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 2 of 37.
“How do we ensure that their time in prison does not have the adverse effect of radicalising these individuals even further? Sir, notwithstanding these clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.”
“What steps will be taken to address the root causes of the conduct attracting the Restraining Order? My third and final point is on remediation for serious offenders. The Bill will provide for a CRI-Race. Under CRI-Race, persons who have engaged in conduct prejudicial to racial harmony can take remedial action for their conduct. Completing the programme can be taken into account by the Public Prosecutor in deciding whether to prosecute a race-related offence under the Bill. Underlying the CRI-Race is the principle of restorative justice. The offender will have the opportunity to learn and make amends. This restores any damaged community relations and can even serve to strengthen ties. However, the CRI-Race will not be offered if the offence is egregious. The Ministry has stated that criminal prosecution will be pursued to send a signal of non-tolerance for serious racial offending. I agree that prosecution may be necessary in serious cases. Appropriate punishment is also a form of repairing community relations by reinforcing healthy norms on race relations. However, punishment and rehabilitation are not mutually exclusive. Even serious offenders who are jailed, must eventually return and re-integrate into society. For these serious offenders, time in prison alone does not necessarily mean they will emerge with any better understanding of race relations. It may be even more important for these serious offenders to participate in programmes targeted to address deep-seated ideologies and misconceptions. These programmes should incorporate community-based approaches. Can the Minister share what programmes are available for the rehabilitation of serious race offenders who are not eligible for CRI-Race?”
“While the quorum requirement ensures that at least half of members must be present, the Presidential Council for Racial and Religious Harmony is also set up such that every member plays an important role in representing their racial or religious community. For instance, under the current Presidential Council for Religious Harmony, there is one representative for each major religious group. It is difficult to imagine a decision concerning a particular religious group without the representative from that group present. Without being prescriptive as to the procedures of the Presidential Council, can the Minister share if the chairperson of the Presidential Council for Racial and Religious Harmony should ensure the presence of representatives when decisions affecting their communities are deliberated and made? My second point is on Restraining Orders. When a Restraining Order is first imposed, the President may cancel, confirm or vary the Restraining Order if the advice of the Cabinet is contrary to the recommendation of the Presidential Council for Racial and Religious Harmony. However, when it comes to the extension of a Restraining Order, the President can only cancel a direction or confirm the direction without variation. Can the Minister share why the President does not have the discretion to vary the direction when it comes to the extension of a Restraining Order? Can the Minister also share what measures are available to address the root causes of racist conduct which necessitate the Restraining Order in the first place? When it comes to offences relating to race, the Bill introduces the possibility of community remediation. Individuals subject to a Restraining Order may similarly require intervention to address ideologies and misconceptions underlying the conduct.”
“Sir, I support this Bill which will strengthen our ability to address threats to racial harmony. The Bill does this holistically through not just quick and pre-emptive responses, but through community-based approach. I commend MHA for its broad consultation with the public and community leaders. We all have a stake in a multiracial and multi-religious society. The consultative process for the Bill reflects this priority. I have three points of clarification to raise. My first point is on the function of the Presidential Council for Racial and Religious Harmony. This will replace the Presidential Council for Religious Harmony. The Presidential Council for Racial and Religious Harmony is supposed to comprise representatives from all major racial and religious communities in Singapore. Race and religion are two distinct matters. Context, considerations and nuances for racial and religious matters will differ. Representatives from major racial communities may not be best placed to opine on religious matters and vice versa. Can the Minister share if the Ministry considered setting a distinct council for racial matters? Can the Minister share the rationale for having a combined council for racial and religious matters and how this is preferable to having distinct councils? Next, under section 9 of Schedule 1 on the Presidential Council for Racial and Religious Harmony, vacancy among its members does not affect the validity of the Presidential Council for Racial and Religious Harmony's proceedings. Presumably, the requirement that representatives from all major racial and religious communities in Singapore are present on the Presidential Council for Racial and Religious Harmony are to ensure that perspectives of all communities are considered.”
“Novel food technologies are an opportunity for Singapore to reduce our reliance on imported food and reduce our carbon footprint from importing food. Under Part 5, it is an offence to supply any defined food without pre-market approval. Section 13(1) sets out three categories of "defined food". These are novel food, genetically modified food and insect-like species as food. In turn, "novel food" is defined to include a substance that "has not been used to a significant degree as food for a period of at least 20 years, whether within or outside Singapore". There is some subjectivity in determining whether something has been used to a significant degree as food. Can the Ministry provide more guidance on how it will consider if a food or production process has gained sufficient normalcy that it is no longer considered novel in Singapore? How will the public and industry be made aware that the "defined food" is now considered by the Ministry to be normal "food" in Singapore? Will there be a plan for publicity and education? Notwithstanding my clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.”
“For instance, if a retailer has expired food and permits an individual to take them for their individual consumption, would the retailer be committing an offence? If no supply of food past its labelled date is permitted at all, can Minister share how the Ministry intends to mitigate food wastage? For instance, will SFA consider encouraging retailers to look for alternative avenues to sell or supply food that is close to its labelled date? Will SFA provide more support for initiatives and companies that help to redistribute food that is close to its labelled date? My second point is about the MSR. The MSR will require certain industry participants to hold a certain level of food or agri-food production input. I agree with the requirement, which strengthens Singapore's food security. But it may also increase the risk of food waste. Can the Ministry share what measures will be taken to ensure that food waste is minimised if MSR is imposed? For instance, will the Ministry support stakeholders subject to the MSR in reselling, redistributing or donating stocked food that is approaching expiry? Food waste can also occur if stakeholders do not have the logistical and operational capacity to properly maintain the stockpiles. Can the Ministry also confirm that the MSR quantity that will be set will take into account stakeholders' logistical and operational capacity to maintain the stocks? Will the Ministry also support the stakeholders that may be subject to the MSR in building their logistical and operational capacity? My third and final point is on the pre-market approval regime for defined foods. Part 5 of the FSSB provides a new framework for pre-market approval of novel food technologies.”
“Sir, this Bill consolidates and updates laws relating to food safety and security. I support this Bill, which allows Singaporeans to put food on the table with peace of mind every day and addresses the existential issue of food security for our nation. Last year, my fellow Members, Ms Poh Li San, Ms Hany Soh and Mr Edward Chia and I tabled the Good Samaritan Food Donation Bill in Parliament. The Good Samaritan Food Donation Act and the Food Safety and Security Act are complementary pieces of legislation, which strike a balance in ensuring safety of food while reducing food waste and insecurity. I have three points of clarification to raise on this Bill. My first point is on the supply of food past its labelled date. By labelled date, I am referring to expiry dates, consume-by dates, use-by dates, sell-by dates and best-before dates. Currently, it is already an offence to sell food that is past its labelled date. The FSSB goes further by making it an offence to supply food that is past its expiry or best-before date. This includes donating or giving food without receiving any money or money's worth. What this means is some food rescue or donation activities on the ground will become illegal. Some groups rescue and redistribute food that is past its labelled date. This is in the spirit of saving food that may be edible past its labelled date. Some groups, such as SG Food Rescue and Divert for 2nd Life, educate consumers to use the look-smell-taste test to determine if food past its labelled date is still safe to eat. Can the Minister clarify whether supplying food that is past its labelled date is permissible under any circumstances?”
“I am not giving a name of the company now, but I thought again that the problem now is we do list certain characteristics on the TAFEP website. We already state age, race, gender, religion, marital status, family, responsibility or disability. So, it is not a case where we do not state anything. We do state some characteristic that is protected under TAFEP, but we just leave out again sexual orientation and gender identity, and that is the issue where the LGBTQ+ community feel that then, it is not fair. TGFEP just sort of leaves them out and, to be inclusive, the website already lists some, it is fair enough that we should list these additional two characteristics.”
“I thank the Minister for the reply and the confirmation again that discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity is covered under the TGFEP. But, and it is a big but, this is actually not explicitly stated on the TAFEP website. It would mean a lot for the LGBTQ+ community if we can explicitly state on the TAFEP website that discrimination based on SOGI is covered under the Tripartite Guidelines. This would also help address the issue of under-reporting. Many might go on the website and realise it is not there, so they do not report it. So, explicitly stating it might help with the under-reporting. My second point is on whether it is fair to just leave SOGI under the Tripartite Guidelines because of the penalties. So, if you discriminate against someone who is lesbian or gay and the penalty is you cannot hire foreigners, how would that make sense?”
“There are many, many more groups and individuals who have fought hard for a more inclusive Singapore, including for LGBTQ+ individuals. While there are too many to name, I thank them too for their perseverance and advocacy. As former US President, Bill Clinton, said, "All of the country loses when any person is denied or forced out of a job because of sexual orientation. Being gay, the last time I thought about it, seemed to have nothing to do with the ability to read a balance book, fix a broken bone, or change a spark plug." Indeed, a person's sexual orientation or gender identity has nothing to do with their ability to do a job well. I support this Bill which ensures that we can live in a world without discrimination. And a world that is without discrimination must be inclusive regardless of a person's sexual orientation or gender identity.”
“This is the law that the Tripartite Committee on Workplace Fairness has cited as having had a positive impact on workplaces. I know that in Minister Tan's reply in Parliament in July 2023, he said that the Committee's recommendations were scoped tightly and to address the more common and familiar forms of discrimination. He said that it is better to take a measured first step, let stakeholders adjust to the new rules, before reviewing if more needs to be done. I agree that our workplace fairness laws should be measured. I welcome the suggestion that our laws will be reviewed and updated. However, it is one thing for the Bill to be silent on sexual orientation and gender identity and a very different thing for the Bill to expressly exclude sexual orientation and gender identity. Again, do we not feel this is a step back by reinforcing discrimination and promoting stigma against LGBTQ+ individuals? Given that the exclusions already exist under the Bill, I hope again that the Minister can provide a clear assurance that discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity is wrong, regardless of whether this position is codified under legislation. Will the Minister also share what data and factors he will consider in deciding when our laws should expressly prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity? I would like to end by thanking groups who have been fighting hard and tirelessly to ensure that we can live in a world without discrimination. In particular, I thank groups that have been speaking up against workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. They include Pink Dot SG, Oogachaga, Same But Different, SAFE, Project X, Q Chamber of Commerce, Action for Aids and AWARE.”
“It is likely that the data understates the scale of the problem and that LGTBQ individuals are under-reporting the discrimination they face. From 2018 to 2022 none of the 312 workplace discrimination complaints received by TAFEP and MOM were related to discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. The NUS School of Public Health survey found that for LGBTQ respondents who experienced workplace discrimination and harassment, only 10.71% reported it to their employer, 0.32% reported it to MOM, and only 0.97%, not even 1%, reported it to TAFEP. The express exclusion of sexual orientation and gender identity from this law is likely to worsen this discrimination. Employers may think they are free to discriminate against LGBTQ employees. Employees may have the belief that TAFEP, TADM and MOM will not assist them. Can the Minister provide a clear statement that discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in the workplace is wrong and unacceptable? Can the Minister also confirm that discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity is prohibited under the TGFEP and Prevention from Harassment Act? Will the Minister confirm that TAFEP, TADM, ECT and MOM will assist individuals who report being discriminated against at their workplace due to sexual orientation or gender identity and that LGBTQ+ individuals who face discrimination should feel safe to report workplace discrimination to TAFEP, TADM and MOM? Moving forward, can the Minister share a timeline for reviewing protections against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity? This would not be a radical step. The UK's Equality Act already includes sexual orientation as a protected characteristic.”
“But now, do we not think that we may deepen the stigmatisation by having our workplace fairness law single out sexual orientation and gender identity for exclusion? With this Bill, will we deepen the divides that we started to heal with the repeal of 377A? The Bill's carve-out of sexual orientation and gender identity is not merely hurtful to LGBTQ+ employees; it could also cause them to face additional workplace discrimination. Studies have shown that LGBTQ employees already face significant workplace discrimination. A 2024 study by the National University of Singapore (NUS) Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health found that over half of their respondents who were LGBTQ experienced discrimination or harassment at the workplace based on sexual orientation and gender identity. A 2022 study by AWARE and Milieu Insight found that 68% of LGBTQ+ persons reported experiencing discrimination compared to 56% of those who did not identify as LGBTQ. One respondent to the NUS School of Public Health study, who is lesbian, said that a headhunter warned her against bringing up her sexual orientation at a job interview because a previous candidate had been rejected for mentioning their same-sex spouse. Another respondent, who is gay, said he was told by his employer that he would not be appointed to a managerial position because of his sexual orientation. Indeed, hiring managers and HR representatives themselves have described this same type of discrimination. The Singapore LGBTQ+ Workforce Audit 2022, which polled 200 HR professionals and business leaders, found that only 64% of respondents said yes when asked if companies were open to recruiting and hiring diverse candidates, including LGBTQ individuals.”
“The Workplace Fairness Bill aims to foster fairer and more harmonious workplaces by protecting employees from unfair employment decisions. This Bill is the culmination of three years of efforts by the Tripartite Committee on Workplace Fairness. I thank the Committee for their hard work in studying laws from other countries, consulting a wide range of stakeholders and publishing both interim and final reports. Members have spoken on groups that will benefit from protection on the basis of age, nationality, sex, marital status, pregnancy, caregiving responsibilities, race, religion, language ability, disability and mental health condition. I just have one point to raise. The Workplace Fairness Bill is an inclusive and progressive one, but it has a glaring carve-out. As many Members have mentioned, specifically, section 10(2) excludes sexual orientation and gender identity from the definition of "sex". These are the only two characteristics that are expressly excluded from the Bill. What message are we sending? Are we telling LGBTQ+ people that they are not protected from workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity? Are we telling employers that it is okay to discriminate against someone because of their sexual orientation and gender identity? When we repealed section 377A, Minister Shanmugam explained, "The time has come for us to remove section 377A. It humiliates and hurts gay people". He said, "They deserve dignity, respect, acceptance. They do not deserve to be stigmatised because of their sexual orientation." By repealing 377A, Minister Shanmugam said that we will "start to deal with these divides, heal these divides, remove their pain".”
“There are existing mechanisms, such as striking out and cost orders, to deal with unmeritorious claims. However, as MinLaw has clarified, the amendments are not intended to cover typical cases that are struck out for the reason that it has no merit. Can the Minister of State clarify the qualitative difference between a case that is manifestly groundless or without foundation and a case that simply has no merit? Given that the test is that the individual know or ought to know, the standard is an objective one. Uncertainty on how the objective test is set leads to the concerns of parties pursuing an aggressive litigation strategy, unwittingly committing contempt of court. My third and final point is on the expansion of contempt liability to non-parties. Under the new section 3(7), individuals who cause or abet parties or advocates to file sham or groundless proceedings may be accountable for contempt of court. Can the Minister of State provide specific examples of influence by third parties that fall under the scope of section 3(7)? It is not unusual for litigants to seek advice and support from acquaintances and advisors on the conduct of their litigation. For some litigants, support from non-government organisations is very important in helping them in navigating the legal system. This is the reason why the State Courts have its Community Courts and Tribunals Clusters Friend Scheme. Section 3(7) may cause these well-meaning individuals to be fearful of providing much needed support for litigants to pursue justice. Sir, notwithstanding these clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.”
“This Bill clarifies that egregious abuses of court process amounts to contempt of court. While the amendments are intended to prevent abuse of judicial processes through frivolous and vexatious litigation, we should also minimise any potentially unimpeded impact. I have three points of clarification to raise. My first point is on what constitutes deception of the court. The new section 3(1)(da) makes it contempt of court to conduct or commence proceedings if they involve a deception of the court, are fictitious or constitutes a mere sham. It is fair litigation strategy to commence court proceedings even if a party's intention is to amicably settle the matter. Starting court proceedings is a commonly used tactic to signal to the other party the seriousness and strength of the other party's case. Commencing court proceedings with the intention of settling the case could be, in the strictest sense, a deception of the court or fictitious, in the sense that the party had no intention of seeing the proceedings all the way through to trial. Can the Minister of State elaborate on how it would distinguish between cases that would be deemed deception of the court and the use of court proceedings as part of fair litigation strategy? My second point is on what constitutes court proceedings that are manifestly groundless or without foundation. It is not unusual for lawyers and their clients to disagree on whether certain claims have merit or are supported by evidence. In certain cases, clients might instruct their lawyers to proceed with claims, even if they have been advised that the claims are weak. In other cases, clients may instruct their lawyers to file claims in the hope that more evidence will emerge through discovery to support their initially unsupported claims.”
“Thank you, Sir. Deputy Speaker was smiling quite a bit, so it worried me for quite a while, but I knew she was going to put her hand up. It is precisely because the mother needs to recover from childbirth that the father needs to be there. If the mother is recovering from childbirth, who is looking after the kid? Sometimes, of course, you can outsource it to the helper, but it is precisely that the mothers need to recover from childbirth, that is why we should give fathers the time to be there for the mother and for the children. I had raised this in my Adjournment Motion as well for extending parental leave for those with multiples – twins as well as pre-term babies. Again, for the same reason – as the mothers recover from giving birth to twins or pre-term babies, the fathers need to be there to spend time with the mothers and also look after the children. So, it is not a zero sum; it is not an either or. I am hoping, again, that we equalise so that both parents can be there for each other and for the children as well.”
“I thank the Minister and the Minister of State for all the reassurances and I look forward to more reassurances in the Minister of State's wrap-up speech on how we will encourage fathers to take more paternity leave, how we can have more targeted paternity leave policies for lower-income fathers and when we will eventually equalise maternity and paternity leave. Notwithstanding these clarifications, Sir, I stand in support of the Bill.”
“More recently, a Cultivate SG-commissioned poll done in mid-2024 on parenthood and work found that material and financial provision is the most common perceived role for fathers. In contrast, mothers are associated with care-oriented roles. I hope that we will eventually equalise the amount of paternity and maternity leave. This is an ambitious call but there are concrete steps we can take now. Let us start by setting a target year, perhaps 2030, or later, for equalising paternity and maternity leave. We can increase paternity leave in phases, like we are doing now, and give our employers time to plan ahead, while also providing a clear signal of our intentions to reduce gender perceptions of parenthood. Will the Minister of State look into this with tripartite partners and non-governmental oranisations, such as Families for Life and the Centre for Fathering? Let me end with one of my most favourite quotes, Minister Vivian Balakrishnan’s best quote, “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." I am grateful that the Government is providing more precious time for people to spend with their children. Our policies are changing and we are heading in the right direction.”
“A longitudinal study by the National University of Singapore Prof Jean Yeung found that fathers in more labour-intensive or lower-income roles are less likely to take paternity leave. She said that this segment of the population and their employers should be a key focus for policymakers and paternity leave policy. To quote Prof Yeung, "They may fear they will lose their jobs if they take the leave, so that they feel some pressure from their bosses and co-workers for taking this leave." Being a new father is stressful. They have to care and provide for a new life. For lower-income fathers in precarious jobs, the stress is even more acute. Fathers should not have to choose between spending time with their babies and keeping their jobs. We have laws which generally provide against unfair dismissal, but these may not provide sufficient assurance. Can the Minister of State share how we can have more targeted support for lower-income fathers to take their paternity leave? My third and final point is on equalising parental leave. I am glad that the default position is that the 10 weeks of shared parental leave will be equally shared. However, maternity leave is still four times that of paternity leave. The big gap between maternity and paternity leave entrenches gender stereotypes. A 2019 Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) research paper stated that “family policies in Singapore continue to signal that childcare is a woman’s responsibility and reinforces gender stereotypes”. This is a self-reinforcing loop. Because we give fathers less leave, they do not get to develop the skills and confidence needed to care for their kids. Thus, this, the IPS study finds, causes them to leave childcare to mothers.”
“I believe that fathers do want to spend more time with their newborn child. An online infant care poll in October 2022 by the Ministry of Digital Development and Information, found that 68% of respondents wanted themselves or their partners to be their infant's main caregiver but only 32% managed to make it happen. Many fathers I speak to tell me they do not have a supportive environment at their workplace and so, they do not feel they can take the leave. Taking the full four weeks of GPPL does not mean fathers can become their infant's main caregivers, but it means they can be more present in the first few weeks of their infant's life – precious and important few weeks – and start their fatherhood journey on a strong footing. In the Committee of Supply of 2022, Minister Indranee shared her thoughts on paternity leave, I quote, "We see more fathers wanting to be involved. Employers need to be onboard. Which is why, both at the Committee of Supply and now, I am reiterating, as, indeed, Mr Ng is, that it is actually better for your organisation if you are family-friendly. It is better for your organisation if you support fathers to take paternity leave and, of course, mothers as well. This is something that we need to work with the Tripartite Partners on. Mr Ng can be reassured that this is an area of work we will continue to look at." Unquote. I am glad the Minister has provided the reassurances and, indeed, steps have been taken, but it is timely to receive another reassurance. Can the Minister of State and Minister Indranee share what steps the Ministry will be taking to encourage fathers to take more paternity leave? My second point is on helping low-income fathers to take their paternity leave.”
“Sir, I wholeheartedly support this Bill, which will introduce policy changes that are very close to my heart. I have spoken up many times in this House about providing more paternity leave and equalising paternity leave, for making our policies fairer and sending a strong message that looking after a child is not just a mother's duty, but also that of the father's. This Bill will give our parents the most precious thing of all, more time. With this Bill, we will double paid paternity leave to a total of four weeks and introduce 10 weeks of shared parental leave. My parenthood journey with my daughters Ella, Katie and Poppy is the most rewarding journey I have taken. This journey started with paternity leave that allowed me to spend precious time with my babies. I hope many more fathers will be able to experience the same. I thank the Ministry and our hardworking civil servants for making Singapore a country that is made for families. As my colleagues know, I am a housefly when it comes to asking for more. Even as Minister Indranee swats and shoos me, I keep coming back for more. So, even as we celebrate this huge step forward, I also hope that we can look into three further points. My first point is on how we can encourage fathers to take more paternity leave. The Government has sent a strong signal to employers and fathers by increasing mandatory paternity leave to four weeks. This is only just the start. This legislative signal will have to be accompanied by softer measures to encourage and inspire fathers to actually take the leave. From 2018 to 2020, only about 40% of eligible fathers took the full two weeks of GPPL in each year. In 2022, the take-up rate for paternity leave stood at only 53%. For maternity leave, it was 74%.”
“I thank the Minister for the reply. I note that NParks had shared publicly that they are reviewing the penalties for animal cruelty and animal abuse to ensure they are effective in deterring such acts, back in October 2021. So, could I check with the Minister, what is taking so long? Is there something that is delaying the completion of this review? Second, the Minister had mentioned that they are going to consult widely. Could I check when the public consultations will be and also when will we be consulting the animal welfare groups, the vets and all the various stakeholders, including animal trainers as well?”
“Despite the order, the smoking persisted. The second-hand smoke continued to infiltrate Ms Zhong's home, severely affecting her mother's health and heart condition and their overall quality of life. Ms Zhong has documented the smoker's impact, reached out to other affected residents and sought enforcement of the order. Yet, she remains without a solution. What purpose does a legal order serve if enforcement is ineffective and citizens are left without protection? Recently, the media reported on the story of a woman whose seizures were triggered by her neighbours' smoking. Her husband wrote to me. She fell unconscious and had to be brought to the hospital in an ambulance. In this unfortunate case, it surfaced that the family had obtained a Court order for the neighbour to cease the smoking, but to no avail again. In fact, the family had to resort to obtaining a doctor's note stating that the woman's intracranial haemorrhage, which left her with seizures and paralysis, is aggravated by cigarette smoke. Her husband told the media, "My wife is left with only her left brain functioning. If another blood vessel bursts in her right brain, she will be pronounced dead." No one should have to live in such constant fear. There are solutions to these problems. We faced the same issues of enforcement for noise disputes, which this Bill addresses through its amendments. I hope we will take second-hand smoke just as seriously. Can the Minister share what solutions the Government is studying to address second-hand smoke in homes and whether CRU can also focus on neighbourly disputes on second-hand smoke? If not now, then, whether there is a timeline to include this? Notwithstanding these clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.”
“Those inhaling second-hand smoke are actually exposed to more chemicals than the smokers themselves. Sidestream smoke is four times more toxic than the smoke that a smoker inhales from the cigarette. For the vulnerable, including the elderly and young children, even a little is already too much. I am sure many colleagues will have the same experience of getting feedback from concerned residents about second-hand smoke in their homes. A 2022 survey I conducted highlighted the widespread nature of this problem. Out of 2,510 families surveyed, 1,183 reported experiencing second-hand smoke in their homes one to three times daily. When their neighbours smoke at balconies and at windows, second-hand smoke enters their homes and they feel helpless about the health risks facing their families. Ms Ang shared with me her family's struggles. Her young son suffers from sinus problems and asthma. Ms Ang's attempts to approach their neighbour to resolve the problem were futile. Her family endures a routine of closing all doors and windows to avoid the smoke whenever the smoker starts smoking. This daily adjustment comes at the cost of ventilation, fresh air and peace, even in their own home. Then, there is Ms Leu, who attempted to speak amicably with both sets of neighbours, one above and one below, who smoked regularly. Ms Leu's polite attempt and appeals were met with indifference, with one neighbour telling her to "close up all [her] windows" if she is allergic to smoke. Second-hand smoke poses very real health risks that can be fatal. Those who have sought recourse through the CDRT often run into dead ends too. Ms Zhong and her elderly mother live above a neighbour who smokes persistently. They obtained a CDRT order banning smoking in the neighbour's flat.”
“How will the agency ensure that the data is expunged across the board by all Ministries and agencies? My third point is on tribunal orders to address hoarding. Under the new sections 11A and 13L, a tribunal and the DG have powers to make orders or authorise officers to exercise powers with or without the consent of the owner or occupier. These powers include disposing things contributing to hoarding, entering into a place of residence to investigate unreasonable interference and seizing items used to cause unreasonable interference. Can the Minister explain what it means that an order or power may be carried out with or without the consent of the owner? Is an officer supposed to first attempt to seek consent before taking steps without their consent? Can the Minister provide examples of what would constitute unreasonable interference and clarify if hoarding that does not reach the level of being unsafe or unhygienic may, nonetheless, constitute unreasonable interference? In situations where the removal or disposal of items are ordered, can the Minister clarify who will bear the costs for such removal or disposal? My fourth and final point is on second-hand smoke in homes. I will raise this again in hope that we will review our policies to save lives. The CRU focuses on neighbourly disputes on noise and hoarding. These are important issues which affect someone's quality of life. I am glad we are taking steps to address them. I hope we will put in equal effort to tackle second-hand smoke, which kills. According to the World Health Organization and the Ministry of Health, there is no safe level of exposure to second-hand smoke. We are talking about conditions like coronary heart disease, stroke and lung cancer.”
“Sir, this Bill will enhance the powers of agencies to intervene in and facilitate the effective resolution of neighbour disputes. I have four points of clarification to make. My first point is on the roles and powers of CRO and ACROs. Under the new sections 13C and 13D, an individual who is not a Police officer, public officer or an employee of a Statutory Board may be appointed an ACRO. The requirement is that this individual must have suitable training to properly exercise the powers of an ACRO. Can Minister share how the powers of a CRO and an ACRO are different? What is considered suitable training for an ACRO and who will provide the training? The DG may issue a CRO and an ACRO with equipment necessary for them to discharge their duties. Can the Minister give examples of equipment that might be provided to a CRO or an ACRO? My second point is on the protection of monitoring data. Data that is collected for the purpose of community disputes can be highly intrusive. That is the reason the Government has given in response to my suggestion, that we use cameras to catch people who are smoking at their windows or balconies. The new section 13X provides that any monitoring data collected must only be used for performing duties under the Act. The CRU which carries out the functions of the Act is a multi-agency initiative by MinLaw, MCCY and MND. This means that there are at least three Ministries which may use the monitoring data collected. Can the Minister share exactly which Ministries and agencies will have access to the monitoring data obtained by an officer or recorded in any detection and monitoring equipment installed? What is the period of storage of such data? How will this data be expunged and which agency shall ensure the expungement?”
“These provisions ensure that the cost of undoing any damage done is not externalised to taxpayers. Can the Senior Minister of State clarify what is the intended effect of introducing wording that PUB may recover costs it thinks "just"? What criteria will PUB apply in determining when it will or will not recover costs? Can the Senior Minister of State share how actively the existing cost recovery provisions have been utilised? Can the Senior Minister of State share the quantum of the sums that have been recovered and the types of cases where PUB have taken steps to recover expenses? Can the Senior Minister of State also share whether PUB's intention is to rely on the cost recovery mechanisms more often in the future? My third and final point is on PUB's powers to enter any premises without notice in cases of emergencies. Under the current Act, powers to enter without notice may only be exercised for classes of premises declared by the Minister to be liable to inspection without notice or where an authorised officer suspects that an offence was committed. The Bill makes eleven amendments to allow PUB to enter any premises without notice to carry out urgent rectification works in cases of emergency. This is a significant expansion of PUB's powers. Can the Senior Minister of State provide more guidance on what situations constitute cases of emergency? Can the Senior Minister of State also share which individuals will determine whether there is a case of emergency requiring entry without notice? Upon entry without notice, is there a time limit within which PUB is required to notify the owners of the entry? Notwithstanding my clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.”
“I have to apologise to you as well, I guess, for whatever I have done. Sir, this Bill will secure our used-water system, enhance our flood resilience and enhance PUB's operations. I have three points of clarification to raise. My first point is on the introduction of minimum fines. Sections 16, 16A and 17 will be amended to impose minimum fines for offences relating to discharge of dangerous or hazardous substances. Mandatory minimum sentences restrict a judge's ability to exercise discretion in determining an appropriate sentence based on the facts before the court. I appreciate that mandatory minimum sentences can send a public signal on the severity of an offence and serve a deterrent effect. Mandatory minimum sentences may also signal the Government's view that the sentences imposed by the courts, thus far, have not been sufficiently high. However, there are less restrictive measures for achieving deterrence and signalling to the court that heavier sentences should be imposed. This may include sentencing guidelines by the Sentencing Advisory Panel or even statements from the Minister in Parliament on the severity that certain offences should carry. Can the Senior Minister of State elaborate on why it is necessary for these offences to resort to mandatory minimum sentences? My second point is on the recovery of expenses incurred by PUB. Under the current Sewerage and Drainage Act, there are provisions for PUB to recover expenses reasonably incurred by PUB, including from persons who fail to comply with PUB's notices and orders or in cases of emergencies. The Bill will introduce amendments to refine the PUB's powers to recover and apportion costs and expenses as it thinks just. I support such recovery mechanisms based on the polluter pays principle.”
“More generally, can the Senior Parliamentary Secretary share what follow-up steps are taken by the Ministry upon reviewing the EEOA and MEES reports submitted, to help companies achieve more efficiency in their energy use? Notwithstanding these clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.”
“Presently, a registrable corporation with a water-cooled tube water system installed is required to submit a first report by 1 December 2025, to show that its operating tube water system performance meets the MEES threshold and that its measurement and verification system is accurate. According to NEA, existing industrial facilities that are not yet regulated under ECA will be required to conform to MEES and submit a first report by 1 December 2029. This is five years away. Can the Senior Parliamentary Secretary share whether there are plans to stagger the timeline of report submissions by the various facilities over this five-year period? Prior to the first report submission before the long-stop date, what measures will be taken by NEA to encourage the other industrial facilities to meet and surpass the MEES? My third and final point is on how the EEOA and MEES reports submitted to NEA are used to encourage improvements in energy performance. It is commendable that we are expanding the scope of reporting to more facilities. However, report submission is not the end in itself. The ultimate purpose of these reports is to spur improvements in energy performance. NEA has shared that for MEES reports, NEA will review the annual average operating system performance and other key performance data of the tube water systems annually. Can the Senior Parliamentary Secretary explain what NEA will do with the findings of its review? Will these findings be communicated to companies or published on an aggregated industry-wide level so that companies can benchmark their performances?”
“Sir, this Bill will expand the scope of energy conservation measures. It will extend minimum energy efficiency standards to more existing industrial systems and require more works under the URA Plan Lodgment scheme to undergo an energy efficiency opportunities assessment. I have three points of clarification to raise. My first clarification is on the categories of individuals with duties under the ECA. Under ECA, every company is required to appoint energy managers. The new section 23A will also require a relevant person with operational control over any energy consuming systems to be registered. Duties and offences are prescribed for these individuals and relevant corporations. It is less clear what duties company directors and officers bear. It is possible that company directors or officers may be liable if a registered corporation commits an offence with the consent or convenience of the director or officer. But this is not spelled out clearly in ECA. This leads to ambiguity over the responsibilities of directors and officers. In other areas, such as workplace safety, the duties of directors and chief executives are clearly provided for. There is even a code of practice on chief executives and board of directors workplace safety and health (WSH) duties. On matters of sustainability and energy, the duties of company leaders are less clear. Can the Senior Parliamentary Secretary elaborate on the duties of company directors and officers when it comes to energy conservation measures under ECA? My second point is on the long-stop date for report submission.”
“I thank Minister of State for the reply. We have the Award for Nurses’ Grace, Excellence and Loyalty (ANGEL) scheme for nurses, which is a financial retention scheme, very similar to the CONNECT Plan that we use to retain teachers. That has shown to work. So, could I ask whether we can have a similar programme or just extend the ANGEL programme to the administrative and support staff, who work alongside our nurses and should be equally valued as well?”
“Under section 61MA(4) of the Parliamentary Elections Act and section 42LA(4) of the Presidential Elections Act, the ban does not apply to communications which are "of a private or domestic nature". As other Members have shared, certain social media or messaging platforms can be used to communicate content to a large number of people, even within private chat groups. WhatsApp allows for groups of up to 1,024 members; Telegram supports groups of up to 200,000 members; and a person can add up to 5,000 friends on Facebook. Will a message sent to a private group chat with the maximum number of members or a Facebook post, which is set to private but viewable by 5,000 friends, still be considered a private communication? What factors, aside from the number of persons receiving the communication, will the Returning Officer consider when determining whether the communications are "of a private or domestic nature"? Sir, notwithstanding these clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.”
“Will the requesting candidate or prosecution need to establish actual belief or is potential belief sufficient? Can the Minister also clarify how the threshold of "some members of the general public" compare to thresholds under other laws which deal with misinformation? For instance, under the tort of defamation, a statement that is defamatory "tends to lower the plaintiff in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally". Under POFMA, a statement of fact is "a statement which a reasonable person seeing, hearing or otherwise perceiving it would consider to be a representation of fact". By contrast, the offence of publishing manipulated OEA only requires the candidate to show that the deepfake would be regarded as genuine by "some members of the general public". Certain segments of the general public, such as the elderly, are less technologically-savvy and they may regard a deepfake to be genuine more readily than other segments of society. This may lead to a situation where material that is found to be manipulated OEA, may not necessarily meet the threshold for the offence of communicating fake statements or facts under POFMA. A candidate may succeed in obtaining a correction directive for manipulated OEA but may not succeed under the tort of defamation. Can the Minister explain how the level of belief necessary to establish the offence of publishing manipulated OEA compares to the requisite state of mind under other laws which deal with misinformation? If the differences in thresholds are intended, can the Minister share the rationale for the differentiated thresholds? My third and final point is on the exceptions to the ban on deepfakes during elections.”
“In Pakistan's 2024 elections, former-Prime Minister Imran Khan's party used AI to create and disseminate speeches based on notes that he passed to his lawyers from prison. Khan even delivered an AI-generated victory speech after wins by independent candidates backed by his party. The deepfake may be made of individuals who are not even alive. In the Indian state of Tamil Nadu, a political party used AI to recreate video speeches by a long-deceased party leader, in which he complimented current party leaders. A candidate who is benefiting from a deepfake may have no incentive to curb the spread of that deepfake. For the avoidance of any doubt, can the Minister confirm if any candidate can request for corrective directions to be issued, not just candidates who are the subjects of the concerning content? My second point relates to the level of belief necessary to establish the offence of publishing manipulated OEA. Under section 61MA(1)(e) of the Parliamentary Elections Act and section 42LA(1)(e) of the Presidential Elections Act, the representation must be realistic enough that it is likely that some members of the general public would, if they heard or saw the representation, reasonably believe that the candidate said or did that thing. Can the Minister clarify how the Returning Officer and the Court should determine whether this standard of realism is met? The timeframe for a Returning Officer to make a corrective direction is much shorter than Court proceedings prosecuting the offence. It will be more difficult for a requesting candidate to gather evidence within a short timeframe than a prosecution collecting evidence after the fact. What kind of evidence must the candidate requesting for corrective directions submit?”
“Sir, this Bill seeks to uphold the integrity of Singapore's electoral process by giving the Returning Officer certain powers to combat deepfakes that misrepresent candidates during the General Elections and Presidential Elections. I have three points for clarification to raise. My first point is on the candidates who have the right to request that corrective directions be issued. Under section 61N(2A) of the Parliamentary Elections Act and section 42LA(4) of the Presidential Elections Act, candidates may request the Returning Officer to take action against manipulated OEA. The wordings of the provisions are broad enough to include both situations where the deepfakes prejudice and advantage candidate. However, MDDI's public statements appear to suggest that only candidates who have been prejudiced by deepfakes can request corrective directions. For instance, in a press release on 9 September 2024, MDDI stated, "Candidates who have been misrepresented by such content can make a declaration to attest to the veracity of his/her claim." In another media article, a MDDI spokesperson was quoted as saying, "In the case of deepfakes featuring political candidates, we do need the individual to come forward and say that this is a misrepresentation." What if, conversely, the deepfake is beneficial to its subject? Do other candidates running in the same election have the right to request corrective directions? This is not a hypothetical scenario. AI was used by the main presidential candidates in Argentina's elections in 2023. In addition to damaging images of the opposing candidate, the candidates also produced favourable deepfake posters of themselves.”
“Just one last point. This is a rule from SFA that the food should be consumed within four hours. In fact, I know that many of the food is actually prepared at about 4.00 am. So, by the time it is delivered and when the workers are on the lorry, actually the food has already passed the four-hour mark. So, it is our rule and I am just wondering whether SFA can now work with MOM to make sure that this rule is actually enforced.”
“Sir, I thank the Senior Minister of State for the reply. I just want to ask this. I think we know that many of the workers have their lunch at about noon. That means the food can be prepared, the earliest time is 8.00 am. But we also know that by 8.00 am, many of these workers are already at the worksite or on the way to the worksite. This is not even counting the time it takes to deliver the food. By working backwards, we will know that the reality on the ground is that many workers are every day eating food beyond this four-hour rule that we have. Could I ask whether SFA can look into this and address this problem on the ground?”
“8% of HPS applications are expected to benefit from these amendments? Given that the basis for their rejection may now be re-evaluated, will such applicants be notified that they can submit a new application to be considered again? It would be a shame if the expansion of the HPS fails to benefit seriously ill segments of the population purely because they were unaware that their rejection could be reconsidered. Notwithstanding these clarifications, I stand in support of this Bill.”
“In 2022, the CPF Board shared that they expect about eight in 10 active CPF members turning 55 in 2027 to be able to set aside at least the BRS. Moving forward, will the Government regularly share the number of members expected to reach the BRS, FRS and the ERS? My second point is on how the changes to the HPS will impact current members with pre-existing conditions. Currently, the CPF Board already has the power under section 31(2) of the CPF Act to allow a person who is not in good health to join the HPS. Such a person must apply to the CPF Board to join the HPS. The CPF Board may impose conditions, such as requiring medical examinations and disclosure of health information. The amendments will allow the CPF Board to impose additional terms, such as the exclusion of pre-existing health conditions and impose premium loading. Can the Minister share if there are members who are not in good health but are already covered under the HPS under the section 31(2) exception? For these members, will the amendments affect the terms and conditions to which they are currently subject to? My third and final point is on the members with pre-existing conditions who are not currently under the HPS. The explanatory statement states that the amendments are intended to permit persons with "certain serious health conditions" to join the HPS, subject to premium loading. The Minister previously shared that about 1.2% to 1.8% of HPS applications were not approved due to serious pre-existing medical conditions. Will there be an exhaustive list of these "certain serious health conditions" that the Ministry will use to include or exclude individuals from the HPS going forward? What proportion of the previously rejected 1.2% to 1.”
“Sir, this Bill will refine the CPF scheme and I stand in support of it. I have three points of clarification to raise. My first point is on the closure of the SA for members 55 years old and above. The new section 13AA(1) provides for an exception where the SA of a member who has attained 55 years of age may not be closed if any prescribed circumstances apply. Can the Minister explain what it intends these circumstances to be? The closure of the SA was the subject of extensive discussion during the Committee of Supply debates earlier this year. It has also been the subject of much discussion by the general public. The policy is understandably of significant concern for some Singaporeans who have to reconsider their retirement nest eggs. CPF members may top up or transfer savings from their OA to SA to enjoy higher interest rates while building a retirement sum enough to enjoy the highest possible monthly payouts in retirement. This results in a higher-yielding SA that can be withdrawn on demand after they turn 55. I am heartened to see that there have been numerous explainers by both the CPF Board and the Government to clarify the rationale for the changes. But the reality remains that some CPF members will need to re-evaluate their retirement strategies. Can the CPF Board and the Government share what steps and resources will be extended to members to help them navigate the impact of this new policy on their personal retirement plans? Can the Government also share how many members are expected to be able to reach the FRS following the top-up from the SA? This milestone is significant to members because after it is reached, the balance in the SA will go to the OA.”
“The Government previously had Green Mark Incentive Schemes to help improve the environmental standards of buildings. Can the Senior Minister of State provide an update on the utilisation of these schemes and consider refreshing them in light of the new regulations? If not, what other support will we be providing to building owners to help them comply? Besides financial support, we also need innovation to drive disruptive change to the energy usage of our built environment. In 2022, the Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) launched the Green Economy Regulatory Initiative (GERI) to consolidate sandbox efforts by Government agencies. The one-stop platform is aimed at businesses with solutions in sustainability that face regulatory impediments or lack of clarity around existing regulations. Can the Senior Minister of State share whether the Ministry of National Development has worked with entrepreneurs to trial green products or services relevant to the energy efficiency of buildings through this initiative? If so, what has been the outcome of these trials? Sir, notwithstanding these clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.”
“However, it is not clear if both groups go through the same standard of continuing professional development to keep their skills relevant. BCA requires energy auditors to participate in continuing professional development activities relating to green building and energy management. Can the Senior Minister of State share if it has verified that professional engineers undergo sufficient continuing professional development courses to ensure that their skills relating to green buildings are up to date? Can the Senior Minister of State share how BCA ensures that professional engineers are also equipped with relevant skills for performing energy audits? Next, under section 22FB(3), the specified individual may include in the audit report any finding that it is impracticable for any Type 1 building to meet the specified reduction in energy use intensity. Can the Senior Minister of State share examples of situations that might be considered impracticable for meeting the specified reduction in energy use intensity? For instance, would financial cost be potentially a situation as to why meeting the specified reduction is impracticable? If so, what is the extent of the financial burden required to meet the standard of impracticability? If a finding of the energy audit is that the specified reduction is impracticable, can the Ministry clarify what steps will be taken to identify a more achievable interim reduction goal, with a roadmap for eventually reaching the specified reduction? My third and final point is on the support for and collaboration with building owners and businesses to green our built environment. We must not forget that these new regulations will come with an increased business cost for building owners and businesses.”
“This Bill expands our framework for environmental sustainability in buildings by identifying energy-intensive buildings and requiring their owners to improve their energy efficiency. I support this Bill, which will advance goals set out in our Green Building Masterplan. We have been making good progress. BCA reports that the overall energy use intensity of our buildings has dropped by 29% between 2008 and 2023. I commend BCA for their efforts and commitments in constantly improving our built environment. I have three points of clarification to raise. My first point is on the classification of energy-intensive buildings that the new regime under Part 3B is intended to cover. The new regime involves identifying energy-intensive buildings to require owners of these buildings to improve their energy efficiency. Can the Senior Minister of State share the criteria that will be used to identify energy-intensive buildings? Can the Senior Minister of State also share how often BCA will review this criteria and whether there are plans to progressively strengthen this criteria? As buildings age and technology improves, we should actively push building owners to meet the latest standards in environmental sustainability. I hope that we will eventually work towards having as many buildings be super low energy or net-zero as possible. My second point is on the provisions relating to energy audits. Section 22FB provides that a mechanical engineer, an energy auditor or any prescribed class of individuals may be appointed to carry out an energy audit. This is consistent with BCA's Energy Auditor Scheme, which provides that professional mechanical engineers need not register as an energy auditor.”
“The new section 166A(3)(c)(iii) requires NPGC, before making a substitution for a third-party Exclusion Order or a Third Party Visit Limit, to be satisfied that it is in the best interests of the respondent and his or her family members. Given that it is no longer a requirement for hearings to be conducted, can the Minister of State explain how the NCPG will obtain all evidence necessary to determine whether a substitution is appropriate? While the amendments require the NCPG to provide the party concerned a reasonable opportunity to make representations on the relevant matter, since a hearing is no longer required, there is a higher risk that the NCPG may not hear from a party. Where a party does not make representations, can the Minister of State share if the NCPG will proactively request material or evidence from the relevant agencies or individuals to ensure it has the full information to make the determination? Notwithstanding these clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.”
“Can the Minister of State provide some examples of whole-of-Government considerations that the Minister for Home Affairs is better placed than the GRA to take into account? My second point is on the removal of the requirement for a hearing before Exclusion or Visit Limit Orders are made. A number of provisions, including sections 157, 158, 164 and 166, will be amended to remove references to a “hearing”. The effect of these changes is that the NCPG or one of its committees does not always need to hold a hearing for applications. The amended provisions still require the NCPG or its committees to give a person a reasonable opportunity to object to an application for an order against him or her or to make representations. Can the Minister of State explain the rationale for removing the requirement for a hearing? Can the Minister of State clarify whether following the amendments, by default, the NCPG or committee will not hold a hearing for applications? Are there situations where the NCPG or a committee may nonetheless decide to hear an application? If so, what are the types of cases where a hearing may be deemed necessary? My third and final point is on the powers of the NCPG to substitute an Exclusion Order with a Visit Limit, and vice versa. The new section 166A lists the types of substitutions that can be made and sets out the tests for when the NCPG may make a substitution. MHA explained that this amendment is to address the inefficient current situation where NCPG or the committee can only revoke an existing Exclusion Order or Visit Limit, and subsequently impose a new Visit Limit or Exclusion Order. This process usually takes one or two months.”
“This Bill will improve the effectiveness of our casino regulatory regime, tighten the regulation of casinos and licensees and strengthen protection for vulnerable groups. MHA shared that our regulatory regime has worked well and these amendments are part of MHA’s regular reviews of our laws. I am glad that we are proactively reviewing our laws to ensure our legislative framework is able to meet anticipated developments in the gambling landscape. I have three points of clarification to raise. My first point is on the responsible entity or individual for approving changes in main shareholders. For main shareholders, section 42 will be amended to require the Minister’s approval, instead of GRA's approval, for the divestment and acquisitions of shareholdings relating to main shareholders. In its press release, MHA explained its rationale: “The Minister for Home Affairs would be better placed than the GRA to take into account whole-of-Government considerations, in deciding whether to approve divestments and acquisitions relating to main shareholdings.” Can the Minister of State clarify what whole-of-Government considerations will the Minister for Home Affairs take into account when approving divestments and acquisitions of main shareholders? I ask this question because the GRA has long been entrusted to make complex assessments on long-term viability and economic prospects when deciding on casino licence applications. It is unclear why the GRA is now a poor fit for making considerations about main shareholders. How are considerations related to main shareholders different from considerations that the GRA must already take into account when approving casino licences?”
“If such provisions were not studied, will the Ministry consider looking into provisions which require platform operators to improve the transparency of their decision-making systems and processes? Sir, notwithstanding these clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.”
“The lack of a low-cost dispute resolution mechanism in the Bill, such as the equivalent of filing a claim at Tripartite Alliance for Dispute Management (TADM) or a mediation request at TAFEP, means that platform workers may have little or no viable options to dispute the platform operator's decision to remove or discriminate against the platform worker. This would result in a loss of income to the platform worker and this will, in turn, affect their housing and retirement adequacy. Can the Senior Minister of State share whether the Ministry looked into the need for mechanisms for recourse against unfair dismissal and discrimination? If so, what were the considerations for excluding these mechanisms from this Bill? Will the Ministry study the possibility of including these mechanisms in the future? My third and final point is on the transparency of decision-making by platform operators. Regulators in other states have introduced policies to make more transparent decision-making by platform operators. For example, in April 2024, the European Parliament adopted the Platform Work Directive, which required platforms to provide workers with written information about the automated monitoring and decision-making systems that it uses. For platform workers, this could mean transparency over key factors, such as the distance, destination and share of tips received, how their rating was derived, which, in turn, affects the jobs assigned to them and the amount that they earn. Can the Senior Minister of State share if the Ministry looked into the necessity of introducing similar provisions under this Bill? If so, can the Senior Minister of State share why these provisions were not included?”