the following two categories: firstly, revenge porn or unwanted sharing of intimate images; and secondly, cyberbullying.”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, the Online Safety (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill marks a step in the right direction to create some regime for enforcement of basic standards of protection and decency against acts of online harm. I support the thrust of the Bill and stand in agreement with the arguments made by my Parliamentary colleague, Aljunied Member of Parliament, Mr Gerald Giam. In particular, I strongly support Mr Giam's call on the Government to provide clear and unequivocal assurances that this law will not be used to curtail the exercise of legitimate free speech that touches on the public acts of public figures and that is not of a vicious and personal nature. I hope the Government can provide such assurances during the Parliamentary debate, to be recorded in the Hansard. Members will recall how the Protection from Harassment Act (POHA) was used by the Ministry of Defence (MINDEF) to take action against an individual, the legitimacy of which was disputed in a subsequent ruling of the Court of Appeals. Madam, my speech will focus on the topic of online bullying, particularly as it pertains to children and of the harms of loot boxes and other gambling-like elements in electronic games. Before I address these two topics, let me make some general suggestions and clarifications on the approach taken in this Bill, where more clarity is, perhaps, needed. Madam, under the proposed Bill, there are two key parts to the regulatory approach. Firstly, requiring OCSs with significant reach or impact to comply with Code(s) of Practice; and secondly, dealing with egregious content on an OCS that is accessible by Singapore users, by enabling IMDA to issue directions to deal with such content.”
“Yes. So, Ms He Ting Ru and I filed the amendments with the Clerk of Parliament on Monday. I do understand the point the Minister is making that the Notice was sent out to all Members of Parliament on the Wednesday. But I just want to make the point that we did file the amendments that we planned to move on the Monday. I do also want to make the observation that we received the notification that the President's recommendation was necessary on the Saturday at about 1.00 pm. So, we worked on it from that point on. Anyway, those are just some brief observations. Mr Chairman, Sir, I would like to move amendments (4) to (7)* standing in the Order Paper Supplement in my name. I beg to move those amendments. [(proc text) *The amendments read as follows: (proc text)] [(proc text) (4) In page 13, line 26: to leave out "specify", and insert "ensure the award is listed on a registry that is provided free-of-charge and easily accessible to the public through electronic means, specifying". (proc text)] [(proc text) (5) In page 13, line 28: to leave out "and". (proc text)] [(proc text) (6) In page 13, line 30: to leave out the full-stop, and insert a semi-colon. (proc text)] [(proc text) (7) In page 13, after line 30: to insert — (proc text)] [(proc text) "(c) the registered person of the taxable facility who has received allowances; and (proc text)] [(proc text) (d) the Minister's reasons for deciding to award the allowances.". (proc text)]”
“Mr Chairman, Sir, can I briefly respond to Minister Indranee Rajah on her observations about the process of filing? Not to reopen the substantive debate, but just to respond to one or two of her observations.”
“Mr Chairman, can I just give a brief response to Minister Indranee Rajah's points on procedure?”
“Specifically, what I would like to ask is when was the concurrence of the President sought for my amendments? And is it correct to say that the advice of the President was sought, but at the same time, the advice could only be given from the Office of the President based on the advice of the relevant Minister or the advice of the Cabinet?”
“Mr Chairman, Sir, on a point of order, may I pose some questions to the hon Minister, the Leader of the House, on the process surrounding how the President was approached and how the recommendation was sought? May I do that at this stage?”
“Would the Government be open to publishing the number of allowances that have been awarded, just in aggregate, and the extent of emissions that are covered by allowances in aggregate, in the future, if they do not want this public registry proposal?”
“The second clarification is, would the Government acknowledge that, notwithstanding the changes that we have suggested to the allowance regime, the Government possesses other tools through other laws, other powers that allow it to apply economic incentives in cases where it may really be necessary to prevent disinvestment for job creation, job defence. And that would allow us to have a carbon pricing regime where the curtailment on the allowance regime is a bit clearer and the transparency level is a bit better, but at the same time, we are still able to retain and win these strategically important projects. That is my second clarification. My third clarification is, in terms of the public registry that we have suggested. I want to stress again that we are not calling for the amounts of allowances to be disclosed or the amounts of ICCs being used to be disclosed. But I would like to ask again whether the Government would consider that a public registry may actually strengthen confidence in the regime buy-in to a new carbon price hike, which does impose significant burdens on companies and on households, and would impose a certain amount of public accountability, for the public to know that these are the entities that are getting allowances and we are able to see that these entities are doing their best or they are contributing back to the country, they are making progress towards lowering their emissions and so on. Would the Government acknowledge that there are some benefits to that transparency? And my last clarification is, if the Government does not wish to have this public register, I believe both Minister of State Low Yen Ling and Minister Grace Fu referred to the Government is studying, publishing some kind of aggregate data in the future.”
“I thank the Minister for her round-up speech. And, like the Minister, I would also emphasise that there is agreement from Members of both the ruling party and the Opposition on the need for us to hike the carbon price and on the broad thrusts of this Bill. I just have a few clarifications on the points that the Minister mentioned in relation to some of the amendments that we have filed. Firstly, on the limitations on time for the allowance regime, the changes that we have proposed, I do take the point made by Minister of State Low Yen Ling that the Government has set a more ambitious target overall in aggregate for carbon emissions to achieve a certain target by 2030, and that puts pressure on the Government to curb and curtail allowances. Nevertheless, having a more ambitious aggregate target may still allow either this Government or some future Government, in theory, in principle, to prop up a company with a fairly generous level of allowances in perpetuity, for a long time, and to do so in a manner that is not transparent. Were that to happen, were that possibility to be left open in the legislation, that possibility would undermine wider public acceptance of a much-needed carbon price hike, and perhaps, acceptance within the business community itself. If I am a company that is a large emitter, I would want to know that there is a certain amount of transparency about which entities are being given allowances. So, I would like to pose this clarification, which is that, is the Government open to having some kind of legislative mechanism that would limit the allowances, in terms of time, to prevent this possibility of a company in perpetuity getting allowances up to the maximum that is referred to in the point of reference. That is my first clarification.”
“In conclusion, Sir, there are other amendments that are merely language edits, that are consequential to the substantive amendments that are numbered in the Order Paper Supplement as (3), (4), (7) and (10). I shall not explain them in detail but would be glad to take any questions on those. Another important set of our amendments will be explained later by Sengkang Member of Parliament Ms He Ting Ru. Sir, in conclusion, we support the thrust of the Carbon Pricing (Amendment) Bill before the House. We must avoid the tragedy of the commons – as a country and as a species. However, we have proposed a number of amendments that we feel strengthen the thrust of the Bill, make it better and which will enhance wide public acceptance, as well as better align the provisions and effects of the Bill with the climate change outcomes that we seek. Sir, I beg to move the 12 amendments standing in my name in today's Order Paper Supplement. Thank you.”
“Such information often gets leaked and shared by word of mouth within the community of persons interested in such things and may breed speculation and undermine confidence in the business environment. Sometimes, Government incentive information needs to be disclosed to some degree in public filings in the company's home country. To address the competitive concerns and the concerns about Government agencies having a legitimate interest in not revealing the amount of the award or the terms of the award given to specific companies in specific cases, our proposal for a public registry does not require information about the quantity of the award to be disclosed. I repeat – it does not require information about the quantity of the award to be disclosed. Sir, I trust I have explained why the Workers' Party is calling for more transparency in the case of carbon tax allowances but not for an equal level of transparency when it comes to general economic incentives for inward investment. Sir, amendment (12) deletes the language of line 21 to 24 on page 14 of the Bill which allows the Minister to determine "in any other manner that the Minister considers appropriate" ways to incentivise the continued reduction in GHG emissions of the taxable facility. We propose this deletion so as to eliminate a provision that might allow a Minister to disregard the formula specified in the previous section for the maximum cap for an allowance. That formula should be taken more seriously. In short, we believe that deleting those lines reduces overly broad executive discretion and strikes a better balance point – between legitimate executive discretion on the one hand and creating a transparent, rules-based system on the other hand.”
“A carbon tax allowance is a reduction in tax applied to one entity, versus all similar entities which have to pay that tax. Hence, it is a lessening of a burden applied to all in the case of one. An economic incentive, on the other hand, gives additional benefits to one company that all do not receive. The difference between the two scenarios is that in the first case, a new tax being imposed means new costs to all. If one entity has their cost lessened, to obtain general buy-in for the tax among all companies and the public, a certain degree of transparency and public accountability is warranted for the new regime to be seen as fair. Moreover, given that the carbon tax imposes costs across the whole society and an allowance blunts the effect of that tax to some degree, there is a public interest in knowing who receives such awards, to ensure accountability vis-à-vis the goals of the carbon tax. This helps ensure that any government of the day does not prop up certain companies for an unjustifiably long period of time, or even in perpetuity, for whatever reason. This ensures public support for a costly tax that is meant to be, in the words of the Government spoken in this House in 2021, a "fair, uniform and transparent price signal" that advances climate change goals; or, to quote the Government's words again in 2018, to create a carbon tax regime that "will apply uniformly to all sectors, without exemption. This will maintain a transparent, fair and consistent carbon price across the economy." On a more practical note, not ensuring that transparency is also not a foolproof means of keeping the award information secret.”
“The Government has also said it is "not productive or correct" to put companies which pay carbon tax under public scrutiny. It could be argued that such awards should remain confidential because their disclosure could give the competitors of the company receiving the award some information that might give them a competitive advantage in the various actions that they choose to undertake; or which might lead to that company being placed in an unfavourable position when negotiating with stakeholders, such as customers and partners, who may ask for better terms. It could also be argued that being publicly known as a recipient of such an award may subject the recipient and their employees to some degree of public opprobrium due to the perception of being on the receiving end of some unfair advantage of some kind. Or it could be argued that disclosure of awards may hinder the Government in applying different kinds of awards to different companies in consideration of what is needed to close the deal in each case, therefore, making the Government operate at a disadvantage in calibrating the award in each case to the bare minimum necessary to serve the national interest. There could be other considerations here along similar lines. Companies receiving Government incentives under laws like the Economic Expansion Incentives Act are currently not disclosed, nor, of course, are the amount of the incentives disclosed. Why, then, do we call for the carbon tax awards to be disclosed? And are we calling for the same disclosure for other types of economic incentives? Sir, we are not. In fact, there are significant differences between carbon tax allowance awards and more general economic incentives for investment.”
“Having said that, I would like to point out that for projects and companies that are deemed to be nationally strategic; or where their business affects the lives of many Singaporeans and they may need more time to transition to greener processes; or we may want to cushion the effects on a wider public, especially vulnerable groups, the Government still has other tools that can be used to address that situation, namely, first of all, other economic incentives that can be applied under other Acts; and secondly, fiscal tools to implement some degree of income redistribution and cushion the effect of higher prices on more vulnerable groups, in a targeted fashion. Sir, next, I would like to move on, to speak on the amendments which have the effect of creating a public registry of the Government's allowance awards. Our amendments "ensure the award is listed on a registry that is provided free-of-charge and easily accessible to the public through electronic means, specifying..." and so on. The information which is required to be included in this public registry that we are proposing, in addition to that referring to the number of emissions years the allowance is applicable to and the methodology for calculating this, include: "(c) the registered person of the taxable facility who has received allowances; and (d) the Minister's reasons for deciding to award the allowances.". The current version of the Bill does not require the Minister to disclose allowances or any details on them. Some members of the public raised this issue during consultations and some study groups as well, and in the Ministry's public response after the carbon tax consultation, the Ministry cited commercial sensitivity concerns.”
“Okay. Our amendment (3) in the Order Paper Supplement tackles this problem of having non-time-limited allowances that are not really as circumscribed in scope as they could be, by limiting the number of times a taxable facility can receive allowances. Assuming that businesses are able to get allowances when they ask for it, our amendment would mean – to take an example – that a facility can obtain allowances in the following years: 2024, 2025, and, if still deemed necessary after a gap, 2029 and 2030, with 2026, 2027 and 2028 being no allowance years. This still leaves a substantial runway for companies to transform to low-emission processes and sources from now until 2026; and leeway for the Government to apply an allowance in 2029 for particularly large and strategic projects, if deemed necessary. And I would note at this point that large and strategic projects, facilities, factories and so on, typically have breakeven periods and are invested and set up based on projections that go forward far into the future, sometimes 10 years, sometimes 20 years. Sir, our amendment (10) limits the extent of allowances to a maximum of 33% of the carbon tax assessed to be payable and not 50% as the wording of the current Bill reads, to our understanding. In other words, our amendment sets up a cap of 33%, because the tax charged must not be less than double the awarded allowance. We believe that lowering the allowance cap makes for a stronger nudge for large emitters to move towards greener business models faster. We believe that our amendment makes for a better balance point between the competing objectives on the table here.”
“Hence, we have tabled amendments to the broad powers given to the Minister to pick and choose taxable facilities to award non-time-limited allowances to. Creating a more limited allowance regime sends a stronger signal about how we intend to approach the carbon tax and ensures that no government of the day can prop up any large emitter in perpetuity. At this point, Mr Speaker, Sir, perhaps I should add that before these amendments, both mine and Ms He Ting Ru's, can be voted on at the Committee stage later, I understand that we need the President's recommendation as these are tax-related and have fiscal implications. I am not aware if that recommendation is forthcoming at this point. But I shall continue to make the arguments for these amendments —”
“On this note, I would like to ask the Government to expand on the considerations that will come into play in awarding allowances in more detail, a topic treated briefly in section 20D of the Bill. However, when we consider the question of allowances, there is a difference between carbon tax allowances and general economic incentives. Economic incentives provide benefits that not all firms enjoy. Carbon tax allowances, on the other hand, mean that all large emitters have to pay the carbon tax, but some large emitters have to pay less when awarded an allowance. There is a strong case to circumscribe the carbon tax allowances awarded in terms of extent as well as in terms of time. This is for two reasons. Firstly, this is so as to demonstrate our ambition and seriousness in the face of such a major challenge as climate change; to demonstrate the political will to keep allowances to the bare minimum, so as to generate a strong nudge on business. Secondly, this is so as to foster confidence among companies themselves that the carbon tax regime and, indeed, our entire business environment, are fair and transparent. This is necessary as the carbon tax is a significant burden applicable to firms and also the wider public. Imposing this burden comes with a responsibility to ensure that the public and business community see that the burden will be imposed fairly; and exceptions made on a very limited, transparent basis with strong reasons given, as opposed to a perception that allowances are awarded to companies close to any future government for one reason or another, for example. Only then will we obtain a wider buy-in to the carbon tax regime from citizens and the business community that we need.”
“Our challenge going forward is to find ways to promote a serious pursuit of ambitious climate goals with the pursuit of economic ones in tandem, not to counterpose the one to the other. Mr Speaker, Sir, I would now like to move on to explain the amendments standing in my name on the Parliamentary Order Paper Supplement for today, starting with the amendments which deal with allowances awarded under the carbon pricing regime. Sir, the new provisions of this Bill, on the face of it, introduce allowances that go against the "fair, uniform and transparent price signal" of the no-exemption carbon tax on large emitters, which Ministers have previously argued are important for carbon tax to be effective. For example, in 2021, the Government said in this House that: "Our carbon tax framework has been tailored to our context, putting in place a fair, uniform and transparent price signal to incentivise emissions reductions". Having said that, the Workers' Party accepts the case for Government allowances vis-à-vis the carbon tax paid by specific entities in principle. Allowances may be justified on two grounds. Firstly, that of attracting or retaining projects of a strategic nature where such projects are nationally important for job creation, job defence or the dynamism of our economy; as well as to manage the extent of carbon leakage whereby some firms in EITE sectors may transfer investments to countries with less green policies or with no carbon tax. This first rationale also applies to economic incentives awarded by agencies like EDB and Enterprise Singapore, for example. Secondly, that of creating more of a runway for large entities whose products and prices affect many households to transition to a lower carbon-emitting business model in cases where that is justified.”
“In our speeches, we shall explain these amendments in detail and address possible objections. Mr Speaker, Sir, many Singaporeans are conscious of the threat posed by climate change to Singapore and the world. Many Singaporeans want our climate change policies to show ambition and seriousness. This is backed up by the recently released results from an online public consultation exercise run by the National Climate Change Secretariat, or NCCS. Of the 490 responses, 94% of respondents were willing to withstand trade-offs and inconveniences to achieve enhanced climate targets. Some of the suggestions from respondents, such as pivoting away from emissions-intensive industries and doing more to electrify our commercial fleets and vehicle population, have been subjects taken up by the Workers' Party's Members of Parliament in this House in the past, including Hougang Member of Parliament Mr Dennis Tan and Sengkang Member of Parliament Mr Louis Chua, for example. Before leaving this topic, it should be said that the respondents for this consultation contained a disproportionate percentage of younger people. Mr Speaker, Sir, beyond noting how public opinion is shifting, we should also note that being green need not be the enemy of economic growth. We can, and must generate good jobs from cleaner and greener economic activities. In fact, most of the large multinational companies, or MNCs, in pollutive industries themselves, seeing the writing on the wall, are trying to show that they are transitioning towards greener practices – like refining biofuels rather than crude oil or using carbon capture and sequestration technology, for example.”
“Secondly, social policies that cushion the effects of price rises on the most vulnerable segments of the population and, thus, help to enhance access to opportunities, social mobility and the perception of fairness across all our social groups. This is important, not only because we desire social justice, but also because climate change mitigation measures need to be designed to ensure the broadest possible public support, so that the country will continue to back such measures through thick and thin and across political cycles. While we support the thrust of this Bill, the Workers' Party has some amendments to suggest. Our amendments, while accepting the principle that the Government can and should create allowances to reduce the carbon tax paid in specific cases, seek to limit the scope and extent of allowances; and to increase transparency and accountability, so as to ensure that the carbon pricing regime is seen to be fair, clear and uniformly applicable to all, which enhances public buy-in, while at the same time, making sure that it is a sufficiently robust nudge to businesses to find the best ways to reduce emissions. We do agree that allowances are needed for nationally strategic projects that are important for job creation and job defence, as well as to hedge against needless carbon leakage of large EITE facilities. But we believe that the balance point can be struck a little differently between promoting emissions reduction and ensuring robust support for business using economic incentivisation. The Workers' Party's proposed amendments to this Bill have been filed by my Parliamentary colleague, Sengkang Member of Parliament Ms He Ting Ru, and myself. They stand in the Order Paper Supplement.”
“We must avert what is known in economics as the tragedy of the commons – which, in this context, means the problem created when individual countries pursue their national interest in an uncoordinated fashion at the expense of the global environment, leading to disastrous effects applicable to all countries. The uniqueness and seriousness of the challenge we face here calls on us to show national resolve and unity across the political spectrum. If nations do their part, there is every reason to believe that the world can contain the danger posed by climate change. We should remember how nations came together in 1987 to bring into being the Montreal Protocol that succeeded in protecting the ozone layer. That precedent should give us hope that we can avert or, at least, substantially mitigate disaster at the edge of the precipice. Most mainstream economists accept that carbon pricing is probably the most sound and effective approach to controlling emissions of GHGs. Jennifer Morris, research scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), puts it this way: "Rather than regulating exactly where and how emissions should be reduced, carbon pricing gives markets the flexibility to find the cheapest ways to lower emissions." The EU, Japan, China, California and a few other US states are already using carbon pricing. A carbon price, by imposing a tax on large GHG emitters, can potentially result in part of that tax burden being passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices. But such inflationary pressures need to be mitigated by two means. Firstly, good competition policy, which by optimising competition in key industries, tends to reduce the pass-through effect of the tax to end-consumers vis-à-vis what it might have been.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Carbon Pricing (Amendment) Bill makes changes to our carbon pricing regime, including taking the major step of hiking the carbon price. As we debate this Bill, I am proud that our Singapore representatives and youth environmental activists are flying our flag in Egypt at the COP27. And their participation reminds us of what is at stake here, why this climate change fight is critical, not only for the world but for Singapore's national interest. On that note, I would just like to say that I am sure that many Members of the House would agree that all of us owe a profound debt of gratitude to our Singaporean environmental activists who have helped to galvanise public opinion, move the needle and generate very useful ideas for policy debates. Sir, the Workers’ Party supported the original CPA and we support the thrust of this amendment Bill as well, as will be reiterated by my Workers' Party colleagues who will be speaking on the Bill later. In the past, Workers' Party Members of Parliament have spoken about how there is scope to raise the carbon tax when comparing Singapore with international benchmarks. These are moves in the right direction for Singapore. Why is that so? What is at stake here? There is no greater challenge facing humanity than that of climate change. Rising temperatures triggered by growing greenhouse gas (GHGs) emissions in the atmosphere will lead to freakish weather patterns, rising sea levels, rising incidence of heat-related illness, the loss of biodiversity and many other huge, dangerous, and perhaps, irreversible challenges for Singaporeans and for people around the world.”
“I would just like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he could respond to my third clarification on healthcare expenses and the urgency of introducing GST to meet healthcare expenditure in the next few years.”
“Yes, it is very short. I did not hear the Deputy Prime Minister responding to my colleague, Assoc Prof Jamus Lim on this. Assoc Prof Lim was asking the Deputy Prime Minister whether healthcare expenditure, which is usually given as the main reason for increasing the GST, and that has seen a secular increase. How much is that going to be increasing in the next few years and does the rate of healthcare expenditure increase in the next few years, the projected rate, does that require urgency about hiking the GST next year or the year after?”
“And given that it was 15 years since the framework was last revised, does the Minister and the Government not acknowledge that it behooves us to work on these options at this point in time? So that is my first point of clarification. My second point of clarification is I wonder if the Deputy Prime Minister underestimates the risk of inflation specifically regards to this point. When the GST hike comes into effect in January next year, we have all acknowledged that may be an issue of some merchants using that as an excuse to increase prices more than necessary, and this is common everywhere in the world. We have a Committee Against Profiteering, but I think we should also acknowledge it is very difficult for any Committee in a time when inflation is running at very high levels to sort of effectively address and disentangle legitimate price hikes from profiteering-related price hikes. And in fact, many members of the public may not even raise feedback to the Committee because they may think that if certain prices by certain merchants are going up, well, that is just because of inflation, it is not because of profiteering. So, from a point of view of practical execution, will the Deputy Prime Minister agree that it is very difficult to clamp down on this potential for profiteering and therefore, there is a macroeconomic inflation risk from introducing GST in the calendar year next year. I take the Deputy Prime Minister's point that fiscally it is neutral but there is this other risk of macroeconomic inflation. And my last point of clarification —”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. I just have a few points of clarification and firstly, I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for his replies and to respond to the hon Member Mr Murali Pillai, I think there are points of agreement between the PAP and the Workers' Party in this debate. We are not advocating going to debt markets, for example, to finance a deficit, to make the constitutional changes necessary to do that, we are not advocating that. So, there are points of agreement, but I think the disagreement is philosophic and it has to do principally, I think, with the slope of the reserves growth and we advocate for certain measures that would slow the slope of the reserves growth and PAP disagrees with that. We may have to agree to disagree. But my clarification is really on whether the Deputy Prime Minister would acknowledge that as countries evolve, societies evolve, and also as the size, the absolute size of the financial reserves increase, different policies, are necessary and advisable, compared to when the reserves was $100 billion versus what it is now. And on this point, in this context, I would like to bring Members back to the point my colleague, Mr Louis Chua, made that in the crisis of a generation, during COVID-19, many Members of this House, used the term "the crisis of our generation", "the crisis of our generation", we drew down about $50 billion. How large is that as a proportion of the reserves, I am not asking that as a question, I know the Government's position on that. But by most estimates that have been in circulation, it is a very, very small fraction. So, it begs the question, how much is enough? And we are at this stage as a society. When we are at this level, this quantitative level of financial reserves.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir, for giving me some latitude here. I think the question has not been answered. My question to the hon Member Sitoh Yih Pin is – do you or do you not believe that there can be such a thing as over-saving, in theory, for a small country like Singapore? It is a yes or no question.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I just want to follow up on what Assoc Prof Jamus Lim, my colleague, asked. I think the question was really, if we heard the hon Member correctly in his speech, the hon Member said that there can be no such thing, in theory, by definition, as over-saving for a small country like Singapore. Is that the Member's position or is that not the Member's position?”
“I thank the Member for his reply. My point is that if I understood his speech correctly, he is saying that measures to ameliorate the negative impact of GST on the population are, in a way, kicking the can down the road or somehow dishonest because actually the population should feel the pain. And we should not try to take measures that are alternatives to that – even though there are viable alternatives that we believe, which we have put forward as proposals, relating to NIR, relating to land sales, for example – we should not take that route. Rather, we should allow the population to experience more pain. That is what I understood what the Member was saying. So, in that light, I would like to ask him whether some of the ameliorating measures that the Government has proposed will also fall into the same category.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. I believe my colleague, Assoc Prof Jamus Lim, has a clarification as well. I just want to ask the hon Member Mr Sitoh Yih Pin, he said that some of our proposals are analgesic and anesthetic and so on. If that is the case, would the hon Member agree that the Support Package is also an anesthetic and it is better to have pain – no pain, no gain? That is my question.”