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 8 of 25.
“A healthier population is always worth investing in. Sir, next, I would like to talk about health screening. Screen for Life (SFL) is a well-intentioned policy, but low take-up rates leave much to improve on. According to MOH's response to a Parliamentary Question I filed, 100,000 out of 1.8 million of eligible Singaporeans, or 5.6%, have benefited from SFL subsidies. By comparison, take-up rates of national health screening programmes are 22% in Japan and 30% in Taiwan, versus our 5.6%. Take-up is notably skewed towards the Chinese community, compared to other ethnic groups. Sir, I do acknowledge the Government's efforts to reach out to community groups to raise health screening take-up, including among minority communities. These are worthy efforts, but, clearly, the results still leave room for improvement. HPB should conduct studies into the reasons for low take-up rates despite heavy subsidies for health screening under SFL. Anecdotally, lower-income constituents I have met will occasionally share that they do not wish to go for health screening as they are daunted by the high cost of treatment, or what they perceive to be the high cost of treatment, if disease is detected. If those who are most at risk of chronic diseases are not getting screened, this will not only incur greater downstream costs to the individual and the society, but also raise deeper questions about access to basic healthcare for the most vulnerable among us. But, for now, I would like to offer some policy suggestions here on raising health screening take-up rates. Firstly, as mentioned earlier, the Government could provide subsidies for MediShield Life premiums for those who regularly undertake health screenings.”
“Vaccines have huge public benefits, as we have seen during COVID-19, so the Government should pay for them. In 2020, the Government announced some improvements to subsidy levels for vaccines. I remember having an exchange in this House with then Senior Parliamentary Secretary Mr Amrin Amin, asking him if the subsidies for vaccines can be pegged to the amount of money the state would save from higher vaccination rates. He replied, saying they were crafting this package and would announce the details in time. I would like to repeat this call. There is much more that can be done to improve vaccine take-up rates. Our take-up rate for flu vaccines, for example, is much lower than it should be, compared to some other developed countries. In a reply to my earlier Parliamentary Question, the Government acknowledged that our take-up rate for flu vaccinations of 24% among Singaporeans aged 65 and above is significantly lower than the equivalent rate of about 70% in Australia, the UK and the US. According to one widely-cited figure, about 4,000 people in Singapore die from pneumonia and influenza every year. There is a great deal of suffering and costs involved in treating flu patients who become ill. Let us start with making flu vaccines free and thus easy to get for key groups like pregnant women, those with chronic health conditions and older folk over 65. Again, GPs can play a big role in promoting adult vaccination. This reasoning can also be applied to the pneumococcal vaccine. Sir, even setting aside the toll in human suffering, which should be reason enough, if we calculate the cost, it could benefit the state to make such vaccines completely free, as this would save downstream fiscal expenditure like hospital subsidies.”
“We can use various touch-points, like family doctors in whom many trust deeply, to spread the word. There are examples of health insurers in other countries that provide premium discounts based on the adoption of behaviours that tend to make payouts for medical treatment less likely. For example, the US insurance provider Vitality provides premium discounts for members alongside freebies. I realise that this is a significant departure from the current approach. Further study should be done before adopting this as a general policy. The approach of testing a major policy through randomised controlled trials was also something I argued for when calling for smaller form class sizes in schools in an Adjournment Motion in 2017 and I have argued for this year as well. Next, let me turn to vaccines. In its GE 2020 manifesto, the Workers' Party called for making COVID-19 vaccines free, long before they had been successfully launched. This is something that most governments in the world have done, including Singapore's Government, and rightly so. But the principle of making vaccines free can be extended. Other things being equal, higher vaccination rates have the potential to minimise disease incidence and, hence, reduce public and private expense in healthcare treatment for those diseases. Sir, in the past, I have argued for making HPV free and added to the compulsory immunisation schedule for children. I also called for a bigger role for free vaccines in the public health system, rather than simply allowing MediSave to be used for vaccines. MediSave is, after all, our own money. Many Singaporeans are reluctant to touch it for something less tangible like a vaccine, fearing that they would need all the MediSave that they can get later in life for actual medical treatment.”
“Furthermore, during this time, the prevalence of obesity, high blood pressure and high blood cholesterol had risen. Some types of efforts may not yield good outcomes. One example, HPB's "1 Million kg Challenge" in 2014 set a clear target of a collective weight loss of one million kilogrammes, from at least 300,000 participants over three years. The CEO of HPB has publicly acknowledged that they only managed to lose a few tens of thousands of kilogrammes. It is important to draw lessons from such experiences. As an international example for comparison, I will cite the Nordic Plan of Action which sets specific ambitious targets for reducing obesity rates and improving physical activity levels and healthy diets, with a regular monitoring system every two years. While recent results in that part of the world have not been very good, at least there is a robust, transparent system, with targets and monitoring to drive towards the right outcomes. Sir, let me go on to make some very specific policy recommendations. Firstly, I would speak on rewarding good health choices. It is time to provide serious financial nudges to citizens to encourage healthy behaviours. First, we should provide some cash incentives or subsidies for MediShield premiums to those who demonstrate a commitment to healthier behaviours, such as regular screenings or regular exercise, as verified by way of attendance records or wearable technology, for example. We have tried such schemes before, such as Lumihealth, the Apple watch tie-up, but we must put our money where our mouth is to ensure these schemes reach more people, in particular, those who are not yet exercising, eating well or going for their screenings.”
“Modifiable risk factors for CVD, such as smoking and cholesterol levels, account for 60% of these costs. In short, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we have a very big problem that needs to be tackled now with new thinking. I would like to make some policy recommendations to reverse these worrying chronic condition trends and get tough on preventive health. My first recommendation is that the Government should focus more clearly on outputs and outcomes. We should set clear goals for outputs like the proportion of persons exercising regularly, for example. We should also state clear short- and medium-term targets for lowering chronic disease incidence. We cannot succeed if we do not define what success looks like. Meeting such targets is, of course, dependent on a range of factors and not only Government policies. This is clear and I do not disagree with this. We cannot, ultimately, micro-manage personal behaviour but we should know what are the short- and medium-term targets for outputs and outcomes that we are aiming at, so that we know when we are away from goodness. It is useful to refer to participation rates for programmes and events, the number of app downloads and so on and so forth, but these, Sir, are effort indicators. We must not over-emphasise effort indicators in our public communications. Doing well on effort indicators can lull us into a false sense of security and self-congratulation. Rather, we should prioritise outputs and outcomes. These determine whether we have won or lost the battle. For instance, although it has been five years since Singapore declared war on diabetes, MOH said at the Committee of Supply last year that "the prevalence of diabetes has not decreased" from 2017 to 2020.”
“Are we in danger of racking up an "A" grade for effort but a "C" grade for outcomes? It is true that our mortality rates for cancer, stroke and heart disease have improved, perhaps owing to technological and economic factors. But as the Singapore Public Sector Outcomes Review does soberingly acknowledge, about one in three residents aged 40 to 69 has hypertension and two in five have high cholesterol. Based on the last like-for-like comparison I could find, our 2015 diabetes prevalence among those aged 20 to 79 at about 11% is much higher than the OECD average of 7%. In 2015, Singapore was number two in the world in diabetes prevalence. In fact, one in four Singaporeans aged 40 and above has at least one chronic disease. The proportion of older adults with three or more chronic diseases nearly doubled from 2009 to 2017. A 2017 MOH study showed that Singaporeans may have a longer life expectancy today but do not necessarily enjoy a better quality of health. Singaporeans born in 2017 are expected to spend on average 1.5 more years in poor health compared to those born in 1990 and this refers to the years spent on average in poor health, alive but in poor health. Sir, these trends are likely to worsen if transformative intervention is not done. In 2017, an HPB expert noted that if obesity is not effectively curbed, Singapore could hit obesity rates of 15% in just seven years. That was the point at which obesity increased rapidly in the United States where it is now considered an epidemic. According to a report by The Economist, cardiovascular diseases contribute to approximately one in three deaths in Singapore and levy about US$11 billion in costs on individuals, their households and the public finances.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, my Adjournment Motion today focuses on transforming our preventive health efforts. In the view of some Singaporeans and healthcare workers I have spoken to, these efforts are not yet fighting-fit to take on some of the big health challenges of the near future and are already not delivering the health outcomes that we could be achieving for a well-developed nation. By preventive health efforts here, I mean our policies and programmes for reducing the incidence of chronic disease conditions like diabetes, hypertension and so on, as well as our policies to move Singaporeans towards better health outcomes in general. In this speech, I will detail proposals fitting into three overall thrusts. One, we should adopt an outcomes-focused approach that is long term but given tough regular reviews. Two, we should reward the good health choices of individuals, especially at-risk groups. And three, we should use highly targeted strategies that nudge healthcare providers and leverage data towards better health outcomes. But, first, let us take stock of our preventive health efforts and the huge health problems that we face. Sir, the Health Promotion Board (HPB) was founded in 2001. Our spending on preventive healthcare efforts last year was about 5% of total non-COVID-19 MOH spending, with about $330 million allocated to HPB. There are many worthy programmes that have been undertaken. For example, in public discussions of what the Government does to nudge Singapore towards living healthier lifestyles, the National Steps Challenge is often mentioned. However, what is the picture that emerges when we look at indicators of chronic conditions? We find that the incidence of certain dangerous chronic conditions has increased steadily in recent decades.”
“Thank you, Mdm Deputy Speaker. I agree the Minister of State was very thorough and I do not intend to take up more of the House's time. In fact, all my points and questions have been raised, except one. I just wanted to come back to one question I had at the end of my speech, which is on the powers that the Government now has to interdict correspondence or redact or review correspondence. I just wanted to ask for the Minister of State's assurance that whatever correspondence that an inmate has with his or her lawyer or even with other persons – that information, under our current laws and regulations, could never be and would not be used and relayed on to third parties, such as the AGC, for example, to confer some kind of legal advantage in the proceedings that follow. I just wanted to get that assurance that that is not something that could possibly happen right now. Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: Madam, I would like to assure the Member that that will be so. [(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)] [(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)] [(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim.] (proc text)] [(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]”
“For example, I think that if correspondence between an inmate and his lawyer is withheld, at the very least that fact should be conveyed to the prisoner and his/her lawyer. And on that note, it is also unclear if prisoners will be notified if their letters are redacted or withheld and I would like to seek clarity on this point from MHA. It is also unclear what is the review or appeal mechanism should the Minister exercise this power. Can a prisoner appeal against this decision? If so, what form would the appeals process take? Lastly, I would also like to ask if, under this provision, the Government can intercept prisoner communication and convey part or all of the contents of the same to AGC to confer a legal advantage on the latter, even if it is unrelated to the commission of an offence as described in the language of the provision and in the MHA press release. I think the answer to my question must surely be no, as everything I have read about this Bill suggests, but I would like to have that answered all the same.”
“The Constitution provides that Parliament may by law impose such restrictions as it considers necessary or expedient in the interest of the security of Singapore or any part thereof, or in relation to the incitement to commit any offence. This provision confers on the Minister powers to make restrictions on inmates' correspondence that appears to be in line with the qualifications on the freedom of speech provided for in the Constitution, that is, security of the prison and incitement to commit offences. But the question remains whether this provision is a proportionate response to the problem it seeks to solve. In this spirit, while I do not object to the provision in question, I would like to ask for more guidance as to how these powers will be used. Will actions under this provision target the kinds of information detailed in footnote 5 to the MHA press release, which seem very directly related to the commission of offences? Would the Ministry provide the assurance that information on genuine grievances a person may have that do not pose security risks would not be affected? Next, this provision does not seem to provide an exception for letters written to a prisoner's legal advisor, unlike section 127A of the Regulations. I would like to ask if this provision is subject to the common law carve-out for legal advice privilege. My purpose in raising this point is not to argue that correspondence relating to, say, a planned prison breakout, for example, should be exempt from this provision if it is between a lawyer and his client. I do not think it should. But it would be useful if the Government can clarify the status of legal communication under this provision.”
“Could the Minister of State provide more details of the kinds of information that would run afoul of this provision? Would the Minister of State also confirm that a visitor disseminating information that is factually correct and does not correspond to these categories of information, of which the examples have been given, would not run afoul of this provision? For example, factually correct information about a prisoner having suffered injuries. Can the Government also specify the penalties associated with such a prescribed person breaching the undertaking? Madam, next, I shall touch on the new powers for the Minister to regulate and restrict correspondence between an inmate and any prescribed person. This provision gives the Minister for Home Affairs power to make regulations to redact or withhold inmates' correspondence that may affect the security or good order of prisons or incite the commission of any offence. This provision appears to be in line with section 127A of the Prisons Regulations. Both this provision and section 127A provide that letters to prisoners may be withheld if they affect the security or good order of prisons. But this provision also goes further in providing for a new category of reasons whereby correspondence can be withheld, that is, withholding or redacting correspondence that could incite the commission of any offence. Prima facie, this provision has implications for the freedom of speech of inmates. Freedom of speech is protected by Article 14 of the Singapore Constitution although as it stands, it is a qualified right.”
“Based on the reply to a Parliamentary Question for MHA that I filed in August last year, the five-year recidivism rate and – before I continue I should state that I think the hon Minister of State and the hon Member Mr Murali Pillai did refer to the two-year recidivism rate. But the five-year recidivism rate for the 2011 to 2015 release cohorts, were 43.1%, 43.2%, 41%, 41.3% and 41.7% respectively. Madam, these rates are far higher than the two-year recidivism rate, which was around 22% in 2018. As a society, there is still much to do to tackle the risk of recidivism. Next, Madam, let me move on to some concerns and clarifications related to the new powers in this Bill enabling SPS to redact or withhold inmates' correspondence and curtailing what visitors can say publicly about their visits to the prison. Section 84(2) gives the Minister for Home Affairs power to make regulations to impose a condition on prescribed persons to give an undertaking that it will not publish or disseminate or cause to be published or disseminated any information contained in any communication with an inmate that may affect the security or good order of the prison or incite the commission of any offence before they are allowed to visit or communicate with an inmate. I would like to ask the Government how any visitor would know whether such information falls within the categories that I so specified until this information is published and they are found by the Minister to have published information that falls foul of these categories. Of course, they can take guidance from the examples of information listed in footnote 5 to the MHA press release and reiterated by Minister of State Dr Faishal Ibrahim, but that does not appear to be exhaustive.”
“Recently, I understand that SUSS has launched a part-time degree programme the prison inmates can participate in and there could be other educational and training programmes that they have access to as well. I would like to ask the Government if we can expand this to other educational opportunities that are important for today's economy. For example, can prisoners be allowed to take part in Polytechnic diploma courses related to future-ready economic sectors, or to entrepreneurship and innovation? I would suggest that this could include courses offered by private companies to obtain certification in very specific types of skills, like coding, for example. I would also like to ask the Government if inmates are able to take up these courses at subsidised rates. Also, if they were to complete their studies and after release, secure a job and do not demonstrate recidivism for certain period of time, would the Government consider a scheme whereby their student debts or part of your student debts can be forgiven? Such a scheme would incentivise inmates to take up courses of study while in prison and may also play some role in reducing recidivism, given the substantial literature that suggests a link between criminal activity and financial distress. And on that note, I would also like to suggest that financial literacy training should also be included in the training provided to ex-offenders before release to ensure better personal financial management, which I suspect could help lower recidivism rates. Perhaps MoneySense, the national financial education programme, could be brought in to play a role here. All these measures are important in tackling recidivism.”
“But there does not appear to be any appeal mechanism or review mechanism if the SPS decides that an inmate is not eligible for such a scheme and hence is not referred to the independent committee. Any decision by the SPS appears to be final. What safeguards are there to ensure that these decisions are impartial and fair? Would the Ministry consider an alternative approach whereby all eligible cases, provided there is no prohibitive circumstance that can be clearly spelled out and filtered for, are automatically referred to the independent advisory committee for consideration for EMPS without the need for the SPS to refer prisoners to the committee as it were. Next, one of the factors considered by the commissioner is the degree to which the inmate enjoys family support and this was reiterated earlier by the Minister of State. This factor is referred to in the first footnote of MHA's press release on this Bill. Does this prejudice inmates who unfortunately do not have sufficient family support in respect of being able to participate in employment preparation? Could more be done in ensuring that those who enjoy less family support be included in the EMPS as well? For example, being allowed to stay in special shelters while participating in employment preparation and to be assigned mentors. It may be that inmates with less family support are, other things being equal, more at risk of unsuccessfully reintegrating into society than those with ample family support. Madam, before I leave the subject of post-release reintegration, let me speak about training. Inmates currently have access to "N", "O" and "A" level courses alongside the Ngee Ann Polytechnic Diploma in Business Practice for International Supply Chain Management.”
“We should recall that some of these inmates may have worked far higher paid jobs and already have skills that are highly valued outside the prison environment; and secondly, labour should come at a cost that is in some way, benchmarked to minimum wage equivalence, so that inmates have some sort of savings buffer when they leave. They should not re-enter society at a huge financial disadvantage because this is a reason why many inmates commit crimes in the first place. In the US, a government-owned manufacturer using inmate labour, reportedly paid between $0.23 to $1.15 per hour, with its facilities operating 24 hours a day. We should avoid such extreme scenarios. I would also like to ask the Minister of State, whether such prison work is covered under the Employment Act. And if not, would the Government consider introducing such protections by way of subsidiary legislation or by some other means? Such inmate workers may be at the risk of exploitation, given that they do not sign contracts of service. Next, Madam, I would like to seek some clarifications regarding the eligibility criteria for employment under the new section 59 of the Act and this is something that the hon Minister of State, Dr Faishal Ibrahim, spoke about at some length. Madam, it is unclear what the process for considering whether an inmate is illegible for the EMPS is like. Does an inmate apply or are all eligible inmates, that is, those who have served at least 14 days of imprisonment, automatically considered for this? MHA's press release, and I believe the hon Minister of State repeated this in his Second Reading speech, suggests the latter and specifies that the SPS will assess all eligible inmates and refers them to an independent advisory committee if they are assessed to be eligible.”
“Anecdotally, it appears that they may still be issues being faced here, notwithstanding the collaboration between the SPS and POSB that was started in 2015 to facilitate the setting up of bank accounts by ex-offenders upon release from prison. Can similar collaborations be made with other banks? Also, may I confirm if there are any legal impediments for ex-prisoners who have successfully established bank accounts to obtaining access to electronic payment platforms on their account, such as for example, NETS or PayNow, which are pretty much a ubiquitous feature of modern life for most of us? Next, Madam, I would like to clarify some points relating to the EMPS. Work release schemes have been in existence since 1985. Since that time, so as to quantify and assess the link between these employment schemes and the welfare of prisoners, as well as recidivism rates post-release, has the Ministry been monitoring the following things. Firstly, average per hour wages paid to inmates and how much of the wages are they allowed to take home. Some ex-inmates report that they are only able to use their work income to buy things within the prison, but I am not sure if this is indeed the case now. Secondly, the impact of prison work programmes on inmates' finances after release. Thirdly, the proportion of inmates who have participated in such schemes. And fourthly, the impact of prison work programmes on recidivism. There may be an argument for not paying our workers on such schemes a full salary as they would earn outside prison, which is part of the punitive aspect of imprisonment, but work programmes like the EMPS should be structured to ensure that: firstly, companies using prison labour are not unfairly benefiting from the low costs.”
“Such company partnerships should have a skilling element whilst at the same time, incorporating fair wages similar to traineeships, where workers are developed rather than being treated solely as sources of cheap labour. I would like to ask the Government if the screening criteria for company partnerships will take into consideration the ability of the prisoner to develop a skill that will enhance his or her employability even if that skill is the sort of skill one needs to do a trades job, a subject I spoke about in September last year in this House. Next, community reintegration involves not just the economic aspect of living in the community. Can we also provide support services for after prison life? There are pastoral care services, especially with volunteers. Some of these pastoral care services are now provided by prison officers on rotation from enforcement duties in addition to the rehabilitation officers who are clearly already involved in pastoral care service. Madam, can we take steps to ensure as far as feasible, that as many prison officers as possible, including junior ones, have opportunities to rotate out periodically from enforcement duties to do pastoral care? This could help build restorative relationships between inmates and officers, but may also help and I quote, "may also help officers avoid the damage they experience by performing purely punitive functions", to quote from a report on ex-prisoner reintegration around the world. Madam, I am moving on to my next topic, ex-offenders may find it difficult to set up bank accounts and this may hinder their ability to find stable jobs.”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, the Prisons (Amendment) Bill seeks to empower the Government to designate places as temporary prison lockups, introduces an employment preparation scheme, introduces restrictions on prisoners' correspondence and empowers the Government to require the cooperation of relevant persons for the investigation of prison offences among other things. I do not oppose the Bill but will raise some questions for clarification as well as a few suggestions. Madam, I think most Singaporeans would agree that a prison regime is necessary for the deterrence of crime, among other purposes. Most of us would agree that prisoners should not be treated cruelly or inhumanely and that as a society, we should do our utmost to reintegrate ex-prisoners into the societal mainstream after they have paid their debt to society. My speech will be approaching this Bill from that perspective. Firstly, I would like to speak on this Bill's introduction of an employment preparation scheme (EMPS), allowing prisoners to work in the community and take part in education and training for part of their sentence time. This is something that has been tried in other jurisdictions and it is not unknown here, since we previously had a Work Release Scheme. This is a step in the right direction. It helps to reintegrate prisoners into society when they are ultimately released. It helps them to build up some relevant skills and some form of financial cushion for that time and also helps provide local workers for our economy, hopefully enabling us to reduce some dependence on foreign workers, which is a positive thing, for reasons I have articulated in past speeches in this House, notably during the debate on CECA. Firstly, I shall speak on company partnerships forged by SPS to operate EMPS.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. Sir, I just have two supplementary questions for Minister of State Ms Low Yen Ling. I think the core inflation rate is an average and inflation of course affects different demographic groups differently. So, I am wondering if MTI is studying and will publish CPI indicators for different demographic groups. For example, parents with young children will have expenditures on diapers and milk powder, which other demographic groups will not. Elderly people living alone, empty nesters will have certain healthcare expenditures and other groups will not. Is this being looked at because the inflation could be felt very differently, based on different demographic groups? I had an exchange with the then-Minister for MTI in 2018 in this House and the indication given was that MTI was looking at publishing these kinds of indicators, so I wanted an update on that. The second question is, if I heard the Minister of State Ms Low correctly, she said that the Government's outlook is that inflation will pick up in the first half of 2022 this year and then it will ameliorate or go down a bit, in the second half. Is this outlook assuming that there is GST increase in the middle of the year, or it is assuming there is no GST increase? I just wanted to understand the assumption behind that expectation of that forecast.”
“These terms include "individuals with executive control", "executive control", and "accustomed". In their document published in response to key feedback received for this Bill, MOF and ACRA have stated that such terms are "to be clarified". As such, could the Minister advise when MOF and ACRA intend to provide such clarifications? I ask this, considering the need to avoid business uncertainty. Can such guidance be expected shortly upon the Bill's passage or coming into force?”
“So, I am wondering why the timelines for both local and foreign companies cannot be harmonised. Sir, my second point relates to the Government's plans to improve compliance with the other FATF recommendations. Singapore has made great progress in implementing Recommendation 24 on Transparency and Beneficial Ownership of Legal Persons through an amendment to the Companies Act in 2017 and further amendments in this Corporate Registers Bill before us. Singapore has strengthened its compliance with Recommendation 24 where Singapore was rated as "largely compliant". However, Sir, the remaining other FATF recommendations which Singapore was found to be only "partially compliant with" are Recommendations 22, 28 and 35. Recommendation 22 concerns the application of customer due diligence and record-keeping requirements to designated non-financial businesses and professions (DNFBPs), such as the gambling and legal Industries. Recommendation 28 is about subjecting the aforementioned DNFBPs to regulatory and supervisory framework regarding anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing measures. Recommendation 35 relates to the available range of sanctions to do with parties that have failed to abide by anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing measures. Given that it is ostensibly the goal of this Bill to counter money laundering and terrorism financing concerns and recognising the increasingly sophisticated methods employed to launder money and finance terror activities, how does the Government intend to improve compliance with these three FATF Recommendations 22, 28 and 35? Sir, finally, I would like to raise some questions about the clarification of certain terms contained in the amendment Bill.”
“Indeed, this is a commendable, reasonable and consistent approach that avoids imposing multiple timelines and requirements on foreign companies. However, feedback to amend requirements for local companies for consistency with existing legislation was not received in the same way. The amendment Bill, currently, intends for local companies to update their information on nominee directors and shareholders within seven days. With that being said, feedback from the consultation proposed that local companies should be given 14 days instead, as this would be line with section 173A of the Companies Act – which will really require a company to provide updates regarding changes to any appointment of directors, chief executive officer, secretaries, auditors and others within the period of 14 days. However, this feedback was not accepted. The implication is that local companies now have two timelines to follow: seven days to update particulars for nominee, directors; and 14 days for particulars of all other key personnel. This begs the following question: what is the basis for requiring that local companies must update their information and nominee directors within a seven-day period when there is already an existing requirement to update information on various key position holders within 14 days? Should this provision be accepted by this House, there would be two timelines for local companies, in contrast to foreign companies being uniformly subject to one timeline. The hon Minister Indranee Rajah stated earlier in her Second Reading speech that foreign companies may need more time to contact overseas stakeholders, directors, but local companies may also have some directors residing overseas, either on a long-term basis or who may be overseas at the relevant time.”
“The increase in fines through these Acts were considered sufficiently dissuasive in the said MER, which led Singapore to be re-rated as compliant with Recommendation 3, bringing Singapore closer to its goal of deterring money laundering and terrorist financing activities. However, Singapore has not addressed all the identified deficiencies and several areas for improvement still exist. In order to strengthen Singapore's measures to fight money laundering and terrorism financing, the Corporate Registers (Amendment) Bill is necessary to keep Singapore's legal regime aligned with FATF's standards and recommendations. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I have three broad points to make on this Bill. The first point concerns the different timelines for local and foreign companies in updating their registers of key personnel. The amendment Bill, if passed, will result in local companies having to update their register of nominee directors within seven days, instead of the 14 days under section 173A of the Companies Act, while foreign companies may update their register of members within 30 days. The Bill originally intended that foreign companies should update the register of members within 14 days. However, during the public consultation phase, the feedback was that this would be a challenge for foreign companies, especially if they have more than 50 members. While the feedback suggested that companies should be given 14 to 28 days, MOF and ACRA further extended the deadline to 30 days, stating that this would be aligned with the requirements in section 372 of the Companies Act. In other words, this feedback was accepted in the spirit of harmonising timelines in existing legal provisions.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Corporate Registers (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill seeks to amend certain laws relating to the prevention of money laundering and terrorist financing. The proposed amendments are a result of recommendations made by the inter-governmental body, known as the Financial Action Task Force (FATF). These amendments concern administrative requirements applicable to companies in Singapore. Sir, the Bill is a step in the right direction for Singapore as it underlines our commitment to being a responsible global player in financial services, one that is committed to a transparent, rules-based, global order and, hence, able to derive economic benefits from that order. My speech will support the Bill but raise questions and suggestions. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, Singapore is committed to the global effort to combat transnational crime as a member of FATF and a founder member of the Asia Pacific Group on Money Laundering. The Singapore Government's stated aims have been to detect, deter and prevent money laundering and terrorism financing and to protect the integrity of its financial system from illegal activities and elicit fund flows. Singapore has continued, I note, to make progress to address the technical compliance deficiencies identified in the latest 2019 FATF Mutual Evaluation Report, or MER. As a result of this progress, Singapore has been re-rated on several Recommendations, that is, Nos 3, 23, 24 and 25. Take, for instance, the amendment of the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act, which came into effect in April 2019.”
“The Workers’ Party does not have a position on what should be done with the house and neither do we think it is our place to decide, but what we care deeply about is the heritage due process that we hope will be upheld, in a rigorous, transparent and fair manner. Given the high-profile nature of this case, how it is handled will set a precedent for future heritage decisions. This will be monumental, pun intended, for heritage management in Singapore. In relation to this case, whether the wishes of a single individual are respected in relation to the national heritage interest, how the public is consulted, how negotiations with the owner and occupier are conducted, how heritage value is assessed and evaluated, whether our heritage institutions and laws are seen to be legitimate and effective – will resonate in the years to come. On this note, Mdm Deputy Speaker, and, in conclusion, I call for stronger safeguards on the powers of forced entry without warrant, greater certainty of timelines for monument owners and deeper public consultations and engagement on monument preservation and conservation. Madam, in the final scene of the movie "Monuments Men", the fictional President Truman asks George Clooney’s character if saving these great works of art justified the loss of a soldier’s life. This deep question goes to the heart of the tension between our economic or material aspirations and our cultural aspirations as a society. It should never be an “either or” question. We should use all of our ingenuity and resourcefulness as a people to ensure that the cultural aspiration never becomes the enemy of the economic one but, rather, its steadfast partner.”
“In an answer to a Parliamentary Question (PQ) I raised in February this year, MND explained that every development proposal is subject to a robust planning evaluation process that considers the development’s impact on traffic, public health, environment, as well as built heritage. I urge the Government to go one step further in enshrining this process in law and committing to a rigorous and transparent HIA process with deeper engagement with the public and civil society. A HIA scheme will better allow the Government and private owners to consider the impact of specific developments in a particular site on our built, as well as intangible, heritage. Mandatory HIA regimes have been implemented in other countries, even in land-scarce Hong Kong. HIAs, for which there are recognised templates and prescribed processes, should be conducted at an early stage of planning and the public should be engaged. URA commissioned a historical documentation study for the area in Bukit Brown that was meant to be exhumed. This was consistent with a baseline study of a HIA. However, for Bukit Brown, the study was, unfortunately, commissioned only after the decision to exhume the cemetery was made and, hence, no mitigation measures, such as an alternative alignment of the expressway, were proposed. Lastly, Mdm Deputy Speaker, one issue which I think looms large in the public mind and represents a potential conflict between the interests of the owner, occupier and heritage preservation mandate of the state is the status of 38 Oxley Road, the former home of our first Prime Minister, the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew. If the house comes under consideration for preservation, it is this very Act, the Preservation of Monuments Act, that will determine what is due process.”
“Beyond simply preserving the site, could our urban planners and architects be challenged to imagine new ways of bringing the space to life, so future generations can be a part of its story? Next, on our modernist, post-war architecture. Most of our preserved and conserved buildings are from the colonial era. However, our post-war, modernist buildings are equally, if not more, iconic, representing the prowess of our pioneer architects and engineers and the post-war growth of our nation as they strove to create something architecturally unique in the early years of our Independence. I urge URA and NHB to explore the conservation of more post-war buildings and to ensure their economic sustainability through adaptive reuse. Recently, Golden Mile Complex was gazetted for conservation. A number of buildings like the Pearl Bank Apartments and the old National Library have gone, but it is not too late to save what we have, like People's Park Complex, for example. The Government can explore the promotion of rehabilitation of old buildings, which is also greener. For instance, some buildings in Krakow, Poland, have been rehabilitated: a market for merchants in the mid-13th century was turned into an underground museum and a bank in the 19th century was turned into a cultural centre. Various tools can be used, for example, tying in rehabilitation with revitalisation of an urban core, a community improvement project, or offering grants and subsidies. Next, Madam, going forward, I urge the Government to implement a mandatory heritage impact assessment (HIA) scheme for development plans that are likely to impact any heritage sites.”
“To address this, I propose that statutory authorities be under a statutory obligation to consult the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth and/or the NHB before taking or omitting to take any acts in relation to a national monument or proposed national monument. A precedent for such an obligation is section 19(3) of the Parks and Trees Act, which requires LTA, before carrying out work or activity within a heritage road green buffer, to consult NParks. The final concern I would like to highlight in my speech is the importance of protecting heritage in a more holistic manner so that the proposed amendments can be truly meaningful. I will start off by proposing the incorporation of the Historic Urban Landscape (HUL) mechanism into our heritage management policies going forward. The HUL mechanism incorporates community participation in the process, especially in the mapping, identifying and categorising of historically significant monuments and sites. It would bring us towards greater “democratisation” of heritage management and protection by giving a greater voice to broader communities and all stakeholders. This mechanism was recommended by UNESCO to all member countries for urban heritage management. Next, besides being preserved, historic urban spaces in Singapore need to be used more adaptively, or they run the risk of being underutilised and “lifeless.” One such space that would benefit from such adaptive reuse is the Padang. In MCCY’s press release on this Bill, the Padang had been singled out as a site that will be proposed for preservation. Despite having borne witness to key historical milestones, the Padang today is regrettably an under-utilised public place. When there are no major events held there, it is deserted and almost "lifeless".”
“So, there is no one available to attend to the daily maintenance of these heritage buildings. I also note that, in recent years, it has been even harder to attract such foreign craftsmen to come here, given that the pay in Singapore may not be significantly more attractive than in their home country. Could the Ministry look into this problem more closely in collaboration with MOM and perhaps consider relaxing entry requirements for foreign craftsmen by recognising them as such, instead of seeing them as “foreign construction workers”; and allowing them to work on multiple projects while here? In the longer term, Madam, we need to build up local expertise. Could the Ministry work with local Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs) and architecture or construction firms to professionalise career pathways for these craftsmen or artisans of heritage sites? Could IHLs also consider incorporating practicum options for IHL students to be involved in craft work on heritage projects? Over the past year, I have spoken about the need to move more Singaporeans into trades jobs sustainably. It is said that many Singaporeans do not want to go into these jobs, such as highly-skilled construction workers and plumbers. To fix this problem of lack of local craftsmanship expertise, I would like to repeat my call for ensuring decent working conditions and enhancing the standing and pay of these jobs. Next, Madam, on the new section 22A, this provides exemptions from Part IV Provisions for Preservation of Monuments and may mean that the provisions of other laws will always supersede a preservation order issued under the PMA. I would like to clarify: under what circumstances would the Government deem it necessary to use this provision?”
“May I clarify what this manner is and whether the Government can commit to publishing such a list online and for free? Next, Madam, my first point on resources is in respect of the National Monuments Fund. Amendments to sections 4 and 5 of the Act extend the functions of NHB to cover “maintenance” of monuments and proposed monuments. I understand that NHB also administers the National Monuments Fund, a co-funding scheme. Can NHB look into expanding the list of qualifying maintenance works? Increasing the amount of financial support for national monument owners will allow them to undertake timely and proper maintenance of monuments, thus delaying the need for major conservation works downstream. We should not be penny-wise and pound-foolish. My second point on resources is about the availability of craftsmanship expertise to restore and maintain monuments. One of our national monuments that had been gazetted early on in 1980 is Lian Shan Shuang Lin Monastery. In the 1990s, it fell into disrepair and was infested by termites. But the restoration and reconstruction took almost 20 years due to the difficulties in, firstly, finding local craftsmen with the necessary expertise and, secondly, bringing in foreign craftsmen. Singapore currently classifies heritage building maintenance and restoration under the construction industry, so, these craftsmen can only work here as foreign construction workers. However, the highly-skilled and experienced craftsmen preferred for these projects are often older and would face the age limit obstacle when applying for a work permit. Furthermore, they would only be allowed to work on a single “construction” project, and would have to leave on project completion.”
“Section 11(7)(a) of the PMA provides that before the Minister makes, amends or revokes a preservation order, the Board is required to “give notice in writing of the Minister’s intention to do so to the owner and occupier of the monument and any land adjacent thereto which will be affected (by the preservation order)”. There is no legal provision or mechanism enshrined in law for members of the public or heritage groups to provide feedback or objections in this process. Such engagement seems to be up to the discretion of the Government, the kind of broad discretion that is often given to the Government in the language of many of our laws. If our national monuments are sites that we, as a people, reflect upon as sources of meaning and identity, public and heritage groups must have avenues, inscribed in law, to provide feedback on whether sites should be preserved. This would enhance the public’s investment in the heritage preservation cause. I propose we adopt, in subsidiary legislation, the same process as the Planning (Master Plan) Rules, specifically Rule 4, which requires that a proposal for an amendment to the Master Plan (for example, to designate a site as a conservation area) be advertised by notice and made available for public inspection. Rules 5 and 6 make provisions for members of the public to submit representations and objections to the amendments and require that, if the objection is not ruled frivolous, they have to be attended to by a hearing or public inquiry by the authorities. I note that the amendment to section 11(12) does provide that the Board shall publish a list of monuments and proposed monuments, “in such manner as it deems fit”.”
“I note that section 12 of the PMA does require that dwelling-houses that are served a preservation order be acquired by the state within a year, or the preservation order would lapse. But this applies only to dwelling-houses that “appear to be occupied” at the time of the issuance of the Order. Once again, it may be helpful to take a leaf from Hong Kong’s Antiquities and Monuments Ordinance, which clearly set out the process, procedures and timelines for how declarations of “proposed monuments” and objections may be made. Section 2B of the Ordinance provides that the declaration of a “proposed monument” only has effect for 12 months. Section 2C of the Ordinance provides that if the proposed monument is within private land, the owner or occupier may at any time apply to the Authority for withdrawal of the declaration. The Authority has to consider such objections within one month of the objection. If unsuccessful, the owner or occupier can pursue their objections further with the Chief Executive and Chief Executive in Council. The clear and transparent statutory timelines provide certainty for all stakeholders. Madam, moving on to the second big concern of my speech, I would like to speak on how we can go even further in the protection of monuments and proposed monuments by deeper public engagement in the gazetting process, stronger support for owners in maintenance of monuments and ensuring the legitimacy of the PMA in relation to other laws. Firstly, I urge the Government to engage the public and heritage groups more deeply in the process of gazetting a national monument. As it stands, the process for making, amending or revoking a preservation order appears, by law, to be one solely between the owner and occupier of a monument and the authorities.”
“And I quote, “To convince the Magistrates that forced entry is necessary, the planning authority needs to show what steps have already been taken to gain access by agreement and why these have failed", unquote. Thus, in Hong Kong and the UK, safeguards with independent judicial oversight are provided which protect private property owners’ interests, while balancing the need to protect heritage. I note the Government’s reasoning that this provision is to align the PMA with powers of forced entry under section 27 of the Planning Act for protecting conserved buildings. However, the Planning Act provision does not have any mention of forced entry without warrant. Furthermore, we should remember that other than conservation, the Planning Act also covers land use and development in a broader sense and does not perform a monument preservation function. Madam, my second proposal for better protection of monument owners’ interests is to ensure the certainty of timelines in, firstly, objections made to preservation orders; and, secondly, the duration of a preservation order. When the Minister makes a preservation order in relation to a monument, sections 7(b) and (c) of the PMA allow the owner or occupier to make objections and require that the Board considers these objections and makes recommendations to the Minister. However, there is no specific timeframe on how long the Minister has to consider these objections and make the final decision on the preservation order. Given the often onerous responsibility of maintaining a proposed national monument, it would be helpful for owners and occupiers of these sites to have greater certainty on the duration of the process. And I seek assurances from the Minister on this point.”
“The owner is compelled to comply with the injunction or may be charged with contempt of Court and possibly a jail term. Hence, I propose to circumscribe the powers of forced entry without warrant to the following situations: firstly, non-compliance of the owner with an injunction issued under section 21; or, secondly, where there is reason to believe, on balance of probability considerations, that irreparable damage to the site will happen before an injunction order can be obtained. I note, however, that in urgent cases, it is possible to obtain an injunction order fairly quickly. I would welcome the Minister’s assurances on the substance of these proposals. In the Hong Kong and UK equivalents of this provision, there are stronger checks and balances than what is proposed here. Hong Kong’s Antiquities and Monuments Ordinance, section 5, also provides for public officials to have such powers of entry to inspect monuments. For entry into residential sites, written consent must be obtained from the occupier, or the Authority must give not less than 48 hours' written notice of their intention to enter. Furthermore, section 22(2)(b) of this Ordinance reads, quote, “no regulations made under this Ordinance shall confer upon a person any right which he would not otherwise have had to enter upon private land", unquote. This is from Hong Kong. The UK’s Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act, section 88, also allows for forced entry into recognised heritage sites, but only with a magistrate’s warrant. According to guidance notes by the UK Institute of Historic Building Conservation, forced entry with a warrant, quote, “should be seen as a last resort”, unquote.”
“I urge careful reconsideration. How is such violent action consistent with protecting our monuments? Such actions could damage the very monuments they are intended to protect. While I do agree with the thrust of the Bill to increase protection powers for these sites, I believe the law needs to be more balanced and should not encroach on the rights of monument owners and occupiers, especially at the risk of damaging the actual monuments, unless absolutely necessary. I repeat the Workers’ Party’s position from the debate on the Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Act, or FICA, that exceptional Executive power must be matched with strong judicial oversight. I have two specific questions to ask. Firstly, in what circumstances will the Monument Inspector deem it of such necessity to forcibly enter the site that the accompanying potential damage to the site’s windows and doors is justified? Can the Minister give some examples? Secondly, in the 51 years of existence of the Preservation of Monuments Act, has the Government ever seen the need for forced entry without warrant into a monument or proposed monument to protect the site for the same reasons that confer such powers in the Bill? I would like to suggest a circumscribing of the powers of forced entry without warrant by bringing in judicial oversight, unless in particularly exigent situations. The existing section 21 of the Preservation of Monuments Act already provides that the Director or a Monument Inspector may apply to the High Court, quote, “for any actual or apprehended contravention of the provisions of this Act to be restrained by injunction”, unquote. In urgent cases, it is possible to obtain a temporary injunction from the High Court within days.”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, I am supportive of the general direction of this Bill, the Preservation of Monuments (Amendment) Bill. In the Hollywood movie Monuments Men, the fictional President Truman is persuaded to set up a special US Army unit to preserve classic European works of art from the Nazis. The central idea behind the movie was to recognise that the value of our lives depends on economic concerns, but it goes beyond that. Madam, in the uncertain times we live in, with geopolitical and economic certainties thrown up in the air, our heritage and monuments remind us of where we came from. A people who do not appreciate where they came from cannot chart a meaningful path forward. Madam, we must approach heritage protection as a democratic effort, requiring buy-in and active involvement of different stakeholders, including monument owners, occupiers, civil society and the general public. In this spirit, while I support the Bill, my speech will put forth suggestions in three areas of protection: firstly, protection of monument owners’ and public interests through appropriate judicial oversight; secondly, protection of our actual and proposed national monuments through stronger stakeholder engagement and support, particularly with civil society; thirdly, protection of heritage in a more holistic manner. First, I would like to talk about protecting the interests of owners and occupiers of actual and proposed national monuments through appropriate judicial oversight. I note with particular concern that section 27(2A) will enable the Monument Inspector to “forcibly enter” the site “without warrant” when they suspect on reasonable grounds that the site is being defaced, damaged or interfered with, “including by breaking open any outer or inner door or window”.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. I thank the Senior Minister of State for his answers. I have two supplementary questions just on food quality. I know SFA is investigating the food quality claims around this particular incident. But in general, on food quality for migrant workers, there have been concerns about this going back for years. There was a survey, for example, in 2015, that talked about how the majority of workers felt the food was unsatisfactory, unclean and so on. There have been improvements since then. Two questions. Firstly, SFA has regulations that govern the quality of catered food supplied locally to Singaporeans and I know there were revisions to these rules in March 2020 to require food establishments providing catering services, to have CCTVs to keep retention samples of the food and so on. So, do those SFA guidelines for catered food supplied to Singaporeans also apply to catered food supplied to migrant workers? Is that applicable, is that enforced? Secondly, what is being done, in general, to look at the standards of food supplied to migrant workers beyond just the Jalan Tukang incident; in particular, around what you hear and frequent reports about the food being prepared the day before and there can be a long period of time that elapses between when the food is prepared and when it is consumed by the migrant workers?”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, I am not speaking on the Bill. I believe there was some error. My colleague, Mr Louis Chua, is speaking. Thank you.”
“However, is there a threshold for what constitutes egregious and if so, what are some of the criteria for it? Determining such offences involves judgement and by making these offences arrestable and giving the Police the power to arrest without a warrant, would that not increase the risk of the wrong judgement being made, which might potentially inflame a delicate situation further? How would that risk be mitigated and managed? And my last point, Madam. Section 298 and 298A of the Criminal Procedure Code were amended when the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act was amended back in October 2019. I would like to clarify if those amendments are already in force. The Singapore Statutes Online facility does not reflect any MRHA amendment being enforced from 2019. The last amendment reflected there is in 2011. If the amendments to the MRHA passed by Parliament in 2019 are not yet in force, why is this the case?”
“In section 298A, the offender must know that they are promoting or attempting to promote feelings of ill will and so on between different racial or religious groups or must know that they are committing an act which is prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony between different religious or racial groups in which disturbs or is likely to disturb public tranquility. However, I am not sure if such requirements in section 298 and 298A of the Penal Code really provide for the same safeguards as section 3(2) of the Sedition Act. In particular, I am concerned about the scope of the new section 298A(b). What if someone points out something which they know is prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony between different religious or racial groups and is likely to disturb public tranquility but they are doing so for the purpose of trying to point it out so as to remove it? This would fall under the exception to section 3(2)(d) of the Sedition Act, which is now to be repealed but with the Sedition Act to be repealed, that would not be an exception in the amended Penal Code. So, will the Police investigate such conduct as a potential offence? Madam, because of the safeguards in the Sedition Act but which are not in sections 298 and 298A of the Penal Code that are in this Bill, I do not think that the offences under the Sedition Act versus 298 and 298A of the Penal Code are a like-for-like swap or porting over, as it were. MHA's rationale for adding arrestability to these two offences, aside from merely porting these over from the Sedition Act, is also so as "to ensure that the Police can continue to act swiftly and effectively in dealing with egregious cases that affect social cohesion".”
“" Critically, however, section 3(2) of the now to be repealed Sedition Act sets out a list of exceptions to specify what shall not be deemed as seditious and I quote from this section 3(2) of the now to be repealed Sedition Act, "Notwithstanding subsection (1), any act, speech, words, publication or other thing shall not be deemed to be seditious by reason only that it has a tendency: (a) to show that the Government has been misled or mistaken in any of its measures; (b) to point out errors or defects in the Government or the Constitution as by law established or in legislation or in the administration of justice with a view to the remedying of such errors or defects; (c) to persuade the citizens of Singapore or the residents in Singapore to attempt to procure by lawful means the alteration of any matter in Singapore; or (d) to point out, with a view to their removal, any matters producing or having a tendency to produce feelings of ill-will and enmity between different races or classes of the population of Singapore, if such act, speech, words, publication or other thing has not otherwise in fact a seditious tendency." Section 4 then sets out the list of offences under the Sedition Act. In contrast, sections 298 and 298A of the Penal Code as amended by this Bill do not have such express exceptions or safeguards. Perhaps the safeguards come in the requirement that there must be "deliberate intention" to wound the religious or racial feelings of any person in section 298.”
“My third point, Madam, is that this Bill makes offences under 298 and 298A arrestable, which the Minister just alluded to, meaning that the Police may arrest without a warrant. No doubt these powers were already in the now to be repealed Sedition Act. However, I would like to ask for clarification about why these offences are now being made arrestable in the Penal Code for the following reasons. At paragraph 11 of the MHA press release accompanying the First Reading of this Bill, MHA pointed out that the offences under the Sedition Act are arrestable and stated that with its repeal, making this change is "to ensure that the Police can continue to act swiftly and effectively when dealing with egregious cases that affect social cohesion". Hence, MHA proposes to make, among other things, sections 298 and 298A in the Penal Code that deal with conduct that threatens social cohesion and harmony arrestable. The problem is, sections 298 and 298A are broadly worded. By way of contrast, even the offences in the colonial-era Sedition Act contains safeguards and exceptions to protect legitimate, non-seditious speech, which these sections of the Penal Code do not appear to contain. Section 3(1) of the now to be repealed Sedition Act defines a seditious tendency and includes in section 3(1)(e) "to promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different races or classes of the population of Singapore.”
“I would like to ask the Minister to confirm this and if it is so, what is the basis for making this change? Should not the time limit for prosecution provision have also been added as an amendment to the Penal Code in this Bill in the same way that this Bill makes the offences described in sections 298, 298A and 505 of the Penal Code arrestable, because they are arrestable in the now to be repealed Sedition Act? That is my first point. Secondly, the new section 267C of the Penal Code will be amended to clarify that "counselling disobedience to the law" includes but is not limited to providing instruction, advice or information that promotes disobedience to the law. My concern here is with the phrase "information that promotes disobedience to the law and such order". I would like to clarify whether the act of merely conveying information about the topic of civil disobedience without any specific intent to induce someone to commit a specific act of civil disobedience would count as an offence. For example, a lecturer may teach a module on the history of civil disobedience as part of a course in history or politics or citizens may convey information to one another on social media about acts of civil disobedience that have been committed elsewhere or in the past or ideas relating to the philosophical arguments for and/or against civil disobedience. If there is no specific intent to induce a person to commit a specific act of civil disobedience in Singapore that can be demonstrated from the said sharing of information, would this still constitute an offence? I think it should not but I welcome the Minister's assurance on this point.”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, the Government has set out its rationale for the repeal of the Sedition Act Bill. It said that it had used the Sedition Act in the past to address various forms of conduct that weaken our social fabric and undermine our institutions. However, new laws were introduced to deal with these concerns in a more "targeted and calibrated manner", such as the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act (MRHA), Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA), Administration of Justice Act, Undesirable Publications Act, Newspaper and Printing Presses Act (NPPA) and specific provisions under the Penal Code. MHA has said that for this reason, it finds that the Sedition Act is of limited application and can be repealed. But as a result, various provisions in other Acts are being amended. Madam, I do not oppose this Bill but will pose some clarifying questions to the Minister on areas of concern. Firstly, under section 5(1) of the Sedition Act, "No prosecution for an offence under section 4 shall be begun except within six months after the offence is committed: provided that for the purposes of this subsection a prosecution shall be deemed to be begun against any person when a warrant or summons has been issued in respect of any charge made against that person and based on the facts or incident in respect of which the prosecution afterwards proceeds." This would appear to create a time limit for prosecution for any offences committed under the Sedition Act. This plays a useful role of helping to reduce the risk of a suspect being investigated too long after the event and relevant evidence may not be fully available. With the consequential amendment to section 267C of the Penal Code, this time limit for prosecution would not seem to apply anymore.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to withdraw the amendments to clauses 81, 84 and 85, in light of the Minister for Home Affairs' proposed amendments that he had tabled to clause 116. The Minister earlier on verbally referred to that amendment and in the expectation that the House will pass the amendment to clause 116 that the Minister for Home Affairs has proposed which, in my opinion will substantively cover the same ground as covered by my amendments to clauses 81, 84 and 85, I would like to withdraw those three amendments with the proviso of this comment that in relation to Technical Assistance Directives, the Minister shared that these are difficult to publicise due to the sensitivity of investigations being ongoing. I would like to ask if the Minister and the Government will give due consideration to this as time goes by to consider perhaps the delayed publication of such actions at the point when it no longer compromises an ongoing investigation. So, that is just something I would like to express but my intention here today is withdraw my amendments to clauses 81, 84 and 85 in my name in the Order Paper Supplement, for the reasons I have given. [(proc text) Amendments withdrawn. (proc text)] [(proc text) Clauses 81 to 91 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. (proc text)] Clauses 92 to 103 –”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, with your permission, I would like to withdraw the amendments* standing in my name in the Order Paper Supplement to clauses 81, 84 and 85. And I also seek your permission to speak very briefly on the reasons for the same. [(proc text) *The amendments read as follows: (proc text)] [(proc text) Clause 81: (proc text)] [(proc text) In page 132: after line 9, to insert — (proc text)] [(proc text) "(4) All transparency directives, directive modifications, directive cancellations, disclosures, reports and explanations for these decisions shall be made publicly available by the competent authority over the internet in a searchable, sortable and downloadable manner without charge." (proc text)] [(proc text) Clause 84: (proc text)] [(proc text) In page 133: after line 29, to insert — (proc text)] [(proc text) "(3) Any directive to a Part 4 politically significant entity, the suspension, modification or cancellation of the directive, and explanations for these decisions under this section shall be made publicly available in accordance with section 81 of this Act." (proc text)] [(proc text) Clause 85: (proc text)] [(proc text) In page 135: after line 30, to insert — (proc text)] [(proc text) "(7) Any directive to a politically significant person, the suspension, modification or cancellation of the directive and explanations for these decisions under this section shall be made publicly available in accordance with section 81 of this Act." (proc text)]”
“Sir, I beg to move that the amendment* to clause 79 standing in my name in the Order Paper Supplement for the reasons given earlier in my speech. [(proc text) *The amendment read as follows: (proc text)] [(proc text) In page 129: after line 2, to insert — (proc text)] [(proc text) "(5) A registry of the persons with declared involvement in a foreign policy organisation shall be made publicly available by the competent authority, together with the terms of these relationships, in accordance with section 81 of this Act.". (proc text)] [(proc text) Question put, and amendment negatived. (proc text)] [(proc text) Clause 79 ordered to stand part of the Bill. (proc text)] [(proc text) Clause 80 ordered to stand part of the Bill. (proc text)] Clauses 81 –”
“Sir, I beg to move that the amendment* to clause 78 standing in my name in the Order Paper Supplement for the reasons provided in my speech earlier. [(proc text) *The amendment read as follows: (proc text)] [(proc text) In page 127: after line 26, to insert — (proc text)] [(proc text) "(7) A list of reportable arrangements under this shall be made publicly available by the competent authority in accordance with section 81 of this Act.". (proc text)]”
“Sir, I beg to move the two amendments* to clause 48 standing in my name, in the Order Paper Supplement. The reasons were given in my speech earlier. [(proc text) *The amendments read as follows: (proc text)] [(proc text) (1) In page 81, line 1: after “authority’s”, to insert “reasonable”. (proc text)] [(proc text) (2) In page 82: after line 12, to insert — (proc text)] [(proc text) “(6) Any person designated a politically significant person shall be listed along with the reasons for designation on a registry that is provided free-of-charge and easily accessible to the public through electronic means unless — (proc text)] [(proc text) (a) the person is not a politically significant person under this Act; or (proc text)] [(proc text) (b) the competent authority considers it not practicable or desirable to do so on national security grounds.”. (proc text)] [(proc text) Question put, and amendments negatived. (proc text)] [(proc text) Clause 48 ordered to stand as part of the Bill. (proc text)] [(proc text) Clauses 49 and 50 inclusive ordered to stand as part of the Bill. (proc text)] Clause 51 –”
“Sir, I beg to move the amendment* to clause 47 standing in my name, in the Order Paper Supplement. The reason for this amendment was given earlier in my speech. [(proc text) *The amendment read as follows: (proc text)] [(proc text) In page 80: after line 21, to insert — (proc text)] [(proc text) “(6) Any entity designated a politically significant entity shall be listed along with reasons for designation on a registry that is provided free-of-charge and easily accessible to the public through electronic means unless the competent authority considers it not practicable or desirable to do so on national security grounds.”. (proc text)] [(proc text) Question put, and amendment negatived. (proc text)] [(proc text) Clause 47 ordered to stand part of the Bill. (proc text)]”