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 11 of 37.
“The irony is that their employers speak of productivity, but failing to pump milk is, in fact, a major distraction for many mothers. When a breastfeeding mother fails to pump at the right time, their breasts can become swollen and create sharp, burning pains. It can even cause infections. Some mothers are in a double whammy: pump the milk and be accused of inefficiency; do not pump the milk and actually become inefficient due to the pain and stress. They just cannot win. In spite of these challenges, more mothers have taken to breastfeeding. For exclusive breastfeeding for at least six months, the rate has increased from 1% in 2011 to a reported 38.2% in 2019. This is a tremendous increase of more than 38-folds in less than a decade. We need to do right by them. In this speech, I will outline two things they need at their workplaces: space and time. They need more lactation rooms and they need paid lactation breaks. Let me start with my first proposal: increase the number of lactation rooms required in buildings that contain offices and business parks. Dedicated lactation rooms are the best way to facilitate breastfeeding. Today, too many mothers are forced to use undignified spaces like toilets or storerooms. Such mixed-use spaces are often dirty or disruptive, and the stress can block mothers from expressing milk. As I shared earlier, some mothers try their best to adapt and pump at their workstation and continue working while they are pumping. Mdm Yang did this and shared with me at a dialogue session a few months ago, about the stress of pumping milk in places where others can watch. Some days, the stress prevented her from expressing more than 10 to 20 millilitres even for half an hour of pumping. Not enough, she said.”
“One mother shared, "I told my management that I am okay with pumping at my desk using a wearable pump and a nursing cover. But they told me that it was inappropriate because there are many guys in office and asked me to use the toilet to pump instead". Another said, "I was told to use the handicap toilet and could not pump at my desk as my colleagues did not like the sound of the pump". Similarly, another mother's workplace did not have a room for her to pump milk. So, she asked to do so within her own cubicle. Even though she acted as discreetly as she could have, her colleagues dissuaded her from continuing because it was "distracting" to them. One mother shared that she was not even allowed to pump under a nursing cover in the meeting room. Another had to pump inside a cubicle with no fan. "I was sweating like mad", she said. Mdm Lee, who was a business development executive for a medical product company, told me that she had to use the storeroom for product samples as a lactation room. To gain a little privacy, she asked for a foldable curtain. Even this small request was not entertained. Another mother said, "I used a meeting room which had glass doors, so I had to pump in a blind spot". Some mothers are also made to feel bad. One shared, "My bosses kept making remarks about how formula milk is not worse than breast milk and made snide remarks when I took time off to pump". Some endure physical pain because they are unable to find time to pump. A teacher shared with me, "It was very common to find myself and colleagues pumping out bloodied milk because we had to endure through extended hours of lessons". Madam, these stories are heartbreaking because these mothers are only trying to feed their children.”
“Madam, I think that I now hold the record for the most number of times someone has lost the ballot for an Adjournment Motion. I have been trying to deliver this Motion since May. But on a positive note, Minister Indranee Rajah probably had the longest time ever to consider the recommendations in an Adjournment Motion before it is delivered. So, I am sure, and I hope, she will say "yes" to all the recommendations from the breastfeeding mothers, many of whom are seated in the Gallery above and have waited a long time for their voices to be heard in this House. Madam, my wife and I know how difficult it is to breastfeed. All three of my daughters – Ella, Katie and Poppy – were breastfed until they were about two years old. My wife and I are part of a growing number of Singaporeans who have chosen breastfeeding because it increases mother-child bonding and improves the health of both infant and mother. That said, my speech today is not about why breastfeeding is good. Indeed, some mothers cannot or choose not to breastfeed and we should respect them all the same. Instead, my speech is about how the Government can support mothers who choose to breastfeed. Let me start by sharing stories from the workplace – many, many stories – because so many mothers spoke up pleading for help and calling for change. Madam, the challenges of expressing milk at work is one of the top three reasons why mothers stop breastfeeding. This is based on a local survey of close to 1,000 mothers, conducted by the Breastfeeding Mothers Support Group Singapore earlier this year. There is one consistent theme in the stories: shame and discrimination. So many mothers told me they were asked to go to the toilet to express their milk.”
“The Bill amends section 111 to provide that the limitation period of three years, where there are Police investigations or civil proceedings involved, only commences at the end of those processes or of the sentence of imprisonment, detention or reformative training. Military courts do, of course, benefit from waiting for the conclusion of civil proceedings and sentences. But we have to balance this against the experience of the accused, who face the prospect of a military trial hanging over their heads for many years. Police investigations and civil proceedings can take years to complete. Sentences of imprisonment, detention or training can take years to complete. Taken together, the accused may have to wait for years, even decades, before their limitation period starts counting down. Can the Minister share if there are specific cases that have prompted such a significant amendment? For instance, were there cases where the three-year limitation period expired while civil proceedings were still ongoing and it negatively affected the conduct of military proceedings? Relatedly, can the Minister share if the military court will also consider the impact of the preceding civil proceedings and any sentences served by the accused for related civil offences when imposing a sentence for the military offences? Notwithstanding these clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.”
“Can the Minister clarify if a composition under the SAF Act will either be a "discharge amounting to an acquittal" or a "discharge not amounting to an acquittal"? If a composition will have the effect of a "discharge not amounting to an acquittal", can the Minister clarify whether a composition for a military offence will be considered an antecedent for: first, future military offences and second, civil offences? Third, section 243(1) of the CPC provides that a person authorised under any Act aside from the Penal Code to compound offences must exercise the power of composition subject to the general or special directions of the Public Prosecutor. Can the Minister clarify if the Public Prosecutor will provide directions for how authorised composition officers should exercise their composition powers? Will every composition decision be subject to the review and authorisation of the Public Prosecutor? My third clarification is on the increased penalties for offences. The amended section 118 will triple the maximum amount of its fine. Can the Minister share how it arrived at this significant increase? Were the fines benchmarked against punishments provided under other pieces of legislation? Can the Minister also share whether clear sentencing guidelines will be set by the military court to address the transition from the previous ranges for fines to the updated ranges? This is essential, given that the previous sentencing precedents will no longer provide a useful guide on the likely quantum of fines. My final clarification is on the limitation period.”
“Madam, Singapore must guard against cyber attacks and the creation of DIS is an important move in the right direction. I have four areas of clarification for this Bill. My first clarification is on the possible intrusion of DIS' activities on civilian life. DIS has been given a broad remit to tackle cyber threats. Its work will reportedly include cyber incidents response, network monitoring, vulnerability assessment and penetration testing. Because its powers are so extensive, there will be concerns that, in its mission to defend Singapore's national security, DIS may track the lives and activities of average Singaporeans, even when there is no clear and significant security purpose. Can the Minister share what checks are in place to ensure that DIS' extensive powers are not misused? How will the Ministry and DIS draw the line between reasonable counterintelligence and excessive surveillance? My second area of clarification is on the composition of offences. Compounding an offence is significant because it means that no further criminal proceedings will be brought against an accused upon payment of a composition sum. In this Bill, the new section 79A allows certain offences to be compounded, similar to the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC). I have several questions arising from a comparison of this Bill and the CPC. First, this Bill does not provide for the compounding of the abetment of, conspiracy to commit and attempt to commit a compoundable offence, even though the CPC does. Can the Minister clarify if the schedule to the SAF Act will clarify if such offences may be compounded? Second, this Bill does not state that a composition has the effect of an acquittal, even though the CPC does.”
“Just a quick last point. I do agree that we have a lot of guidelines in place. But I think it is very difficult to follow at this point because, as the Senior Parliamentary Secretary mentioned, a lot of the foreign nurses are leaving and that really puts the stress now on the local nurses. So, we can rely on their passion, they are very passionate about it, but I think they are really urging for some protection, especially of their rest time. Again, I ask whether MOH can, at least, make sure that the guidelines on adequate rest for nurses are being adhered to at this point.”
“Madam, I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the reply. But I have three clarifications. One, the Senior Parliamentary Secretary mentioned that the nurses should have adequate rest. But I am just wondering whether MOH can clarify what "adequate" means. I think a lot of nurses are sharing that they sometimes end their shift at 9.00 pm or 10.00 pm, and then they are back at work at 7.00 am, and that is insufficient rest for many of them. Two, can I ask whether MOH has an ideal nurse-to-patient ratio and what are we doing to work towards that ideal ratio, both in the general wards and the ICUs as well? Lastly, for the ancillary care staff, I asked for their median salary as well, but I understand we cannot provide. Still, I think they do help in reducing the nurses' workload. So, if I could ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary what is MOH doing in terms of increasing the salary of the ancillary care staff, their career progression, as well as increasing the hiring of these staff members.”
“Third, under section 17, the Chief Public Defender may require an aided accused person to make contributions to a matter where a grant of aid has been provided. In a situation where the aided accused person is unable to meet the contributions, can Senior Parliamentary Secretary share if this is ground for discontinuation of grant of aid? If so, how will the PDO ensure that the defence of the applicant is not prejudiced by the withdrawal of aid? My final area of clarification is on the relationship between AGC and PDO that many Members have raised. The PDO will be a department under MinLaw. I understand that AGC is separate from MinLaw. However, AGC's functions include acting as the Government's lawyer and advising Ministries. There may still be some potential areas of conflict given the proximity of MinLaw and the AGC. Even if there is no actual conflict, there may still be perceived conflict, which can be equally as damaging. There is some basis for concerns about conflict given that the Government's position previously was that it may not make sense for the Government to be both prosecuting the accused and paying for the defence. Can Senior Parliamentary Secretary share what mechanisms are in place to address the potential areas of conflict and to ensure that the decision making and operations of the PDO are independent of AGC? Notwithstanding these clarifications, Sir, I stand in support of the Bill.”
“First, under subsection 8(8), a grant of aid may be extended to proceedings involving an excluded offence, if the applicant faces charges for two or more offences and one or more of which is an excluded offence, or if the appeal or application arises from the proceedings. In criminal proceedings, it is common for charges to be withdrawn, taken into consideration, or replaced with alternative charges. Can Senior Parliamentary Secretary share how a grant of aid may be affected in a situation where the prosecution exercises its discretion to withdraw, take into consideration, or replace charges such that the prosecution will only proceed on excluded offences? Would this be ground for the withdrawal of a grant of aid? If so, how will the PDO ensure that the defence of the applicant is not prejudiced by any withdrawal of aid? Second, section 18 provides that criminal defence aid cannot be discontinued without the permission of the Chief Public Defender. This means that even if an aided person no longer wishes to instruct a Public Defender, the accused person cannot discharge their solicitor without permission. Practically speaking, it will be extremely difficult for a Public Defender to take instructions from an aided accused person who no longer wishes to be represented by the Public Defender. With any other solicitor-client relationship, a litigant is entitled to discharge their solicitor. Can Senior Parliamentary Secretary clarify the rationale for requiring the permission of the Chief Public Defender before an aided accused person can discharge a solicitor assigned to act for them? What are the situations where the Chief Public Defender may decline the accused person's request to discharge the Public Defender?”
“Sir, this Bill will establish a Public Defender's Office, which is a significant step towards increasing access to criminal justice. I have clarifications to raise in respect of three areas. My first area of clarification is on the scope of offences. I have two clarifications. First, the PDO will collaborate with the Criminal Legal Aid Scheme, which similarly provides criminal legal assistance for the vulnerable and covers offences under 17 statutes, such as the Penal Code, Vandalism Act and the Women's Charter. The Ministry has announced that it is considering how best to define cases dealt with by the PDO and CLAS. To prevent potential confusion, can Senior Parliamentary Secretary provide an update on how the cases will be scoped? Second, under subsection 8(2), the grant of aid will not be granted to an offence excluded or belonging to an excluded class, as specified in the Schedule of the Bill. The Ministry has explained that this Bill will exclude regulatory offences, minor departmental and Statutory Board charges. However, regulatory charges can carry potential jail terms. For instance, the general offence provisions under section 22 of the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act provides for jail terms of up to two years to be imposed for certain cases. The general offences and penalties provision under section 131 of the Road Traffic Act provides for jail terms of up to six months to be imposed for certain cases. Can Senior Parliamentary Secretary share why such offences are excluded from the grant of aid when the potential jail terms are no less than what is provided for other offences covered by the PDO, including those under the Penal Code. My second area of clarification is on the appointment and discharge of a solicitor.”
“There may be a case of a discretionary trust with no identifiable beneficial trust that was set up before 9 May 2022 where action was subsequently taken after 9 May 2022 to appoint assets to an identifiable beneficiary or to distribute assets to any identifiable beneficiary. Can the Senior Minister of State clarify if the documents which arise after 9 May 2022 for such a trust is stampable under the new ABSD (Trust) regime? Madam, notwithstanding these short clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill. 3.15 pm”
“Madam, this Bill introduces Additional Conveyance Duties for Trust (ACD (Trust)) and stamp duty treatment for the renunciation of interest in residential property held on trust. This will harmonise the stamp duty treatment for equity interests held in trust. ACD (Trust), along with the introduction of Additional Buyer's Stamp Duty (ABSD) for transfer of residential property into a living trust – ABSD (Trust) – will help to raise tax revenues and go towards stabilising the property market. I have two short clarifications to raise on this Bill. First, in determining whether a grantee or grantor is a significant owner of a property holding entity, the new section 23 will take into account equity interests held by an associate of the grantor or grantee. IRAS has provided on its website guidance on who is to be deemed an associate. This includes parties with an agreement or arrangement, whether oral, written, expressed, implied, to act together to acquire, hold or dispose of equity interest in, or to exercise votes. Determining the existence of an oral or implied agreement or arrangement is a very fact-specific exercise that can be very time- and resource-consuming. It does not seem practical for IRAS to be undertaking such an assessment for every transaction. Can the Senior Minister of State clarify under what circumstances will IRAS undertake the process to determine the existence of any oral or implied agreement or arrangement? Second, my clarification has to do with the related changes to the ABSD regime. The new ABSD (Trust) will only apply to instruments executed on or after 9 May 2022. It is not intended to apply retrospectively.”
“Thank you, Sir. I thank the Senior Minister of State for a very detailed response. But could I just have two clarifications? One, on making buying an offence. I know that it is currently covered under ESA, but the call from the NGOs really is to make it specific. So, section 4 of ESA already states many words – import, export, re-export, sell, advertise. Why not just add that one word: buy? If we could understand what are the concerns from the Government of just adding that one word. Second, on the reward for informers, I did it through a private Member's Bill to introduce section 13 into the Wildlife Act, which does provide reward to informers for people who are in possession or trading of less endangered species. So, it would be a bit strange now. We provide you a reward if you give us a tip-off for less protected animals, but we do not legislate it and give you a reward for if you give us tip-offs for more protected or endangered animals. I really hope we can close that loophole. Thank you.”
“And it exploits the poorest people in some of the most vulnerable countries on earth. Organised criminal networks are adding to their profits through involvement in wildlife crime. They see it as a lucrative and relatively low-risk activity. They are the very same groups who move drugs, people and weapons. These networks are sophisticated, coordinated, adaptable and professional. They innovate faster than we can and they exploit weaknesses in our systems. Let me be clear; I am not asking anyone in this room to prioritise efforts to fight the illegal wildlife trade above drug trafficking or violent crimes. I know very well that law enforcement resources and judicial systems are stretched. But I am asking you to see the connections. To acknowledge that the steps you take to tackle illegal wildlife crime could make it easier to halt the shipments of guns and drugs passing through your borders. And to recognise that this is a transnational crime that you cannot leave to your passionate, but thinly stretched, wildlife crime officers to tackle alone. You might find it easier to arrest a kingpin or a middleman for trafficking illegal wildlife products than to catch him red-handed smuggling heroin. Remember – "Al Capone was convicted of tax evasion, not murder." I hope we will remember this powerful speech by HRH Prince William as we increase our efforts in tackling this cruel and wasteful illegal wildlife trade. Sir, notwithstanding my suggestions, I stand in support of the Bill.”
“As long as there is a domestic market, smugglers will always try to bring in animals illegally. In 2019, when I asked about our efforts to deter the pangolin trade in Singapore, Minister of State Sun Xueling acknowledged that tackling the illegal wildlife trade requires buyers to reduce their demand. It is nice that she just stepped in. I wholeheartedly agree with her. I know buying is currently already an offence but it is not explicitly stated in the Bill. We should be explicit by stating clearly in the Bill that it is an offence to buy scheduled species. We would be following in the footsteps of many other countries. Legislation in the US, EU, Brunei, Laos, Malaysia, the Philippines, Thailand and Vietnam already include “purchasing” as an offence. Sir, I will end with an extract from one of the most powerful speeches I have heard on fighting the illegal wildlife trade. This was a speech by HRH Prince William at the 2018 Illegal Wildlife Trade Conference in London which I had the privilege to attend. HRH shared how, on his visit to Africa, he saw rhinos under such threat that they had more bodyguards than him. He said, quote: “It is heart-breaking to think that by the time my children George, Charlotte and Louis are in their twenties, elephants, rhinos and tigers might well be extinct in the wild. I, for one, am not willing to look my children in the eye and say that we were the generation that let this happen on our watch. It is time to treat the illegal wildlife trade as the serious organised crime that it is. It is carried out by ruthless cross-border criminal networks. It is fueled by corruption. It damages economic growth and sustainable development. It undermines governance and the rule of law. It robs communities today of their future sources of income.”
“I am glad the Bill recognises the importance of informers in policing wildlife crimes by granting them protection under the new section 22B. Wildlife crimes are difficult to detect. Smugglers use creative strategies, complicated trade routes and fraudulent documents to avoid detection. For example, one of the shipments of pangolin scales was caught and was packed and declared as frozen beef. I imagine it cannot be possible for us to fully scrutinise every single shipment of frozen beef passing through Singapore. Informers are thus an important asset to assist our enforcement agents in their work. But providing protection is not enough. We need to incentivise informers to come forward and make reports. We can do this by allowing informers to be rewarded by our fines imposed under ESA. This is similar to what is done under section 13 of the Wildlife Act. My third proposal is to increase the maximum aggregate fine for offences under ESA. This Bill does make a progressive step of increasing the limits of fine to the market value of the specimens involved. This is still not enough. The illegal wildlife trade is a hugely profitable enterprise. Successfully smuggling pangolin scales or elephant ivory earns these criminals millions of dollars. We need penalties that really hurt the profits of the syndicates or it would not be enough to deter them from using Singapore for their operations. Instead, I propose that the fines be increased to three times the market value of the specimens involved. This would make the fines in a genuine penalty similar to the civil penalty for insider trading, tax evasion or illegal customs drawback claims. My last proposal is that we make buying scheduled species an offence.”
“But it has come under criticism by FATF, which has said Singapore is insufficiently focused on complex, transnational cases of money laundering. Separately, FATF has called for countries to provide their agencies with the mandate and tools to conduct financial investigations into the illegal wildlife trade. Including ESA under OCA would thus benefit us by addressing FATF's concerns, allowing us to meet international standards to combat money laundering and improving our reputation both as a financial hub and a key fighter against wildlife crime. From the start of this month, FATF will have its first Singaporean President, Mr T Raja Kumar. With the first Singapore presidency of FATF, I hope we can build on FATF's focus on tackling the financial trails of illegal wildlife trade internationally. On the national level, we can do better in strengthening our organised crime laws to tackle illegal wildlife trade. Recently, Hong Kong also amended its "Organised and Serious Crimes Ordinance" to include wildlife crime as an organised and serious crime. This move was widely reported and globally praised, with many organisations affirming the amendment as the "most appropriate route to effectively combat wildlife crime". On behalf of NGOs and law professors in Singapore, I have submitted a position paper on including illegal wildlife trade offences under ESA and the Wildlife Act to the Organised Crime Act to Senior Minister of State Mr Tan Kiat How. The paper was prepared together with the NGOs, lawyers and law professors. I look forward to working together with Senior Minister Tan and MHA to see how we can move forward on this proposal. Sir, my second proposal is to include a reward for informers under ESA.”
“Failing to effectively tackle illegal wildlife trade in Singapore may also increase our risk of our financial institutions and trade systems being abused to facilitate other serious crimes. Does wildlife trafficking meet the second requirement of being associated with organised crime in Singapore? The answer has to be yes. When you look at the size and value of the animal-part seizures at our borders, we are talking about operations that must, by logic, involve financing, coordinating and operations on a large, organised scale. A $50 million shipment of pangolin scales is not the work of isolated individuals. Indeed, the FATF describes the illegal wildlife trade as a "major transnational organised crime", run by highly organised criminal syndicates that engage in complex fraud. The Minister for Home Affairs has said that the 18 cases of wildlife crime we prosecuted have not been found to be associated with organised crime in Singapore or overseas. But absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The statistic merely points to the need for greater investigative powers, particularly those provided under OCA, which will help connect instances of wildlife trafficking to their kingpins. Let us remember that OCA was enacted not only to combat existing threats of organised crime. As described by Minister Iswaran when passing OCA, it is meant to "prevent organised crime from taking root in Singapore." Let us not wait until we prosecute a confirmed syndicate member and when illegal wildlife trade syndicates are deeply rooted in Singapore before we strengthen our laws. Beyond the direct benefits of catching criminals, there is a reputational benefit for including the ESA offences under OCA. Singapore has always prided itself as a global financial hub.”
“As we debated in this House previously, a lot of the people we prosecute under ESA are the runners, not the kingpins. Just as important, it lets us follow and cut off the money. Under OCA, our officers can issue financial reporting orders to get information and then use civil confiscation regime to deprive syndicates of their financial gains. The Minister for Home Affairs has said that to classify an offence under OCA, the offence must meet two criteria. It must pose a serious threat to public safety and security in Singapore, and it must be associated with organised crime in Singapore. Wildlife trafficking clearly meets the first requirement: it poses a significant threat to our public safety and security. The first threat is to public health. Wildlife traffickers operate outside the scrutiny of our health officials. This makes the animals they transport more likely to spread zoonotic diseases to humans. COVID-19 is a zoonotic disease and so is monkeypox. I do not think I need to dwell further on how dangerous zoonotic diseases are. The second threat is to our ecology. Animals brought into Singapore in an unregulated way may become invasive species that threaten our native wildlife. The Javan myna we see every day is an excellent example. Brought in via the caged bird trade, they have been threatening the survival of native birds like the oriental magpie-robin and the common myna who is not so common anymore. The third threat is to economic stability. The Financial Action Task Force (FATF) reports that wildlife crime cases have been connected with offences, such as corruption, drug trafficking and money laundering.”
“In the past decade, we have seized illegal shipments of animal parts worth hundreds of millions of dollars. Elephants, rhinoceroses, pangolins – these are just a few animals whose dead, dissected bodies are smuggled through Singapore's world-class port. In April 2019, we broke the record by finding 12.9 tonnes of pangolin scales being smuggled in a shipment from Nigeria. This was worth over $50 million and cost the lives of over 17,000 pangolins. Just a week later, we seized another 12.7 tonnes of pangolin scales. Three months after that, we seized a shipment of 8.8 tonnes of ivory, estimated to come from nearly 300 African elephants. Just a few weeks ago, a man was arrested in South Africa for attempting to carry 26 kilogrammes of rhinoceros horns into Singapore in his hand luggage. Such seizures are just the tip of the iceberg. Smugglers have found ways to circumvent our border security and bring these animals and their body parts onto our soil. Singapore can and needs to do much more. I would like to raise four specific proposals. My first proposal is that we categorise wildlife trafficking as serious offences under the Organised Crime Act (or OCA). In practice, this means amending OCA so that it considers offences under sections 4, 5 and 19 of ESA and sections 8 and 9 of the Wildlife Act as serious offences. The impact of this would be massive. For so long, our policy framework on the illegal wildlife trade has targeted the runners, the low-level criminals carrying the goods. But my proposal attacks the heart of the problem: the syndicate leaders, the masterminds making everything happen. Including wildlife trade offences in OCA gives the authorities more tools to investigate and punish these kingpins, who today may evade punishment under the ESA framework.”
“Sir, today's Bill aims to strengthen Singapore's efforts against the illegal wildlife trade. I have had the privilege to be involved since the first draft of this Bill. I know that MND has made many changes to reflect feedback from NGOs and other stakeholders. I thank both MND and NParks for their consultation and positive engagement. There is no doubt that today's Bill helps. As the public consultation found, there is consensus that harsher, broader penalties does deter the illegal wildlife trade. That said, this Bill does not do enough to tackle the problem. There is a need to rethink the broader policy approach towards tackling this illegal wildlife trade. Let me start by clarifying what the illegal wildlife trade is all about. In its first undercover investigation conducted back in 2001, ACRES found that 73.5% of shops surveyed in Singapore were illegally selling bear bile and bear gall bladders. Some may say this is just the sale of goods to willing buyers. But I hope we will look closer. I have seen the suffering that fuels this market. The first bear I met lived her life in a cage not bigger than herself. She was stabbed into her gall bladder so that they could drain the bile from her every single day. The first bear I met in a bear farm is also the first bear that I watch passed away. She took her last breath before my very eyes. Over the past 20 years, I’ve seen many other animals in similar conditions. I have seen monkeys restrained with chains so tight that it bit into the flesh of their neck, chains that were never loosened as the animals grew over the years. Many people think Singapore has little to do with this suffering. The reality is they could not be more wrong. Singapore is a critical nexus in the illegal wildlife trade.”
“In conclusion, I seek the Minister's clarifications on the requirements of ASA, grounds for dispensation of consent of relevant persons, and deterrence of undesirable behaviour in the adoption sector. Notwithstanding these clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.”
“This Bill allows for the dispensation of consent of relevant persons on the grounds of having ill-treated or failing to provide any suitable care for the child. I do understand there are diverse views on this issue. Can the Minister share how MSF decided on the threshold for the dispensation of consent and also further details on when MSF will consider the dispensation of consent appropriate? My third and final point is about deterring undesirable behaviours in the adoption sector. Commercial adoption agencies are not directly regulated today. To safeguard the integrity of the adoption process, there should be sufficient mechanisms in place to sanction and deter undesirable behaviours that compromise a child's welfare. In this regard, transparency in the amounts paid to adoption agencies will go some way in deterring undesirable behaviours through public scrutiny. Can the Minister share what mechanisms will be in place to enforce the publication of amounts to be paid to or through adoption agencies? What are the penalties for adoption agencies that fail to publish such information? I also understand there are, currently, less than 10 private adoption agencies offering different suites of services at varying costs. Will the Minister consider implementing a mandatory accreditation for all adoption agencies to standardise the practice and determine their suitability to operate? A registry of accredited agencies could be published to recognise those that are committed towards the protection of children under their care. This may give prospective adopters better peace of mind as they embark on the journey towards parenthood.”
“Sir, this Bill will update the regime for the adoption of children. It is a step towards helping children identified for adoption find good homes, breaking cycles of abuse and neglect, and deterring undesirable behaviours in the adoption sector. I thank MSF for having held a public consultation and engaging stakeholders in the social and legal sectors in preparation of this Bill. I am glad that the amendments proposed in this Bill contain suggestions surfaced in those consultations. I have three points of clarification to raise. My first point is on the pre-adoption application requirements. Under section 11, an adoption application may only be made by an individual holding a valid and favourable Adoption Suitability Assessment (ASA). Can the Minister clarify the requirements that must be satisfied by applicants to obtain a favourable ASA? Can the Minister further clarify what are the requirements for the simpler ASA for adoption of a related child? Under section 22(1), during the relevant period, applicants for an ASA must notify the authorised adoption agency of any material change as soon as practicable. The relevant period starts on the day of an ASA application and ends the day after an adoption application has been made. With the child's welfare as the primary guiding principle in mind, can MSF share how it ensures the continued suitability of applicants after the adoption application has concluded? In addition, will MSF be releasing guidelines on the administrative requirements, legal processes and the relevant costs involved in the pre-adoption application to provide applicants with more guidance? My second point is on the dispensation of consent of relevant persons.”
“I started this speech talking about how the development of women is something that all men and, indeed, all of us in Singapore can celebrate. Let me end by sharing a quote from Ban Ki-Moon, "Achieving gender equality requires the engagement of women and men, girls and boys. It is everybody's responsibility." We can and need to go further in order for Singapore's march towards gender equality to make true progress. Sir, I support the Motion.”
“As Minister of State Sun Xueling acknowledged during this year's Committee of Supply debates, "It is not easy to bring up children, even more so, single-handedly." The numbers speak for themselves. Young single unwed parents have a median monthly income of just $600, among the lowest in Singapore. Inflation is hurting everyone but they are the ones who will most have to scrimp and save. Yet, we deny them the support all other parents get. We already agree on so many things. We agree that healthy intact families are ideal but staying together is not always possible or even good. We agree that single unwed parents and their children face stigma and have to overcome exceptional challenges. Many of us felt this stigma first-hand at a recent dialogue session where single unwed parents spoke courageously about the stigma they faced. Many were in tears as they spoke. As Minister of State Sun Xueling shared after the dialogue, "They shared the pain and hurt felt when faced with the stigma that comes with being a single unwed parent." We can help end this stigma. What we need to do is end the discrimination in our parenthood support policies. Sir, to conclude, we need to do three things. First, we need to equalise maternity and paternity leave entitlements. Second, we need to legislate the right to request work from home, which employers can reject only for valid business-related reasons. Third, we need to stop excluding single unwed parents from the Parenthood Tax Rebate, the Working Mothers' Child Relief and the cash component of the Baby Bonus. The White Paper is our commitment to a fairer and more inclusive Singapore. I am thankful for many of the action plans sketched out in it. Indeed, they promise a brighter tomorrow for the women, men and children of Singapore.”
“Single unwed mothers now receive the same 16 weeks of maternity leave as married mothers. Their children now benefit from Child Development Accounts. Most recently, we have allowed single unwed parents to apply for rental housing and buy subsidised HDB flats from HDB. I thank the Government for listening to their concerns and responding positively. As MND has acknowledged, "Single unwed parents are valued citizens and, like all parents, are respected for the love and care they provide for their children. They are no less a mother or a father, just because their child was born outside of marriage". I am glad that the White Paper recognises the need to help single parents. It recommends increased support for single parents as one of the six focal areas in the Alliance for Action to strengthen Marriages and Family Relationships. While I am confident the Alliance will help reduce the stigma against single parents, we cannot run away from the elephant in the room. The Government has a whole suite of parenthood policies that expressly exclude single unwed parents. These policies are the Parenthood Tax Rebate, the Working Mothers' Child Relief and the cash component of the Baby Bonus. Are single unwed parents any less a parent? Are unwed working mothers any less a working mother? And are babies of single unwed parents any less a baby? We may answer no, but these policies signal the opposite thing. Even if it is not the Government's intention, these policies suggest that single unwed parents are a less worthy set of parents. Less worthy of support. This discrimination is a painful one because it is especially hard to be a single unwed parent.”
“It is clear – we need to legislate the right to work from home. To be clear, fathers taking on more childcare responsibilities is a positive step for women's development. It spreads out the burden of childcare between the parents. It frees women from the stereotype that they will stay home to care for their children. Giving everyone the right to work from home will reshape the attitudes of employers towards women. It would also likely increase the female labour force participation rate, which, as Minister Tan See Leng has shared, is extremely low among women – only about 80% of women aged 25 to 64 are in the labour force. Legislating the right to work from home would send a strong signal, like how we are legislating the Tripartite Guidelines on Fair Employment Practices to send a stronger signal that unfair employment practices of all forms, including against women, are not tolerated. We can carefully scope this new law together with the tripartite partners. There is no reason why we cannot design a balanced effective law that is a win-win for everyone. My third and final proposal is that we end the continued discrimination against single unwed parents. For decades, Members of this House have been speaking up for single unwed parents. In 1997, Minister Shanmugam questioned how it could be "morally justifiable to deny an unwed mother and her child public housing". In 2006, Minister Indranee Rajah said that to build an inclusive society, policies affecting certain segments, such as single parents, had to change. In 2011, Senior Minister of State Janil Puthucheary called for Singaporeans to be compassionate, to treat single parents with dignity and not to punish single parents and their children. Thankfully, we have made progress.”
“I hope the Minister will look into this proposal in consultation with the relevant stakeholders, including the tripartite partners and NGOs, such as Families for Life and Centre for Fathering. My second proposal today is that we legislate to give employees the right to request work from home, which employers can turn down only on the basis of valid business-related reasons. Legislate and not just have guidelines. Having just guidelines does not show that we place a strong importance on this. Survey after survey show that Singaporeans want this and some would rather continue working remotely than receive a bigger bonus. We have also known for a long time that work-from-home narrows the gender pay gap. The pandemic has also highlighted that work-from-home can reshape gendered stereotypes of "Daddy goes to work, mommy stays at home." An economics research paper titled "The Impact of COVID-19 on Gender Equality" found that the pandemic, by forcing people to stay at home, has likely led to an increase in fathers taking on childcare responsibilities. The paper concludes that this increase may sustain only if the fathers continue to have increased flexibility to work from home. The media has also reported stories of how COVID-19 has given fathers a chance to bond with their kids. Imran, a marketing manager, talked about how his wife and him are so glad that he now has more time to play and eat together with his two toddler children. Imran shared that after this increased time together, his kids now miss him even when he steps out of the house briefly. Sir, the pandemic has brought about a momentum for greater gender equality in childcare. We will lose this momentum unless fathers continue to get access to work from home.”
“Once I resumed work, she had to care for the baby, all while learning the ropes to be a new mom. It broke my heart to return from work every day to see her collapsed and break. Two weeks, even if taken flexibly, is not enough. It is not just about the baby; it is also about the mother. Our wives have gone through enough to bring life into the world. Please let us stay home, to take care of the big and little things, so that they can focus on recovery and all the other things we cannot do, like create milk". It broke my heart to read this and I hope the Government can rethink whether paternity leave should really be less than maternity leave. Let me say one more thing about our low level paternity leave: it entrenches gender stereotypes. A 2019 IPS research paper stated that "family policies in Singapore continue to signal that childcare is a woman's responsibility and reinforce gender stereotypes". It is hard to argue against this. We give mothers 16 weeks of maternity leave and fathers two weeks of paternity leave. Mommy stays at home and daddy goes to work. That is the message we send. The worst part of the problem is that it is self-reinforcing because we give fathers less leave, they do not get to develop the skills and confidence needed to care for their kids. This, the IPS study finds, causes them to leave childcare to mothers. The IPS study proposes that we increase the amount of paternity leave. I wholeheartedly support this call and hope that we can set a target year, perhaps 2030, by which time we will have an equal amount of paternity and maternity leave. We can increase paternity leave in phases, giving our employers time to plan ahead, while also providing a clear signal of our intentions to reduce gendered perceptions of parenthood.”
“But even as paternity leave becomes a thing of the past for me, I want to make sure fathers of our future get to spend more time with their babies. As I have said many times in this House, "Spend time with those you love. One of these days, you will either say I wish I had or I am glad I did." Study after study show that paternity leave is vital. Researchers at NUS looked into this and published their findings just a few months ago. Their paper "documents the positive relationship between paternity leave provision and family dynamics and children's well-being in Singapore". Taking paternity leave not only gives fathers the "immediate benefit" of sharing joy and responsibility of caring for the newborn, but ends up having a "mid-to-long-term impact on children's and family's well-being". Longer leaves are significantly related to lower family conflict, lower maternal depression, higher marital satisfaction and fewer behavioural problems for the child. In other words, paternity leave is good for fathers, mothers and children. It is a win-win for everyone. Some have said that mothers need more leave than fathers because mothers need to physically recover from childbirth. But this is all the more reason why paternity leave needs to be equal with maternity leave. Fathers need to be there as well, otherwise mothers will spend their 16 weeks of leave single-handedly caring for the newborn; and that is no rest at all. A young father recently reminded me how insufficient two weeks of paternity leave are. Let me share his story, "When my firstborn arrived two years ago, I went back to work after two weeks. My wife was still recovering from labour and was bleeding and had stitches and still needed bed rest, except she could not.”
“Sir, the White Paper is a firm commitment to the women of Singapore. I am especially heartened by its support for key issues like equal workplace opportunities, caregiver support and protection against violence, which have been championed by activists and women for many years. Let me start by talking briefly about men. This White Paper is, indeed, about women's development. But I hope we can all agree that the action plans in the White Paper are good not only for women, but also for men and, indeed, all of Singapore. They steer our society towards a healthier, fairer set of norms, cultures and practices. And that is something we should all be able to celebrate. Today, I will raise three proposals. First, we should equalise paternity and maternity leave benefits. Second, we should legislate the right to request work from home. And third, we should end the stigma against single unwed parents by extending to them the Parenthood Tax Rebate, the Working Mothers' Child Relief and the cash component of the Baby Bonus. My first proposal is that we gradually equalise paternity and maternity leave entitlements. Members of this House will be no stranger to my daughters Ella, Katie and Poppy. Some Members tell me they feel like they know my daughters quite well now, just from the stories I tell about them through my speeches in Parliament. They are a huge part of my life and I have learnt a lot from them. Of the memories I have shared, the ones that stick most are from when Ella, Katie and Poppy were born, when they were babies. Paternity leave was a special time, and my only regret is that it was not long enough. My factory is now closed. So, I will never enjoy paternity leave again. As Ms Joan Pereira has said, when you have twins, you will never have more kids.”
“Until they conduct such checks, they may not know that their service providers have been issued POs or have had their POs varied. It will be helpful to financial institutions if MAS can ensure PO issuances and variations are promptly communicated to financial institutions. Sir, notwithstanding these clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.”
“For example, if MAS explains that its PO is being issued due to a person's lack of financial soundness rather than due to dishonesty, that person could then present relevant evidence to the contrary. My second point is also about accountability in the issuance of POs. Appeals are one key accountability mechanism for POs. The Bill requires that the Minister considers the written report of the appeal advisory committee when deciding on these appeals. Can the Minister share why the committee's written report is not required to be published for the public? The committee has broad disruptive powers. They can summon anyone to give evidence on oath and to produce any documents deemed necessary. The committee's work thus affects not only the person issued the PO but also, potentially, a whole array of other people. Given the extensive impact of the committee's work, it is not clear why their report should be shrouded in secrecy. Publication of their written report would provide important context on the Minister's decision and ensure that these inquiries are held in a professional and appropriate way. My final point is on notices provided to financial institutions for POs issued and varied. MAS has stated that it will directly notify a person who is subject to the PO as well as the person's employer of the PO issued. Can the Minister clarify whether MAS will also notify the individual's employer if the individual's PO is later varied? In addition, how will MAS help ensure that financial institutions are notified in a timely manner when their service providers are issued a PO or have their PO varied? After all, financial institutions, typically, conduct due diligence checks on their service providers only at specific junctures.”
“Sir, this Bill consolidates and increases MAS' powers. In doing so, it empowers MAS to take a comprehensive sector-wide approach to risk management and enforcement action. I thank MAS for holding a public consultation in preparation for this Bill in January 2020 and for incorporating some of the feedback into the Bill. I have three points of clarification to raise. My first point is on the checks and balances against MAS' issuance of prohibition orders (POs). The Bill allows MAS to issue POs to persons based on MAS' fit and proper criteria. POs are extremely powerful. They restrict things as significant as shareholdings and as granular as business activity. They can end livelihoods and shut down companies. Given the drastic nature of this enforcement action, it seems fair that MAS should, at least, explain the basis of such actions. My question is this: why does the Bill not require MAS to publish an explanation for its imposition of POs? Clause 11 requires MAS to only give notice for and publish the PO. But it is entirely optional for MAS to explain its decision. In my view, MAS should be required to explain the rationale of its decision. It should, at least, state the category of fit and proper test criteria that the person has failed. To begin with, it seems only fair that we tell people why they are being punished. In addition, it would strengthen the mechanisms of accountability. The Bill imposes two checks on MAS' issuance of POs. First, MAS is obligated to hear out the subject of the PO. Second, the person can write an appeal to the Minister for Finance. In both cases, the process of justice would be strengthened if the person knows what he is being punished for.”
“Can the Minister share what mechanisms are in place to ensure that this summary of evidence is sufficient for the Minister to make the required determination under the Act? For instance, section 10 restricts the Minister's powers to order the surrender of persons if the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that the person would be persecuted for reasons of race, religion, sex, ethnic origin, nationality or political opinion. What mechanisms are in place to ensure this summary is sufficient for the Minister to ascertain if such substantial grounds exist? Notwithstanding these clarifications, Sir, I stand in support of the Bill.”
“Sir, this Bill is a welcome reform of our extradition regime. It reduces bureaucracy for a whole slew of parties, including individuals facing possible extradition, jurisdictions requesting the extradition, and judges making decisions on extradition. I have three points of clarification to raise. My first point is on the surrender of persons to declared Commonwealth territories. Can the Minister clarify why the surrender of persons to Commonwealth territories is restricted in special ways? For example, section 28 categorises offences against the life of a political figure and their immediate family as non-political offences. What is the significance of this specific carve-out? And why, in general, do additional restrictions apply in cases where Commonwealth territories are the ones requesting the extradition? My second point today is about Ministerial discretion. Multiple sections in the Bill empower the Minister to exercise his discretion to decide for or against extradition. In section 29, for instance, the Minister may refuse to extradite a person to a Commonwealth territory in multiple cases, including when a person's conviction was obtained in their absence. In section 8(8), the Minister may refuse to extradite a person to a foreign state when their remaining sentence is minimal. Can the Minister share scenarios on how discretion is meant to be exercised for such cases? For section 8(8), when might we choose to extradite someone even though their remaining sentence is minimal? This would seem to run against the intent of the subsection, which is to empower the Government to save resources. My last point is about the use of summarised evidence. The Bill allows a foreign jurisdiction requesting extradition to provide evidence by, in essence, summarising it.”
“In relation to entry bans by the Agency, can Minister clarify how the Agency will determine the individual's character and reputation? What forms of substantiation of an individual's character and reputation are required to be provided by the Agency to justify the ban? Can Minister also clarify whether there are any time limits for how long such entry bans will be imposed before they are required to be reviewed? In conclusion, I seek the Minister's clarifications on notification for individuals subject to exclusion orders, exceptions to the offence of inducing underage individuals to gamble and the grounds for entry bans. Notwithstanding these clarifications, Madam, I stand in support of the Bill.”
“The exception is when the accused proves that they did not receive any benefit for sending the inducement and the inducement was not sent in the cause of any business. Can Minister clarify the rationale for this exclusion? Surely, we accept that it is wrong to induce an underaged individual to gamble, regardless of whether the inducer benefits from it. The potential harm exists regardless of intent to benefit. So, it is not clear why section 34 is defined so narrowly. In addition, can Minister clarify why the exception appears to be limited to cases where the inducer actually receives the benefits? One can imagine situations where the inducer is meant to receive some form of benefit from inducing the underaged individual to gamble, but for whatever reasons, the benefit fails to materialise. Why should the inducer's bad luck, in failing to receive the benefit, be their good luck, in managing to avoid an offence under section 34? My final point relates to the grounds for entry bans. The Commissioner for Police may impose entry bans on an individual if they deem that the individual's criminal history will present an unacceptable risk to maintaining proper standards of integrity of any gambling service. The Agency can also impose an entry ban on the basis that the standards of integrity are likely to be prejudiced by the individual's character, reputation or criminal activities. In relation to entry bans by the Commissioner for Police, can Minister clarify whether criminal activities refer to actions which there has been a criminal conviction? If not, what would constitute a history of criminal activity? For instance, would a stern warning or a discharge not amounting to acquittal also be considered to constitute a criminal history?”
“Madam, today's Bills update our regulatory approach towards gambling. Together, they work to achieve two goals: the prevention of gambling's social harms and the recognition of some gambling as a form of leisure and socialisation. I have three clarifications on the Gambling Control Bill. My first point is on the implementation of exclusion orders. Currently, three categories of individuals are prohibited from entering casinos, entering fruit machine rooms in private clubs and opening a Singapore Pools' online gambling account. These three categories are undischarged bankrupts, Public Rental Scheme tenants with six or more months of rent arrears and individuals on Government social assistance and subsidy schemes. These are individuals subject to an "Exclusion by Law". From 1 June 2022, Exclusion by Law will extend to all tenants and occupiers in the Public Rental Scheme. This extension will significantly expand the number of persons subject to exclusion orders. However, presently the Exclusion by Law operates without notification being given to the individuals subject to the exclusion order. Given that a significant number of new individuals will be subject to the Exclusion of Law come 1 June 2022, can Minister share how he will ensure that appropriate notice is given to individuals newly categorised as excluded persons? It seems only fair that individuals should be appropriately notified of new orders that they are now subject to. Appropriate notification would minimise unwitting violations of the law and the disputes that they cause. My second point is on inducing an underaged individual to gamble. Under the new section 34, it would be an offence to send an underaged individual an inducement to gamble.”
“Thank you, Sir, and I thank the Second Minister for the reply. Could I just check if a single unwed mother gets married to the father of the child, subsequently gets a divorce, will she then qualify for the Parenthood Tax Rebate and the Working Mother's Child Relief? Second, I am just hoping again. I have raised this quite a few times now, but I am hoping that MOF looks at this not just from a tax dollar perspective, but from the perspective of whether our policies can result in a more inclusive society. The Minister and I were at the dialogue with single unweds, where they spoke in tears about the stigma they face. So, I hope again that we can change our policies. When the Minister was a backbencher, here, in this House, 16 years ago, she spoke about the concerns, about how single unwed mothers do not feel like they are included in our society. I hope MOF will review this again and include single unwed mothers and father in our Parenthood Tax rebate and the Working Mother's Child Relief for the mothers.”
“Thank you, Madam. I should first say we all welcome the Leader back to the House and we are glad she has recovered well. I have two clarifications. One is, I am just wondering whether the Government is going to review our parental leave policy, not immediately overnight, but, eventually, try to equalise it. I worry what message we are sending to our society when we say that mothers have 16 weeks of maternity leave and fathers have two weeks. Then, we are saying who is supposed to look after our children. In line with that, the second clarification is, there are studies now that show that our policies reinforce the gender stereotypes. So, I hope the Government can study some of these studies that are out there and also do additional studies to see whether our policies really do reinforce the gender stereotypes.”
“Thank you, Madam. I thank the Minister of State for the reply as well. Could I ask two clarifications? One, I understand we are reviewing the penalties for animal cruelty and abuse. Could I just check what is the time frame for this review and when we could expect amendments to the Animals and Birds Act? And two, whether MND is also considering to include mandatory treatment orders as part of the penalties under the review?”
“I shared in my Budget speech that Family Service Centres (FSCs) social workers are asking for a cap on the number of active cases they handle, funding for headcounts and resources for research work, more funding for headcounts and resources for community work. I met many passionate social workers, but they struggle with heavy caseloads and were burnt out. One social worker told me to tell everyone here, "just tell everyone we are just very tired and frustrated". MSF has programmes for FSCs and monitors and helps them when needed. These are good but not enough. Despite all these programmes, nearly 60% of frontline social workers were affected by anxiety at the height of the pandemic, with 45% facing depression. FSCs are also handling more cases which are getting more complex. Let us focus on what more we can do for social workers, by improving our existing programmes and launching new initiatives like the Community Capacity Trust, by moving beyond guidelines and helping FSCs implement these programmes and use the grants provided. Let us help social workers help the most vulnerable in our society. Social Service Sector – Status Update”
“It is twice the work as single parents have to juggle work while caring for their child. They do not have an additional pair of hands. In my Adjournment Motion, I shared the story of Ema, a single unwed parent who raised her daughter in a shelter. Thanks to HDB and a change in our policies, Ema can now provide a stable living environment for her daughter in a rental flat. She now also has a good job but has difficulties keeping her job as she has to work at odd hours on short notice. She has difficulties finding help on such short notice on an ad hoc basis. She does not have family members she can count on. Many single unwed parents face similar challenges. Can the Government provide this additional pair of helping hands so single unweds can remain in the workforce, contribute to Singapore and work towards becoming more independent? Will MSF establish a pilot programme of providing low-cost, ad hoc nanny services for our single unwed parents? Exclusion Order for Problem Gambling”
“At a recent dialogue session, single unwed parents spoke courageously about the stigma they faced. Many were in tears as they spoke. As Minister of State Sun Xueling shared after the dialogue: "They shared the pain and hurt felt when faced with the stigma that comes along with being a single unwed parent". We should help end the discrimination and stigma they face. Our policies should reflect what we already say: “Single unwed parents are valued citizens and, like all parents, are respected for the love and care they provide for their children. They are no less a mother or a father, just because their child was born outside of marriage”. They are no less a mother or father. Why then do we give them less? Why deny them the cash component of the Baby Bonus? 5.45 pm It may be because the cash component is part of the marriage and parenthood package, the key word being "marriage". But single unwed parents already receive the CDA component of the marriage and parenthood package. Why give one and discriminate when it comes to the other? With a median salary of only $600 a month, the cash component would really help single unwed parents under 35 years old. For many, it is not a luxury but a lifeline. Everyone will also face higher living costs, with core inflation projected to be 2% to 3% this year. Increased costs will hit single unweds even earning $600 a month even harder. I have raised this many times in this House. I hope we can finally help end the stigma single unweds face and help provide them with this cash component of the Baby Bonus. They desperately need this. Ad Hoc Nanny Services for Single Unweds Being a single parent is twice the work, the stress and the tears, but also double the hugs, the love and the pride.”
“Thank you, Sir. I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for the reply. Two clarifications. Can the Parliamentary Secretary share what are the other reasons why there was such a high rate of rejection? Two, I asked earlier whether MOH can establish a standardised application form so that people can just fill in to apply to import the embryos back to Singapore. I think that will help reduce the stigma of couples undergoing IVF and also reduce the stress. So, a standard application, rather than an appeal which makes them feel like they are begging to import their own embryos back to Singapore.”
“Thank you, Sir. I thank the Second Minister for the reply. Two clarifications. One, could I ask then how exactly is streaming done at Primary 5 and how do we segregate them into different classes based on their learning abilities or, as the Second Minister said, is it based on their race or their interest? Two, Minister Chan shared during the MOE Committee of Supply (COS) debate that we would have mixed form classes in Secondary schools, where students can interact with peers of different strengths and interests. Can I check whether that will be extended to Primary schools as well?”
“Madam, as I have done in the past decade and as I did at the last COS and the one before and the one before and I think the one before, I am speaking up again and asking that we allow the keeping of cats in HDB flats. Minister Desmond Lee replied to me previously that MND does not intend to play a cat-and-mouse game on this issue. Indeed, let us stop chasing each other and let us focus on the facts. Let me share the President of the Law Society, Mr Adrian Tan's thoughts on this. He calls this rule "irrational and unfair". He gave a breakdown on the four reasons HDB bans cats. "Reason 1: 'Cats are generally difficult to contain within the flat'. So are dogs, birds, mice and even humans. I rate this a bad reason. Reason 2: 'Cats tend to shed fur'. So do dogs. Another bad reason. Reason 3: 'Cats tend to defecate or urinate in public areas'. So do dogs. Bad reason. Reason 4: 'Cats make caterwauling sounds'. Very rarely. And dogs bark, especially at strangers walking past a flat. Birds, especially parrots, make a lot of noise, too. Bad reason. Verdict? All four reasons are terrible." I encourage everyone to read Mr Tan's full post on this issue. It is time that we progress on this issue and change our policy to accept what we already accept in reality – that HDB residents are allowed to keep cats, who can be removed if they are found to cause disamenities within the community. Bird Population Control”