Louis Ng Kok Kwang
Singapore
“It does not matter whether the report was made to the Police or the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau. Can the Senior Parliamentary Secretary clarify whether an individual who reports an offence under the Bill to the Police will be similarly protected by the whistle-blowing protections under section 53?”
“In my Adjournment Motion six years ago, I shared the story of Emma, a single unwed parent who came to see me at my Meet-the-People Sessions, together with her two-month-old daughter. They were both living in a shelter. As I shared previously, when I asked why Emma did not shed a tear, she told me that she no longer had any tears left.”
“It is not just Nee Soon East cleaners who pay kickbacks. This, again, is a widespread problem that we have not done enough to detect and tackle. To tackle this more effectively, we need to treat kickbacks as seriously as corruption. We need our laws to have a more deterrent effect to have any chance of wiping out kickbacks.”
“Sir, I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for answering my cut on second-hand smoke. And I am sure he expects me to clarify further. But I think the Senior Parliamentary Secretary mentioned that there is no current technology to catch someone smoking at home and, so, because of that we cannot legislate a ban.”
“Madam, for years, I have spoken up repeatedly in this House, calling for the Government to take action to protect the lives of fellow Singaporeans from second-hand smoke. I have spoken up so much that Senior Minister of State Amy Khor once said that she is immune to me already. But on a more serious note, this is a serious issue.”
“We should end the discrimination and allow them to qualify for the PPHS. Mandate Sterilisation of Pet Cats I have spent a good part of my life calling for HDB to allow the keeping of cats in HDB flats. Many have called for this and I am glad the Government has finally changed our policies and allow the keeping of cats in HDB flats.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,801 lines we hold for Louis Ng Kok Kwang, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 10 of 37.
“Has the Council, or will the Committee, evaluate its stance on these new green standards? Sir, notwithstanding my clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.”
“In January this year, the Singapore Accountancy Commission (SAC) worked on and unveiled a new Job Transformation Map (JTM) for the accounting industry intended to chart a path forward for the sector in a post-COVID-19 world and introduce support initiatives to upskill and redesign jobs in this field. This is a welcome step forward for the industry, which is currently being transformed extensively by digitalisation and technology, and even newer drivers, such as climate change. It will help safeguard jobs and create new ones. However, while JTM will address concerns on the supply side, more work can be done on the demand side. In June this year, The Straits Times reported that the sector was experiencing an acute labour shortage, with the Big Four accounting companies raising salaries to retain talent. With ACRA's broadened scope to develop the accountancy sector and oversee qualifications and programmes relating to the sector with the dissolution of SAC, what measures will be explored as part of JTM, or otherwise, to attract and retain accountancy talent? My final point is on climate and sustainability-related accounting standards. Part 3 of the Bill introduces a new Accounting Standards Committee, which will take over the functions of the Accounting Standards Council (ASC). ASC is responsible for making and prescribing accounting standards for use by various entities. ASC takes reference from the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) issued by the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB), while taking into account local business and economic needs and circumstances. IASB is currently working on a set of global, climate and sustainability-related disclosures designed to meet the information needs of investors in assessing enterprise value.”
“It appears that ACRA has the powers to impose heavier, but not lighter sanctions than those initially imposed by the designated entity. Can the Minister clarify if ACRA has the powers, on a review, to impose lighter sanctions, or overrule the designated entity’s decision and not impose any sanction? Under section 35G(5), before revoking, suspending or extending the suspension of a CA’s registration, ACRA must give the person written notice of its intention to do so and an opportunity to submit reasons against ACRA’s decision. Can the Minister share why the opportunity for the CA to submit reasons appears to come only after ACRA has come to an initial view on whether the CA’s registration should be revoked or suspended? Will the CA be provided an opportunity to submit reasons before ACRA makes an initial determination at all? My second point is on ACRA’s powers to delete designated entities. Under section 35L, before deleting a designated entity, ACRA must give the entity written notice of its intention to do so and the opportunity to submit reasons. Can the Minister share why the opportunity to submit reasons comes only after ACRA has come to a view whether the entity should be deleted? Will ACRA inform the designated entity that its designation is currently under review and provide the entity a chance to respond even before it takes a position on the deletion? Can the Minister share what considerations ACRA will take into account in deciding whether a designated entity should be deleted? This will provide guidance to entities in providing reasons why they should not be deleted. My third point is on retaining talent in accountancy.”
“Accountancy is a key sub-sector of the Professional Services Industry Transformation Map that was launched in January 2018. In June 2018, the Accountancy Sector Roadmap was launched, charting an ambitious plan for the accountancy sector over the next five to 10 years to develop Singapore into a global accountancy hub. This Bill is an important step in that direction. It will streamline the regulation of accountancy in Singapore and put ACRA in a stronger position to shape the development of the accountancy sector. I have four points to make. My first point is on the process for revoking or suspending a Chartered Accountant’s (CA) registration. The new section 35F provides the procedures for revoking or suspending a CA’s registration, which must be done in line with the designated entity’s rules. Can the Minister clarify whether designated entities will be required to provide in their rules a right for the CAs to be heard before any revocation or suspension? Section 35G allows ACRA to review steps taken by a designated entity for any contravention by a CA where the entity did not take any action against the CA or, having taken such action, suspends the member’s registration or imposes any lesser penalty. Can the Minister clarify whether ACRA has the power to conduct a review in two further situations? First, where the entity took action and, ultimately, decided not to make any order against the CA. Second, where the entity took action and decided to revoke the CA’s registration. I ask these because section 35G(2)(b) on the situations where ACRA may conduct a review refers specifically to suspension but not revocation by an entity. On conducting a review, section 35G(3) and (4) give ACRA the power to revoke registration, extend suspension, or suspend registration.”
“Whatever I have done, I am sorry. [Laughter.]”
“To ensure sufficient deterrence against end-users, will the Government consider increasing resources and training for the Police to assist victims and take swift action against end-users who post harmful content? Sir, notwithstanding my clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.”
“Survivors suffer a loss of dignity and privacy and experience an uphill battle in containing the spread of content once uploaded onto the Internet. I have three suggestions on how we can help these victims. First, funds from penalties under this Bill can be set aside to support these victim-survivors. These funds should be used in partnership with civil society groups who are already active in the community in helping these victims. Second, we can create a general duty of care on online communication providers to compensate individuals for harm they suffer due to the platform's negligence in managing harmful content. Platforms could be negligent if they are too slow in taking down harmful content or failing to meet standards in the Code of Practice for Online Safety. This duty of care allows the victim to be compensated for their harm under the law of negligence. This duty of care should apply not only to large social media platforms, but all online communication providers, as the potential harm does not discriminate. Small platforms may also be a way to escape detection by sharing harmful content there, then using links to circumvent the safeguards in larger platforms. Finally, as long as end-users believe they can hide behind the cloak of anonymity of the digital world, they will continue to try and publish harmful content. Individuals who are affected have to rely on themselves to work with the online platform to get the content removed. Going to the Police may not be useful as the Police may lack the jurisdiction or capability to investigate matters of this nature.”
“Third, will IMDA also consider adding new categories for harmful content? For instance, harmful content should include content that promotes extreme beauty standards. Such content harms our youths by giving them unrealistic expectations. It affects their self-esteem and encourages them to engage in unhealthy behaviour to meet these standards. My second set of clarifications relates to the scope of these new provisions. It seems clear that these regulations will apply to platforms like Facebook, YouTube or TikTok. But many other companies also use user-generated content. For example, e-commerce platforms may rely on user reviews and comments. Online games, as I shared earlier, may have extensive user interaction. Can the Minister clarify if social media services also include online platforms whose core business is not social media? Private or domestic communications are also excluded from these provisions. Can the Minister clarify if this excludes direct messages (DMs) or other user-to-user interactions? This is a potential channel for harmful content to be transmitted. For example, a study has found that one in 15 DMs sent by strangers to high-profile women are potentially abusive. Can the Minister also clarify if semi-private communities, such as Discord servers or Telegram groups, will be treated as private or domestic communication? My last set of clarifications relate to whether we can do more to help individual victims of harmful content. Victims of revenge porn, cyberbullying or doxxing suffer direct harm to their lives. Since 2016, AWARE's Sexual Assault Care Centre has supported 747 clients who experienced technology-facilitated sexual violence.”
“Sir, I thank the Government for holding a public consultation and multiple engagement sessions in preparing for this Bill. After all, the Government cannot, by itself, ensure online safety for Singaporeans. Internet companies, experts, parents and young people are all essential partners it must work with. The discussion on online safety also comes at a time when I am being pressured by my daughter, Ella, to allow her to play Roblox. Actually, she has been nagging me for years to be allowed to play this game, but it has intensified lately as all her friends are playing this game. I am terrified of her being exposed to harmful and inappropriate content online. All parents are. I hope this discussion and this Bill will make steps forward to ensuring a safer online space for our children. I have three clarifications on this Bill. My first clarification is about the definitions of "egregious content" and "harmful content". First, the Bill defines one category of "egregious content" as content that is "likely to cause feelings of enmity, hatred, ill will or hostility against, or contempt for or ridicule of, different racial or religious groups in Singapore." Can the Minister share why this category does not include content that has a similar impact on other demographic segments, such as gender? Second, IMDA's draft of the Code of Practice for Online Safety lists six categories of harmful content. Social media platforms must "minimise users' exposure" to such content. In the final version of the Code, will IMDA provide more specific category names, detailed explanations for each category or sub-categories for exclusion? The ambiguity makes it possible for educational or otherwise beneficial content to be caught in the dragnet for harmful content.”
“Thank you, Sir. I feel I should join this debate. Could I just ask, on a serious note, specifically, under what legislation do we ban the keeping of chickens in HDB flats? Because I do believe we have been challenged before and maybe it is under the Memorandum of Lease that the people who buy HDB flats signed. But could I just ask, specifically, which legislation prevents this?”
“One way forward, in terms of this salary dispute, is to ensure that MWs are paid electronically. Could I ask the Senior Minister of State for an update on what percentage of MWs are now paid electronically and whether we can completely fill the gap and make it 100%?”
“Just one last one. I know we are trying to increase the intake but it will take some time. If today, we increase the intake, it will be a couple of years down the road before we see the effects in the wards. So, the fastest way to alleviate the problem is perhaps to see whether we can increase the hiring of foreign nurses. In a few weeks, a few months, we could hire a huge number that will help to alleviate the current problem. That is why I keep pushing for information on what is MOH's expected number of foreign nurses that we are hoping to hire and how we are hoping to reach that. Minister Ong Ye Kung shared yesterday some of the countries we are looking at. With those plans out there in the public, some of the local nurses might feel a bit more assured that help is on the horizon and not three or four years away.”
“I have those numbers, but those numbers include both local and foreign. I am asking if we have a number specifically for foreign nurses. I think we debated this before that the problem is that a lot of the foreign nurses have left. And that is why there is a huge burden on the local nurses now. I am just wondering what is the shortfall in terms of foreign nurses and how we intend to meet that shortfall.”
“Thank you, Sir. I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the reply. Could I just ask what is the current shortfall in terms of foreign nurses that we are planning to hire? Secondly, I think Minister Ong Ye Kung yesterday mentioned how we are ramping up our efforts to hire foreign nurses. So, could I ask whether there is a timeline for this and when do we expect to be able to meet this shortfall?”
“And our planet is fast approaching tipping points that will make climate chaos irreversible. We are on a highway to climate hell with our foot on the accelerator." But – and it is a big "but" – I remain optimistic, and I hope we all do. There is so much progress made, so much more people joining this movement and millions wanting to take action. Let us ride on this wave and this growing movement to ensure that we have a healthy planet to live in. Sir, I stand in support of the Bill.”
“In addition, given that companies may now buy international carbon credits instead of paying carbon tax for up to 5% of taxable emissions, will the Ministry also consider publishing data on trends in ICCs used by companies and facilities? In summary, I hope that we can clarify and limit allowances granted to EITE companies, expand the carbon tax to all reportable facilities and be more transparent with data on top emitters and ICCs. Sir, we have done a lot in our battle to tackle climate change. Ultimately, we need to remember this quote: "Climate change is sometimes misunderstood as being about changes in the weather. In reality, it is about changes in our very way of life". All of us need to change our mindsets and our lifestyles. All of us have an important part to play. All of us need to work together. I thank all the activists, NGOs, businesses and our public officers for their passion, determination and partnership in this important fight. In my opening speech for the Climate Change Motion in 2021, I said, "I live this moment with sadness and optimism. Sadness because we are somehow fighting the same battle that our forefathers fought decades ago. But also, optimism – because we are now much clearer about what we can do. Optimism because Singaporeans, more than ever before, are speaking up and taking action". Unfortunately, the sadness continues as each day, we see the effects of climate change right before our very eyes and we feel this change. We see how it may be getting worse and that we are running out of time. The sadness and, perhaps worry, is fuelled by what UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said just yesterday: "Greenhouse gas emissions keep growing. Global temperatures keep rising.”
“At this year's Budget debate, I asked the Government to raise this percentage by lowering the carbon tax threshold to include smaller emitters that are "reportable facilities". The Ministry's position is that lowering the threshold would impose significant regulatory burden and cost on companies, without any meaningful increase in coverage. Can Minister share how compliance costs would increase for a reportable facility to become a taxable facility? As I mentioned during the debate, operators of these facilities already have to pay the costs of tracking their emissions. So, the only obvious new cost is just the tax itself, and it is precisely my point that they should pay this tax – so that they have an incentive to cut the emissions. My third and final point today is on publicising carbon tax data. I previously asked that the Government publish more granular data on the impact of our carbon taxes, such as the trend in emission levels for taxed facilities and the breakdown of revenue by facility type. The Government answered by saying that company- and facility-specific data were confidential information that it could not disclose under our Carbon Pricing Act. To address this, I suggested that the Government publish a ranking of top emitters without sharing the exact emissions level. This would allow the public to make more informed consumption decisions without compromising business confidentiality. Minister Grace Fu's response was that the Ministry agrees with the need to provide strong impetus for companies to reduce emissions and will continue to study how we can spur this meaningfully. Can Minister share if it will now consider publishing a ranking of top emitters without the exact emissions level?”
“I do understand that we need to remember the trade-offs. We want to push for climate change, but we do not want to push businesses away. But green groups are concerned, and rightly so. Every allowance erodes the coverage of our carbon tax and reduces the urgency to go green. Every allowance weakens the effectiveness of the carbon tax. I have three points to make on this. First, can Minister share how many companies currently belong to the EITE sector and will pay carbon taxes? In other words, how many companies are currently eligible for these allowances? Second, given that the allowances are meant to reduce the "near-term impact" on business competitiveness, why does the Bill set no end date for such allowances to be granted? How will the Government decide when to stop granting allowances? Will it consider committing to 2030 as the year by which it will stop granting allowances? It seems fair to say that the near term should last no longer than eight years from today. Third, will the Ministry consider making it a practice to name all companies that receive such allowances from the Government? There is no reason these names should be a secret. They are clearly not a matter of commercial sensitivity and companies that do not receive such allowances will rightly wonder whether the Government is secretly granting allowances to their rivals in the same sector. We must not let our carbon tax regime fall under such a cloud of suspicion. My second point today is on the coverage of our carbon tax. Our carbon tax, along with our transport fuel tax, currently covers 90% of our nation's emissions. This is a high proportion, but every percentage counts in the fight against climate change.”
“Sir, last year, this House affirmed that climate change is a global emergency. This year, through another Motion by the Government Parliamentary Committee (GPC) for Sustainability and the Environment, this House called on the Government to partner businesses and Singaporeans to make Singapore a low-carbon society. Since then, the Government has responded clearly and positively. There was Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong's announcement last month that Singapore will aim to reach net-zero carbon emissions by 2050. Many of us have fought hard to have this ambitious target for many years now and this was a topic I raised repeatedly, and almost annually, in this House. Sir, in 2018 I said that Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence was my favourite Minister. I am happy to say now that with this latest net zero announcement by him, he remains my favourite Minister. On a serious note, there is a reason Singapore's net-zero target is such a big deal. Singapore's word is worth its weight in gold, and the world knows it. Today's Bill is a testament to that fact. This Bill raises carbon tax to the levels announced in this year's Budget. I have always said carbon tax is our best weapon against climate change. The new rates sharpen this weapon and helps Singapore achieve its net-zero emissions goal. I have three points on how we can continue the push towards a low-carbon society. My first point is on companies in EITE sectors. These sectors include the energy, chemicals and electronics sectors. This Bill allows the Government to grant allowances to companies in EITE sectors. In its public consultation, the Government said that these allowances are meant to help such companies "manage the near-term impact on business competitiveness and mitigate the risk of carbon leakage".”
“Sir, notwithstanding these clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.”
“Will IRAS publish guidelines, similar to the UK tax agency’s document on “How to spot missing trader VAT fraud”? Will IRAS offer rewards upon request for those reporting missing trader fraud as part of its existing whistleblower programme? These guidelines and assurances will make it easier for businesses to comply in good faith and for whistleblowers to do the right thing. My second set of clarifications relates to the Committee Against Profiteering (CAP). Many residents are concerned that businesses will use the GST hike as an excuse to raise prices further and result in an even higher increase in the cost of living. CAP investigates complaints about businesses that use the GST hike as an excuse to raise prices of essential products and services. It has said that it may “make public” businesses that profiteer by using the GST hike as a pretext. The last time that CAP convened in 2007, it received 200 pieces of feedback and ended up making public only a single case – a childcare centre. Even then, the business was not named. Can the Minister explain whether CAP has the power to publicly name businesses that were found to have profiteered? If so, when describing the cases of profiteering, when should CAP name the businesses involved and when should it not? Profiteers should face the strong deterrent of public scrutiny. Naming these businesses also gives the public the confidence that profiteers will face consequences and encourages good-faith reports, which strengthens CAP’s goal of increasing transparency. Will we consider making it a default practice to publicly name businesses that are found to have profiteered? This should cover not only reports that CAP has already received but also those it will receive in the coming months, as the GST hike takes effect.”
“Sir, I appreciate the need to increase the revenue raised through GST. It is without a doubt that Singaporeans will have greater social spending needs in the coming years. GST helps pay for those needs. But we also have to ensure this tax hike does not lead to fraud and profiteering. I have two sets of clarifications. The first set of clarifications has to do with missing trader fraud. Under the new section 62C, it is an offence to participate in a specified arrangement knowing that it is for a fraudulent purpose. The person does not need to know of the specified arrangement or any details of the plan. In other words, this offence seems to require knowledge of a fraudulent purpose only in the abstract. Can the Minister explain how knowledge of fraudulent purpose should be established if it cannot be shown that the individual knew of the specified arrangement or any details of the plan at all? Section 62C also makes a sole proprietor, partner or director strictly liable if their entity is used to commit missing trader fraud. The culpability for this strict-liability offence is lower and this offence attracts lower penalties than the one for participation. Arguably, the actions of a sole proprietor, partner or director in allowing their entity to be used for missing trader fraud may amount to assisting or receiving instructions to carry out the fraud. Can the Minister explain what the Ministry will consider in deciding which offence to proceed on? This is significant because the maximum fine and prison term for participation is 10 times as much as that for the strict-liability offence. Finally, I hope to understand how IRAS will support compliance with the new section 62C.”
“A short one. If I could ask the Senior Minister of State, we are doing so much to protect people from second-hand smoke in the public areas, could we apply similar efforts to protecting them at their own homes. It seems strange that when they are out there. they are all protected, but then when they reach home, they keep smelling second-hand smoke. Two, I am in touch with the researcher. So, if we can provide some conclusive evidence that it is linked to mental health, will MSE then amend our policies?”
“Thank you, Sir. I thank the Senior Minister of State for all her replies on second-hand smoke over the years. But, could I just ask whether there is a threshold we need to reach before we will look into reviewing our policies and legislation? Is there perhaps a certain number of deaths or number of people who are affected by this before we would change? I ask this because we already know that it does cause death, it does cause physical harm to our health and now we realise, even our mental health. So, what more will it take before we are willing to amend our policies?”
“However, MOF and ACRA also acknowledged confidentiality concerns and stated that they intend to appoint only retired public accountants on the Oversight Committee to ensure that sensitive information remains confidential. Maintaining confidentiality over sensitive information may be a consideration against accounting entities seeking recourse to the High Court. Once an appeal is filed, sensitive documents reviewed by the Oversight Committee may now become part of the public record. Accounting entities can apply to the Court for sensitive information to be redacted. To provide greater assurance to accounting entities, can the Minister share if MOF and ACRA will generally consent to the redaction of confidential information if such an application is made by the accounting entities to the Court? If not, for what reasons will MOF and ACARA reject such requests? Sir, notwithstanding these clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.”
“Is there any opportunity for a public accountant to present their side of the story to the Sub-committee or Committee before an order is served? After all, once an order is served, it could be 30 or more days before the General Division of the High Court responds to the public accountant's appeal. Even if successfully appealed, an order may still have serious professional consequences for the public accountant. So, it is important to ensure the right decision is made the first time. My third clarification has to do with appeals against the orders of the Oversight Committee. Various sections of the Bill provide a public accountant or accounting entity who is aggrieved by an order of the Oversight Committee to appeal to the General Division of the High Court. To ensure that there is meaningful access to review by the Court, can the Minister share if the Oversight Committee will, as a matter of course, provide a written decision on the basis for its orders? This will enable the public accountant or accounting entity in question to consider whether any appeal is necessary. This is important, given that the costs involved in pursuing an appeal at the High Court can be significant. Additionally, during the public consultation on the Bill, feedback was provided to MOF and ACRA to redact sensitive information in the inspection report presented to the Oversight Committee to ensure that commercially-sensitive firm-level information remains confidential. While MOF and ACRA noted the feedback, the position taken was that the Oversight Committee will require a full and complete set of information to make considered decisions.”
“Sir, this Bill will strengthen the audit regulatory regime and the complaint and disciplinary process for public accountants and accounting entities. I have three areas of clarification. My first clarification has to do with the refusal to undergo practice monitoring programme and review by public accountants and accounting entities. I have two questions. Firstly, under the new sections 38A and 38K, public accountants and accounting entities may be suspended for up to two years if they refuse without a reasonable excuse to undergo a practice monitoring programme or a review respectively. Can the Minister provide examples to explain what constitutes a reasonable excuse under these sections? Secondly, section 38K(6) lists the scenarios where a public entity is deemed to refuse to undergo a review. These include refusing to allow a practice reviewer to inspect documents or refusing entry to premises. These actions are clearly made by individuals who act on their own accord, possibly in defiance of their accounting entity's instructions. Can the Minister clarify what the Oversight Committee or the Courts should consider in determining whether acts of refusal by individuals are attributable to an accounting entity? My second clarification has to do with the practice review of a public accountant set out in sections 37 and 38. Based on the report of a practice reviewer, the Practice Monitoring Sub-committee provides recommendations and the Oversight Committee makes orders. Neither authority seems to have the remit to conduct further investigations. Can the Minister share whether and how the Sub-committee and the Committee can conduct further investigations so they can make a more informed decision?”
“Thirdly, it is common for a defendant in criminal proceedings to be convicted on some charges and acquitted on others. Similarly, in civil proceedings, a defendant may succeed on certain heads of claim but not others. Can the Minister of State clarify how repayment should be treated in such cases? Will the director be required to repay only part of the loan? Alternatively, will the need for repayment be determined by whether the director has succeeded overall in the criminal or civil proceedings? If this is the case, how will overall success be determined? Is this determined by the number of charges or claims, or the severity of the charges or claims that the director succeeds on? My second set of clarifications has to do with a trustee-managers' duties to maintain information. The new section 52K requires the trustee-manager of a BT to take "reasonable steps" to identify registrable controllers of a BT. The scope of such duties is potentially very large. Can the Minister of State provide illustrations to guide these trustee-managers on what would constitute reasonable steps in the discharge of their duties? Also, can the Minister of State clarify whether the new section 52N applies to someone who knows or ought to know that someone else may be a registrable controller? If not, can the Minister of State explain why the new section 52K, which enforces a similar requirement to disclose information, does not apply to such a person? It would be helpful to understand why the two sections, similar in their scope, do not apply the burden to the same groups of people. Sir, notwithstanding these clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.”
“Sir, this Bill will align provisions for business trusts with the Companies Act and strengthen governance for business trusts. Business trusts are a common structure for tapping on capital on the SGX. The proposed amendments to strengthen governance of business trusts are welcomed. I have clarifications on two areas. Let me start by thanking MAS for conducting a public consultation before bringing this Bill to Parliament. Public consultations not only show that the Government is keen to listen but they also help our Government agencies guard against blind spots they may have during the policy-making process. I also thank MAS for publishing a response paper to this public consultation. This gives respondents the assurance that their feedback is heard loud and clear. My first set of clarifications has to do with loans to directors for defending against proceedings. Firstly, can the Minister of State clarify why loans to directors for defending against regulatory actions are treated differently from loans for defending civil or criminal proceedings? Conditions outlined in the new section 27B of the Business Trusts Act and in section 163A of the Companies Act appear to apply when the loans are for defending civil or criminal proceedings but not when the loans are for defending against regulatory actions. The reason for this distinction is unclear. Secondly, can the Minister of State clarify whether loans for defending criminal or civil proceedings need to be repaid if charges are withdrawn and the director is issued a stern warning or for a discharge not amounting to an acquittal? The Bill makes clear that repayment must be made in certain other situations such as when the director is convicted in the proceedings but it does not state as much for this situation.”
“Section 80A provides that "the parties may object" whereas section 80B provides that "any party may object". Can the Senior Minister of State clarify if the objection of a single party is sufficient in both cases? If not, can the Senior Minister of State clarify when are the objections of both parties required and what is the rationale for drawing this distinction? Sir, notwithstanding these clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.”
“Can the Senior Minister of State share why these seven specific sections were chosen for the 11th Schedule? Why not any of the other deductions in Part 5 of the Act? The rationale for the differentiated treatment is unclear. My second area of clarifications is on the hearing of appeals by the Board of Review. I have three questions. First, the new section 78 will allow the chairperson of the Board of Review (BOR) to appoint a single member of the Board to hear a case if the issues involved are not complex. The chairperson is required to have regard to the facts and circumstances of a case in deciding whether to appoint only a single member to hear the case. Can the Senior Minister of State share if the chairperson will take into account the preferences of the parties to the case in deciding whether a hearing by a single Board member is appropriate? For instance, there may be cases where the issues are not complex but the relationship between parties are extremely acrimonious and it may be preferable to have the case heard by a panel. Second, the Bill proposes substituting a number of terms. Can the Senior Minister of State clarify if these substitutions are intended to be significant? For instance, "in the absence of a member of Board" is substituted by "by committee where a member becomes unavailable". Should these terms be interpreted differently? Additionally, "do not consent" is substituted by "object" in a number of provisions. Is this substitution significant and is a positive expression of an objection now required where previously the absence of consent would suffice? Third, sections 80A and 80B allow parties to object to the hearing of an appeal in various cases.”
“Sir, this Bill proposes to implement the changes to the tax system announced in Budget 2022. On the whole, these changes will make our tax system fairer and more efficient, and support Singapore's growth across a whole slew of sectors. I have clarifications on two areas. My first point is on information sharing by IRAS. The Bill includes provisions to allow IRAS to share information to public officers and other authorised people. I have four questions on this. First, can the Senior Minister of State share in what situations do Government bodies envision using the information-sharing provisions in the new section 6(12)? Second, can the Senior Minister of State share how will IRAS obtain "express consent" under the new section 6(12)? When seeking consent, to what standards will the Government bodies hold themselves? Will they state the exact piece of information to be shared, the frequency of this information sharing, the recipient of the information and the intended usage of that information? Or will Government bodies ask for a blanket agreement without providing such details? Third, can the Senior Minister of State share if someone can be held in contempt of the authority of a public servant for not providing consent to disclose their income information under section 6(12)? After all, many actions involving non-disclosure of information constitute such an offence under the Penal Code, including refusal to answer a public servant authorised to question and obstructing a public servant in discharge of their public functions. Fourth, the new section 6(12B) allows IRAS to disclose certain prescribed information without consent. One piece of information is whether a company claimed deductions under seven sections in the Income Tax Act.”
“Almost every day, we are seeing new attempts to scam Singaporeans or spread false information, with a large variety of creative tactics. Earlier this year, investment scammers tried to pass off as GIC and used its logo to try and trick Singaporeans into transferring money to them. I can easily imagine that other scammers might try to use our national symbols, to fake official Government communications, or give a sense of reliability and trick victims into letting their guard down. Enhanced penalties will deter such fraudulent behaviour and help protect Singaporeans from harm. My last clarification relates to the President's powers to amend the symbols. Section 13 allows the aspect or description of any symbol to be amended by notification in the gazette. Amendment by notification in the Gazette which does not require approval of Parliament appears to be incongruent with the sacrosanct nature of the symbols. Can the Minister clarify in what circumstances is it anticipated that such an amendment may be made? Will public consultation be sought before any amendments? When the President exercises her or his powers to amend the symbols, on what basis and on which entity's or individual's advice will the President be acting? Sir, notwithstanding my clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.”
“Sir, this Bill declares our seven national symbols and three Presidential symbols and to regulate their use. National symbols are an important part of our national identity and a common rallying point for Singaporeans. I welcome this Bill, which recognises and protects these symbols. I thank MCCY for allowing Singaporeans to be a part of the process in deciding what our national symbols mean to us by convening a citizens' workgroup and public consultation for this Bill. I have three suggestions and clarifications on the Bill. My first point is on pre-approval requirements. I am glad that MCCY listened to feedback from the citizens' workgroup and is allowing a wider use of our national symbols by loosening approval requirements. This gives Singaporeans more freedom to express their identity and love for Singapore. However, there are still some situations where the Government's pre-approval is needed. This includes the commercial use of our symbols outside of the National Day period or for using the National Anthem. Can the Minister share how the Ministry will ensure that the pre-approval process is accessible, low-cost and simple to navigate for well-intentioned individuals who wish to use the national symbols? Independent creatives, in particular, may not have the administrative knowhow to navigate the process. We should ensure that the bureaucracy of it all does not deter them from innovative, respectful uses of our national symbols. My second clarification relates to the prohibitions under the regulations. Will the Minister consider creating enhanced punishments for those who misuse the national symbols to mislead others? Our national symbols are not only a source of identity. They also carry the Singapore brand, signifying the trust and reliability we are known for.”
“Will the Ministry consider extending the Penal Code to protect compliance officers? If not, how will it ensure that compliance officers are protected to the same extent as public servants when exercising similar powers? My third and final clarification relates to the appointment of individuals as debt collectors. Section 20(2) allows the Licensing Officer to decline to allow an individual to be appointed a debt collector if the individual is not a "fit and proper person" to be deployed as a debt collector. Section 20(3) allows the Licensing Officer to consider any prescribed criteria and requirement. Section 20(4) goes even further in allowing the Licensing Officer to take into account "any other matter or evidence that may be relevant". These provisions are broad. Can the Minister provide examples of what factors may be used to deem if someone is fit and proper to be deployed as a debt collector? Can the Minister also share if the approval to be deployed as a debt collector will be time-limited and subject to renewal? Notwithstanding these clarifications, Sir, I stand in support of the Bill.”
“Sir, this Bill empowers MHA to regulate debt collection activities in Singapore and provides the Police with necessary levers to stem problematic debt collection conduct. I applaud MHA for proposing to institute upstream regulatory interventions to manage the disamenities from debt collection activities. I also thank MHA for conducting a public consultation in June this year to gather public feedback in preparation for this Bill. I have clarifications on three areas. My first clarification relates to the qualifications of compliance officers. The new section 4 provides for the appointment of compliance officers. A compliance officer's enforcement powers are significant. For instance, they can enter premises and question individuals, similar to Police officers. Given their significant powers and that they can be as young as 18 years old, it is important that compliance officers are fully ready for their role. Can the Minister share what qualifications, experience and training will be required for compliance officers? Given that compliance officers have some powers similar to those of Police officers, will they be required to follow rules similar to the procedural rules under the Police General Orders? My second clarification relates to the protection of compliance officers. Compliance officers are not public servants. This means that they are not protected by sections of the Penal Code that set out offences for obstructing public servants in discharging their public functions, for omitting to assist a public servant and for threatening injury to a public servant. This lack of protection is despite the fact that compliance officers do exert enforcement powers markedly similar to public servants, as I previously noted. The occupational risks are thus similar.”
“Thank you, Sir. I thank the Minister for the reply. Could I just ask whether we can do a follow-up dialogue with the climate activists so that we can close the loop in terms of the feedback and concerns that they have raised? Second, I am very glad we have done a public consultation on our climate ambition but could I ask, maybe for next year, whether we could do it a bit earlier? Because, by the time we end the consultation, it will be less than two months before we announce our NDCs at the UN Climate Change Conference 2022 (COP27).”
“However, the term is repeatedly used in this Bill. Given the scope of matters that can fall under “public interest” is very broad and that it is a new term in the context of the Act in relation to important decisions, can Minister share how “public interest” should be interpreted in the context of the Act? My third point is on how STB will assist the cruise line industry in reaching its sustainability goals. Concerns have been raised about the carbon emissions, pollution and significant energy demands of cruises. Earlier this year, the Friends of the Earth, an NGO, evaluated 18 cruise lines according to four environmental criteria. No cruise line got better than a C grade. Seven received a failing grade. The report card concluded that “clean cruising” was simply not possible. Research suggests that a large cruise ship can have a carbon footprint of greater than 12,000 cars. That is twice the number of cars newly registered in Singapore every year. The Singapore Green Plan 2030 aims for our nation to become a sustainable tourist destination. MPA has also said it aims to decarbonise the maritime industry. What steps will STB take to help decarbonise the cruise line industry? What targets will it set, and on what specific areas does it aim to drive reduced emissions? For instance, are there goals for cruises to transition first to using liquefied natural gas and subsequently to other low or zero-carbon marine fuels? Notwithstanding these clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.”
“Sir, this Bill allows STB to take over the economic regulation of cruise terminal operators from the MPA. This will enable STB to exercise regulatory oversight of financial matters in a manner that supports the growth and development of the cruise sector and in turn, Singapore’s tourism sector. I have three clarifications. My first point is on the new section 8HA. The section introduces a new power for STB to act as a third-party guarantor for the tourism enterprises. This is subject to the Minister’s approval and provided that the enterprise develops Singapore as a destination or enhances the travel and tourism sector’s contribution to the economy. This new power comes with significant risks. STB may end up propping up mismanaged, decaying businesses. STB may also be accused of picking and choosing winners in the tourism industry, unfairly disadvantaging those not lucky enough to be chosen. This power should thus be used in extremely limited situations. The decision to use it must be guided by clear, objective frameworks of success. How will the Minister decide whether to approve instances where STB seek to use this power? What factors will they consider? In what situations is STB envisioned to use this power? My second point is about how public interest will be determined under the amended Act. A number of amendments proposed refer to the STB or Controller making decisions on the basis of “public interest”. One example is the STB’s power in granting or renewing tourist guide licences to impose conditions that are in the public interest. The STB may also give licensees directions that are necessary or expedient in the public interest. I ask this because “public interest” is not a term that is currently used in the Singapore Tourism Board Act.”
“Can the Minister of State also clarify whether an individual who has been given a stern warning will have their data information immediately removed after the end of investigations or will be entitled to apply for such removal? My last clarification has to do with the application process to remove information. Section 39 makes clear that certain individuals will be rejected if they apply to remove their information. This is because their information is considered sensitive, it is relevant to another ongoing prosecution or investigation, or there are other national security concerns. My question is this: will these individuals be told when their information is no longer considered sensitive? If not, how will they know whether they should apply again or not? Just as important, how will prescribed timelines apply to such individuals? How can they be expected to follow the prescribed timelines for a removal application when their information may be sensitive for a long time and then become non-sensitive without their knowledge? In my view, the default action should be to remove someone's information without a fresh application if the individual was earlier rejected due to a section 39 reason and the reason no longer holds. After all, the individual had already demonstrated their preference for the removal. We should not require someone to apply again. If these individuals will be required to reapply, will they be informed of the opportunity to make a fresh application? Notwithstanding these clarifications, Madam, I support the Bill.”
“Can the Minister of State provide examples of what would constitute good cause and reasonable efforts? The second condition is that the underage person is "willing" to give the sample. Can the Minister of State clarify how DNA officers will ensure this "willingness" is an informed, meaningful one? Will they simply accept a vocal "yes"? The reality is that the child or young teenager in this situation may feel pressured by the Police or other powerful adults bearing down on them. What rules and checks will be in place to ensure DNA officers, Police officers and other officers do not create undue pressure on these young minds to consent? My third clarification is on the removal of recorded information. With the amendments, the default position is that the data will be retained for individuals who have been acquitted, granted a discharge amounting to an acquittal or had their offence compounded. The onus is on them to apply to remove their data. Otherwise, it will stay in the system. Can the Minister of State share how these individuals will be informed of the option to apply for their data to be removed? What steps will be taken to ensure that the application process is transparent and reasonably easy to access? Relatedly, it seems that an individual granted a discharge not amounting to an acquittal may not apply for their information to be removed. Can the Minister of State clarify if this is, in fact, the position? Given that a discharge not amounting to an acquittal is significantly different in nature from a conviction, can the Minister of State share if discretion may be exercised to allow the removal of information if there is a discharge not amounting to an acquittal?”
“This Bill will expand the collection and use of identifying information and DNA information. Such information helps law enforcement agencies to do their work more effectively. Because such information is sensitive, I support provisions in the Bill that protect such information when it is collected. I have four clarifications, all relating to the safeguards for the collection and removal of this information. My first clarification has to do with the forcible taking of samples. Under the new section 25, if an individual refuses to give a body sample that is not an invasive sample, a DNA officer may use force to take that body sample. I think we can all agree that having a body sample forcibly taken from us can be intrusive, distressing and traumatic. Can the Minister share how will DNA officers be trained to decide whether they should use force to take a body sample? What factors will DNA officers be asked to consider? Will there be checks and penalties to ensure that such acts of force, once done, are warranted and justified? My second clarification is on the taking of samples from those below 16 years of age. We should exercise extreme caution when taking samples from such young people. It is well-established that children and younger teenagers lack the ability to understand the full implications of their bodily consent. They do not know what they are really saying yes to, and there is good reason that the consent of parents and guardians is routinely required in such decisions. However, this Bill allows DNA officers to, essentially, ignore the parents and guardians' preferences under certain conditions. Two are noteworthy. The first condition is that the consent of the parent or guardian is refused without good cause or cannot be obtained despite reasonable efforts.”
“Can I just ask again, specifically, how does MOH look into the workload of our nurses? I ask this because, the nurse-to-patient ratio that we shared previously in Parliament of one is to four or five, seems quite far from the reality on the ground. Many nurses are sharing that they are looking after way more patients. Second, I do agree with the Senior Parliamentary Secretary, maybe we should not be that prescriptive. But a lot of nurses are now sharing that they only have five hours of rest between shifts and I fear not just for the nurses, but also the level of care that patients would get for someone that is overworked. And so, I hope MOH can again review the rostering system of the hospitals and also the nurse-to-patient ratio.”
“Thank you, Madam. I thank the Minister for the reply. I think she mentioned that there will be a review next year. Could I ask when the review will be completed. And again, as a matter of urgency, whether we can do the review earlier? The data that I shared showed that about a third of mothers are still breastfeeding when the infant is six months old. Which means, many are returning to work and needing the lactation room. Data shows that there is a lack of it now. I am wondering again when the review will be completed and whether we could expedite and do it this year, instead of next year.”
“NTUC's Women and Family Unit, HPB and the Singapore National Employers Federation also have an employer's guide to breastfeeding at the workplace that provides employers with information on what they can do to support employees to continue breastfeeding after returning to work. The Government has even provided grants to build lactation rooms. I thank the Ministries and organisations for their hard work, but we can and must go further. To this end, the Breastfeeding Mothers' Support Group Singapore has done incredible work in supporting breastfeeding mothers. Members of the group have shared with me this sentiment: "Right now, breastfeeding is tolerated. I hope we move towards embracing, rather than tolerating breastfeeding." I too hope that we can review our laws so that we embrace, rather than just tolerate, breastfeeding. First, we need to increase the number of lactation rooms available to working mothers. The gross floor area threshold needs to be lowered so more buildings are required to have lactation rooms. The minimum number of lactation rooms also needs to be increased for larger buildings. Second, we need to join the majority of countries and introduce legislation to provide paid lactation breaks. Finally, Madam, I end with this quote that I hope expresses the wishes of our breastfeeding mothers: "I breastfeed, not because I think I am better; not because I think less of formula feeding moms; not because I want attention; not because I want to show my breast to others. I breastfeed because I couldn't imagine it any other way, because my child wants to be nourished from me, because this is what nature intended, because this was the right choice for my family." [Applause.]”
“Having a more inclusive workplace and providing more support for breastfeeding mothers might make it easier for breastfeeding mothers to re-enter or remain in the workforce. Without a doubt, one of the barriers for many mothers is the lack of time and space to produce milk to feed their children. My proposals today are about providing those things. And do not just take it from me. The many mothers that I have spoken to, and the many mothers surveyed by the Breastfeeding Mothers Support Group Singapore say the same. NTUC has said that the provision of lactation breaks and lactation rooms does support breastfeeding mothers at the workplace. AWARE, which published a report last year – based on feedback from pregnant women and female caregivers, said the same, and emphasised that legislation is needed for those practices to become widespread. Madam, we need to do more for nursing mothers and do more urgently. I would like to end this speech by acknowledging the significant progress made over the years. MHA has clarified that breastfeeding in public is unlikely to constitute offenses of indecent exposure or appearing nude in public. MOT has made clear that breastfeeding is allowed on buses and trains and that the Government will provide nursing rooms at all new bus interchanges and integrated transport hubs, as well as new MRT interchange stations. MOE has said that it is committed to providing a conducive workplace for nursing mothers and will ensure that all Primary schools, Secondary schools and Junior Colleges/centralised institutes have a dedicated lactation room. MOE has also shared that all institutes of higher learning (IHLs), the Autonomous Universities, Polytechnics and ITEs are already equipped with lactation facilities.”
“Legislating paid lactation breaks can spark a broader conversation about how expressing milk can be normalised and supported at the workplace. Some might say that flexible work arrangements (FWAs) are becoming more prevalent and that will solve the problem of insufficient breastfeeding time. Indeed, FWAs are a good thing for breastfeeding mothers. It has been reported that work-from-home during the pandemic enabled mothers to breastfeed longer and more comfortably than when they worked in the office. But work-from-home is not an option for all mothers. Many still work in the office, and many more have returned to the office in recent months. We cannot leave these mothers hanging and they still need our support. To support mothers at their workplaces, will the Government consider introducing legislation to mandate the provision of paid breaks, specifically, for breastfeeding? Before I conclude, I want to pre-empt one point. Some may question whether lactation rooms and nursing breaks are a good use of resources. But we should be clear: breastfeeding mothers are a valuable part of our workforce. Already, 20% of women of working age are not in the labour force, as Minister Tan See Leng said at the recent COS debates, I quote: "There are vacancies across all occupational levels with varied qualifications and needs which could potentially be filled by this group". For breastfeeding mothers who do want to return to work, surely, we can do more to ease their transition back into the workforce. Minister Tan also shared that, I quote: "In order to tap on this segment of our population, businesses will need to consider how the jobs they offer can be more flexible and attractive to locals". Businesses can help but the Government can too.”
“Expressing milk takes time. On average, a session takes 20 to 30 minutes. But the problem is many women simply do not have time at work to express milk. In the survey, again, conducted by the Breastfeeding Mothers Support Group Singapore, two-thirds of working mothers had this problem. Most of them also said they could not express milk as much as they had wanted during work. Some mothers try to find time by multi-tasking. But even that comes with its risks. Mdm Yap told me that milk started leaking from her hands-free pump when she was talking to a co-worker. The risks of not having dedicated time to breastfeed goes beyond some embarrassing spillage. As I stressed earlier, the breasts of nursing mothers become infected and painful when milk is not expressed regularly. Over time, such irregularity also leads to a permanent decrease in milk that the mothers can supply. Mothers are worse off and so are their children. Laws that guarantee paid breastfeeding breaks are not new or uncommon. A 2020 report on 97 countries found that 73% of the countries had laws for paid breastfeeding breaks. Singapore is in the minority of countries that do not provide this. Why? I raised this at the recent COS debates and Minister of State Ms Gan Siow Huang replied that the need to build mutual understanding and trust between employers and employees is why Singapore does not take a legislative approach for workplace practices, such as mandatory breastfeeding breaks. But taking a legislative approach is not mutually exclusive with building trust and encouraging employers. We already legislate a whole slew of protections for our workers. In addition, legislation can spark cultural change. One of the biggest challenges is that many employers simply do not think about breastfeeding at all.”
“One mother told me that she would sometimes only have five minutes left for her own lunch after expressing her milk. Feed yourself or feed the child? Madam, no mother in Singapore should have to make this decision. It is also clear that buildings with more occupants have higher needs. We should require larger buildings, those with a higher gross floor area, to have more than one lactation room. MND has said that the gross floor area threshold is a base guideline meant to strike a balance between needs and the efficient use of space and that some buildings go beyond these requirements. Indeed, as Senior Minister of State Zaqy Mohamad shared when we debated this issue two years ago, MND itself had two lactation rooms in the MND HQ within the floors they occupied, while MOM had five in its two office buildings. I appreciate the Government going above and beyond for its employees. But what about all the women not working for the Government? I also understand MND's point about having to use space efficiently. But we have always known that efficiency must be balanced against safety. In the UK, the issue of breastfeeding at work is considered a matter of workplace health and safety. Employers there cannot ask a breastfeeding mother to pump in unhygienic environments such as the toilet. We must work towards a similar safety standard for our nursing mothers. In its next review of the Code on Accessibility in the Built Environment, will MND consider lowering the gross floor area threshold, so that more buildings with offices and business parks will be required to have a lactation room? Will MND also consider increasing the number of lactation rooms required for larger buildings containing offices and business parks? My second proposal is that we legislate paid lactation breaks.”
“Madam, I wish I can show everyone here, right now, how difficult it is to pump with a breast pump while concurrently working. I would if I could, but I cannot, as I, obviously, cannot breastfeed. And more importantly, I promised Whip I would not do any live demonstration during this speech and I intend to keep that promise. But, Madam, do not just believe my words and the stories I have shared. The data backs up these stories. According to the local survey by the Breastfeeding Mothers Support Group Singapore, eight in 10 working mothers say one of the things they need the most is a lactation room. I do understand that many employers face both financial and physical space constraints in terms of providing a lactation room, especially SMEs. This was a point that Senior Minister of State Amy Khor made four years ago, and I agree with her. She said, "We can encourage building owners and developers to set up common family and nursing rooms that their tenants can access and utilise". As such, the call today is for building owners to provide the lactation rooms and, Madam, we really have to go beyond just encouraging building owners to provide this. To really help breastfeeding mothers, the Government has to mandate the provision of more lactation rooms in buildings that have offices and business parks. Currently, MND requires only one lactation room for such buildings if they have a gross floor area of 10,000 square metres (sqm) or more. We should lower this threshold, so that more buildings are required to have a lactation room. And it is not just about having one room. It is about having enough rooms. So many mothers have shared stories about rushing to a lactation room during their lunch break, only to find that another mother is already using it.”