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 14 of 37.
“Madam, COVID-19 has made life harder for our security officers. In addition to their usual work, many now have to do the thankless task of enforcing COVID-19 safe management measures. The Union of Security Employees says that this has increased tensions for security officers. Indeed, a survey of 1,002 security officers between September and November 2020 found that two out of five security officers had experienced some form of abuse in the course of their work. I thank our security officers for their service. This Bill is a welcome step for increased protection for them. I have two points of clarification. First, I would like to ask what counts as a security officer's duty. This Bill is meant to protect security officers from abuse. To this end, it strongly punishes individuals for assaulting, hurting or harassing security officers. However, this enhanced punishment kicks in only if it happens during the execution or discharge of duty by the officer. Can the Minister share what counts as the execution and discharge of an officer's duty? Do these new offences apply only to functions outlined in section 13 of the Private Security Industry Act or do they apply to any functions reasonably connected to a security officer's work? We need to be clear about this as security officers may be required to perform diverse tasks not outlined in section 13 of the Act. Such tasks may equally put the security officers at risk of abuse and harassment. We should look to protect security officers performing such tasks too. My second clarification relates to the defences against the offence of intentionally causing harassment, alarm or distress to a security officer under section 17C.”
“In addition, how will IRAS ascertain whether a landlord has made "reasonable efforts" to find a new tenant during the vacancy period? This loosely defined clause appears to be the only check in these amendments against the scenario I have just described. It would be important to clarify how IRAS intends to implement it and guard against bad-faith actors. Madam, notwithstanding my clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.”
“Second, excessive time. Why do the amendments not penalise permitted people from holding on to copies of government records for excessive amounts of time? Surely, we agree that even IT auditors should not be holding on to confidential government records for longer than necessary. Copies of government records held in excessive scope for excessive time increase the likelihood and severity of data leaks and data misuse. I hope the Government will take strong action to ensure vital government records are used and copied in a responsible way. My third point today is about tax deductions for landlords. In this COVID-19 crisis, more than before, Singaporeans have learned the immense powers landlords have over commercial tenants. Commercial tenants have gone out of business as they struggle to pay their rent. Many groups, such as the Restaurant Association of Singapore and Singapore Tenants United for Fairness, have spoken in chorus about the lack of flexibility from landlords. The Government has tried our best to urge landlords to do the right thing. But the pleas have often fallen on deaf ears. As a result, in the past year and a half, this House has to pass laws compelling landlords to provide rental waivers, to allow penalty-free termination of rentals and, most recently, to match rental support provided by the Government. In this context, the purpose of the new section 14ZH is unclear. It seems to encourage a somehow perverse situation where a landlord can evict a failed tenant and then pay reduced taxes on their rental income. Why should landlords receive financial incentives when they evict a tenant and keep the property vacant? The outcome is a net loss for society as productive land is left unused.”
“First, can the Minister share what is the yearly dollar amount of income tax deductions linked with donations to DAFs for each of the past five years? Second, can the Minister share what information is typically requested under section 37(3)(b) of the Income Tax Act? In particular, what information has it previously requested when an individual attempts to claim tax deductions using donations to a DAF? Third, can the Ministry share how the Government proactively guards against the problem where donors claim tax exemptions, tax deductions for donations to DAFs while the DAFs fail to disburse funds to the IPCs in a timely manner? I know DAFs are meant to encourage charitable giving and I have no broad concerns with their existence. However, there may be room for stronger tax rules on DAFs that tie the incidence of tax deductions with the distribution of the funds. Such rules would promote stronger governance of intermediary charity groups and promise more timely benefits for society. My second point today is about data secrecy. This Bill empowers IRAS to offer people access to highly confidential government data for the purpose of auditing the administration of public schemes, such as of IRAS’ IT systems. Such people can copy government records for conducting their audits. While this amendment may help IRAS undertake vital audits, I am concerned that it may not promise sufficient safeguards for data secrecy. On this, I have two questions on the topic of excess for the Minister’s clarification. First, excessive scope. What scenarios fall within and outside the purpose of the audit? Would it be reasonable for a data audit firm to create extensive digital back-ups stored on their own systems? How does the Government determine whether the backups are excessive in scope?”
“Madam, this Bill introduces a wide array of reforms meant to update our income tax policies and provide necessary financial support to our economy. I thank the Ministry for doing a public consultation for this Bill in June 2021 and for publishing in September 2021 its response to feedback received. Indeed, several pieces of feedback were accepted and we see their imprint in today’s Bill. I hope MOF will continue this good practice of holding public consultations and accepting productive feedback. Madam, I have three points of clarification to make. My first point is about tax deductions for donations. Singaporeans should donate to social and community causes. To encourage this, the Government is providing tax deductions for qualifying donations up until the end of 2021. This Bill extends the end date of that scheme by two years. I thank the Ministry for it. However, I would like to raise questions about one kind of recipient: donor-advised funds (DAFs). To my understanding, donations to DAFs are eligible for income tax deductions if the DAF is designated to offer grants to Institutions of Public Characters (IPCs). DAFs have become more popular around the world. From 2015 to 2019, donations to DAFs have risen by 110% in the UK and 80% in the US. With this growth, lawmakers and experts have criticised the rise of DAF-related "zombie philanthropy". This is the trend where DAFs hold on to donations indefinitely and fail to disburse them to charities. The government loses tax income immediately due to tax deductions, while society benefits only belatedly as donations sit untouched for a long time. On this point, I would like to raise three questions.”
“I believe there is a strong need to tackle foreign disruptions of our domestic politics but, at the same time, there needs to be safeguards in place and it is essential that we are fair and transparent in how we restrict the activities of fellow Singaporeans. 4.19 pm”
“In addition, will the individual receive written reasons to explain decisions made by the Ministry and by the Competent Authority? There are three scenarios where written reasons should be provided: one, when the Ministry designates an individual as politically significant; two, when the Competent Authority decides that it is not practicable or desirable to hear an individual before they get designated as politically significant; and three, when the Minister determines an appeal under section 101. Providing written reasons to the politically designated person in all three scenarios would make clear that our process is transparent and fair. My fourth and final point is on Reviewing Tribunals. Can the Minister share more about the considerations that the Cabinet should take into account when recommending the appointment of members of the Reviewing Tribunal? What is the profile of members envisioned for appointment to the Reviewing Tribunal? This is important to clarify, as members of the Reviewing Tribunal may themselves be politically significant or otherwise at a heightened risk of hostile foreign influence. In addition, section 99 allows the Minister to prescribe the practices and procedures for proceedings and appeals before a Reviewing Tribunal. Can the Minister share if these practices and procedures will be derived from the Rules of Court, practices and procedures for Court proceedings? Will these practices and procedures follow the same principles for a fair hearing in the Rules of Court, practices and procedures for Court proceedings? Finally, when the Reviewing Tribunal determines an appeal under section 97, will the Reviewing Tribunal provide written reasons for their decisions? Sir, in conclusion, I do stand in support of the Bill.”
“My second point is on what it means to act with covertness, deception or concealment. This Bill makes it an offence to undertake clandestine electronic communications activity on behalf of a foreign principal. The emphasis here is on "clandestine". Subsection 1(d) of section 17 requires that the person's action is "covert or involves deception". Similarly, subsection 1(d) of section 18 requires that the person's action "conceals from or fails to disclose" their relationship with a foreign principal. Can the Minister shed light on how an organisation can avoid being considered as having been covert, deceptive or otherwise opaque? If they receive a grant from a foreign principal, would it suffice to state on their website with the dollar amount received, the name of the grant -maker and the terms of the grant? Would they need to print this material on all marketing material? Would it need to be in their Facebook posts and their Twitter profile? We should expect transparency and honesty. But this expectation is only fair if we make clear what reasonable compliance looks like. Will MHA release guidelines and illustrations that can help facilitate compliance by good faith actors? My third point is on the appeals process in this Bill. Section 48 allows individuals the opportunity to be heard before being designated as a politically significant individual. The exception is when the Competent Authority considers it not practicable or desirable to do so. Can the Minister elaborate on when it would not be practicable or desirable for individuals to have the opportunity to be heard? It seems odd that an individual might be denied even the chance to present their side of the story.”
“Sir, foreign influence is the norm in Singapore. Whether you are reading the news, watching a TV show or doing your job, there is no escaping the influence of foreign ideas, foreign innovations and foreign interests. This is the reality we, as a cosmopolitan and small nation, have no choice but to embrace. Today's Bill aims to push against this tide. It gives the Government new powers, first, to deem individuals and groups as politically significant and, second, to monitor and restrict these people's activities. The goal is to reduce foreign disruption of our domestic politics. I agree that we should be concerned about such disruptions and I believe most people are. But at the same time, it is essential to be fair and transparent in how we restrict the activities of fellow Singaporeans. Designing and imposing restrictions the wrong way can itself worsen the trust and stability of our domestic politics. With the goal of ensuring fairness and transparency, Sir, I have four points of clarification to make. My first point is on the consultation process for this Bill. Some residents have shared their concerns with me on this and it would be good for the Minister to clarify some of their doubts. Can the Minister share the consultation process for this Bill and whether it has integrated productive feedback from the consultation into this proposed law? Can the Minister also share how does the Ministry decide how much public consultation to hold for any proposed legislation? Sir, there were also some concerns about the interval between the First and Second Readings of the Bill. Some felt that the interval was too short and, again, it will be good for the Minister to provide some clarifications on this as well.”
“Thank you, Sir. Just a quick clarification. The whole Adjournment Motion is about using deterrence, not enforcement. I am just wondering whether MSE feels that if there is a law, whether there will be a deterrent effect and whether there is going to be a need where 100% of Singaporeans do not comply with the law? I cannot imagine that to be the case and I wonder whether Senior Minister of State Amy Khor can share her views on that.”
“This is what we already do with so many public health hazards where universal enforcement is not possible: racing on roads, cycling on highways, PMDs on pavements, being naked in your own home, feeding of birds and so on. We clean up a few bad eggs, we announce it to all Singaporeans and we make a point. Sir, to conclude and to be absolutely clear, a law does already exist. Section 43 of the Environmental Public Health Act can already be used to penalise smoking near windows and at balconies and deterrence rather than enforcement is the key. In this COVID-19 pandemic, we have tried so hard to keep people safe. This has meant keeping them at home for work and for studies. But this also meant many more are now exposed to the silent pandemic of second-hand smoke at home. People need to feel safe in their homes again. Deterrence is a power we have not used enough. Let us use it so Singaporeans feel safe in their homes again.”
“These photos show how these cameras can already capture someone smoking at their windows without invading the privacy of the smokers and their neighbours. I will share these photos on my social media pages so everyone can see for themselves. The good news also is that NEA has improved technology. NEA has collaborated with GovTech on Project Balefire, which aims to detect smoking activities using video analytics. This has helped to reduce the need for enforcement officers. Sir, there is no law where we have successful enforcement 100% of the time. But in the case of smoking near windows or at balconies, the chances of a successful enforcement are much higher as compared to high-rise littering. If we can catch someone throwing litter from their window in a fleeting moment, action that takes a couple of seconds. Then surely, we can catch someone smoking at the window for a few minutes at a time repeatedly throughout the day. Think about it. The chances of catching someone smoking at the window are also infinitely higher than the odds of catching someone right inside their own homes naked. If the Police are able to enforce the law against being naked at home, then surely NEA can enforce the current law against smoking at windows and balconies. Sir, we should be really clear about one thing: universal enforcement is not necessary. This should be common sense. There is no law where we enforce 100% of the time. We obviously do not have speeding cameras on every single road. In the same way, we would not need to install surveillance cameras at every housing estate. Instead, what we need to do is enforce some cases and then publicise them. This will make clear that the authorities can and will take action.”
“I have no doubt that the majority of people will comply once they realise that the penalty for not complying with nuisance orders under the Environmental Public Health Act is a fine of $10,000 for first-time offenders and in the second or subsequent conviction, to a fine not exceeding $20,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months, or to both. There will be cases where the culprit repeats the offences despite the advisories or nuisance orders and stronger enforcement is needed. To collect further evidence, we can first draw on evidence from complainants. Complainants are often very capable of collecting evidence on their own. Indeed, we already ask residents to provide evidence of their neighbours smoking, such as photos or videos, when they bring a case to the Community Disputes Resolution Tribunal. Second, NEA can conduct stakeouts. It already does this for high-rise littering and bird feeders. Both of these problems kill far less people than second-hand smoke. Surely, we can justify reallocating some resources. Finally, surveillance cameras remain a viable last, last, last resort for a very small number of cases. This is the reality. We are not asking for surveillance cameras to be placed everywhere, throughout Singapore. This is not needed at all. For the small number of cases where we need to deploy a surveillance camera, we can minimise concerns of privacy by doing what we already do: point it at the facade of the building. These cameras are used by the authorities today to catch high-rise litterbugs. But they will actually work just as effectively for catching those smoking at windows and balconies. Let me show you some photos of these cameras.”
“" Let me first clarify that a smoker is unlikely to hide behind pillars, windows or curtains to smoke. As a former smoker, I can tell you that smokers smoke at open windows and balconies precisely to get the smoke out of their homes. It would defeat the purpose to hide behind some cover. If they do hide, like how Senior Minister of State Amy Khor describes, then it would be a good thing, not a bad thing, because it would help contain most of the smoke within their homes. Senior Minister of State Amy Khor's concern is also about the cost and effectiveness of camera surveillance, but camera surveillance is just one of the many options. It is the last, last, last resort. Let me stress again that once people are aware that smoking near windows and at balconies is illegal, the vast majority of people will comply with it. I cannot imagine a person continuing to smoke at their windows, committing an offence right in front of their neighbours in the nearby block. I am sure some neighbours will take photos of this and report the smoker or put it on social media. Deterrence, again, will kick in, before the need for enforcement. For a small number of cases where smokers continue to smoke at windows and balconies, then enforcement kicks in. We start with advisories and then nuisance orders under the Environmental Public Health Act. As I have mentioned earlier, NEA officers already issue advisories today. But they are not backed by the threat of harsher penalties. So, they accomplish little. Used in conjunction with a law, however, such low-effort enforcement may be sufficient to end bad behaviour in most cases.”
“Even without doing anything else, it would already reduce the problem of second-hand smoke in homes. I am sure Senior Minister of State Amy Khor would agree with me that Singapore is, generally, a nation of law abiders. Singaporeans are terrified of breaking the law. It would also help neighbours mediate, as offenders can no longer say that their behaviour is perfectly legal. It would help give more bite to NEA officers who already give advisories to those smoking near windows and at balconies. Their words would have more impact if backed by the law. Section 43 can already be used to stop smoking near windows and at balconies. In this unprecedented period of home-based learning and work from home, this needs be done urgently. The second tier for deterrence is awareness. Our authorities have historically been very good at this. We have all seen signs by the Police warning against scams, thefts and molestation. Again, we can make it clear that smoking near windows and at balconies is illegal under current laws. We can then leverage the new LCD screens at HDB lobbies to start an awareness campaign. These screens are near to where offences happen and are most likely to have a significant impact. Singaporeans respond when they know something is illegal. The third tier for deterrence is enforcement. This is the point Senior Minister of State Amy Khor took issue with when we raised our Motion last year. To quote her: “Cameras must capture the smokers smoking or holding a lighted cigarette as evidence for enforcement. However, a smoker can easily hide behind a pillar, frosted glass, windows or curtains to avoid detection by the cameras. Overall, this may entail deployment of significant resources without achieving effective outcomes.”
“The Health Promotion Board states, “You wouldn't put your child in danger by letting him play with fire. So, why risk your child’s heath by exposing him or her to second-hand smoke?” I am sure many parents agree with that. So, like me, they choose not to smoke. But they have no choice when it comes to someone else’s second-hand smoke. They need the Government to step in. Here, we should remember that one of the most powerful forces in Singapore is deterrence. Indeed, it is fair to say that deterrence is at the cornerstone of our law and order. It explains why we have such low crime rates. But we know that deterrence does not happen out of thin air. It is a three-tier approach and you need to build it, starting from the bottom. At the first tier, you must make clear that the bad behaviour is illegal. To be clear, the Government Parliamentary Committee (GPC) for Sustainability and the Environment is not calling for smoking at home to be illegal. We know that it will be almost impossible to enforce a ban on smoking at home and there will be no deterrent effect of such a law as people will not be able to see people smoking inside their homes. Sir, we are calling for the Government to make clear that smoking at windows and balconies is illegal. To be clear, a law already exists. Section 43 of the Environmental Public Health Act empowers NEA to take any step necessary to remove nuisances of a public nature. These nuisances, as defined in section 44, include “the issue of any fumes, vapours, gases, heat, radiation or smells in any premises which is a nuisance or injurious or dangerous to health.” That sure sounds like second-hand smoke. Why is the Government not using this law to take a clear stance that smoking near windows and at balconies is illegal?”
“Second-hand smoke causes severe respiratory infections, triggers more frequent and more severe asthma attacks, cough, wheezing, breathlessness, ear infections and a whole slew of other illnesses among young children. Sir, these medical scenarios are not hypothetical. Parents write letters to me and they describe their lived experiences in these exact words. Their letters sometimes read like horror stories; they know something is killing their children, but they are helpless to do anything about it. Take Ying Ying, a young mother with one child and another on the way. Her neighbour’s smoking has plagued her family for four years. It caused her firstborn to suffer from bronchitis. She is now terrified that her next child will suffer the same. To quote her, “Every time we want to open the windows for fresh air, we hesitate. Because we never know how much shorter our breath will become”. Take another parent, Peter. His elder son is taking PSLE this year and studies at home while inhaling his neighbour’s second-hand smoke. His younger son has been coughing and sick as a result of the second-hand smoke. “It does not make sense to suffer like that,” Peter says. And it is not just children. Kelvin shared with me about how he has a family member who has cancer and they are worried that the constant exposure to second-hand smoke will be bad for her already failing health. As he puts it, “We are losing our freedom for fresh air”. We have always taken pride in being a safe nation. But for many, home is no longer a safe place. It is the place where their neighbours cause them to suffer asthma attacks, bronchitis, breathlessness, respiratory infections and they cannot do anything about it. Sir, this Government acknowledges that this is a public health concern.”
“Unlike these other causes of death, there is no preventive measure you can take against second-hand smoke at home. You cannot, for example, take a vaccine. You can install an air purifier but, as MOH has said, it does not work. You can shut your windows but, as many residents know, it does not work. You can talk to your neighbours but, again, as many residents know, more often than not, it does not work. One resident, Kim, shared with me about how she begged her neighbour, with her baby in her arms, about how his second-hand smoke was affecting her child. It did not work. You can move house like another resident, Jennifer, did. She has moved house three times in the past six years and has been unlucky enough to suffer from her neighbours’ second-hand smoke every time. She recently wrote to me at 1.30 am, saying, “Our neighbour is smoking and we are unable to sleep. We are literally dying in our sleep every day”. And honestly, how many people can afford to move house repeatedly to avoid the dangers of second-hand smoke? Is this fair for them? Condominium residents do not have it any better. MCSTs have no power to fine their residents, regardless of their bylaws. A condominium resident, NC, spoke to her neighbour, who smokes throughout the day at her balcony and was told that what she was doing was legal despite the condominium bylaw prohibiting smoking at the balcony. NC is worried about the health of her two young children. So, let us focus on how this affects our children. We all become sick from second-hand smoke, but the worst is saved for our children. In a recent study published just a few months ago, researchers concluded that children exposed to second-hand smoke from pregnancy to childhood were more likely to suffer from ADHD symptoms. And it is not just ADHD.”
“Sir, last year, we delivered an Adjournment Motion in this House seeking increased protection against second-hand smoke in our homes. The answer was a no. Today, I wish I could report that the problem has been solved, that, actually, nothing needs to be done. But this is not the case. In fact, the problem has likely worsened. As the Senior Minister of State Sim Ann said recently, “Across many communities... our sense is that residential smoking has risen”. Since our Motion, many Singaporeans have spoken up. On social media, in news media and in private messages, they report feeling tortured and trapped by their neighbours’ second-hand smoke. I will share the stories of these Singaporeans. I will also share that a law already exists that makes smoking near windows and at balconies illegal. We do not need a new law. And I will emphasise the power of deterrence, not just enforcement of this current law against smoking near windows and at balconies, but deterrence, a power that we have not sufficiently drawn on. First, let me provide a reminder to this House on how deadly second-hand smoke is. About one person in Singapore dies every day due to second-hand smoke. This is based on the 383 deaths in 2016 and the number of deaths has been growing each year. Let us put this in context. This is about five times the number of people who have died in motor accidents; seven times the number of people who have died from the coronavirus; and 12 times the number of people who have died from workplace injuries. Let me be clear. Deaths from motor accidents, the coronavirus and workplace injuries are all serious and all need our attention. Indeed, I have regularly spoken up on these very issues in this House. My point is that second-hand smoke needs our urgent attention, too.”
“Accreditation is offered by the Singapore Mediation Centre, Singapore International Mediation Institute and International Mediation Institute, just to name a few. In addition, who will be the Court-appointed mediators in the Supreme Court? Are there plans to set up an equivalent of the State Courts' Court Dispute Resolution Cluster in the Supreme Court? How will the Ministry also support the growth of the private mediation service providers? Private mediation service providers stimulate our mediation sector with innovation and competition. With the expanded reliance on mediation and similar processes in Singapore, we should integrate and regulate such private providers carefully. My third and final point is a proposal. Today's Bill amends the law to allow various proceedings at the State Court and Supreme Court to be heard by a live video link. This is a welcomed move that mirrors changes which have already taken place on the ground due to COVID-19. However, with more proceedings taking place by live video link, there is also greater risk of issues which may undermine the security and integrity of Court proceedings. These include, for instance, unauthorised recording of Court proceedings, witness coaching or poor Internet connection affecting the quality of evidence presented to Court. Will the Court consider implementing a protocol for proceedings conducted by way of a live video link to standardise the way video link hearings are conducted? Such protocol should address issues from the testing of the video link to the arrangements that should be in place for witnesses to give evidence remotely. Sir, notwithstanding these points, I stand in support of the Bill. 7.52 pm”
“I can imagine a bad-faith party relying on the Court's order of amicable resolution as a strategic manoeuvre by parties to prolong litigation and financially wear down opponents. Four, will there be consequences of non-compliance with such an order? The Minister's answers to these questions will help ensure that Court orders for amicable resolution do not get undermined by bad-faith actors. My second clarification is on the new section 79, which gives legal immunity to the Court registrars and Court-appointed mediators for actions that they take as part of mediation or alternative dispute resolution for the Supreme Court. The immunity is limited to actions done in good faith and without any fraud or wilful misconduct. This appears to mirror section 68(4) of the State Courts Act, which provides similar protections for judicial officers and Court-appointed mediators for alternative dispute resolution in the State Courts. Alternative resolution processes, such as mediation and conciliation require different skills from hearing a case as an adjudicator. These specialised skills are honed by professional mediators and conciliators over years of training and experience. For this reason, judicial officers in the State Courts are required to undergo basic training in mediation. With the extension of immunity to officers in the Supreme Court, will the Registrar, Deputy Registrars and Assistant Registrars be required to undergo training in mediation and other alternative resolution processes? Will there be a minimum requirement that officers and mediators at both State Courts and Supreme Court must meet? High quality training will ensure that alternative resolution is a realistic and cost-effective alternative to litigation.”
“Sir, this Bill will support the digitalisation of proceedings and signal a focus on amicable dispute resolution, among other changes. The Courts have shown remarkable resilience in this pandemic, adapting to ensure that the judicial system remains open to users and that justice is both done and seen to be done. I thank the Registry and judicial officers who have worked tirelessly to ensure the continuity and integrity of judicial processes. I have three points of clarification to make. First, I seek clarification on the Court's new power to order parties to attempt amicable resolution in civil proceedings. Amicable resolution, such as negotiation and mediation, work best when parties participate in good faith. Good intentions are critical. This point is underscored in the Rules of the Court. The Rules allow the Court to consider how parties acted during their attempts at alternative dispute-resolution when making its decision on costs orders. However, with the new paragraph 23 of the First Schedule of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act, the Court can now order parties to attempt an amicable resolution. In such cases, the process is no longer voluntary and it raises four sets of questions about effectiveness and implementation. One, has the Ministry studied what cases are amenable to amicable resolution? Clarity on such situations will help the Court decide on what circumstances to order an attempt at an amicable resolution. Two, what constitutes an attempt at amicable resolution? Will there be clear requirements to verify such attempts? For instance, it may be useful to require that parties attempting mediation go through an accredited mediator. Three, how will the Court ensure that parties participate with good faith in attempts at amicable resolution?”
“My second clarification is about the requirements for becoming a competent person for carrying out greenhouse gas work. Training and certification are important to upskill our workforce, improve quality of services and reduce emissions by preventing leakage of greenhouse gases. However, training and tests are often conducted in English, which not all of our existing technicians may be fluent in, causing them to be disadvantaged. It is important that certification is accessible and fair so that we improve our workforce rather than cause some to be excluded. Can the Minister share the intended format of training and tests, whether they will be multilingual and what other measures will be implemented to support our existing technicians in getting certified? My third and final clarification relates to the control of construction noise. In the post-COVID-19 world, more activities are taking place from the home, such as remote learning and working. Can the Minister provide an update on its review of construction noise limits and also consider whether we can have even stricter construction noise limits on Saturdays? This will give families more quiet time to rest and recover over the weekend. Can the Minister also share what other measures do agencies have in place to manage construction noise in residential areas? Sir, notwithstanding my clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill. 6.05 pm”
“Sir, this Bill tackles two distinct but important problems: noise and greenhouse gases. Residents will be happy to hear that the Bill empowers NEA to more effectively ensure that construction sites remain quiet on Sundays and public holidays. Singaporeans should also be happy that the Bill empowers the Government to better mitigate climate change, given that Singapore is getting warmer much more quickly than the rest of the world. Sir, I have three clarifications about this Bill. My first point relates to our efforts to reduce HFCs. Reducing HFC emissions, which make up about 7% of Singapore’s emissions, will contribute to our climate mitigation efforts and I wholeheartedly support this move. HFCs have nearly 12,000 times the warming potential of carbon dioxide. And Singapore is emitting such gases more than ever before, a 30% increase from 2014 to 2016, based on the latest available data. Things might be getting worse, not better. I am glad we are doing more, but my question is: why are household RACs and commercial water-cooled chillers the only equipment being regulated? I understand that these contribute to about half of the emissions and the question is: what about the other half? When can we expect to address emissions from the remaining types of equipment? Beyond using the stick, can we offer more carrots, especially in terms of the remaining types of equipment that are currently not regulated? Can we increase grants for businesses to encourage adoption of cooling equipment with lower global warming potential? All these while we work on stricter regulations and an eventual ban on the remaining types of equipment which are currently not regulated.”
“Publishers and producers may use these same rights against creators. Publishers and producers are likely to favour contracting with creators willing to cede copyright ownership rights to them, rather than one who wishes to retain it or negotiate better terms. I understand that the Ministry views legislative intervention a blunt tool in addressing these issues. I am also aware that the Ministry instead plans to collaborate with industry associations to develop sector-specific self-help resources. That said, can the Minister clarify if there are additional resources that will be put in place to level the playing field further? As individual freelancers and small- and medium-sized businesses lack financial resources for litigation in the case contract terms are found unreasonable, what alternative avenues of recourse are available to this group? Sir, notwithstanding these clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill. 5.04 pm”
“However, in practice, independent or smaller creators with limited resources may not easily be able to monitor publications of their works and enforce their rights. Even if creators discover a breach of their rights, they have to bring an action in Court under section 383. In that scenario, the legal costs might be too high to make enforcement worth it. Further, the available remedies under section 385 include injunctions and damages. It may not be cost-effective for creators to seek injunctions and damages may be difficult to prove and quantify. Can Minister share if additional measures will be taken to help these creators enforce their rights? For example, will the Ministry consider creating a special Court process or use the Copyright Tribunal for a cost-effective means of enforcement. My third point of clarification relates to the expanded rights of creators. I support this new default position in the legislation. Under the new Copyright Act, creators and performers have the right to be attributed when their work or performance is used. Also, creators of certain works including commissioned photographs, portraits and engravings will be granted default copyright ownership. These new rights are supposed to give individual freelancers and creators from small- and medium-sized enterprises greater bargaining power to negotiate better terms with commissioning parties. However, the contrary may also be true. These default positions can be restricted and excluded by contract. The safeguards are that the contract must be individually negotiated and the contract term purporting to restrict the exception must be deemed to be “fair and reasonable”. There is often a power imbalance with creators on one end and publishers and producers on the other.”
“Sir, there is now increasing diversity of how content is created, distributed and used in the digital sphere. This Bill to strengthen Singapore’s copyright regime is necessary and timely. This Bill will be important in encouraging creativity and protecting creators and their works, carving out crucial fair use exceptions and strengthening the copyright ecosystem. That said, I have three points of clarification. My first clarification is on the safeguards on the permitted use of materials for text and data mining for analytic purposes. Section 244 permits the copying of the works for the purposes of computational data analysis. Under section 187, creators are not allowed to restrict this by contract. It is not clear why we have designed such a specific carve-out. Why should creators not have the power to protect their works specifically from being the input data for some machine-learning model? What is the principle behind this special condition? We should note that the results of computational data analysis may be extremely profitable and it is not necessarily the case that the original creators may know or be comfortable about their work being used in this way. Can the Ministry share how it intends to ensure a balance between allowing the use of works for computational data analysis and the interests of copyright holders? My second point relates to enforcing the new right of attribution. Part 7 of the Bill provides a moral right for the author of a work to be identified if another person causes that work to be published. I welcome this development as it gives creators recognition for their efforts and respects their work.”
“My second point is on the changes of the fault element for certain offences from “malice” to “intent to cause injury” for certain offences. The purpose of this is to clarify the fault element of the offence. Injury is defined under the Penal Code as “any harm whatever illegally caused to any person, in body, mind, reputation or property”. Can the Minister confirm that an “intent to cause injury” does not succeed in causing the specific type of injury intended, or the offender does not succeed in injuring the intended victim? Can the Minister also clarify whether emotional injury, such as feelings of harassment or distress, not amounting to psychiatric or mental injury, constitutes injury? My final point is on compensation orders for victims. Under section 359 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the Court is required, after the conviction of an accused, to consider whether or not to make an order for the accused to pay compensation to the person injured. This gives due regard to the harm suffered by the victim of a crime who is an equal participant in the criminal justice system and not simply a means to an end of convicting the accused. This is also an important mechanism to provide some measure of compensation for the victim of a crime, without requiring the victim to commence lengthy and costly civil proceedings separately after criminal proceedings conclude. Minister Shanmugam announced in his Ministerial Statement that the Ministry will be setting up a Sentencing Advisory Panel to issue non-binding sentencing guidelines. Will the Minister also consider including in the Panel’s scope of work a review and publication of guidelines on compensation quantum under section 359 of the Criminal Procedure Code? Sir, notwithstanding these points, I stand in support of the Bill.”
“Sir, this Bill follows MHA and MinLaw’s review of the sentencing framework for sexual and hurt offences. The amendments in this Bill have been raised through a considered process and take into account public moral norms as seen through reactions to high-profile sentencing decisions in sexual and hurt offences. I have three points to make. First, I would like to seek clarification on the measures to ensure that adult offenders who commit sexual and hurt offences no longer pose a threat to public safety once they have served their sentences. This Bill will raise the maximum penalties for outrage of modesty, engaging in sexual activities in the presence of a minor and causing a minor to view sexual images. This is consistent with Minister Shanmugam’s Ministerial Statement last month, when Minister stated that the sentences for sexual and hurt offences must reflect that such acts are deeply offensive to society’s fundamental values. Also in line with this is the announcement that AGC will, generally, object to rehabilitative sentences, such as probation and community-based sentences, where the offenders are adults who commit certain types of hurt or sexual offences. I agree with the strong signal sent by focusing on the punitive purpose of sentencing for adult offenders of hurt and sexual offences. However, even with a harsh sentence, there remains a need to ensure that such offenders receive appropriate counselling and treatment. Can the Minister share what kinds of counselling and treatment are provided to offenders of hurt and sexual offences? Will they receive such treatment only during their sentence? Is there scope to consider mandating post-release treatment for such offenders, where medical and psychiatric professionals deem necessary?”
“In addition, can the Minister of State share what plans he has to ensure that the SPF will be adequately staffed to withstand times of crisis, apart from forcing uncommitted Police officers to stay? Sir, notwithstanding my clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill and I again thank our Police officers for keeping all of us safe.”
“My second point is about preparing Police officers to appropriately use their new powers. The amendments in this Bill expand the Police powers of the Special Police Officers and Commercial Affairs Officers. In particular, it gives Special Police Officers the same powers as regular Police officers. It gives Commercial Affairs Officers who currently only have investigation powers more powers, such as the power to arrest persons who possess stolen items. However, a Police officer's powers also come with specific safeguards, including requirements and restrictions under the Criminal Procedure Code and Police General Orders. Can the Minister of State confirm that the new powers given to Special Police Officers and Commercial Affairs Officers also mean that all the accompanying safeguards apply to them? Can the Minister of State also share what plans there are to provide training for Special Police Officers and Commercial Affairs Officers on their new powers and their accompanying safeguards? My third point is about maintaining proper staffing during a crisis period. The new section 13A provides that a notice to resign from SPF given by a Police officer may be refused by the Commissioner of Police during a crisis period. I understand that in times of crisis, it may be important to retain the services of Police officers. But does it make sense to have Police officers stay in the force when they have clearly indicated their unwillingness to do so? Is there a risk that uncommitted Police officers hinder rather than help their comrades during times of crisis? Can the Minister of State share in what extreme circumstances do we envision the Police Commissioner refusing such notices to resign?”
“Sir, this afternoon, Mr Murali Pillai, Mr Patrick Tay and yourself will be delivering a Motion to commemorate 200 years of the Singapore Police Force (SPF). They will honour the contributions of SPF and its officers for keeping Singapore one of the safest countries in the world. I echo your sentiment. In addition, I wish to commend SPF for not only keeping our country safe but also for taking steps to make their investigations a fairer process. I previously spoke up to support the video-recording of Police interviews. It makes Police interviews more transparent. I am glad SPF is making efforts to ensure its investigations provide due process to those interviewed by the Police. Sir, I have three points to make on this Bill. My first point is about equipping Police with life-saving skills. The new section 26E will allow a Police officer to force entry into a place on reasonable suspicion that assistance may be required for injury or poor health to protect the life, health or safety of the person. This is similar to the powers the Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) officers currently have under the Civil Defence Act to break into any place to protect the life, health or safety of individuals. Providing the powers of forced entry gives the officers access to the individual in need of assistance. However, just as important is equipping the officer with the skills to provide the assistance required. SCDF has a clear mandate to protect life, health and safety and its officers are appropriately trained. Can the Minister of State share if Police officers are already receiving training or will receive training to equip them with the skills needed to protect life, health or safety, once they have gained entry?”
“Sir, I thank the Senior Minister of State for the reply. Could I ask specifically whether we can stop the poisoning of wild animals? I know we are doing that currently. The problem here is that it is not just the target species that dies but there is a huge knock-on effect. Just recently, ACRES rescued a white-bellied sea eagle which had consumed a poisoned wildlife. Thankfully, it recovered and was released back into the wild but there were many cases where cats, dogs, other animals consume the poisoned animal and they subsequently die. So, could I ask whether we can stop this practice – not have measures in place during the poisoning exercise but stop this practice altogether?”
“Can the Minister share more details about its progress in meeting the goal of the ratio of one dentist to 2,200 people? How effective has the measures adopted since 2017 been in easing the supply crunch? Are there plans to further increase the local intake of dentistry students to meet the population’s dentistry care needs? Sir, notwithstanding the above clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.”
“With more time to practise and study, with more opportunities to attempt the examination, many dentistry graduates may, eventually, qualify and help alleviate the supply crunch facing the industry. Can the Minister share if the Ministry is considering increasing the number of attempts allowed at the qualifying examination? Can the Minister also share if the Ministry is considering increasing the duration of 12 months between attempts, even as a temporary measure, considering the present circumstances of the pandemic? In addition, can the Minister share whether there are plans to provide increased support or training programmes for those who are struggling to pass this examination? Dentistry is an extremely specialised degree and these graduates have spent many years applying themselves to it. It would be a shame to end their aspirations after just two attempts at the qualifying examination, especially when it is always possible to improve. My second point is on the alternative careers for Singaporean graduates with foreign dentistry degrees. While there is likely to always be a proportion of graduates who are not able to pass the qualifying examination, this group of graduates may, nonetheless, possess some meaningful skills from their years of higher education. Can MOH share if there are alternative pathways within the dentistry industry where we can channel this group of graduates into, so that these graduates can, nonetheless, pursue a career in this industry and help, again, to reduce our supply crunch? My final point is on the present status of the dentistry industry. It is apparent from the 2019 Dental Association survey that we are some distance from easing the supply crunch.”
“Sir, we are facing a supply crunch in dental care. It has become necessary for Singapore to open its doors to graduates with foreign degrees in dentistry to supplement our locally trained dentists. As early as 2017, the Ministry recognised that there were not enough locally trained dentists to handle all the demands for dental care and set the goal of achieving a ratio of one dentist to 2,200 people. In doing so, it is also important to ensure that there is some standardisation in the dentistry care that is provided in the industry. This Bill helps to ensure that we strike the right balance between opening our doors and ensuring consistency in the profession. I have three points of clarification. My first point is on the implementation of the qualifying examination for foreign degree holders. Currently, SDC already administers a qualifying examination for graduates with foreign dentistry degrees from universities not specified in the Schedule to the Dentistry Act. The amendment to section 14A will expand this requirement to all graduates with foreign dentistry degrees, whether specified in the Schedule or not. The SDC’s website states that an applicant only has two attempts at the qualifying examination which must be taken within 12 months of each other. The feedback from the ground is that the qualifying examination is very stringent and the failure rates are fairly high. I agree that we should set the bar high for the profession. The fact that we have several graduates who are failing the qualifying examination is not a reason to lower the bar. However, we should consider giving more time.”
“Thank you, Sir. The Minister of State has shared that we cannot give the cash component of the Baby Bonus to singles or unweds because it is part of the Marriage and Parenthood package, the key word being "marriage". But I just want to point out that the CDA component of the Baby Bonus is also part of the Marriage and Parenthood package, but we do give it to the single unwed parents. So, why can we not just extend the other portion of the Baby Bonus to the single unweds? Again, I want to stress, we need to remember our own data shows that single unwed parents under 35 have a median salary of $600. Six hundred dollars for someone caring for a newborn! I think this cash that many of us are pushing for is not a luxury for them. It really is a lifeline and I hope MSF will reconsider this policy.”
“I wholeheartedly support this call and hope that we set a target year, perhaps 2030 or 2040, at which we will have an equal number of paternity leave and maternity leave. We can introduce the increases to paternity leave in phases, giving our employers time to plan ahead, while also providing a clear signal of our intentions to reduce the gender stereotype around parenting. I hope the Minister of State 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. Madam, lastly, can the Minister of State share if any public consultation was done for this Bill? If public consultation was not done, can Minister of State share the reasons why it was not done? Given the amendments have significant effects on many families and all employers, I am sure many would applaud the amendments in this Bill. I am also equally sure that many would have constructive feedback that would have helped refine the Bill further. Madam, this Bill is all about families and parenting. And we all need to remember the advice that Minister Vivian Balakrishnan gave us, "Life is a one-way ticket. A baby will only remain a baby for a very short time. They will grow up before we even realise it. The thing about life is we cannot rewind time. So, my advice to young parents here is, your children need you, they need you desperately and they need you only for a very, very transient time in their lives. If we miss it, we cannot get it back." Madam, notwithstanding the above points, I stand in support of this Bill.”
“Researchers at NUS looked into this and published their findings just a few months ago: "This is the first evidence-based research that documents the positive relationship between paternity leave provision and family dynamics and children's well-being in Singapore. It is useful to see that, in addition to the immediate benefit for fathers to share the joy and responsibility of childcare when a child is born, leave-taking has a mid-to-long-term impact on children's and family's well-being and that a longer leave has greater benefits to the children's well-being." They concluded that a two-week or longer paternity leave is significantly related to lower family conflict, maternal depression and mothers' parenting aggravation, and positively related to marital satisfaction and father-child closeness. In addition, children whose fathers took paternity leave have fewer behavioural problems. These findings were similar to an IPS research paper in 2019 that found that fathers who took paternity leave experienced reduced conflicts, stronger family relationships and increased satisfaction in their marriage. Madam, we are calling for more paternity leave not just for fathers to have more time with their babies but also to fight the gender stereotype. What message do we send out when we give mothers 16 weeks of maternity leave and fathers two weeks of paternity leave? The IPS research paper stated that, "Family policies in Singapore continue to signal that childcare is a woman's responsibility and reinforce gender stereotypes." Indeed, they do. The policy recommendations put forth by the IPS study include extending the length of paternity leave and that, instead of shared parenting leave, exclusive and non-transferable paternity leave can be put in place for parents.”
“We already provide them with the CDAC component of the Baby Bonus. We have levelled the playing field in terms of maternity leave. The cash component of the Baby Bonus will go a long way in helping single unwed parents build a stable environment for their children. This policy has to evolve, too. This discrimination may lead to the odd position where millionaires may be getting cash from the Baby Bonus, cash they do not need. But single unwed parents do not receive the same benefits, even though they are parents, too and even though many of them are low-income, with those under 35 years old having just a median salary of $600. Many single unwed parents need the cash component more than parents in dual-income families. They are not asking for more. They are asking to be treated fairly and equally. I sincerely hope that the Ministry will review this. My last point is on paternity leave. Members of this House will be no stranger to my daughters Ella, Katie and Poppy. Some Members tell me that they wait for me to say their names in my speeches. I have shared many of their stories in this House. All these stories come from the memories I have forged with them through time spent together, precious time, especially when they were little babies. I took my paternity leave, treasured it and wished I had more time. My factory is closed, so, I would never get paternity leave again, as Ms Joan Pereira has said, when you have twins, you will never have more kids. But I know how important this leave is and I want to make sure fathers have previous time with their children. I have said this many times: "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.”
“Madam, I would also like to take this opportunity to ask the Ministry to look into two other important issues, which I will cover in my second and third suggestions. My second suggestion is on providing the cash component of the Baby Bonus for single unwed parents. I have spoken up about this many times over the years and it is time that we allow single unwed parents to qualify for the cash component of the Baby Bonus. This Bill extends support to parents, including working fathers, adoptive mothers on short-term employment contracts, retrenched parents and parents with stillborn children. Single unwed parents are also parents. In fact, if it is difficult to be a working parent, single unwed working parents have an even heavier burden of filling the shoes of both parental figures both emotionally and financially. The Government's stance towards single unwed parents has evolved and I am appreciative of this. In 2019, then Senior Parliamentary Secretary Sun Xueling, in response to my Adjournment Motion, said, "Single unwed parents and their children are valued citizens in our society, 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. Their children, like any other children in our society, are precious and every parent, regardless of their marital status, ought to be treated with respect. I acknowledge that in the past, the Government was fairly strict in limiting public housing access to married couples. However, over time, this position has evolved. For single unwed parents, we hope to facilitate their efforts to build a stable environment for their child." Indeed, we have made much progress.”
“Madam, this Bill is a step in the right direction. It expands support to a wider group of working parents and promotes a more family-friendly working environment. The roles of working parents are already challenging in the best of times. Any support is even more welcomed in challenging times like the present pandemic. While I am supportive of the measures of this Bill, I sincerely hope we can amend this piece of legislation further and provide more support to more parents. I have three suggestions. My first suggestion is about leave benefits where to-be parents suffer a miscarriage. I am supportive of the move in this Bill to provide birth-linked leave and benefits to parents of stillborn children. This is a compassionate policy which recognises the need for these parents to recover both physically and emotionally. Will the Ministry consider going further and reviewing its leave policies where a mother miscarries before the 28th week of pregnancy? While a stillborn child is defined as a child who is birthed after the 28th week of pregnancy, the event is no less traumatic for parents where a mother miscarries in the 27th week of pregnancy. Currently, these mothers are not eligible for maternity leave. MOM's guidance instead states that these others may take sick leave to recover. However, suffering a miscarriage is very different from coming down with the flu. It is also the mother who is entitled to sick leave to recover physically. The reality is that these parents, both mother and father, may require time to recover together. Will the Ministry consider taking a first step by providing partial reimbursements to employers who provide leave benefits to parents where a mother miscarries before the 28th week of pregnancy?”
“Madam, I thank the Minister for the reply, but could I ask the second part of the Parliamentary Question, which is whether MSF will be proposing increases to the salaries of social workers in the next financial year? And second, I am sure they are not in it for the money, but I think a good salary would help in terms of retaining social workers where I think there is a problem. So, could I ask MSF what else it is doing to retain social workers?”
“Thank you, Madam. I thank the Minister of State for the reply. I think we have the very beautiful upcoming Khatib Bongsu Nature Park, which I think is going to be covered by marine trash and these alarming figures that the Minister of State has just mentioned. Clean-up after clean-up, we realise that it really and truly is never-ending. So, I am just wondering whether the Ministry of Sustainability and the Environment (MSE) can study this. By looking at the packaging labels, we can sort of determine where the trash came from. So, whether we can do some baseline study so that we can address the root of the problem. Secondly, as part of the Parliamentary Question, I think it is really an issue of the ships throwing their trash into the waters as well. So, can MSE also look into this and address these root causes?”
“We need to give childcare sick leave and parent-care leave to our working adults. We need to offer safe, calibrated ways for our fully vaccinated migrant workers to meet, socialise and unwind under strict safe management measures. Time and physical freedom are things the Government has the power to offer and I hope we take urgent, concrete steps to offer them.”
“These ad hoc outings provide this small group of workers brief respite. Such volunteer efforts, important as they are, are only temporary relief for a very small group of migrant workers. What is the Government's plan to let our migrant workers out of their dorms? Some migrant workers even live in dorms without recreation centres. In the short term, can we, at least, establish regional recreational centres, open up spaces, such as old schools and open fields, to let small batches of migrant workers hang out? In the long term, can we have a concrete timeline and plans to lift movement restrictions on our migrant workers? In particular, what is the plan for fully vaccinated workers when we reopen in Phase Three? These are workers who are also tested for COVID-19 regularly and live and work under strict safe management measures. As with everything we do, there are risks involved. But we can have various measures to mitigate the risks of these plans. We can do things in batches, in phases. It is not all-or-nothing. I remember at the start of our circuit breaker, many Members of this House as well as the Government spoke with heartfelt appreciation for the sacrifices of our migrant workers. But as our voices have wound down, our migrant workers' restrictions have not. They continue to suffer and, especially, suffer mentally. We need to take concrete action in the short term and make concrete plans in the long term to ensure our migrant friends can meet their human needs of socialisation and physical freedom. Madam, it is the right thing to do. Madam, in conclusion, I stand in support of the new Budget measures today. At the same time, I hope we will support those suffering by offering them something other than money.”
“For those lucky enough to still have their parents around, we need to give them the opportunity to care for them, particularly in this time of medical and social emergency. We need to legislate for parent-care leave urgently. Madam, my third and final point today is about our migrant workers. In the Resilience Budget, the Fortitude Budget and the various other supplementary Budgets, we have done a great deal to support Singaporeans and I thank the Government for that. Out of sight and out of mind for many of us are our migrant workers. For much of the past 15 months, migrant workers in our dorms have been confined within their dorms. For many workers, the only places they have been are literally just two places: their dorm and their worksite. Some can apply for leave to leave their dorm but I understand it is not for everyone and it is only for three hours. Three hours out of the 168 hours a week, out of their dorms or worksite. We Singaporeans complain about the restrictions on dining-in, about how we cannot squeeze our friends into a table of five or a table of two. These are fair complaints. But the problem we face is, for many migrant workers, a distant fantasy. They have not gotten to go shopping. They have not had the chance to meet their friends. They have not had the chance to walk free like human beings. Their basic human needs of socialisation, entertainment, physical freedom have not been met. And remember, they, too, are worried about their loved ones back home during this pandemic, loved ones they have not seen for years. I have heard heartening stories of volunteer groups that organise small group outings for migrant workers on Hippo buses with strict safe management measures in place.”
“These folks, having lived through the racial riots, the oil crisis, the Asian Financial Crisis and SARS, now face COVID-19, possibly the greatest challenge our nation has faced yet. For many, it is the straw that has broken the camel's back. Last year, suicides rose to its highest level in 10 years. The highest spike was seen among the elderly, with 154 elderly suicides, the highest in 30 years. Madam, I remember bringing my late father for his medical appointments and I know first hand how confusing it can be at times when we were navigating the hospital, going from department to department. This was the pre-COVID-19 days. Things have gotten much harder for our lonesome elderly folks. To attend a medical appointment, they have to fumble with TraceTogether and with SafeEntry, processes that may make no intuitive sense to them. The buildings they have to pass through may have half its entrances and exits mysteriously locked. The friendly faces on the streets whom they once asked for help are now covered by masks. It is an alien world for many of our elderly. How we help our oldest citizens is not a straightforward question to answer but we know with certainty that they need care and support. For those lucky enough to have family members who love them, we must unblock this channel of care. We must offer working adults parent-care leave. The Government already knows parent-care leave is important. That is why we offer it to our public servants. That is why public servants do take up such leave. But we need to extend this to the rest of our working adults. Not all of us choose to bear children but all of us were born from parents.”
“This is why it offers childcare sick leave to public servants and this is why 50% of public servants take up the option of childcare sick leave even though they might have access to annual leave, childcare leave and WFH already. What about the other Singaporeans? What about those whose jobs do not allow them to WFH? What about our frontline workers and essential workers who put their lives at risk for all of us? I have spoken to teachers at childcare centres. They describe how some parents plead and beg them to simply keep the child at the sick bay. The parents say, "I cannot take another day off work. I really cannot." The answer from the childcare centre is, of course, a "no". But parents are desperate. What has not been emphasised enough is the public health role that parents play. By taking time off to care for their symptomatic children, they keep all of us safe. Just as we should not take our essential workers for granted, we should not take parents for granted as well. Fifteen months. Fifteen months of sending symptomatic students home, of intermittent school closures, of on-and-off home-based learning. Parents need childcare sick leave to fulfil their public and moral healthcare responsibilities. The Government needs to legislate for this urgently. Let me stress that this is not leave to run errands or go for a break. I am calling for childcare sick leave which is backed by a medical certificate (MC), which is issued by a doctor. My second suggestion is about parent-care leave. We must legislate to provide our people with parent-care leave. It is not just the young ones who need our care. It is also the old folks, those confronting the harsh tides of ill health, unfamiliar technologies and lonely spaces.”
“Madam, I thank the Government for this Budget, a recognition of the unprecedented challenges facing our economy. That said, I hope the Government can also recognise that the problems sparked by this crisis are not just about money. They are also about time. And on that note, I am glad that our Second Minister for Finance, Minister Indranee Rajah is now also the Minister in charge of the National Population and Talent Division. She can give both money and time. Today, I will offer three suggestions related to time. My first suggestion is about childcare sick leave. Today, students are still being sent home from schools and childcare centres because they exhibit COVID-19 symptoms. This practice started in 2020 and it continues today, more than 15 months later. It is a good policy and I support it. Schools and childcare centres are places with high levels of personal interaction. Keeping symptomatic students at home protects other students and, in turn, protects their families. But it is also a policy that creates huge challenges for parents. Parents with children under seven years old only have six days of childcare leave a year. Even before the pandemic, parents had told me that it was not enough. It was just enough to cover them for the six days when childcare centres close every year. Now, they have to take leave even when their young child has only a mild cough or sore throat. They are at their wits' end. Worse still for parents whose youngest child is between seven and 12 years old. They only have two days of childcare leave. Work-from-home (WFH) arrangements are not enough. Childcare leave is not enough. Annual leave is not enough. This is not new to the Government.”