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 21 of 37.
“Thank you, Sir. I have two clarifications on the Cross Island Line (CRL). I thank Senior Minister of State Lam Pin Min for sharing that they are exploring the non-playing areas in SICC so that we can move the worksite A1W1. But can I check whether we are looking into moving just a partial worksite of A1W1, or moving the entire worksite into the non-playing areas in SICC? The second question is with regard to the establishment of the Environmental Advisory Panel that we are setting up to provide independent assessment of the implementation of the environmental monitoring and management plan. Can I just check who is LTA going to select to be part of this Panel?”
“Sir, there is no doubt that the Cross Island Line is needed and I also have no doubt that we can reduce its impact on our biodiversity. People are concerned that the clearance and construction work at worksite A1W1 will have a major impact in breaking up wildlife habitats. It would mean that tree-dwelling animals like the Raffles' Banded Langurs might not be able to get from one forest patch to another and this will threaten their survival. There are only 61 Raffles' Banded Langurs left in Singapore. The stakes are extremely high. These highly threatened monkeys are only found in the Central Catchment Nature Reserve. This is one of their last strongholds. If the forest is cleared for the worksite, the Langurs who rely on tree canopies will be forced to come down to the ground to use the roads to cross and they will likely get injured or killed. We know through the work of Dr Andie Ang that a bachelor group of four male Langurs – Leonardo, Michelangelo, Donatello and Raphael – need the forest at the worksite A1W1. While mitigation measures have been proposed, Dr Andie feels that these measures will not work. She personally told me that she fears for the survival of this species. Will MOT consider moving worksite A1W1 further into Singapore Island Country Club (SICC) where the forest that the Langurs need will not be impacted? Engineers”
“It is a confirmation, actually. I just want to confirm with the Senior Parliamentary Secretary that when HDB receives a complaint, they go down and investigate. If the cat is not causing any disamenities, the resident will not be asked to remove the cat. Am I correct to say that?”
“Thank you, Sir. I am very happy that the person that is sitting on the chair I used to sit on also now asks animal-related questions. But if I could bring the topic back to cats. Can I just ask Senior Parliamentary Secretary that the current rule is that you are not allowed to keep a cat in a HDB flat. So, how and when does HDB enforce this ruling, because a lot of the residents I see, most of the time is because they complained against a neighbour and the neighbour, then realises, "Oh. You have a cat there. Now, I complain about the cat." And the cat becomes a sort of collateral and then, they are forced to remove the cat. Let me repeat – when does HDB enforce the current rule of a resident not allowed to keep a cat in an HDB flat. The second clarification is back to the divorcees with shared care and control. I am very thankful that we will exercise flexibility for those where one party has already has private housing. But could I ask further whether we can waive the mutual consent if both parties that have shared care and control are low income, meaning that both cannot really afford to buy from the open market and would need subsidised HDB flats?”
“Cats in HDB Flats Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong (Non-Constituency Member): Chairman, Sir, earlier this year, I asked the Minister whether it is timely to consider removing the ban on keeping pet cats in HDB flats and to regulate pet cat keeping to minimise disamenities for neighbours. Minister replied no, citing reasons of irresponsible pet ownership causing inconvenience to neighbours and unhappiness. I find this line of reasoning inconsistent, as this is applicable to all pets and pet owners. But the ban is only specifically on cats. Domestic cats are unlikely to cause the dis-amenities that Minister cited. Studies have shown that cats spend 25% of their waking hours cleaning themselves; their natural instinct is to cover up and hide their waste, which can be done in a litter box. Sterilised cats are unlikely to caterwaul and even if they do, some of the reasons could be to alert their owners to outside activity, or they may be in pain or feeling stressed, which are similar reasons why dogs bark too. 5.30 pm The ban is outdated. Today, many younger families and families of all ethnic groups are pet cat owners. Regulating pet cat ownership in HDB flats will be more beneficial than a ban as it may give many stray cats a loving home and allow cat lovers to take care of their cats at home with peace of mind. Regulation can include ensuring domestic cats remain indoors, microchipped and sterilised and a framework to encourage community acceptance and having mediation channels for disputes. I read with interest the latest news that the dog size limits for HDB have been relaxed so as to allow more local mixed-breed dogs to be rehomed in HDB flats under Project ADORE. I hope cats, no less adorable to many Singaporeans, may be included. Adopting IUCN Red List for Pet Trade”
“However, size is not a good proxy of the behaviour or temperament of a dog. Researchers have found that larger dogs are perceived as more obedient, less anxious and less aggressive compared to smaller dogs. As the saying goes, "It's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog." As part of the pilot, will MND consider removing the height criterion so that more dogs can be re-homed? Allowing Cats to be Kept in HDB Flats Lastly, it does not make sense that someone who lives in a condo is allowed to keep a pet cat while someone who lives in a HDB flat is not allowed. Why? HDB has stated that "[Cats] are generally difficult to contain within the flat. When allowed to roam indiscriminately, they tend to shed fur and defecate or urinate in public areas, and also make caterwauling sounds, which can inconvenience your neighbours." Surely, these concerns apply to people staying in condos as well. Some condo units are even smaller than HDB flats. It also does not make sense that one is allowed to keep a dog, and now a big dog, but not a cat, not even a little kitten. Dogs can also shed fur and defecate or urinate in public areas. What is more, they bark. HDB's concerns can be easily addressed. We can ensure that pet cats do not roam indiscriminately and are sterilised. Sterilised cats do not make caterwauling sounds. I have seen firsthand how all these simple measures can be taken and people can keep cats in their flats without affecting their neighbours. So many people are already keeping cats in their flats. Will the Ministry consider taking the step to officially allow people staying in HDB flats to keep cats?”
“Sir, the BCA Green Mark Scheme is a good policy that we should build on. Young PAP and climate activists have proposed that the scheme be reviewed and updated with a more weight given to reducing energy consumption and shifting dependence to greener sources. The School of Design and Environment Block Four (SDE 4) at NUS is a good example. It has net-zero energy consumption. It uses a hybrid cooling system that combines the use of air-conditioning and ceiling fans to provide thermal comfort to building occupants. YP and climate activists have proposed that such features be propagated to new buildings. I understand that there already is a Green Mark for Zero Energy buildings. But we should also raise standards for the other Green Mark schemes. Buildings should be held to a higher standard before we can call them "green". Will MND consider raising the Green Mark standards for (a) new Government buildings; (b) all commercial buildings; and (c) all private and public residential buildings to encourage sustained reductions in overall energy consumption? Next. Increasing Size of Dogs in HDB Flats I am glad that NParks have now a 10% increase in height limit for local mixed breed dogs to be re-home under Project ADORE. The weight of the dog will also be removed as a criterion. This good news. There is about 20% more local mixed breed dogs can be re-homed at HDB flats each year. But we can do more. Can MND provide the rationale for not removing the height criterion as well? Many more dogs can finally find a forever home if we remove the height criterion. I understand that MND's concern is that the smaller dogs are generally considered to be more easily carried and controlled, especially in confined spaces such as lifts.”
“Last year, I met Gina (not her real name) who is a divorcee. She originally had sole care and control of her son but it was eventually changed to shared care and control. She has successfully applied for an HDB flat when she had sole care and control but it was later rejected at the key collection stage as the care and control was changed to a shared one. She was unable to obtain mutual consent from her ex-husband even though he was already staying in a private property and did not need an HDB flat. It has been years since the divorce and, due to various other circumstances, she is still renting a place to stay in. Her ex-husband continues to stay in the private property. I feel this is terribly unfair. I thank MND for reaching out to help her and I hope MND will consider waiving the requirement for ex-spousal consent on who can list the children as occupiers in an HDB flat application if the ex-spouse has already purchased a private property or an HDB flat following the divorce.”
“Thank you, Sir. I do not have much to show except this shirt which I have worn for five years. And that is the best to go towards zero waste. I have two clarifications. One is on the carbon tax. We agree that the climate issue, it is an existential threat and that is why we introduced the carbon tax. But the issue here is that we are going to take too long to review it, which is we have committed to increase it by 2030. So, to tackle this emergency, can we look into reducing the time frame, which means can we at least look into increasing it by 2025, which is five years' time instead of 10 years? Secondly, with regard to the public disclosure. I am just wondering whether MEWR has done any studies or review into the studies that show that there is a positive effect of public disclosure. The example I raised in my cut is the German Institute of Economic Research that showed that this type of company level disclosure will result in a 17% reduction in carbon emission. So, what is holding us back from doing something that will help to reduce emissions here in Singapore?”
“Sir, in response to Fairprice's trial of reducing the use of plastic bags by charging customers 10 or 20 cents per transaction, Prime Minister said: "It is a sensible approach: to make people conscious of the plastic bags they use, but not to ban plastic bags altogether. Using fewer plastic bags alone will not solve climate change or save the earth, but every bit counts. And making us conscious of our habits, and consider better alternatives, has value in itself." I agree with Prime Minister. I have been calling for a plastic bag charge since 2018. Countries around the world have introduced a plastic bag charge, and it works. In England, there was a 90% reduction. It was estimated that every person was using 10 bags in the most recent year, compared with 140 bags in 2014 before the charge was introduced. For a start and similar to England, will MEWR consider introducing a single-use bag charge and make it mandatory for large retailers and optional for smaller businesses and waive the charge for single-use bags for fresh food and meat items? This is for all single-use bags, not just plastic bags. Towards a Zero Waste Nation”
“Sir, Nee Soon East residents have benefited from Project Wolbachia and it has led to a 90% drop in the mosquito population in Nee Soon East. It is good news, but many residents still have concerns about this project. Many ask me why we are releasing mosquitoes that will bite them. I tell them we are only releasing male mosquitoes and "Males don’t bite". The next concern is that they tell me the males will attract the females who will then bite them. I tell them do not worry, it is the males who look for the females. Can MEWR share how we will be increasing awareness about this Project and also whether there are further plans to expand this to other parts of Singapore so more people can benefit from it? Introducing a Food Donation Act Next. Food waste is a serious and growing problem. In 2018, 763,000 tonnes of food was wasted in Singapore, a 30% increase compared to 10 years ago. At the same time, some Singaporeans struggle to have three meals a day. Both problems can be alleviated if we introduce a Good Samaritan Food Donation Act. This piece of legislation would help encourage companies and organisations to donate healthy food that would otherwise go to waste. It will help both the environment and our people. Will MEWR support a Private Member's Bill for a Good Samaritan Food Donation Act?”
“” Banning Disposables for Public Service Lastly, in Nee Soon East, we have launched our Zero Waste Masterplan. We have saved 39,792 disposables – single-use plates, forks, spoons, bowls and cups – since the launch of our Masterplan in April last year. We no longer use disposables at Nee Soon East CC events. This year, we will expand it to all our RC events. We have saved so much. At the same time, it is shocking to me that we have used so much in less than a year. If we can save so much in Nee Soon East, imagine how much we can save if more were to join us on this "Say Yes to Waste Less Journey". I know that MEWR is already doing this. Will the entire Public Service commit to end the use of all disposables at all Public Service events? Climate Change and Household Appliances”
“Reducing Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) Use and Emission Next, hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), commonly used in refrigerators and air-conditioners, are greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming. NEA has put in place licensing controls for the import, export and manufacture of 18 types of HFCs which took effect from 1 January 2019. However, Singapore has not yet ratified the Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol which requires parties to phase-down the production and consumption of HFCs. Can the Ministry share whether Singapore will ratify the Kigali Amendment and share its plans to further reduce the use and emission of HFCs in Singapore? Reporting Public Service Carbon Use Temasek has taken a strong lead in tackling climate change and is urging everyone to join them. As Mdm Ho Ching said a few months ago, "Some businesses have already planned for 100% renewable energy before or by 2050. Others are setting yearly goals to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. For those of us who have not started, I propose that we take a simple step, to report our electricity and transport usage by next financial year. This is very simple; whether you are big or small, it is a very simple step to take. It is a proxy for our indirect emissions. Once we track and measure, as all businesses know, we can start to scope our solutions to reduce emissions or reduce waste." Can the Ministry follow Temasek and take the very simple step of reporting its electricity, paper, travel and water usage? Can the Public Service also follow Temasek and pledge to go carbon-neutral by this year and, like Temasek, ensure that “Sustainability is not just one of our roles. It is at the core of everything we do.”
“This means only the highest emitters will face pressure. It also means they can stop being published by cutting their emissions. A carrot and a stick. MEWR says the Carbon Pricing Act does not allow release of the data. If that is true, we can amend the Act. The fight against climate change should be built on transparency. Young PAP and climate activists both agree. Will MEWR study the idea of releasing emissions data on taxable facilities and companies? Greening Our Private Passenger Car Fleet Next, it is positive news that we have committed to having a fleet of local public buses that runs on cleaner energy by 2040. It is also good news that we intend to phase out internal combustion engines (ICE) and have vehicles run on cleaner energy by 2040. 1.45 pm But this will take time as we need to expand the charging infrastructure for electric vehicles. In the meantime, we can steer Singapore towards an environmentally-friendly car society by improving the Vehicular Emissions Scheme (VES). Currently, a hybrid car costs more – a lot more. Will the Ministry consider offering higher rebates under the current VES and increasing surcharges for vehicles with higher emissions? I understand that we are not in the business of making cars cheaper, but we are in the business of protecting our environment. We can do this by urging people and steering them towards purchasing hybrid cars in the next 10 years, again before the charging infrastructure for electric vehicles is ready. It is also good news that we will be extending the VES to light commercial vehicles. Can MEWR provide more details about this?”
“Sir, the Young PAP held a focus group discussion last month with 16 climate activists and drafted 24 recommendations. These included incentivising solar energy, which is the most viable clean energy source in Singapore. In Nee Soon, 64% of the electricity for municipal fittings is from solar energy. We should all move towards being fully solar powered. Will MEWR provide incentives to encourage solar deployment on rooftops and also provide consumers with rebates for electricity plans that use solar energy? Will MEWR also deploy more floating solar panels at our reservoirs? Bringing Forward the Carbon Tax Review Next, climate change is an existential threat. I am glad we have introduced the carbon tax to fight climate change. However, the current $5 per tonne carbon tax rate is too low. The timeline for reviewing the rate is also too long. The Ministry plans to review the tax only by 2023 and increase it to only $10 to $15 by 2030. The minimum rate required by 2020 to reach the Paris Agreement temperature target is estimated at $54. Young PAP and climate activists hope we bring forward the 2023 review and increase the rate to more than $15 per tonne. Releasing Emissions Data Next, MEWR has said that it will not disclose the carbon tax contributions of companies because the tax was meant only as a price signal. But a tool can have multiple uses. Releasing emissions data by company and facility is not a new idea. The EU publishes the emissions of 15,000 facilities. The UK requires its 2,000 listed companies to declare their emissions. The German Institute of Economic Research has found that such company-level disclosures work, reducing emissions by 17% permanently. What I am proposing is a carefully targeted measure. We publish only the data of those that pay the tax.”
“I promise the Minister this is the last time I will talk about leaves – this week. Just one last clarification. Can I just ask whether MOM has studied or will be studying whether increasing someone's annual leave entitlement will reduce employability?”
“Thank you, Sir. Two clarifications. A lot of the response to my suggestions so far has been that we will focus on FWA instead. But I think we need to acknowledge that FWA is not going to accessible to everyone, as the Senior Parliamentary Secretary has acknowledged just now, especially to our frontline officers who we have been paying tribute to over the last few weeks. It will be very hard for nurses, doctors, teachers, pre-school teachers, cleaners, security – the list goes on – to have access to FWA. And that is why I say it is not a zero sum game. Can MOM consider focusing on FWA but at the same time, also legislating the parent care leave, childcare sick leave, so that we get the best of both worlds? We are doing this for the civil service already. Why not for the others? Secondly, I actually had a cut on annual leave. I do not think it was responded to. But I have a stronger focus on that because I think the workers who get the seven days of annual leave, which is the minimum number, are likely to be our lowest income workers. And they are also the workers who probably need the most rest. They are also the workers who probably do not have access to FWA, parent care leave, childcare sick leave. So, can we at least legislate and give a higher minimum number of annual leave so that these lower income workers will be able to benefit?”
“Sir, I appreciate that the Government is looking into work-life balance and is introducing several new initiatives. When it comes to work-life balance, Singapore ranks poorly. We rank 32nd out of 40 cities for work-life balance and are second only to Tokyo in a ranking for the most overworked cities. Beyond flexible working arrangements, I hope we can also look into increasing the minimum amount of annual leave one is entitled to. This is not a zero sum game. We can have flexible working arrangements and still give our people more leave. The current minimum of only seven days of annual leave is extremely low. Many other countries in this region provide a higher minimum number of annual leave including Malaysia, Bangladesh, Japan, Myanmar, East Timor, Sri Lanka, Laos, Mongolia, South Korea, Qatar, Yemen, Iran, Kuwait and Indonesia. Many of these countries provide not only a higher number of minimum days of annual leave, but also a higher number of paid public holidays. Our people will always work hard, but we also need to make sure they have time to rest. Providing Parent Care Leave This Government recognises that we need to spend time looking after our parents. It has been eight years since we introduced parent care leave in the civil service and it is now time for everyone else to have this. We need to legislate it. Time to spend time with our parents runs out quickly. With a rapidly greying population, time is running out for our Government to act on this too. If the Government feels that it is important for civil servants to have parent care leave, then why not others? We are a family-friendly employer and now we need be a family-friendly Government. Workplace Harassment”
“Thank you, Sir. Just to follow up again. I really do appreciate all the work that ASEAN and MFA are doing by providing a lot of assurance to the Rohingyas. But I think it would help if we just allow some of them to go back, do their own assessments and then they can tell the rest of the 1.2 million refugees in Bangladesh now that it is safe to return. Otherwise, it is going to be a stalemate. It would be back and forth and it has been two years since we talked about repatriation and there is still not a single one that is willing to go back. 5.45 pm”
“Sir, a clarification for Senior Minister of State Mohamad Maliki regarding the repatriation of the Rohingas. I understand the camps are ready and the reception area is ready as well. But I think there is an issue of trust here and that is why the Rohingas want to go back themselves to do an independent assessment. I am just wondering whether this can at least be discussed or put up as a topic in the agenda for the upcoming ASEAN Summit so that we can finally resolve this stalemate and move forward on this issue.”
“Two years ago, I was at the Rohingya refugee camps in Bangladesh and listened to horrific stories of women being raped and how they watched their babies get stabbed to death. I held the hand of a little girl who was shot and she showed me her bullet wound. A young man showed me a video of the dead bodies of his entire family of seven. He watched them get slaughtered. Two years later, all these are still fresh in my mind. What I have heard has scarred me for life and made me question my faith in humanity. But more than anything, it has scarred the Rohingyas for life and they desperately need help. This is not a political issue and we are not interfering with domestic affairs. This is a humanitarian disaster and we can and should provide help to over a million refugees. As Deputy Prime Minister Heng said, "As the world builds walls, Singapore must go against the tide and build bridges". The Rohingyas need this bridge now. They need a way out of the huge wall built around them. I understand there is a need for an independent assessment of the situation in Rakhine state by the Rohingyas themselves before they will consider any repatriation. I hope ASEAN can help facilitate this and Singapore can ensure it is discussed at ASEAN meetings. I am also willing to volunteer to help with any on-site assessments. Sir, we need to remember that, "There is no us or them. Only us. One human family connected in ways we sometimes forget". Relations with Malaysia”
“I try one more time, Sir. I hope the Minister will agree with me that it is not a deterrence. Not providing single unweds with the Parenthood Tax Rebate and Working Mother's Child Relief is not a deterrence. And I also hope that the Minister will agree with me that it is not an incentive. It might be this worry that if we provide the single unweds with more benefits, all of a sudden, there is going to be huge population of children born out of wedlock. I do not think that will happen as well. And if we do not think that it is going to incentivise or discourage, then again, what is stopping us from levelling this playing field and ending the discrimination?”
“Thank you, Sir, just three points regarding the single unweds again. We have MND that is saying that every mother and every father is equal. It does not really matter whether the child was born out of marriage. But here we are now saying that they are not equal, that because the child was born outside of marriage, they will not qualify for the Parenthood Tax Rebate and the Working Mother's Child Relief. Why do we do that? Second, with these two rebate and relief, there are single parents who qualify for it, who are the divorcees. So, why can we not just extend it to the single unweds? Unless of course we are saying we want that as a form of deterrent so that people do not have children out of wedlock. But again, as I raised in my Adjournment Motion, I doubt this will be a deterrence, unless, just before they have sex, they think about the Parenthood Tax Rebate and Working Mother's Child Relief, which we know, will not happen. And that comes to my third point. I am not really fighting for a lot of money here and I do not think actually a lot of single unweds pay a lot of taxes, because we know their median income is $600 for those under 35. We are not fighting for the money here. We are fighting the stigma and the discrimination. And I know MOF will support this as this is a Unity Budget. It should be for all Singaporeans.”
“Sir, MND stated that "single unwed parents are valued citizens, and like all parents, are respected for the love and care they provide for their children. They are no less a mother or a father, just because their child was born outside of marriage." Why do they not then get the parenthood tax rebates like other parents? MND also stated that "every parent regardless of their marital status, ought to be treated with respect." Our policies can help end the discrimination. It is time to level the playing field and treat single unweds with respect. As citizens, they should qualify for the Parenthood Tax Rebates like all other parents. Next cut. Providing Working Mother's Child Relief (WMCR) to Single Unweds The Working Mother's Child Relief rewards families with children who are Singapore Citizens. Why leave out single unwed families? Why only encourage married women to remain in the workforce after having children? It is strange that we do not want single unwed women to remain in the workforce after having their child. Why discriminate, even after MND has stated again that "every parent regardless of their marital status, ought to be treated with respect." Let us respect single unwed mothers who look after their children single-handedly and remain in the workforce despite all the difficulties. Will MOF consider allowing single unweds to qualify for the Working Mother's Child Relief? Foreign Domestic Worker Levy Tax Relief”
“Thank you, Sir. I just wanted to ask Minister Josephine Teo about the childcare sick leave. I understand that we are reviewing it but I am just wondering we can also review and look into what other countries are doing. There is a long list of countries that are providing the childcare sick leave – I would not read the whole thing – there is Australia, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Israel, Italy, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, Russia, South Africa, Switzerland. It is a much longer list. In the interest, I would not read them all. But I am just wondering whether PMO can study what other countries are doing, see how successful it is, see how they implement it and then we can do a proper review. I think the Minister once said that all good things will be considered. This is a good thing that should be considered.”
“It has been more than a decade since childcare leave provisions were increased and it is time to review this again. There is clearly insufficient childcare leave provided. Will PMO consider having specific childcare sick leave and providing this on a per child basis? The Public Service, already gives officers childcare sick leave and it is on a per child basis. If Government clearly feels that childcare sick leave is important for people who work for us, then why not important for the people we serve? Let us level that playing field. Family-friendly Workplace”
“In conclusion, I hope that we can (a) introduce a new childcare sick leave; (b) provide this childcare sick leave on a per-child basis; and (c) legislate the provision of parent-care leave. Minister Vivian Balakrishnan once said, "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 can never get it back." Sir, I thought I should end by saying that I am still sending my daughter to school and picking her up. A few months ago, she made a card in school for me and gave it to me when I picked her up. This time, she melted my heart with her words. She said, "I love you, Daddy, because you always take me to school". I am now a part-time school bus driver as I now have to send our twins, Katie and Poppy, to school as well. They, too, melt my heart with their words. I picked Poppy up the other day and she gave me a big hug and said, "Daddy, I really missed you". I look forward to more previous Daddy-Ella, Daddy-Katie and Daddy-Poppy time. I look forward to more hugs, more laughs and much more sweet words from them that give me that warm fuzzy feeling. Sir, let us give our people more precious time to spend with their loved ones. Thank you and I support this Budget.”
“If the Government feels that it is important for civil servants to have parent-care leave, then why not others? We are a family-friendly employer and now we should be a family-friendly Government. I understand that the tripartite partners have also encouraged more employers to adopt the Tripartite Standard on Unpaid Leave for Unexpected Care Needs, regardless of whether they already provide parent-care leave. But this is unpaid leave. Why do civil servants get paid parent-care leave and others have unpaid leave? Again, can we level this playing field? I also understand that caregivers have given feedback that they prefer FWAs over parental leave as a more sustainable way to balance work and caregiving responsibilities. But the parent-care leave we provide to everyone can, again, be the same as those provided to civil servants where they have the flexibility to take this leave in full or half-day blocks. This will address the feedback we have received and, if we want to, we can take it a step further and offer parent-care leave in blocks of hours. It is, ultimately, a personal choice to take leave to spend time with those you love but this Government can help make things easier for employees and I hope we do so. Sir, the Prime Minister said a few months ago that, "We will always stand with workers (and) ensure your well-being. We will always do our best to help you and your children progress with Singapore and have a better life". Let us also stand with our workers when it comes to childcare leave and parent-care leave. Time is the most precious commodity. I hope this Budget is not just about the economy but also about giving our people precious time to rest and to spend with their loved ones.”
“" It is encouraging that an increasing number of private companies are providing this. In 2018, 20% of private sector companies offered such leave benefits, up from 15% in 2012. But 20% is still really a small percentage. Our parents are the reason we are here today. They worked hard to bring us up and looked after us when we were young. We should be there for them when they are ageing and now need us to look after them. Sir, I lost my Dad five years ago. On 11 May 2015, I was getting ready to go to work and I told my wife I was going to inform the Animal Concerns Research and Education Society (ACRES) team that I needed to take some time off to spend with my Dad who was in hospital. I was already visiting him every day but I decided I should spend more time with him. As I was about to leave my house, my sister called and told me that Daddy had lost consciousness. He passed away that day. I really wish I can turn back time. I made a mistake and I regret it till today. I wish I had spent more time with Daddy and I miss him dearly. Perhaps, through sharing this with everyone, this wound might finally heal and, through sharing, I hope that others will not make the same mistake I made. Spend time with those you love and remember that life is a one-way ticket. Sir, this Government recognises that we need to spend time to look after our parents. It has been eight years since we introduced parent-care leave in the Civil Service and it is now time for everyone else to have this. It is time to legislate it. The Government's statement: "With a rapidly ageing population and smaller family units, officers with elderly parents will need time to take care of them", holds true for all of us and not just civil servants.”
“If we want Singaporeans to have kids and have more kids, then we need to give them more time to look after and be with their children. It is not just about making preschool more affordable. That is important. But many I spoke to feel that if they are going to have kids but just leave them at childcare centres most of the time, then what is the point of having kids? We are trying hard to increase our total fertility rate (TFR) and, beyond looking at the dollars and cents, we also need to look into providing parents with more time to spend with their children. The reply to my suggestions might be that we rather focus on FWAs. But this is not a zero-sum game. We can work on providing more FWAs for our people but also legislate more childcare leave. Sir, Deputy Speaker Charles Chong gave me one of the best advices just before the last General Elections. I used to help out at his Meet-the-People Session (MPS) and he always made sure I go home as early as possible once MPS ended. He said to me, "Louis, make sure you don’t go home one day and your daughter calls you uncle!". That advice is not just for me but for everyone and a timely reminder that while we work hard, we should also spend quality time with our loved ones. And it is not just about spending time with our children but also with our parents. Sir, I am glad that all civil servants are eligible for up to two days of parent-care leave per year and that a growing number of civil servants are using both days of leave. The Government has stated, "With a rapidly ageing population and smaller family units, officers with elderly parents will need time to take care of them. The new parent-care leave reflects our position as a family-friendly employer.”
“Would they not be worrying about their child who is sick? How is this beneficial to the company? Having childcare sick leave will help the children, the parents and, ultimately, the employers. Sir, my second suggestion is that we provide this childcare sick leave on a per-child basis. Our current childcare leave does not make sense. Surely, we can all agree here that if you need six days of childcare leave for one child, you cannot also only need six days of childcare leave for two, three or four children. It may make sense if you can make sure all your children fall sick at the same time, which is not quite possible. Sir, having childcare sick leave and having it on a per-child basis is not something foreign to this Government. The Public Service, one of the largest employers in Singapore, already gives some officers childcare sick leave and it is on a per-child basis. For example, officers with two children, one of whom is below age seven is eligible for four days of childcare leave per year with a medical certificate (MC). An officer with three or more children, has nine days of childcare leave per year with MC. This is on top of the six days of childcare leave per year. The Government clearly feels that childcare leave is important for people who work for the Government, why then would it not be important for the people we serve? Let us level the playing field. There may be an argument that giving more childcare leave can inadvertently affect the employment prospects of parents with more children. But this is not the case for the Public Service and, surely, this cannot be a reason for us to not do what is right for our people. Surely, the Tripartite Guidelines on Fair Employment Practices can be used to address this concern.”
“But it has been more than a decade since childcare leave provisions were increased and it is time to review this again. Are the current six days sufficient? We already know that the vast majority of childcare centres have six days of annual closure. This means that, for most parents, the entire six days of childcare leave could be used just for these annual closures. Let us not forget about the additional three half-day closures on the eve of any of the five stipulated public holidays. What happens when your child falls sick or for any other times when childcare leave is needed? Sir, my first suggestion is that we have specific childcare sick leave. Applications for such leave must be supported by a medical certificate. This is much needed as parents should be there to look after their children when they are sick. Out of all the illnesses, including chicken pox, influenza, stomach flu and the list goes on, let me focus on the Hand Foot and Mouth Disease (HFMD) as an example of why we need more childcare leave. In Singapore, 90% of children have had HFMD infection by 12 years of age. This is something almost all parents face and we should help them. We must help. It is extremely difficult for parents to find help to look after their children as the infection can last for up to two weeks. It is also hard to find someone to look after your child as the caregiver has a good chance of being infected. I was infected by my children when they had HFMD. From the employers' standpoint, do they really want their employee who may also be infected to come to the office and possibly spread the disease or any other illness to other employees, resulting in everyone going on medical leave? Also, do we honestly think that the employee can concentrate at work and be productive?”
“"Daddy, why don't I take the school bus so that you do not need to rush anymore?" Those words by my daughter Ella cut through my heart like a knife. My six-year-old daughter taught me an important lesson that morning when I was sending her to school last year, a very painful lesson. She made me realise that it was time to slow down and not rush all the time, especially in front of her, how my actions had made her feel bad and a reminder about how precious time is. "Spend time with those you love, one of these days you will either say I wish I had or I'm glad I did". I used this quote in this House a few years ago and I am sharing it again not just because it is a beautiful quote to live by but also as a timely reminder to myself and to all of us. I do enjoy sending Ella to school. I love singing all the Disney songs with her on the way to school, I love listening to her talk about her dreams, how she was at the ice palace and enchanted forest and met Elsa. I love listening to all the gossips and playground politics in her school and, my goodness, there is so much politics. But, most of all, I love just spending time with her, precious Daddy-Ella time. Time we can never get back. Sir, we gave out a lot in this year's Budget, helping our workers, enterprises, parents and their children, seniors and our environment. Many are appreciative of Budget 2020. But if there is one thing we did not give out, it is time. Time, which is priceless and time which our Government can give out. We need more precious time with our loved ones. We need more time with our children who desperately need us. I am glad we provide childcare leave, which "will provide sufficient time for working parents to care for and spend quality time with their children".”
“Sir, I thank the Minister for the reply. What was shocking for me was that in 2018, 65% of fathers in Singapore did not even take one day of paternity leave. I am just wondering whether the Ministry is looking into this further, whether we are looking at Denmark, the UK and South Korea, the three countries that the Minister mentioned, what is the take-up rate of paternity leave there and what are they doing that can help increase our take-up of paternity leave. The second clarification is a suggestion, actually. I understand the default arrangement now is that the fathers have to take their paternity leave within 16 weeks of childbirth and he has to take it in a two-week continuous block. For any other arrangements, they would need the employers' consent. I am just wondering whether we can make the default arrangement that the fathers can take it anytime within the 12 months of childbirth and they do not need to take it in a continuous block. Maybe then, there will be an increase in the number of fathers taking up the paternity leave.”
“Just one last question. The fact that MND and MOM have so many lactation rooms show that there is a need for this. So, this is the last supplementary question, which is: when are we going to review this, whether we are going to study this in further detail, see whether in MOM or MND, how many times the lactation rooms are used, whether it is sufficient? So, a really detailed study to look into this issue.”
“Sir, I have three clarifications. Really, we all agree that breast milk is the best food for our babies but we also want our working mothers to return to work and we even incentivise it with the Working Mother's Child Relief. But the two points will be sort of conflicting if we do not allow the working mothers to easily express their milk when they are back at work, if we do not provide enough lactation rooms. So, one, can I ask, for working mothers who work in buildings where the GFA is below 10,000 sqm, where exactly are they going to be able to pump and express their milk? If they do it in their workplace, there are privacy issues. Also, the pumping equipment is actually quite loud. Some of the feedback has been that other colleagues then start to complain about it. Two, the working mothers are not asking for this big fancy room to pump or express their milk but a small clean place where they can express their milk. And maybe the cost is an issue. So, whether the Government can step in and provide some grants so that more buildings can provide more lactation rooms for the working mothers. Third, I think the Minister of State said that we will review this again in the next periodic review. Can I ask when will the next review be because that one lactation room is really very little for the number of working mothers that could possibly work in that building?”
“I just want to know whether the Roadmap is available for public viewing, so people can see and give feedback, and possibly improve it as well.”
“Sir, just one quick clarification. The Technology Roadmap that the Minister of State was talking about, I think we started work on that since 2018. Can I just check whether the study is completed and whether the report is available to the public?”
“Just one clarification. I understand the rationale of making sure that our workers come back only with approval. But it is the employer who submits the application to MOM for approval. In the case where the two workers came back to Singapore without approval, can I just ask what is the rationale of punishing the workers when it was not them who had to apply to get the approval to return?”
“Can I just get the Ministry's response to the IPS study which said that our policies actually continue to signal that childcare is a woman's responsibility and that they reinforce this gender stereotype. Two, whether we are going to review the Shared Parental Leave policy as well, which was one of the IPS recommendations. Third, the IPS' was a very small scale study. I am wondering whether the Prime Minister's Office or MSF can do a larger scale study to really look into this issue?”
“What about the second part of the question, so that we can be more pre-emptive? We can get our banks and financial institutions to track all these suspicious transactions. Somebody paid for the shipments to be sent through Singapore. Can we audit and go to the money trail and find out who actually has been paying? And then, finally, we can get the kingpin. Otherwise, we are always arresting the runners who are already the low-level criminals. Let us go high up the food chain.”
“Mr Speaker, two clarifications. One, whether NParks is also following the money; so, not just follow where the products are coming from or going to, but really follow the money trail. Only then, can we get to the kingpins rather than always catching the runners involved in the wildlife smuggling network. The second clarification is whether we can follow the British and work with our banks and financial institutions so that we can track these suspicious transactions that are linked to the wildlife smuggling network and halt the transactions in the first place. I think only then can we effectively address and wipe out this trade.”
“Even with LTA's new expansion plans, our cycling networks are currently a patchwork of local connectivity. But if we want cycling to become a true mode of transportation, we have to build ambitious infrastructure, such as bicycle freeways, like the North-South Corridor. Will LTA be building more of these? Sir, in conclusion, I am happy to express my support for a Bill that creates a robust regulatory framework for active mobility in Singapore. My hope is that this leads the way to more ambitious plans, as we not only build in recollection of past learnings but also in anticipation of future opportunities. Sir, notwithstanding my clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.”
“Certainly, if these forms of mobility see a comeback, we will have built a robust regulatory framework for them. But our policy towards active mobility should be more proactive and less reactive. I am heartened by the recent announcement that we will be accelerating our plans to triple the length of our cycling network. But as we spend time building the bike lanes, I hope we can start thinking about the next projects. First, how can we integrate the use of bicycles with our public transit network? Unlike in many other major cities, you cannot bring a regular bicycle onto the bus or MRT. Even in countries with sophisticated biking infrastructure, there are many who will spend part of their commute on public transportation. We must find ways to integrate our new biking infrastructure with our world-class public transportation network. Second, how can we make bike parking more secure as we discussed in the earlier Question Time? Many HDB flats have limited space and cyclists need somewhere secure to park overnight. I am happy that LTA is focusing on building more bike-parking facilities. But how many of these spaces are unmonitored and unlocked? Most experienced cyclists will tell you to never park your bicycle outside overnight, even at supposedly secure spots like MRT stations. What cyclists need are not over-engineered, far-flung parking spaces like SecureMyBike, the automated underground system that recently closed down. What they need are affordable and accessible low-tech bicycle lockers and bicycle parking stations, ideally mapped on the MyTransport.SG app for convenience. Many cities around the world already have much success with these options. Third and lastly, how can we go beyond incremental additions to our cycling network?”
“Can the Ministry clarify whether its intention is to confer private right of civil action for the statutory duties imposed under this Act? My second clarification is on the punishment for underage riding. The new section 23A(2) provides imprisonment as a punishment option for underage riding of a motorised PMD on a shared path. The typical sentencing consideration for young offenders is rehabilitation. Imprisonment will taint a young person's record and seems like an unduly harsh punishment for underage riding of a PMD. Can the Minister clarify the reasons for allowing imprisonment of an underage rider? Can the Minister also clarify in what situations will we call for imprisonment for an underage rider? On a similar note, the new section 23B describes conditions in which a person is deemed to have facilitated underage riding of motorised PMDs. One condition is that the person had been "reckless" as to whether their conduct would help an underage individual ride the PMD. What does "reckless" mean here? Would it be reckless to trust a child to safeguard an unlocked e-scooter? This is not an edge case. After all, the shared paths on which many young people spend their time are now the only place where PMDs can be ridden. As we mandate good behaviours by PMD owners, we must also help them understand how to comply with the law. To this end, it would be helpful if the Minister could describe scenarios or outline standards that exemplify "reckless" conduct. Finally, I would like to talk more broadly about our Government’s strategy towards active mobility. The two Bills today deal, for the most part, with problems that have already come and gone. Most of it is directed at PMDs and bike-sharing services, both of which are barely visible in Singapore anymore.”
“Legislation that provides customers with some assurance might then be a win-win for consumers and businesses. My third clarification is on safety directives. Section 26 enables the Minister to issue a safety directive to prevent death, serious injury or serious property damage arising from the provision of any shared mobility service. Section 26(2) specifies that these directives cannot be in force for longer than six months to start with and the Minister can only renew it once for no longer than six months. In essence, a directive is capped at 12 months. Can the Ministry clarify what happens at the end of the 12 months if the Ministry remains concerned about the subject of the directive? Under this law, is the Minister empowered to issue a second directive? If that is the case, what end does it serve to cap the length and frequency of the renewal? Given that these directives are used only in cases of serious concern, it would be helpful to clarify what we can expect that they do get used. I will now discuss my two clarifications for the Active Mobility (Amendment) Bill. My first clarification is on the private right of civil action. The AMA imposes obligations on various persons. For instance, the current section 21 imposes obligations on riders to travel below their path's maximum speed. The new section 23C imposes duties on adult supervisors for underage riding. Contravention of such sections are offences punishable by fines or imprisonment. However, it is not clear whether the Ministry intends for breaches of duties under AMA to give rise to a private right of action. In other words, it is not clear whether an individual injured in an accident involving a mobility device can sue another individual in tort for breach of their statutory duties under AMA.”
“The modern business collects huge amounts of private data on its customers and this data can be worth huge amounts of money. It is possible that some organisations will seek to acquire private users' information under the pretence of identifying bad parkers. It would be helpful if the Minister could clarify: (a) what types of information are allowed to be shared under section 23; (b) how would the Ministry ascertain whether an information transfer complies with privacy standards; (c) what regulation and penalties will prevent organisations from using section 23 as a possible loophole for PDPA; (d) finally, will section 23 apply to class licensees? Licensees and class licensees are mentioned in the same breath in much of the Act. For some reason, class licensees are not mentioned at all in this particular section. My second clarification is on deposits. Section 13(2i) empowers LTA to collect a security deposit from licensees for the sole purpose of regulatory compliance. This means that customers who paid a deposit to shared mobility companies cannot hope to be repaid from the security deposits. Back in early 2019, Senior Minister of State Lam Pin Min reiterated this point and suggested that disgruntled customers should sue to get their money back. It does not seem realistic to ask hundreds or thousands of customers to go to Court to get back what might be a $50 or $100 sum. Can the Ministry share whether its stance has changed? Why not allow the security deposits to be used to repay customers? What is the principle keeping us from doing so? After all, I imagine any bike-sharing operators today will have trouble persuading customers to fork up deposits. Once burned, twice shy.”
“Sir, I stand in support of the two Bills. The past five years have proven a challenge in our nation's march towards active mobility. I am happy to say these Bills reflect some lessons we have learnt along the way. In response to dangerous riding, we are banning PMDs from footpaths, introducing competency tests and mandating adult supervision of underage users. In response to careless parking, we are requiring bicycle, PMD and PMA providers to obtain a licence and follow standards. These measures, together, form a regulatory framework that places a premium on safety and spreads the responsibility among users and providers. That said, I would like to seek clarifications on both Bills and discuss the need to go further in our pursuit of active mobility. I will first discuss my three clarifications on the Shared Mobility Enterprises (Control and Licensing) Bill. My first clarification is about information sharing between licensees. Section 23 allows two licensees to enter into an information sharing agreement. Specifically, it allows them to do so for two purposes: (a) to turn away bad parkers from hiring their vehicles; and (b) to comply with directives from LTA. The Bill’s explanatory statement states that such agreements are authorised "despite" other laws, such as the Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA). My concern is that section 23 does not contain clear measures to deter organisations from over-sharing private user data. For instance, is the National Registration Identity Card (NRIC) number an appropriate datapoint to share about a bad parker? How about passport numbers, photographs, phone numbers, email addresses, home addresses or global positioning system (GPS) locations?”
“Can the Senior Minister of State share whether there are plans for the Ministry to provide guidance on what should constitute "serious breach" or will the definition be left entirely up to the Courts and mediation institutions? My third clarification is on civil justice reforms. The Convention and the Bill enable the enforcement of mediated international settlement agreements. Domestically, the enforcement process for civil judgments is under review. The Civil Justice Review Committee's (CJRC's) report noted that the "tools currently available for enforcing both monetary and non-monetary judgments are limited and unsophisticated". It further noted that the enforcement process is too Court-centric and that there are limited modes of enforcing non-monetary judgments. CJRC recommended that the enforcement process for civil judgments be privatised and that the Ministry study the problems and proposals further. It also suggested that the Ministry implement civil enforcement reforms separately from the rest of the civil justice reforms. Can the Ministry share whether this review of civil enforcement procedures will affect the processes under this current Bill? Sir, notwithstanding these clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.”
“It is hoped that the Singapore Convention on Mediation will now put international mediation on an even footing as international arbitration. Sir, I have three clarifications on the Bill. My first clarification centres on mediation standards. The proposed section 7(2)(e) provides that an international settlement agreement may be enforced if “there was a serious breach by the mediator who conducted the mediation that resulted in the international settlement agreement of the standards applicable to the mediator, or the mediation”. There is currently no single set of mediation standards in Singapore or internationally. Mediation standards in Singapore are fragmented. SMC has a Code of Conduct for its mediators in sessions held by SMC. SIMI has a Code of Professional Conduct applicable to any mediation that is mediated by an SIMI Mediator, while the Society of Mediation Professionals (Singapore) is a group of mediators looking to develop a collective, localised and contextualised code of ethics. Can the Senior Minister of State share if there are plans to leave the industry to self-regulate in determining the applicable mediator standards or if the Ministry of Law (MinLaw) intends to take the lead in consolidating a single set of mediation standards? My second clarification is in relation to section 7(2)(e), which states that only a "serious breach" by the mediator justifies the Court refusing to grant relief. The Convention and the Bill do not define what constitutes a "serious breach". A further hurdle, again, to determining what is a "serious breach" is the fragmented state of mediation standards.”