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 22 of 37.
“Sir, I stand in support of the Bill. Mediation has been growing in prominence in Singapore's dispute resolution landscape. One starting point for institutionalised mediation in Singapore could be then Attorney-General Chan Sek Keong's speech at the Opening of the Legal Year 1996 on the need to look into mediation as a form of alternative dispute resolution and the suggestion to establish a commercial mediation centre. Since then, Singapore has made great leaps in institutionalised mediation. In 2020, we now have a proliferation of mediation institutes, including the Singapore Mediation Centre (SMC), the Singapore International Mediation Centre (SIMC), and the Singapore International Mediation Institute (SIMI), among others. The Presumption of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) applies for all civil cases under the State Courts Practice Directions, which requires cases to be referred to the most appropriate mode of ADR, including mediation, as a first resort. Finally, in November 2017, Singapore’s Mediation Act came into force. Amongst the significant developments introduced by this Act was allowing mediated settlement agreements to be recorded and enforced as Court judgments. It is thus a point of much pride that the progress Singapore has made on mediation domestically is now magnified on the international stage through the Singapore Convention on Mediation. This Bill gives effect to the convention. Similar to the Singapore Mediation Act, it addresses the non-enforceability of mediated settlement agreements, which has been traditionally an obstacle to the adoption of mediation. The 1958 New York convention, which streamlined the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards led to the boom in arbitration.”
“Just one follow-up question, I am just wondering whether we can also get our financial institutions to report on the amount of emissions they are financing. That way, we can also see just how at-risk they are.”
“Sir. I think the Minister shared the good news that Singapore will be updating our climate pledge. Could I just check when will we be doing so?”
“I understand that you can do that, but as the other Member had raised, there is a power imbalance here. So, if you are offered a salary in the IPA and then you have come to Singapore already, having paid all your deposits back in your home country, and the employer then says, "I am going to reduce your salary. Take it or you go back home", very likely, they will take it and very likely, they will not dare to report to MOM. I hope we can close that loop. The previous reply to me was that 2% of workers faced this problem. But with the number of Work Permit holders, 2% actually is quite a big number.”
“On the point of salary reduction, I raised this earlier and the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) did say they are reviewing the ability of an employer to reduce the salary after the IPA was issued. Could I ask if there is an update on this review?”
“Can the Minister also clarify what percentage of plastic waste sent for recycling in 2019 ends up being recycled versus that which is incinerated? Second, the amendment means that Singapore would need to boost its local plastic recycling capacity even more urgently. In 2018, only 7% of the plastic waste that Singapore recycled was processed locally. The rest was recycled overseas. Encouragingly, NEA said last year that it is planning to build up the country’s mechanical recycling capability for used plastics and explore options for chemical recycling. How much does the Ministry plan to invest into building up Singapore's plastic recycling capabilities? Furthermore, with Singapore's current recycling capacity, up to what percentage of our plastic waste and our overall waste, can be recycled locally respectively? Can the Minister clarify what percentage of plastic waste we plan to recycle locally by 2035 and include a breakdown of that timeline? Third, under the amended Convention, plastic that is clean, sorted and uncontaminated can be freely traded. In Singapore, contamination is a key reason why we recycle only 4% of our plastic waste. In recent years, MEWR and NEA have attempted to address the problem by fitting houses with a separate recycling chute and improving the information labels on blue recycling bins. Can the Ministry share data on the effectiveness of these efforts to combat plastic waste contamination? If the data is not yet available, when will it be and will the Ministry publish it once it is available? Sir, notwithstanding these clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.”
“Sir, I stand in support of the Bill. Plastic pollution is a pressing global concern. Countries that bulk-import such waste bear much of the environmental and social costs, especially if they cannot manage the waste. Many of these countries are our close neighbours in Southeast Asia. Aligning our laws to the changes in the Basel Convention is one of the ways that Singapore can help alleviate plastic pollution. I am encouraged by the amendments, which not only fulfil our international obligations but show our commitment to work with the international community to address pertinent global problems. Sir, I have three clarifications to raise. First, the changes to the Basel Convention that will take effect on 1 January 2021 will make it harder for Singapore to export our plastic waste for recycling. Under the new rules, countries will have to consent to importing plastic waste from exporters that are contaminated or that are difficult to recycle. Many countries have already announced plans to ban or limit their import of plastic waste. Such countries include China, which will ban all plastic waste imports by 2020 and other countries that take in our plastic waste, such as Malaysia and Indonesia. This situation creates a problem. With more plastic waste on our hands, the Semakau landfill could be filled even earlier than 2035, which is the projected end of its lifespan. Already, Singapore incinerates some of our recyclable waste because of our limited recycling capacity. Can the Minister share if the Ministry has reviewed its projection of the Semakau landfill's lifespan? If so, can the Minister share its updated figure on the lifespan of the Semakau landfill? If it has not done so, would the Ministry consider undertaking such a review?”
“Sir, I would like to go back to the part about rehabilitation. The Senior Parliamentary Secretary mentioned that during the probation, we do get the family involved in the rehabilitation process. But what about those who are incarcerated? Do we get the family involved in the rehabilitation process while they are in prison as well? That is the important part. So, the question is whether we have family functional therapy for inmates currently incarcerated for sex offences.”
“I thank the Senior Minister of State for the reply. I think last year, the Ministry of Health (MOH) said that it would consult stakeholders on whether these guidelines were needed. Could I ask the Senior Minister of State which stakeholders were consulted and what their views are? Second, while WICA amendments will close some of these loopholes, I think we can further strengthen it. So, I understand that under the Ministry of Manpower's (MOM's) Return to Work Coordination Programme, all the public hospitals' Work Rehabilitation Therapists are required to complete and obtain certification before they are qualified to facilitate a worker's return to work. But this is not for the private hospital. So, can I ask whether MOH will work with MOM to ensure that this is made compulsory also for private hospitals' Work Rehabilitation Therapists?”
“I thank the Minister for the reply but, maybe as a step back, could we at least publish data based on facility type and size then, without naming the company. So, we know at least which industry is contributing more to carbon emissions in Singapore.”
“I thank the Minister for his reply. I am just hoping we can publish that data of what each company is paying. The public scrutiny on that, if you compare year by year, then the company's policy with regard on climate change will move much faster, if there is public scrutiny on that.”
“In particular, section 33 provides that the Minister has the power to issue a step-in order. Can the Minister clarify how and when this power will be exercised? Will the Minister have access to a committee of industry experts who may be able to advise him on such matters? Sir, I stand in support of the Bill. It is a necessary move to adapt our legal framework to the rapidly evolving healthcare landscape, so as to continue ensuring the well-being and care of the people in Singapore. Moreover, it places us in a better position to embrace even more novel models of care. I hope the above queries will aid in sharpening Singapore’s approach to the provision of healthcare services, thus securing Singapore’s continued leadership in healthcare globally.”
“Can the Minister share the criteria for assessing these requests? Would it be possible for the Minister to decline a patient’s request and, if so, on what grounds? I understand that there must be a balance and must be struck between encouraging participation in NEHR and upholding patient choice and confidentiality. Can the Minister provide assurance that the opt-out process will not be unduly difficult for patients? Can the Minister share what measures are in place to ensure that the opt-out process is relatively quick and easy for patients? Can the Minister also provide an estimate of how long the review and opt-out process might take? Third, under the Bill, the licensing regime for healthcare service providers will transition from a premise-based to service-based one. As such, an establishment might require multiple licences depending on the services provided. Can the Minister provide some details about the projected costs for this transition? Would establishments which offer more than one type of healthcare services now have to foot higher administrative costs because they will need to hold more licences? If there are any increase in costs, can the Minister clarify the proportion of the burden that will be borne by the end-user, the service provider, and the Ministry? Can the Minister also clarify whether there will be efforts to streamline the licence application process for establishments that might require multiple licences? Lastly, the Bill has step-in provisions relating to residential care services, such as hospitals, nursing homes and in-patient palliative care services. The step-in provisions allow the Ministry to take over the operations of providers at the risk of insolvency, or who are unable to resolve systemic patient safety or welfare concerns.”
“The Ministry has also said it will implement safeguards to ensure the confidentiality of patients' NEHR records. These include the provision of access logs to patients, regular audits on NEHR access and penalties for unauthorised access. However, as with all electronic databases, NEHR faces a risk of data breach. From a national security perspective, it would also be dire should NEHR data fall into the wrong hands. This was demonstrated by the Singhealth cyberattack. On an individual level, patients may fear having their sensitive medical information leaked since this could have repercussions on their employment prospects or social lives. Can the Minister clarify how the use, access and transfer of patient data will be monitored by the system? Furthermore, how will the Ministry seek to prevent abuse of authority by healthcare professionals who have access to the system? Can the Minister also share what recourse is available for a patient who suspects that there was unauthorised access to their records? If that patient subsequently suffers perceived injustice at his or her workplace or discrimination by his or her insurer, what recourse is available then and on whom does the burden of proof fall? Who would bear the costs of any follow-up action? Finally, would a patient be responsible for probing or proving any alleged system abuse, or will the Ministry be actively monitoring the system and taking enforcement steps against breaches identified? Second, given the concerns with data privacy and protection, there are understandable reasons why certain patients may not want their data uploaded onto NEHR. These patients must submit a request to the Ministry, and requests will be assessed on a case-by-case basis.”
“Sir, I stand in support of the Bill. The update is timely. In the 39 years since PHMCA was enacted, the healthcare landscape has seen significant changes, including a shift towards digital and online services. At the same time, Singapore faces an ageing population and an increased prevalence of chronic diseases. The demand for healthcare services is set to increase. Furthermore, there is a growing need for alternative models of care beyond face-to-face consultations or healthcare provision at physical, brick-and-mortar locations. We cannot take for granted Singapore's high-quality healthcare infrastructure. The service-based licensing model will help ensure that people in Singapore continue to have access to safe and well-regulated healthcare services, even as the services take on alternative forms. The mandatory nationwide healthcare records database will also ensure continuity of care for patients across service providers. Sir, I have four clarifications. First, plans to mandate the contribution of data to NEHR have been in the news as early as 2017. However, these plans were deferred in the wake of the SingHealth cyberattack in 2018, which highlighted the risks posed by weak spots in the system. Since then, disciplinary action has been taken against top management and key individuals, NEHR has been subject to reviews, and Minister Gan Kim Yong has assured this House that the Ministry is "taking many precautions" to ensure that the system is "robust before everyone is required to submit (data)". Under the Bill, NEHR data can only be accessed for the provision of healthcare services, or with the approval of the Government. Third parties, such as employers and insurance providers, cannot access the data unless the patient permits.”
“It seems strange that we have gone to the effort of strengthening our regulations only to leave the final necessary step in the hands of the banks. Will MAS consider requiring in subsidiary legislation that banks document how they determine the list of "executive officer(s)" given that it is currently already recommended that banks do so but only as good practice? This would be preferable to leaving it open-ended and subjected to interpretation. Sir, notwithstanding these clarifications and suggestions, I stand in support of the Bill.”
“Next, under the new section 57FD, key appointment holders and 20% controllers of credit card or charge card licensees are to be approved as "fit and proper" by MAS before being officially appointed. The definition of "fit and proper" is set out in MAS' Guidelines on Fit and Proper Criteria. Can the Minister clarify why, compared to section 15B where key appointment holders, 20% controllers, 12% controllers and indirect controllers of designated financial institutions have to be approved by MAS but under the new section 57FD, only key appointment holders and 20% controllers of credit card or charge card licensees have to be approved by MAS? Can the Minister also share how actively the "fit and proper" requirement is enforced? Have there been individuals that have been denied appointment or removed from their roles for not meeting the "fit and proper" requirement? Lastly, the new section 27(2) sets out a list of related parties that are subject to MAS' requirements on related-party transactions. This includes at section 27(2)(e) "any person in a senior management group of the bank". MAS has also stated that "senior management group" will include "family members of the executive officers". In response to a question on the definition of an "executive officer", MAS replied that the definition of an "executive officer" is not meant to be descriptive. Instead, MAS expects banks to assess and identify their executive officers. It also stated that it is good practice for the bank to document how it determines the list of "executive officer(s)". MAS is seeking to increase its oversight of banks; yet, the strengthened regulations could very easily be circumvented by the banks' own definition of "executive officer".”
“Sir, I stand in support of the Bill. The amendments, which update the Banking Act, have been through two rounds of public consultation. MAS has also published a detailed response to the feedback received on the proposed amendments. I commend the transparency and rigour of MAS' consultation process. I am heartened that, increasingly, we not just see public consultations on Bills but also detailed responses on the feedback we received. Sir, I would like to seek some clarifications on the Bill and also offer some suggestions. The amended section 20(1) will expand the grounds for revocation of bank licences, allowing MAS to revoke a bank licence if it "is satisfied that it is in the public interest to do so" under section 20(1)(d). In response to a question on when MAS would consider it to be in the public interest to revoke a bank licence, MAS responded that it will consider the factors set out in the MAS' Enforcement Monograph. This includes whether there was ineffective governance, widespread control failures, pervasive non-compliance, gross misconduct, or serious breaches of applicable law. The Enforcement Monograph is a guidance document that is not strictly legally binding. Revoking a bank licence is a very drastic step and, yet, the considerations stated in the Enforcement Monograph are not legally binding. Why? Can the Minister also confirm it will only revoke bank licences on the ground of "public interest" for the most serious cases of ineffective governance, widespread control failures, pervasive non-compliance, gross misconduct, or serious breaches of applicable law, as stated in the Enforcement Monograph?”
“In what categories of cases that raise a point of law of public importance should the Court of Appeal nonetheless decline to grant leave to appeal? Next, can the Senior Minister of State also clarify how the existing case precedents will apply in the restructured Supreme Court under the principle of stare decisis? The doctrine of judicial precedent means that the finding of a higher Court which forms the basis of its decision is binding on a Court lower in the hierarchy. Currently, the Court of Appeal is at the top of the hierarchy followed by the Singapore High Court, the District Court and the Magistrate's Court. The Appellate Division will effectively be the final appeals Court for many categories of civil matters and litigants may not have recourse to the Court of Appeal. How persuasive will the findings of the Appellate Division of the High Court be, compared against the findings of the current Court of Appeal before the restructuring takes place? Sir, in conclusion, I hope the Senior Minister of State can provide guidance on how the Court of Appeal is to exercise its powers and how existing case law is to be interpreted in light of the restructured Supreme Court. These clarifications notwithstanding, I stand in support of all three Bills.”
“In doing so, the Court of Appeal and the High Court overturned what had then seemed to be settled law for four decades that directors will be liable for the offence of criminal breach of trust by way of their businesses as agents in respect of property entrusted to them in the course of their duties as directors. Admittedly, the City Harvest cases were criminal proceedings. Nonetheless, the point stands that what appears to be settled law in civil proceedings may subsequently be contested. The prescribed categories of civil appeals to be heard by the Court of Appeal are to be set out in a schedule, as the Senior Minister of State mentioned, to the amended SCJA and may be amended by the Minister after consulting the Chief Justice. While some flexibility is required, it would undermine the purpose of this categorisation and certainty for litigants if the Court of Appeal has unfettered discretion in determining which Court should hear the appeal. Can the Senior Minister of State provide some guidance on how the Court of Appeal should exercise its discretion under section 29E(1) in transferring a case ordinarily allocated to its jurisdiction to the Appellate Division? Next, under the new section 47(2) of the SCJA Bill, the Court of Appeal may grant leave for an appeal against a decision of the Appellate Division in a civil case if the appeal will raise a point of law of public importance. However, section 47(4) clarifies that the Court of Appeal is not required to grant leave even if the appeal will raise a point of law of public importance. Can the Senior Minister of State share what policy considerations override the benefit of having the Court of Appeal rule on a point of law of public importance?”
“Sir, the three Bills propose amendments to restructure the Supreme Court by introducing a new Appellate Division of the High Court. My speech addresses the restructuring collectively proposed by all three Bills. I support these amendments which will allow the Supreme Court to better manage its caseload in light of the increase in the number and complexity of cases. I have just three clarifications on how the Court of Appeal will exercise its jurisdiction and how the restructuring will affect the application of existing case precedents. First, the new section 29E(1) proposed by the SCJA Bill allows the Court of Appeal to transfer to the Appellate Division any civil appeal made to the Court of Appeal. The proposed section 29E(5) clarifies that the transfer may be made even if it is a case that is ordinarily allocated to the Court of Appeal. Can the Senior Minister of State clarify under what situations might the Court of Appeal make such a transfer? Appendix B of the Ministry's press release on the restructuring of the Supreme Court suggests that the Court of Appeal may do so if the issues on appeal relate to settled law. However, what is settled law may not always be so clear cut. For instance, the High Court in Public Prosecutor v Lam Leng Hung and others and the Court of Appeal in Public Prosecutor v Lam Leng Hung, more commonly known as the City Harvest cases, held that the directors did not fall within the definition of "agents" under section 409 of the Penal Code on criminal breach of trust by an agent.”
“Sir, may I just ask, specifically, when will we be making this decision on which alignment we will be using?”
“Sir, I have three clarifications. One is on the immunity. I think the Senior Parliamentary Secretary mentioned that it is harder to grant immunity when there are immigration offences as well. So, can we look into at least granting immunity when there are no immigration offences? These really are the Singaporean sex workers. Second, my call about funding for the next step programme, which is about helping Singaporean sex workers transit out of the industry, I think that is a much better way. Rather than keep trying to arrest them, we help them to get out of the industry, which will reduce the number of sex workers. Third is whether MHA is open to having a closed dialogue with the sex workers themselves. Hear from them directly and see how we can work together to address some of the concerns that MHA has.”
“Let us work together with them to find long-term solutions rather than against them. Sir, we can take the moral high ground and judge them, discriminate against them and even despise them. But let us remember that they are also someone’s child, someone's daughter, someone's loved one and, more than anything, these are fellow Singaporeans who need help. Let us help them. And by helping them transit out of the sex industry, we might actually reduce the number of Singaporean sex workers much faster than arresting them and playing this cat-and-mouse game.”
“At the end of the six months, the women will have the option of continuing or exiting the programme. Research shows that sex workers who have successfully left and abstained from sex work for at least two years have been able to do so only after about six attempts on average. It is not an easy transition, but the result, I believe, is worth the effort. In 2017, Minister Josephine Teo said in relation to sex workers, "For those who wish to transit to other types of work, I appreciate it really may not be easy for them, but help is available and we are most willing to reach out to them". Sir, I hope that MHA will consider providing support and funding for The Next Step Programme. Sir, let me end with what Mr Wong Kan Seng said in this House 20 years ago again, "Governments around the world and through the ages have tried to eradicate prostitution, but none had succeeded. Criminalising prostitution only drives such activities underground, resulting in crime syndicates taking control over such activities." There is a need for us to rethink and relook our policies and remember what our former Minister told us. I hope that rather than just prosecute sex workers, we can provide help. Rather than entrap them with our undercover officers, we can engage them holistically. Rather than lecture them on morals and the law, we can listen to them and understand why they became a sex worker, what their concerns are and what their aspirations are. I hope that MHA will consider holding discussions with the sex workers directly. I would be keen to help with this and facilitate it. Some sex workers may be concerned about meeting with MHA for fear of being identified, but we can start by meeting with sex workers who are transiting out of the industry.”
“Do we really want a rapist to get away scot-free just because his victim is a sex worker? Does our society become a safer place for all if this continues? I can understand that what I am proposing is not a simple suggestion. However, can I ask if MHA is studying this problem and also studying what others are doing? I understand that in the US states of California, Utah and Washington, laws have been passed to allow sex workers to, without fear of arrest or prosecution, report crimes that they were victims of or witnesses to. Can MHA look into this holistically to assess the pros and cons of such laws and see what effects they have had on society? Sir, I believe the long-term solution is to put more resources into helping sex workers transit out of their industry. Indeed, many of the sex workers I spoke to said they wanted to leave the sex industry but needed help doing so. Studies have showed that women who want to leave the sex work industry are trapped in their industry due to two key factors: one, society's prejudice against former sex workers; and two, the women’s lack of social support and low self-esteem. The fortunate thing in Singapore is that, in Singapore, we do have non-profit groups helping these women. Project X is one such group. It provides social, emotional and legal support for sex workers in Singapore, and it hopes to launch The Next Step Programme, to which I hope the Government can provide some funding and support. The programme aims to help sex workers who wish to leave the industry. Over six months, case workers work with the women to devise a customised plan. The plan aims to help the women in five important ways: financial planning, individual counselling, job skills training, family counselling, and social and communication skills.”
“She did not do well in her studies and could not get into a polytechnic. She tried to enrol in a private polytechnic but did not have enough money to pay the tuition fees. She then tried to get a bank loan but failed as she could not find a guarantor. Not knowing where else to go for help, she ultimately entered the sex trade for money to fund her education. We can all take the moral high ground and tell the sex workers that they know the risk of sex work and that they can find another job, so why should we protect them and help them? But I hope we remember that these are fellow Singaporeans. Rather than judge them for their actions, I hope we can help them. Sir, many of them also shared their fears with me and shared stories of how some sex workers get raped and robbed. The Women’s Charter is all about protecting women and girls from exploitation and harm and this should include sex workers as well. The recent case where three youths hatched a plot to rob sex workers at knifepoint highlights how sex workers are especially vulnerable. The trio agreed on this plot as this would be the "safest" way to commit a crime as they would be preying on the sex workers’ "vulnerabilities and insecurities", given the illicit nature of their work. The sex workers I spoke to feared that when they report a crime committed against them, they, too, will be arrested because of the illicit nature of their work. As such, many do not report the crime, and my concerns are not just for the sex workers but also for society at large. We have people committing crimes and getting away with it. They might continue with their crimes and start targeting others or, worse still, evolve to committing more serious crimes.”
“As we wipe out one area, we only push the sex workers to another area which we then try to wipe out. I appreciate that vice activities will always evolve, and enforcement needs to evolve as well. However, it seems that the vice activities are evolving at least partly because of our actions. This cat-and-mouse game means that we are wasting our precious resources and, most importantly, we are always one step behind. Sir, I believe a long-term solution can come from speaking with sex workers themselves about the issue. I met up with Singaporean sex workers when I was researching the Massage Establishment Bill and I met up with Singaporean sex workers again when researching this Bill. I sat there listening to their stories, their fears and their aspirations. These are fellow Singaporeans and many are victims of circumstance. Many feel that they have no choice but to be sex workers. We need to ask ourselves how many people would willingly sell sexual services? I listened to one woman share about how she got kicked out of her house by her parents when she was young, became homeless, did not know where to go for help and, ultimately, entered the sex trade just to survive. She was beaming with pride when she informed everyone during the dialogue that she had just paid the deposit for a make-up course and everyone in the room cheered. I listened to how another woman became a sex worker when she was only 19 years old and has been doing this for four years now. Her parents divorced when she was five years old and both parents did not want her. She was left with her grandmother who raised her. For her entire childhood, she was constantly reminded that she had no parents. I cannot imagine the impact that had on a young child.”
“I hope that the Minister can provide clarity on how we will be enforcing this. My second concern is about whether our attempts to clamp down on sexual services work. Sir, this would not be the first time I am making this point. Two years ago, I stood in this House to support the Massage Establishments Bill. But in that speech, I said, "Worse still, we might drive these activities further underground." This was the fear of former Home Affairs Minister, Mr Wong Kan Seng, who said this in Parliament in 1999 in relation to a question about prostitution, "It is better that the Police know where these areas are and enforcement action can be taken, rather than to disperse these brothels to the whole of Singapore and we have a cat-and-mouse game chasing after them or, worse still, drive them underground, and they will be operating everywhere." I fear that we are doing what Mr Wong advised us 20 years ago not to do and that the cat-and-mouse game has started. In 2010, Member of Parliament Mr Baey Yam Keng said that vice raids in Geylang led to pimps and prostitutes "spilling out" of the area. Former Nominated Member of Parliament Kok Heng Leun raised the same concerns in his speech on the Massage Establishments Bill. He said, "In the past, there used to be these health centres where sexual services were provided alongside massage. Most of these health centres were not allowed to renew their licences. The shutdown of these health centres led to the proliferation of smaller parlours set up by the people who used to work at these health centres. From interviews with massage workers, the proliferation was also because smaller parlours were harder to apprehend for sexual services." What is our end goal?”
“Sir, let me start by saying that I stand in support of the Bill. I do not doubt that there is a need to curb vice activities perpetuated through online platforms and I agree that this is a serious concern that must be addressed. I also support MHA’s intent to deprive vice syndicates of operating space, especially in the heartlands. My residents and myself included all want a sense of safety and security where we live. But while I support these amendments, I have concerns about their effectiveness. Are we addressing only the symptoms of the issue and not the root cause? Are we just chasing our tails? Is it time to rethink our strategy? My first concern is about the amendment targeting the irresponsible lease of premises and whether it is feasible and practical. Sir, as I mentioned, I support the intent of the amendment. None of us wants our neighbourhoods to become hubs of vice activities. But my question is: how are home owners and tenants supposed to enforce this? MHA has stated that if vice activities are detected at their premises, home owners and tenants will have to show that they had no knowledge of and could not, with "reasonable diligence", have known that the place would be used for vice activities. One way of satisfying themselves is to conduct identity checks at the point of signing their lease agreements, as part of due diligence when renting out or subletting their premises. This sounds good on paper. In practice, however, how does a home owner or tenant perform "reasonable diligence" other than asking directly whether one is a sex worker? If the home owner or tenant drops by and find that the tenant or subtenant is having sex with another person, how do they determine whether or not that is a vice activity?”
“Can I ask whether the Ministry of the Environment and Water Resources will be urging the Government Investment Corporation of Singapore (GIC) to also stop funding coal-power projects?”
“The Senior Minister of State mentioned that we are only monitoring the technology of carbon capture. Could I ask whether the Ministry of the Environment and Water Resources is doing a feasibility study of carbon capture as part of our efforts to mitigate climate change?”
“The success of our multi-religious society lies not just with our laws but also our approach in managing inter-religious relations. In the press coverage leading up to the Second Reading of the Bill, it has been often highlighted that the Act has never once been invoked since it came into effect nearly 30 years ago. I hope our focus will continue to remain on education and building inter-religious ties, and that we will never have to resort to the mechanisms under MRHA.”
“CRI has a similar objective as a Community Service Order (CSO), which is a sentence that can be imposed for an offender to make amends to the community by performing unpaid community service under the supervision of an authorised officer. The difference between CRI and a CSO is that the decision to offer the CRI is made by the Minister, making it different from a CSO, which is a punishment imposed by a judge. CRI is intended to be offered at the pre-trial stage, as opposed to a CSO which features at the post-trial, sentencing stage. A CSO may not be a sentencing option for some of the new offences in this Bill because a CSO cannot be imposed for an offence which is punishable with a term of imprisonment which exceeds three years. The offence of inciting hatred and ill-will is punishable with imprisonment of five years, while the offence of urging violence on religious grounds or against religious groups is punishable with imprisonment of up to 10 years. However, both CRI and a CSO have similar underlying rationales of rehabilitation and education. The need to rehabilitate and re-educate an offender is still present even after an offender has been tried. Yet, under section 16H(5)(b), a CRI cannot be entered into after the commencement of trial. Will the Minister consider extending CRI as a sentencing option? Sir, I stand in support of the Bill. However, beyond MRHA or the proposed amendments, what is even more remarkable is the collaborative relationship between the Government and our religious organisations. The religious groups have a close relationship based on mutual trust and respect, and frequently interact through platforms, such as the IROs.”
“A foreigner could inform a religious organisation that he or she is making a donation of $10,000 or more but, to circumvent the need to disclose this donation to the authorities, he or she will drop the donation in the donation box. He or she could also ask a foreigner in Singapore on a long-term pass to help make that donation but still alert the religious organisation that the donation is from him or her. I suggest that we also require religious organisations to disclose any correspondence with foreigners with regard to donations of large amounts. This can be similar to the proposed requirement for religious organisations to disclose affiliations to foreign individuals or organisations which are in a position of control or power over the religious organisation. Can I also ask if the Ministry is tracking how much foreign donations a religious organisation is receiving annually and also how much it is receiving anonymously? There might be cases where a religious organisation which receives a significant amount of foreign donations but does not need to disclose their foreign donations as it is from different sources and each source of donation is under $10,000. I do believe that we should monitor this, be alert, and pay attention to religious organisations which have significant amounts of or have sudden increases in foreign donation which do not need to be disclosed. This should apply also to sudden increases in anonymous donations. Beyond these suggestions, can the Minister provide more assurances that the exemptions proposed will not become loopholes, which makes it harder to safeguard against foreign influence? Lastly, section 16H provides for CRI as a reconciliatory approach for addressing offending behaviour that has wounded the feelings of a religious community.”
“Earlier this year, the Senior Parliamentary Secretary shared that 24 radicalised Singaporeans have been dealt with under the ISA since 2015. Just this year alone, two Singaporean men were detained in January, while another two were detained in May and July. All four men had been radicalised by pro-Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) elements. They were Singapore Citizens but acting under the influence of foreign actors. How does this Bill propose to address foreign influence on religious organisations where the influence does not come directly from foreign actors, but from citizens or PRs who are acting under foreign influence? Section 8(2A) specifies the reasons for which an RO may be made. On what grounds under section 8(2A) can an RO be made to address foreign influence exerted through Singapore Citizens in a religious organisation? Next, I support the requirement for religious organisations to disclose "foreign donations" of $10,000 or more. But with so many exemptions proposed, my concern is whether this requirement will be effective. We are exempting "foreigners in Singapore on long-term passes". Why? It is probably more justifiable to exempt Singapore Citizens and Singapore PRs. But since the amendment is proposed to safeguard against foreign influence, can the Minister clarify why the exemption is extended to "foreigners in Singapore on long-term passes"? The exemption is also for anonymous donations like those made via donation boxes placed at the religious sites. This exemption seems quite straightforward since we do not know who made those donations. However, how will we prevent people from exploiting this loophole?”
“Sir, this Bill relates to a very fundamental tenet of Singapore society. Singaporeans often proudly cite the fact that Singapore is a country where many religions can co-exist peacefully and even thrive. We cannot take this state of affairs for granted. This Bill is an acknowledgment that we must constantly update our legal framework to address new challenges. The most pressing ones we face right now are the challenges posed by social media and the Internet, as well as the trend of foreign influence exploiting religious fault lines. The Ministry has closely consulted religious leaders in drafting the Bill and I understand that there is strong support from religious leaders for these amendments. I am heartened to see that while the challenges have evolved, the Government’s consultative relationship with religious leaders and groups when it comes to religious matters has not changed. Sir, I support the amendments proposed but my concern is how effective they would be and I would like to seek some clarifications. The Bill seeks to prevent foreign actors from adversely affecting religious harmony in Singapore by imposing requirements relating to citizenship or permanent residence requirements on the leadership of religious organisations and the disclosure of large donations, amongst others. An RO can also be issued to prohibit a religious organisation from receiving donations from specific or all foreign donors, to require the entire governing body to be Singapore Citizens and to require specific foreigners to be suspended or removed from office. However, citizenship or permanent residence is a very rough proxy for whether an individual is under foreign influence.”
“Sir, I thank the Senior Minister of State for saying that we are going to set up a Citizens' Workgroup for the single-use plastics issue. Very often, we keep saying we need the plastic bags to bag our trash and the other countries do not. But in the UK, where after introducing a plastic bag charge, there was an 80% decline in the use of plastic bags. They also use the plastic bag to bag their trash. So, it is similar to Singapore. I do not think we can keep using that argument. We also just said that we will support NTUC FairPrice for introducing a plastic bag charge. But, at the same time, we keep giving reasons why it is not going to work. I just hope we can have a single stand on whether we support the plastic bag charge or we do not support the plastic bag charge.”
“Sir, we have a strong focus on tackling the supply side of the equation and I hope we have an equally strong focus on tackling the demand side of the equation. We all know that if there is demand, there will always be supply. If there is continued demand for packaging, then the EPR that we will introduce for packaging waste will be futile. Producers will likely continue to provide packaging and the EPR will simply be another business cost. Can MEWR share what plans it has to urge Singaporeans to reduce and reuse? I know we have a lot of plans for recycling. But I stress again that recycling does not address our throwaway culture. We need to urge people to reduce and reuse. If MEWR feels that a plastic bag charge is not the way to go, then I hope they can share with this House what are the alternative plans. Sir, our economy is important, and dollar and cents issues are critical. However, a good economy will be useless for all of us if we do not have a healthy planet to live in. In the words of Mdm Ho Ching, "There is no Plan B...because there is no Planet B." Notwithstanding the above queries, I stand in strong support of this Bill.”
“Major supermarket chains in the United Kingdom (UK), such as Waitrose and Morrisons, have gone "nude" by having "nude zones" where products are not packaged in plastic packaging. I would love to one day walk down our supermarkets in Singapore and see "nude" vegetables and fruits without any plastic packaging. I hope MEWR will consider launching a pilot for this. On the supply side of the equation, we are doing well for e-waste and packaging waste where we are addressing the root of the problem. However, for food waste, we seem to be addressing the symptoms of the problem. The focus of the Bill here is on processing the food waste rather than preventing or at least reducing it. Does MEWR have plans for businesses to also report their plans to reduce their food waste, similar to how producers of packaging and packaged products have to submit plans to NEA on how much packaging they put-to-market annually and, again, their plans to reduce, reuse and recycle packaging waste? We currently have technology on the market to identify and track the components of food waste for commercial businesses in order for them to plan their production better. One local example is the Singapore startup Good for Food. Their Smart Dustbin allows hotels and large commercial kitchens to measure, track and identify all food waste thrown into it. The data allows businesses to adjust the type and quantity of food produced. This prevents food waste and reduces business costs wasted on producing unsold and unconsumed food. Beyond the reporting on how a business will reduce food waste, will the Ministry also consider encouraging businesses to adopt such technology?”
“Similarly, I understand that producers with an annual turnover below $10 million will not need to report the packaging they imported or used and also need not submit to NEA a plan to reduce, reuse or recycle the packaging in Singapore, and how they will implement this plan. Why? Can the Minister clarify how the $10 million threshold was determined and what proportion of the market these exempted producers of packaging waste form? Small producers of low-cost goods can generate just as much waste as one with a high turnover. Can the Minister further share what plans there are to integrate these small producers into reporting schemes in the future? Next, I understand that a producer will submit their plan to reduce, reuse or recycle packaging and their implementation plans. Can I ask if there will be any penalties if these plans are not adhered to? Also, in future, will MEWR consider setting reduction targets for these producers? Otherwise, while we collect data from this exercise of submitting their plans, I am not sure we will achieve much in terms of reducing the amount of waste generated. In addition to the broad framework under the Bill, we should also have initiatives on the ground to tackle the packaging waste generated by supermarkets. I am astounded by the amount of unnecessary packaging used at supermarkets. While it is often argued that plastic is required to protect fresh produce during shipping and storage, I have been told that some items do not arrive already packaged in the plastic packaging that we see on the shelf. They are shipped in plastic packages and are then repackaged into even more plastic packaging. I suggest we learn from what other countries have done to tackle waste generated at supermarkets. Can our supermarkets go "nude"?”
“What are the envisaged collection targets in Singapore as a result of this Bill over the next three years? What will be the next targets thereafter in the next three-year cycle? Can the Minister share how the collection targets are calculated? Can the Minister also shed light on why is there a three-year grace period for missed collection targets? Next, the Bill defines "large retailers" as retailers that occupy any premises with a floor area of 300 square metres (sqm) or larger. However, this does not take into account e-commerce retailers, like other Members of this House have just raised. With the rise of e-commerce, "large retailers" may not need to supply refuse collection points (RCPs) from a large shopfront area. In fact, all a "large retailer" needs is a warehouse and an Internet connection. Will the Minister consider also requiring e-commerce retailers to partner with PRS operators or e-waste recyclers to collect and process unwanted e-products? Next, I understand that the Bill seeks to cover 90% of Singapore's e-waste. Yet, small producers will be exempted from financing critical producer responsibility schemes (PRS). In line with the polluter-pays principle, PRS should not have the effect of excluding niche and low-volume producers. What measures will be imposed upon such small producers in the future in order that they be accountable for the e-waste that they generate? As an interim measure, could the Ministry look into setting up subsidised, voluntary PRS schemes for such small producers who wish to contribute?”
“Sir, I have spent the past four years in this House speaking up and calling for greater protection of our environment. This Bill is a positive step in the right direction, and I wholeheartedly support it and I thank the Ministry for the Environment and Water Resources (MEWR) for taking this progressive step forward. The amendments proposed are substantive and will help to tackle the supply side of the equation and tackle it at the root rather than tackle the symptoms of the problem. We are starting the EPR framework with e-waste and, subsequently, packaging waste, and I hope we will soon extend it to other waste. We are all aware that when it comes to the environment, it cannot be business as usual. We cannot go on generating and incinerating waste indefinitely. Our landfills are rapidly filling up, and our planet is at her breaking point. We need become a zero-waste nation and we need to do it soon. We need to remember that ensuring resource sustainability is not merely about waste management. We have to tackle the issue holistically. Our efforts must both aim to manage waste and reduce the generation of waste in the first place. Our measures have to address both the producers on the supply side and the consumers on the demand side. With this in mind, I would like to raise some clarifications and recommendations. Singapore generates 60,000 tonnes of e-waste annually. Only 6% or six tonnes of every 100 tonnes of e-waste are recycled. This is a staggering loss of recoverable raw materials and a huge waste. From 2016, EU member states had to collect 45 tonnes of e-waste for every 100 tonnes of electronic goods put on sale during the previous three years. The target was revised up to 65 tonnes in 2019.”
“Could I just check with the Minister what the current staff is to children ratio is at our children's home? And whether we know what an optimum level is, and if we have a target that we are trying to reach right now? Secondly, the Minister did say that there is some public data, but I just wanted to confirm that we have data on how many children enter our children's home and then we follow them along the journey and how many actually end up in the boys' home and how many further along the line end up being incarcerated. Not from boys' home where there is a criminal element but from the children's home where sometimes, again, like Alice's case, where she had to be removed from her family for very good reasons and enter the children's home. How many of those children end up in our boys' home and then end up further along the line incarcerated? Lastly, I just want to confirm that we are increasing funding support for the VWOs who run our "places of safety".”
“Children who are put in "places of safety" because of circumstances beyond their control have the same potential as any other child, and are no less deserving of care and attention. Let us make sure that we can give them the safe environment to break free of their unfortunate circumstances and to grow into their full potential. Let us make sure we help the children and also improve support and resources provided to the VWOs running our "places of safety". Notwithstanding the above queries and recommendations, I stand in support of this Bill.”
“We put her in a dormitory and expect her to be rehabilitated and helped in the process. Do we know whether doing this will lead to better outcomes for the children? I have seen how Allie has changed from her time at the "place of safety" and it breaks my heart. And I know this has not worked for her brother. While in a "place of safety", he was caught housebreaking and was sent to a boys' home. I urge the Ministry to track and study the effectiveness of our "place of safety". We need data to measure the effectiveness of our programmes and ensure that our policies work and work well. We need to provide more help to the VWOs which run our "places of safety". Lastly, the new section 68A allows persons-in-charge of homes for children and young persons to use mechanical restraints, such as handcuffs. I understand this is intended to prevent children in the homes from escaping custody or inflicting bodily injury on themselves. This seems incompatible with our shift to a more rehabilitative approach. I understand that there might be circumstances where there is a genuine need to physically restrain the children. Our children's homes are already staffed by Auxiliary Officers. They are in a better position to step in, if necessary. There should be a clear distinction between the roles of the staff and Auxiliary Officers. Staff of the children's homes should be nurturing figures who are there to protect, not restrain the children. Imagine the psychological effect on children to see the staff using handcuffs on them and their friends. Can we maintain this separation by increasing the number of Auxiliary Officers, if necessary, so that the MSF staff do not have to take on this role? Sir, it is often said that our children are our hope for the future.”
“Will the Minister consider adopting the same policy position that siblings should not be separated where possible when making decisions about where children go when sent to a "place of safety"? Next, Allie was also removed from her school as they wanted to send her to a school nearer to the "place of safety". Again, I understand the logistical constraints. But I hope that we can allow a child to remain in his or her school after they have been sent to a "place of safety". I cannot imagine how difficult it must have been for Allie to go to a new primary school, try to make new friends, maybe even answer questions by her classmates on why she is there and, I hope not, but maybe even be laughed at. I hope that MSF will consider this recommendation positively. Next, inter-generational patterns of incarceration is a recognised phenomenon. Breaking this vicious cycle has been included as a goal in many efforts to support inmates and ex-offenders in Singapore. For example, addressing the inter-generational offending cycle is a key objective of Family Resource Centres, which support inmates' families. This pattern of incarceration can start at an early age. Whilst children's homes are intended to be safe places for the protection of vulnerable children, the roots of inter-generational incarceration may also begin here. We will not know until we have studied this problem. Can the Ministry share if it collects data on how many children who enter a "place of safety" later enter the boys' or girls' homes and, later on, even prisons? Sir, I started my speech with Allie's story and I wish to end this part of the speech with her story, too. In putting Allie in a "place of safety", we took her away from her home, her siblings and everything that she was used to.”
“I understand that staff and resource constraints are a perpetual problem that VWOs have to grapple with. I had the same problem, too, when running my VWO. But in the best interest of our children, we should ensure that our VWOs are adequately staffed and have the resources they need to do their work. Can the Minister share what the current staff is to children ratio is at the "places of safety"? What was it in the past? Has it improved over the years? Can the Minister share if MSF has studied the optimum staff is to children ratio? Are there plans to further reduce the current ratio to ensure that each child has sufficient individualised care and attention? Does MSF have plans to provide more funding to VWOs running a "place of safety"? Next, Allie and her two siblings were housed in "places of safety". They were sent there on the same day but were separated as the "place of safety" Allie was sent to did not have a place for her two brothers. While I understand the logistical constraints, it brings about acute stress for a child to be separated from siblings, especially when they have already lost their parents. Children in crisis are at their most vulnerable. They feel fear, confusion, abandonment, worry and sadness. It is essential that they receive quick support and care, in stable conditions they can feel comfortable in. Keeping Allie and her siblings together is the least we could do to create stability under such turbulent circumstances. This will help the VWOs running our "places of safety" as well. In determining custody, care and control of the children in divorce cases, the Court has stated that siblings should not be separated as far as possible. The Court considers this to be a factor in considering the welfare of the children.”
“I used to take her out with my daughter, and I remember seeing her giving my daughter her black toy car. They say those with the least give the most and this is so true. Allie lived in a rental flat and did not have much, but she gave a lot, not just material gifts. But she is someone who is so caring. I remember my daughter coughing once and, almost instinctively, Allie would pat my daughter's back to make her feel better. A few months after Allie was sent to a "place of safety", the Allie I knew vanished and was replaced by a quiet reserved girl who barely spoke a word. This was despite all the hard work the social workers and case manager had put in to help her. She changed completely and I could see why. She was taken away from her house, her siblings, her family and even her school. Everything she knew of and was used to, was removed from her. I know we do this to protect her, to help her. But we need to start questioning whether this works. Again, let me put on record that I commend the VWOs for doing a very admirable job of caring for the children with limited resources. At the same time, I believe we can and we have to do more for children like Allie and her siblings who just need a nurturing environment to grow and blossom. In the spirit of protecting and rehabilitating our vulnerable children, I have the following questions and recommendations on helping VWOs which run "places of safety". Sir, I believe one of the problems of the "places of safety" is the group setting with too few staff members. We place all the children together, all of whom are angry, sad, lost, frustrated, disappointed and I do not think it helps when they are placed together with insufficient support.”
“Sir, I stand in support of the Bill. I would like to applaud MSF for the thorough and thoughtful consultation process in drafting the Bill. MSF consulted over 300 stakeholders in the children and youth services sector and considered over 40 written responses during the public consultation. Sir, I support the move towards a more rehabilitative regime by raising the maximum age of a "young person" from below 16 to below 18. This is a step in the right direction. I also applaud the extension of childcare leave to foster parents and urge parents to step forward to serve as foster parents. While our voluntary welfare organisations (VWOs) do their best in providing children who come through their doors with the best care possible, there is no substitute for a stable family environment. Foster parents give children the stability, individual care and personal affection that they need, and I hope more people will step forward to become foster parents. Sir, I would like to cover two areas in my speech. I will focus on our children's homes, which have been designated as a "place of safety" and our boys' home and girls' home. Unfortunately, I have some residents who have been placed in a "place of safety", some of whom are only in primary schools. My resident Allie, not her real name, has spent the last three years in a "place of safety". I have visited her there and I have to be honest that it was heartbreaking seeing her there. When I visited, a little boy was scaling the walls and the barbed wires trying to escape from the "place of safety". The VWO was doing their absolute best in very difficult circumstances. I used to take Allie out and she was a bubbly little girl, always running around and always with a big heart.”