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 25 of 37.
“Sir, young couples are rightly concerned about whether they have the means to bring up a child. It is now not just "money not enough", but also "time and leave not enough". The current six days of childcare leave and unpaid infant care leave are insufficient. It does not make sense that the amount of leave does not increase as well when you have more kids. Parents with four kids clearly need more leave than parents with one child. With Hand Foot and Mouth Disease (HFMD) so common now, six days of childcare leave are just not enough. I experienced this last year when all three of my kids had HFMD consecutively. My four-year-old had to be out of school for two weeks. I am not even sure if parents who have two or more kids will have sufficient annual leave once their childcare leave has been used. Can we consider giving childcare leave on a per child basis? For parents with two or more kids, can the Minister also consider allowing parents to use their sick leave entitlements also when their child is sick? Parents can provide their child's medical certificate (MC) as proof when using this leave. Extending Parental Leave Sir, it has been almost two years since I delivered my Adjournment Motion calling for more parental leave for parents of multiples or preterm babies. In the blink of an eye, my twins, Katie and Poppy, are now two years old. From fighting for their lives, they are now fighting for their toys. The burps have been replaced by farts. Their crying has been replaced by smiles and the beautiful sound of laughter. This parenthood journey has been priceless, and I am so happy we have three healthy, happy girls. The Adjournment Motion speech brought back many painful memories of Katie and Poppy being born premature and almost losing their lives.”
“Will the Minister consider adopting common principles and guidelines for the conduct of staff engagement surveys across the Public Service? Will the Minister also consider requiring public agencies to track the feedback received and actions taken in response to the feedback?”
“Sir, last year, I spoke about the need to better recognise public servants' contributions and skills beyond their formal academic qualifications. Minister Ong Ye Kung shared that one initiative was to merge existing schemes for diploma and degree holders. Beyond the point of recruitment, an officer's progression is pegged to their on-the-job performance rather than their educational qualification. This has been done for the Ministry of Education (MOE), the generic Management Executive Scheme in the Civil Service, and the Air Traffic Control Officer Scheme. Minister Ong Ye Kung indicated that PSD will work with other public agencies to identify more areas where this can be implemented. [Mr Speaker in the Chair] Can the Minister provide an update on which other public agencies no longer have different salary scales and progression structures for diploma and degree holders? Can we also extend this to the Institute of Technical Education (ITE) graduates and not just diploma and degree holders? Internal Quality Service Managers (QSMs) for Public Agencies Sir, last year, I also spoke up about the need to provide platforms for public servants to provide feedback to upper management. Further, we need to close the feedback loop so that public servants know that their views are valued and can make a difference in strengthening the Public Service. I suggested implementing internal QSMs within Ministries and Statutory Boards. Minister Ong Ye Kung responded that all public agencies do conduct staff engagement surveys periodically. I still meet some public servants who say that they have provided feedback but have no idea if anyone is looking into it and have not received the reply with regard to the feedback that was provided.”
“This means that students of different socio-economic backgrounds are more likely to mix with one another. In 2018, the school reported that the new system has led to an increase in attendance rates and was met with a positive response by the students, and I hope that MOE can study what this school has done. Sir, MOE has worked hard to make changes in the right direction over the last few years, trying to steer the focus to aptitude instead of academic achievements and removing ranking. As a parent of young children, I am thankful for these changes and hope that we can do more. We have to do more. Sir, there is a quote which reads, "Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid." There will be inequality in our education system. The fact is that not everybody is the same. But our students are not stupid and should not feel that they are or face that kind of stigma. We need to make sure their future is not decided by one major examination. We need to make sure that, like where we live, we do not have social stratification in where we study. Every school is a good school. Now, let us make every class a good class. Like our primary schools, let us completely replace streaming with Subject-Based Banding in our secondary schools. Sir, I know that streaming is a sacred cow and this practice has existed for many decades. Members of this House will know that I do not like to cull animals but, Sir, it is time to slain this sacred cow.”
“Sir, it is time to eliminate streaming in secondary schools in favour of Subject-Based Banding. I believe the debate we need to have has already happened. The concerns I raise today are the same ones students, teachers, parents and Members of this House have previously raised about primary school streaming. In 2008, MOE listened to these concerns and replaced primary school streaming with Subject-Based Banding. Subject-Based Banding kept the good parts of streaming while cutting out the bad parts. As Minister Ong Ye Kung shared this month about the replacement of streaming with Subject-Based Banding in primary schools, "We believe that this has helped raise the confidence and motivation of students while customising education to their aptitudes and pace of learning." He also added, "there are also more opportunities for interaction among students across the different subject combinations, as a form class can have students of several subject combinations. Concerns about labelling and stigmatisation have diminished." Both teachers and parents have also expressed support for Subject-Based Banding. It would seem strange that we did away with streaming and adopted Subject-Based Banding in primary schools for very good reasons but somehow these reasons do not apply to secondary schools. We have already expanded Subject-Based Banding to all secondary schools to benefit more students. So, what is stopping us from abolishing streaming in secondary schools? What is stopping us from preventing this kind of social stratification? Sir, there are schools that have made progress on this and I hope that MOE studies what Boon Lay Secondary School is doing, for example. Students there are grouped not based on their streams, but by co-curricular activities (CCA) groups.”
“David is the poster child of a successful student from the Normal (Technical) stream who has made it. He scored 110 for his PSLE. Today, he is an economics teacher at a Junior College. David's success was almost not to be. His parents divorced when he was young, and he lived with his mother who was visually impaired. He went around selling tissue paper together with his mother to make ends meet. His mother passed on when David was 12. He did not do well for his PSLE and went into the Normal (Technical) stream. He fell into bad company and took up drinking and smoking. As he shared with the media, "I hung out with these people for a few months before I met the right ones." His new group of friends often hung out in the canteen to do their homework. They also helped to coach him in his studies. He had a dream of becoming a teacher and worked hard for it for his GCE "N" level, in hopes of eventually doing his GCE "O" level. He did well and was one of the top scorers for the Normal (Technical) "N" level. But he was still not allowed to do his "O" level. Desperate, this 16-year-old wrote an email to then Minister for Education, Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam, who intervened on his behalf. It was only through this intervention that he was able to get past the system and eventually did his "O" level. David is a success story, and he worked hard to succeed. But, as he shared with me, his story is also about how social mixing made a difference for him. While we share the success stories, we also need to remember that David is not representative of the majority of Normal (Technical) students. In fact, he is, unfortunately, a minority. While we celebrate the successes, we need to remember those who have been left behind.”
“Minister Ng Chee Meng last year acknowledged concerns that streaming could inadvertently discourage students. Dr Intan Mokhtar also said, "Academic streaming tends to pigeon-hole students and inadvertently places expectations about their intelligence or abilities according to the stream they are in." Indeed, for some students, there is a strong stigma associated with being in the Normal stream. One 2006 research paper, titled "Building Teacher Capacity in Curriculum and Pedagogical Design in Normal Technical Classrooms," provided this summary: "Perhaps the most common and injurious perception associated with Normal (Technical) or English and Mother Tongue (EM3) students is stupidity. Other negative perceptions of people interviewed on the streets are: "attitude not good", "Ah Beng type", "hopeless", "can't do anything, can't go anywhere", "unmotivated", "lazy" and "ill-disciplined". Some students may have even internalised such negativities. It is not unusual for students in the Normal stream to blame themselves, leading to the worry that such students suffer from low self-esteem." The impact of this stigma was already raised in this House by Mdm Cynthia Phua nine years ago. She said, "The present streaming of students in secondary schools has much psychological impact on the youths. The Normal stream is not normal, according to how the students and parents feel. They feel that they are inferior to their academic-better fellow schoolmates. And why do we have a system that makes our youths feel inferior at a young tender age?" There are, of course, students from the Normal (Technical) stream who have done well, and we have featured them regularly. I met David Hoe and am so inspired by his story.”
“But quite a number of them gave pause and raised concerns when I suggested that streaming could be stratifying our schools and preventing our students from mixing across socio-economic backgrounds. I am sure streaming was not meant to divide our nation by socio-economic status, but we now see that streaming does contribute to it. We have tried so hard to prevent social stratification in our homes; we must try just as hard to do so in our schools. The next logical question is whether students move between streams. After all, if a Normal (Technical) student can move easily to the Express stream, we could all afford to be less worried about social stratification. Unfortunately, we cannot. Each year, 530 Normal (Technical) students transfer to the Normal (Academic) stream. Of these students, only 10 to 20 of them eventually move on to the Express stream. Here is what it means: if you are a student from the Normal (Technical) stream, you have less than 1% chance to move to the Express stream. What is worse, the stratification continues further up the education ladder. Over the past three years, Normal (Technical) graduates have made up only 5% of those who graduated from our public polytechnics and only 1% of those who graduated from our autonomous universities. Most finish their studies in the Institute of Technical Education (ITE). Data provided by MOE shows that ITE graduates earned a starting salary of $1,900 in the private sector in 2017. By contrast, public university graduates earned a starting salary of $3,300. Why do students from the Normal stream struggle to move to the Express stream? One reason could be the psychological barriers that streaming imposes on Normal stream students.”
“One of the things that might prevent social mixing and harden social stratification in our secondary schools is the practice of streaming. We introduced streaming in 1980, and I understand the rationale. It caters to the different learning needs and pace of our students and it has helped to lower our attrition rate, which is now at less than 1%, compared to 30%-40% at the start of our education journey. Dr Intan Mokhtar also said in 2017 that streaming "helps teachers in being more focused in their teaching so that they are able to pitch their teaching content and pedagogy that are suitable for the students they teach." But the problem is that we are not just streaming our students based on their academic results. As Minister Ong Ye Kung has stated, "Social economic status has become significantly correlated with Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE) results." The reality is that students in the Normal stream tend to have a lower socio-economic status, as compared to those from the Express stream. We know that from 2014 to 2018, 69% of secondary school students who received assistance from the MOE Financial Assistance Scheme were from the Normal stream. We also know that the percentage of students living in public rental flats is higher in the Normal streams than those in the Express stream. We all know that we hang out with our classmates much more than with our schoolmates. What streaming has possibly done is to reduce social mixing and, again, harden social stratification. I spent the last year researching for this speech, filing questions in Parliament and I spoke with parents, students and teachers. Everyone understood why we started streaming.”
“Sir, I stand in support of the Budget. Inequality has been a buzzword in recent years and it is a positive sign. It shows that, as a society, we are not just concerned about ourselves but we are also concerned about those who have fallen behind, those who need our help. What is the best way to reduce inequality? The answer is ensuring social mobility and social mixing. In this respect, I agree with what Prime Minister Lee said in October last year: "We must not allow social stratification to harden in Singapore." We have done well to ensure that there is less social stratification where we live. The Prime Minister gave the example of our HDB towns, which mix rental blocks with owned blocks, and have flats of all sizes within the same building. The Prime Minister said, "We want high- and low-income families to live together side by side, get along with one another, interact with one together. Not live apart and treat one another as aliens from a different world." But what about social stratification where we study, especially in our secondary schools? Students spend perhaps half or even more of their time in schools. In these environments, it is surely just as important that high- and low-income children learn together, play together and mix with one another. Sir, we have a very well-respected education system that many countries aspire to emulate. The recent Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) report titled “Excellence and Equity in Education” similarly shared many positive aspects of our education system and about how disadvantaged students here do well compared with their peers around the world. But as MOE has acknowledged that the report also showed that more work needs to be done to ensure good social diversity and mixing in schools.”
“I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the reply. My main concern really is that when there is an accident involving a heavy vehicle, the chance of fatality is very high, especially for those who are carrying a lot of people in the back. And we still see them speeding. The problem then is how are we going to tackle the people who are tampering with the speed limiters. Can the Senior Parliamentary Secretary or the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) consider increasing the penalties for those who tamper with the speed limiters? My second question is whether MHA will consider installing the speed counters that we have in our military vehicles. We seldom see the military vehicles speeding. Can we consider putting those counters in our heavy vehicles?”
“I thank the Senior Minister of State for the reply. I just wanted to check the last part. He said that MOH is going to study this issue. Is it going to conduct a review on whether we can set up more specific guidelines, rather than the broad guidelines we have in our code now? Secondly, I am asking this in relation to the recent case where the doctor issued two days of light duty for the worker who had a broken collar bone. So, how does MOH ensure that the appropriate number of days of medical leave or light duty is issued after a surgery or after a work-related accident?”
“Sir, I thank the Minister of State for the reply. Can I just confirm that we are having a list of specified injuring similar to what the UK has, which is that regardless of the number of medical certificates (MCs) or number of days of light duty, mandatory reporting is required? The second clarification is whether we can follow what we do for occupational diseases where it is the doctor that reports the occupational diseases rather than the employers, that is, whether the doctors will in the future do reporting for work-related accidents rather than the employers?”
“I thank the Minister for the reply. I have two clarifications. First, how can we ensure that we have a social safety trampoline, as Deputy Prime Minister Tharman has suggested, rather than a social safety net? So, how can we reduce this 25% repeat applicants? The second clarification is whether MSF has studied whether, if we increase the duration of providing support during the first application, it would lead to a reduction in the number of times they will re-apply? Which means, if we help them longer the first time, the chance of them coming back to re-apply for ComCare would be reduced. So, maybe not six months, which is the median; but whether we have studied giving them nine months, and perhaps these applicants will not come back to apply for ComCare again?”
“Sorry. The question is: what percentage is actually sampled? So, out of all the shipments that come into Singapore, how many percent do we take the samples out for DNA sampling? Sir, again, part (c) of the question, which is the mandatory labelling scheme.”
“I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the reply. I think parts (a) and (c) of my question were not replied. Part (a) on what percentage of the shark fin shipments undergo sampling and DNA analysis; and part (c) on whether we will establish a mandatory labelling scheme so that consumers will actually know what species of sharks they are consuming, whether it is protected or not protected.”
“I understand that we have a list of the boarders at the pet farms. But as with the recent case of the Platinum Dogs Club, it was not in the pet farm, and that is perhaps where the issue lies. Do we have a list of pet boarders outside the pet farms? Again, I really hope that the Senior Parliamentary Secretary can provide at least some timeframe of how long this review is going to take because I am pretty sure that that would be the question on the ground.”
“I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the reply and I am very thankful that we are going to review this as well. The first clarification is: how long is this review going to take? Secondly, while this review is in process currently, do we have a list of pet boarders in Singapore? I am asking this so that we can do spot checks on these pet boarders. We do have this Code but, again, we need to start to check on them, rather than being reactive, which means, whenever a complaint comes in, abuse has happened and then we check the pet boarders. Can we be proactive now and do spot checks to make sure that abuse does not happen in the first place?”
“I thank the Minister for consistently looking into this issue and trying to find a way forward. But if I could bring up a point I raised before, which is really the fourth request on the refugees, which, again, is about citizenship. I am not asking for the Singapore Government to give them citizenship in Myanmar. But I am asking whether this issue can be discussed at a deeper level at the ASEAN meetings because that really is one of the roots of the problems.”
“Sir, this Bill is much needed and opens a new and exciting chapter in the animal protection movement in Singapore. When this merger was first announced, there were some concerns as to whether it was really true. Is it really happening? Was this fake news? The problem is that it was announced that the merger would take place on 1 April, on April Fools' Day. I hope that the public is now assured that this is not a joke and perhaps that it is really happening, and maybe the Senior Parliamentary Secretary can also provide some assurances on that. Sir, notwithstanding my clarifications, I stand in full support of this Bill.”
“” Sir, many others have used culling as a solution and have found as well that it does not work. In the City of Basel, for example, they had 20,000 pigeons in 1963. Over a period of 24 years of intensive culling, they killed 100,000 pigeons. In 1988, they did a count. Instead of having 20,000 pigeons, they now have 30,000 pigeons. Despite the culling, the population increased by 33%. Clearly, culling did not work. The City of Basel then focused on a public awareness campaign to address the public feeding of pigeons. It installed pigeon lofts, removed the pigeon eggs and controlled the availability of food. Within four and a half years, the city’s pigeon population decreased to 10,000 birds. Some culling continued during this period but that was to prevent the birds from starving to death due to the lack of food. This is very different from the culling that takes place in Singapore, which takes place in response to public complaints. The culling of monkeys is similarly ineffective as it is usually the young ones who get trapped. The mother monkey which lost her young goes into heat again, the male monkey mates with her and another baby is born, replacing the monkey which was killed. If we somehow manage to kill an entire troop, the neighbouring troop will then take over the territory of the troop who were killed. With more resources, they breed more and, sooner than later, we will have the same number of monkeys again. Sir, I can go on and on about this. Culling ignores the science and puts a burden on valuable Government resources. I sincerely hope that we can move forward on this issue and that the Senior Parliamentary Secretary can share more about how NParks intends to manage the animal population in Singapore.”
“As a biologist by training and having done a literature review, I have found no scientific studies that support our current culling measures. Certainly, there are no scientific studies that suggest culling based on public complaints is effective. In fact, there is scientific research that shows the contrary, that is, that culling not only fails to reduce the population, it actually leads to an increase. We have to understand that with our current measures, while there is a clear reduction in numbers following a cull, at times, within a few weeks, with pigeon, for example, the pigeon numbers may be back to the pre-cull numbers and, at times, exceed it. Why? Because we usually kill the adult birds who may be the non-breeding birds. The younger, healthier and stronger breeding birds survive the cull. According to the Pigeon Control Advisory Service, “pigeons control their own numbers very effectively according to the volume of food available to them. An adult pair of pigeons will usually breed four to six times a year but can breed more frequently in optimum conditions, producing two young each time. If, however, the food supply reduces and there is only sufficient food available to support the existing flock, adult birds may only breed once or twice a year or possibly not at all. Pigeons will not breed if there is insufficient food to service the needs of their young. If the food supply increases for any reason, following a cull, for example, pigeons will breed continuously until the flock reaches the point where it is fully exploiting the food available to it. In other words, there is a minor population explosion each time a cull takes place. The end result is an estimated 15%-30% increment in flock size over and above the pre-cull figure.”
“Prior to all the changes, this case would have been covered by one DG. Now, it will involve three DGs. Would this not be a waste of resources? Do officers handling the case have to send reports to the different DGs and the DGs will then have to meet to discuss the case? Can the Senior Parliamentary Secretary clarify how the DGs will work together now, and whether there will be separate lines of reporting for enforcement officers? Lastly, I would like to focus on the issue that I have raised many times in this House, that is, culling. Whenever we have animal-related nuisance complaints or feedback, culling seems to be the solution. Be it chickens, monkeys, birds or wild boars, we have culled them. We have made progress on this front, as the Senior Parliamentary Secretary has mentioned, and now have good TNRM programmes for dogs and cats, which focus on more humane, scientific and long-term solutions. These programmes address both residents’ concerns and animal welfare concerns. I hope that with this merger, with NParks’ strong background in science, we will start to develop more holistic, science-based management approaches towards managing animal populations in Singapore. Sir, we have been culling animals for decades. I ask that we look at this not just from an animal welfare perspective but also from an effectiveness perspective. Culling has clearly not worked. If culling worked, we would not have the same animal-related problems in the same areas year after year. We spend tons of resources, including financial resources, on a solution that does not seem to produce results. Can the Senior Parliamentary Secretary also confirm whether there are any scientific studies that show that our current culling measures work?”
“The definition of “animal” under the current Act, which references the Parks and Trees Act, includes “any other living creature, vertebrate or invertebrate”. Basically, it includes everything. The proposed new definition is more restricted. The word "invertebrate" is no longer there. Anthropods are now included in the definition of animals but there are invertebrates that are not anthropods. This includes cnidarians, such as jellyfishes and annelids, such as earthworms and leeches. Can the Senior Parliamentary Secretary clarify the rationale for limiting the definition of "animal" in this way? What prompted this change? Next, the positive aspect of this merger is that it will create synergy. We are merging so that, instead of two organisations, we have one organisation focused on animal and plant issues. I thus find it strange that after this merger, we then split the Director-General’s (DG's) duties. Instead of one DG, we will have four DG positions, that is, a DG for Animal Health and Welfare, a DG for Wildlife Management, a DG for Wildlife Trade Control, and a DG for Plant Health. While I understand that the DG for Animal Health and Welfare and the DG for Wildlife Management will be the same person, the DG for Wildlife Trade Control will be a different person. Why are we merging and then splitting? I find this will complicate things on the ground. For example, many wildlife trafficking cases involve both species protected under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) and under the Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act and also species not protected by CITES that fall under the Wild Animals and Birds Act. There is often animal cruelty involved as well and that offence will fall under the Animals and Birds Act.”
“Sir, I declare my interest as the Chief Executive of ACRES, an animal protection charity, the same ACRES that my Group Representation Constituency colleague Er Dr Lee Bee Wah was talking about. Perhaps, I should start by thanking her for sharing the extensive list of animals we have in Yishun and the amazing biodiversity we have. I think the Senior Parliamentary Secretary will reply to some of the concerns Er Dr Lee has raised, but I would like to add that, perhaps we have so many rats also because we have removed all the pythons which eat the rats. But, Sir, I have spent more than half of my life, over 20 years, speaking up for animals and giving them a voice. I have to say that this merger of AVA and NParks is good news for the animal protection community. It addresses a significant problem we face on the ground. Many times, we respond to feedback related to monkeys, for example. If that particular monkey is in a nature reserve, we would inform NParks. As we wait for NParks officers to arrive, the monkey moves, sometimes just by a few metres, and ends up outside the nature reserve. We then have to inform AVA. There was once the monkey was at a bus stop, like Er Dr Lee Bee Wah has said, and we were told to inform the Land Transport Authority instead. As these animals are quite mobile, things can get quite complicated with multiple agencies involved. Thus, the move to combine all non-food plant and animal-related functions is very much a welcomed one. This will enable a more unified and coherent approach. I stand in support of this Bill but would like to seek a few clarifications. First, I would like to seek clarifications for the rationale for limiting the definition of “animal”.”
“More specifically, what would be a condition or disability that results in incapacity or inability to carry out safe and effective practice? Is a certifying doctor, Western or TCM, required to weigh in? Who is the final adjudicator on this matter of judgement? Clarifications on this point, I believe, will provide guidance in future when there is any such dispute. Sir, in conclusion, the Bill is a step in the right direction. It reflects meaningful input solicited through the Ministry's public consultation, and it provides a robust framework with which to regulate a profession that helps manage the health of many Singaporeans. Sir, notwithstanding my clarifications, I stand in support of this Bill.”
“My fourth point is about sharing the results of investigations with former patients. If TCM physicians have conducted themselves in a dangerous way, it is possible that they have done it before. For instance, a physician who has given incorrect advice about how to deal with cancer might well have said similar things to other cancer patients. The TCM Practitioners Act does not appear to mandate that the Board release investigation results to former patients of the errant physician. Historically, we have seen some cases of misconduct by TCM practitioners reported in the news media. However, it is perhaps not a stretch to say that many TCM patients may not follow the news media closely. Thus, they may not be aware that the diagnosis or treatment they received was shoddy. Could the Ministry share whether, and how, it communicates with former patients when physicians are found guilty of misconduct? My fifth and last point relates to mental and physical condition. Section 6 of the Act bars a person from membership of the board if "he is incapacitated by a mental or physical disability." Section 19 contains a similar phrase. The section allows the Board to cancel the registration of a practitioner if he "is unable to carry out the prescribed practice of TCM for which he is registered safely or effectively by reason of a mental or physical disability." In this Bill, the phrase "disability" is amended to “condition." I have two questions relating to this point. One, why does one use "disability" while the other use "condition"? Does the Ministry mean to make a meaningful distinction between the two usages? Two, could the Ministry articulate what would constitute a mental or physical condition, or a mental or physical disability?”
“What then is stopping him from making similar mistakes of the same nature when he returns to practice? What course of action has been taken to ensure his knowledge base is updated to what the profession demands? In many industries, it is common for errant professionals to undergo some programme of training or education to rectify their gap in knowledge and understanding. Can the Ministry clarify whether the TCM Practitioners Act equips the Board with powers to require offending practitioners to undergo specific courses of professional training? My third point is about responding to complainants. The new section 26E details an array of timelines. Upon receiving a complaint, the Board has two weeks to start a review and three months to complete that review. If they refer the matter to an Inquiry Committee, the committee has six months. All in all, it seems that the process can take just under a year, extensions notwithstanding. It is a long time for a complainant to wait. My questions are as follows: does the Board have an obligation to respond to the complainant with the results of its review? If the review proceeds to the stage where an Inquiry Committee is convened to investigate, must the complainant be notified about the final findings? In either case, is there a requirement that the Board relays information in any prompt manner to the complainant? It is laudable that we have an extensive framework for investigating complaints. Surely, the point of these investigations is not only to be accountable but also to demonstrate accountability. It then seems important to me that the Board has a duty to reply to the complainant in a reasonably prompt fashion with a response that meaningfully addresses the complainant's concerns.”
“Last September, the TCM Practitioners Board fined a physician the maximum $10,000 for recommending that a patient delay her cancer treatment or surgery. The physician conveyed a whole slew of dangerous advice to his patient. He told her that the tumor would grow slowly. He told her that surgery would make the cancer cells proliferate more quickly. He told her that her tumor was not life-threatening. In addition, he prescribed capsules of ginseng and herb that, at best, provided a false sense of comfort for his patient. We were lucky that the patient’s daughter interceded and that the patient went ahead, promptly, with surgery. But not every patient is so lucky. I am concerned about the message that this difference in fines sends. When patients sit in a physician’s office, the physician is the figure of authority. TCM physicians are in a prime position to influence the health decisions of patients. In this case, the physician took the patient down a dangerous, life-threatening course of action. I urge the Ministry to further explain why a TCMP should face a less severe penalty than a Western medical practitioner. My second point is about CPE. I am heartened that the Bill empowers the TCM Practitioners Board to reject the registration of practitioners who fail to comply with requirements on mandatory professional education. My question is whether the Board can issue such requirements as part of a punishment imposed on errant practitioners. In the case I previously mentioned, the Board issued only a fine and a suspension to the practitioner even though it found that he was "neither remorseful for his conduct nor fully aware of the danger that he posed to that patient." From that statement, it appears the practitioner did not agree or understand that what he did was wrong.”
“Sir, I stand in support of this Bill. In recent years, TCM has become more popular as a career of choice. From 2012 to 2017, the number of practitioners rose by 16%. However, as the profession swells in ranks, it must keep up its standards. Despite the growth in numbers, degree holders still comprise only 21% of all registered practitioners, according to 2017 data. Some 5.7% of practitioners have no formal qualifications at all. Practitioners must continue to learn, unlearn and relearn to keep up with the times. This Bill mandates CPE for practitioners. At the same time, it clarifies and elaborates the mechanisms used to keep practitioners in check. I agree with these measures, and I thank MOH for holding a public consultation and incorporating views from that consultation into this piece of legislation. I have five points of clarification to raise. My first point is about fines. The Bill raises the maximum fine from $10,000 to $50,000. I agree in principle with the increase, as it strengthens deterrence and punishment in an area where human lives are concerned. However, it is unclear to me why this penalty is less than that imposed on Western medical practitioners. Under the Medical Registration Act, medical practitioners face a maximum penalty of $100,000. In effect, we are saying that Western physicians get fined $100,000 for doing wrong, while TCM physicians get fined $50,000 for doing wrong. In its response to the public consultation, the Ministry said that the Medical Registration Act more seriously penalises Western physicians for one reason only – that they pose "greater risk of potential harm to patients". Can the Minister explain how a Western physician might be more dangerous than a TCMP?”
“Further, the study found that there was no change in smokers' misperceptions that certain types of tobacco products were better for their health. Could the Minister clarify exactly how and why standardised packaging would reduce the potential of tobacco packaging to mislead consumers on the harmful effects of smoking then? In addition, the study also discussed the inclusion of colour names in brand variant names after the implementation of standardised plain packaging in Australia. As standardised packaging in Australia did not limit the use of colour names in brand variant names, companies began including colour names to evoke the sensations or feelings previously connoted by the colour on the package. For instance, a product, which was known as "Dunhill Distinct" in the past, had its brand variant name changed to "Dunhill Distinct Blue" after the introduction of standardised packaging. Such efforts had the effect of reinforcing the differences between tobacco products which further contributes to the misconception that certain product variants were less harmful than others. Given the potential ramifications which can result from certain brand variant names, could the Ministry consider vetting and setting restrictions on certain brand variant names? For instance, based on the example I have used, would it be possible to prohibit the use of colour names in brand variant names? Sir, notwithstanding my clarifications, I stand in support of this Bill. This Bill signals the Government’s firm willingness to work towards creating a tobacco-free Singapore and I wholeheartedly support these efforts.”
“Would the original powers of the Police and authorised officials be adequate, particularly given the introduction of a considerable measure, such as standardised packaging? Australia, the first country to introduce standardised packaging, set up a Tobacco Plain Packaging Enforcement Committee comprising representatives from the Ministry of Health and the National Measurement Institute. This committee monitors potential contraventions and decides what type of punitive actions should be taken based on the contraventions. Such a committee could be particularly useful in ensuring that the standardised packaging proposal is implemented smoothly in Singapore. Does the Ministry have any plans to set up a similar enforcement committee to ensure that there is a separate institutionalised body responsible for all matters concerning enforcement of standardised packaging? Finally, while I am aware of the potential positive effects standardised packaging can have on reducing the smoking rates, I am concerned about the measure’s potential effectiveness, specifically in reducing the ability of tobacco packaging to mislead consumers on the harms of smoking. According to MOH's Press Release on 31 October last year, standardised packaging is intended to fulfill five main objectives. These include reducing the packaging's potential to mislead consumers on the harmful effects of smoking, highlighting GHWs, and raising awareness about the risks of smoking. However, according to the primary study used in the Australian government’s review of its standardised packaging programme, researchers found that the measure did not adequately address the goal of reducing the ability of tobacco packaging to mislead smokers on the harmful effects of smoking.”
“Sir, I stand in support of this Bill that will contribute to further reducing the smoking rate and promote healthier living in Singapore. Studies from other countries that have implemented standardised packaging, such as those in Australia and the UK, consistently highlight the deterrent effect this measure can have upon smoking. The implementation of standardised packaging is a huge and positive leap in the right direction. That being said, I would like to seek some clarifications on certain aspects of the Bill. First, I would like to seek clarification on the increase in the maximum fines that may be imposed for offences relating to licences required for dealing with tobacco products. Clause 4 of the Bill amends section 18(5) of the Act to increase the fines for an offence under that provision. Could the Minister for Health clarify the rationale behind the increase in maximum fines for such offences? Is there evidence, for instance, from studies conducted in other countries that such an increase in maximum fines would be effective in deterring offenders, especially in the case of repeat offenders? Further, why have these fines been increased by 100%, both in the case of offenders and repeat offenders? Are there reasons as to why they have been increased by this specific amount? Has there also been an increase in recent times for such offences? Second, under the new section 17, the Bill requires that all tobacco products that are imported, distributed and sold in Singapore adhere to the requirements prescribed under the principal Act. Can the Minister clarify exactly how these requirements would be enforced?”
“I thank the Minister for the reply. I understand that the Minister said that only the findings are released, bearing in mind that some of these reports might contain some sensitive data. Taking the Tengah case, for example, where there are some disputes on the ground with regard to the findings of the study, whether releasing the full report minus the sensitive data, will help to clarify some of the concerns on the ground and also provide more assurances on the ground?”
“On Children's Day in 2017, some inmates at the Tanah Merah Prison were allowed an open visit where they could hug and hold their loved ones. Some of the inmates had not seen their children for four years until that visit. Having physical contact with their families can be a strong reminder for inmates to turn over a new leaf for their families. As stated by the spokesperson for Focus on Family Singapore, "Humans thrive when we know we are loved. When inmates connect and are reconciled with their families, there is a lower chance of them reoffending." I would also like to take this opportunity to applaud MHA for increasing support for ex-offenders. The Development and Reintegration Programme is promising and aims to help inmates upon their release. It provides continuity of care from prisons to the community, to help the inmates better reintegrate and prevent reoffending. Beyond the support offered after ex-offenders are released, I also hope we can provide more support to inmates while they are in prison, especially during the initial incarceration phase and especially by ex-offenders who have managed to turn their lives around. I had raised this before during the Committee of Supply debates and I hope the Ministry could consider including more programmes featuring ex-offenders and imparting life-changing strategies at this initial stage, especially during the initial two to three months, when inmates are most motivated to change and commitments are more sustainable. Sir, notwithstanding my clarifications, I stand in support of this Bill.”
“This is already a clear sign that inmates lack family support and this problem might have existed prior to the drug problem. Strained family ties were perhaps one of the reasons they consumed drugs in the first place. The new section 34A will require parents and guardians to undergo mandatory counselling together with young offenders. This is a positive step forward. In the same vein of embracing a more whole-family approach, I hope we will also consider a greater push towards a more forgiving and rehabilitative approach to all drug offenders. Beyond focusing on young offenders, we should also help inmates currently serving their sentences to maintain social connections with their immediate family. The family serves as an important social safety net upon the inmates' release. Families help to support inmates' efforts to change, reintegrate into society as responsible citizens and reduce the reoffending rates. Research has shown that family support is a key factor that prevents inmates from reoffending. I have suggested this before, and I hope that we can consider removing the glass panel between inmates and their children more often. Today, family bonding and interaction with inmates' children are too limited. Family support, especially interaction with their children, could strengthen the resolve of inmates to change their lives for the better. Stopping parental contact with their child could cause resentment, a sense of abandonment on both sides and weaken the social support structure for an inmate. This works against our objective of a supportive rehabilitation process and also negatively affects the child. There is precedence to remove the separation by glass panel on special occasions.”
“Sir, I stand in support of the Bill. It is important to review the existing framework to ensure that we are up to date with the evolving drug landscape. I would like to seek a few clarifications and offer some suggestions. I am happy to note that the proposed amendments, as a whole, reflect a move towards strengthening rehabilitation for drug offenders, and the whole-of-family approach, especially when it comes to younger drug offenders. Just last week, at a visit to the new Selarang Halfway House, Minister Shanmugam announced a three-pronged approach to better rehabilitate ex-offenders. This includes assigning inmates to the same case officer for the entire period of incarceration, focusing more on correctional programmes targeted at individuals, and getting more family and community support. These amendments will codify the rehabilitative approach and align our legislative framework with ground initiatives. I note that section 33 will be amended to introduce mandatory minimum sentences for offences of consuming controlled or specified drugs, failing to provide urine specimens and failing to provide hair specimens. Further, section 33A on enhanced penalties for repeat offenders will be expanded. In light of the refocus on rehabilitation, can the Minister clarify the rationale behind introducing mandatory minimum sentences and enhanced penalties and how this might be consistent with the broader strategy for addressing repeat commission of drug offences? Both legislative and executive action should be aligned to present a coherent message on our renewed commitment to rehabilitation and reintegration. The family is an important part of the rehabilitative process. At the DRC, I understand that only a third of inmates use their full quota of two 30-minute visits per month.”
“However, unlike the draft Healthcare Services Bill, there was no direct response from the Ministry to the public consultation feedback. Can the Minister share the key feedback that was received on the proposed amendments, and whether any of the responses were accepted by the Ministry in drafting this final Bill? Sir, notwithstanding my clarifications, I stand in support of this Bill.”
“The healthcare provider must be authorised by the Director to do so. Can the Minister clarify whether the affected person will be notified of the disclosure? Under section 57B(3) the specified recipient of information may further disclose that information to another person providing a prescribed healthcare service. The disclosure is only to the extent necessary to prevent the spread or outbreak of the infectious disease. Can the Minister elaborate on whether the extent necessary is at the sole judgement of the specified recipient, and whether the Director's authorisation or affected person’s consent would be required? Section 57B(6) defines "healthcare provider" and "specified recipient" as any person that provides a prescribed healthcare service which will be prescribed in subsequent regulations. Can the Minister share in advance the scope of healthcare services that may be prescribed and whether a "healthcare provider" would be limited to medical practitioners registered under the Medical Registration Act? In addition to section 57B, section 59A(5A) also allows individually-identifiable information to be disclosed for the purpose of national public health research. There are no express provisions for both section 57B and section 59A on safeguards that may be imposed on the recipient of such information. Rather, section 57B(2) and section 59A(5)(c) allow the Director to impose conditions. I assume that these conditions will require the recipient of the information to take steps to prevent further disclosure. Will the subsidiary legislation or guidelines further elaborate on the safeguards that recipients must put in place? Lastly, I would like to commend MOH on the six-week public consultation that was conducted in mid-2018 on the proposed amendments to the IDA.”
“Sir, I stand in support of this Bill that will increase our responsiveness to infectious diseases. The most effective responses to infectious diseases are steps that are taken pre-emptively to curb the risk of any emerging threats. The Bill provides the stakeholders with the necessary powers to respond ahead of time of any outbreaks, and quickly, should an outbreak actually occur. However, I also believe that all powers should be accompanied by checks and balances and I would like to seek some clarifications on the broad powers the Bill provides. Under section 21(1), the Director may give directions to any individual to cease or to change how they carry out any occupation, trade or business. I note that section 21(2)(a) states that the Director will specify the "period of time" that the individual will have to cease their occupation, trade or business. Can the Minister confirm that the Director will not have the blanket power to order a person to cease their occupation, trade or business for an indefinite period? Will the decision be made by just one person or a committee? Will it be subject to time limits? For instance, section 17A, which allows the Minister to declare a public health emergency and designate restricted zones, is subject to a 14-day time limit. There is no similar time limit for the Director’s powers under section 21(1). Can the Minister confirm whether any time period specified will at least be limited by the requirement of reasonableness? Can the Minister also provide the assurance that reasonable periods, subject to regular reviews, will be preferred over long bans? Next, under section 57B(1), a healthcare provider may disclose information identifying a person as an individual affected or suspected to be affected by an infectious disease.”
“For example, these businesses are not obliged to provide full disclosure in deployment of funds raised. This entails a risk of potential fraud and funds misuse. Would the Minister consider legislating to enforce penalties on fraud and funds abuse? Sir, notwithstanding my clarifications, I stand in support of this Bill.”
“I also like to raise concerns about the ascendancy of ICOs which accompanied the rise of blockchain and cryptocurrency. ICO is a method of fundraising used by businesses to build blockchain-centric projects. Based on a report by ICObench, an authoritative rating body, Singapore has the second highest number of ICOs on ICObench’s platform, with 524 ICOs launched and US$2.1 billion raised. Both statistics indicate that Singapore is favoured by businesses seeking to raise funds through ICOs. While platforms that issue digital tokens will be regulated under the proposed regime, those within the industry have expressed concerns to me that there should be greater regulatory oversight over businesses that operate on those platforms and raise funds by offering ICOs. According to a report by ICO advisory firm Statis Group, 80% ICOs in 2017 were scams. As such, I urge MAS to improve its regulatory coverage to build a more robust financial system for the growth of the ICO market. Will the Ministry consider the following proposals in future reviews of the payment services regime? First, I propose that all businesses that conduct an ICO must register themselves with MAS. MAS should maintain a central registry of key persons involved in an ICO. Presently, there is no way for investors to conduct background checks on founders of businesses with an ICO campaign. Such a central registry will help investors easily perform due diligence on their investments. Second, MAS could conduct public campaigns to raise awareness about ICOs, its potential windfalls and its pitfalls. This will improve retail investors’ ability to differentiate good projects from scams. Finally, our legislation presently does not cover acts of wrongdoing in the conduct of a business that offers an ICO.”
“Another agency which is concerned with innovation and competition in the payments industry is the Competition Commission of Singapore (CCS). CCS has undertaken inquiries into alleged infringements by payment systems, clearing the NETS Affinity Programme of abuse of dominant position in 2007 and clearing Visa’s Multilateral Interchange Fee system of anti-competitive behaviour. Further, CCS had commissioned the New Zealand consultancy company Castalia to study the competitiveness of card payment systems in Singapore. Can the Minister clarify how MAS will work with the Payments Council and CCS in exercising its powers relating to interoperability? Further, will the Minister look into establishing a regulatory body to exercise specific oversight over competition and innovation for payment systems? The Payment Systems Regulator (PSR) in the UK provides a model for this. While there is also a general competition regulatory body, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA), the PSR has a narrower focus on payment systems. The co-existence of PSR alongside CMA demonstrates that payment systems give rise to sufficiently unique competition concerns arising from the network effect to require a separate regulatory body. Lastly, section 41 provides that MAS may require participants, operators and settlement institutions to provide information relating to a payment system. This includes information relating to operations, pricing, participation and any other information that MAS may require for the purposes of the Act. Can the Minister clarify whether this would include information of payment systems users? If so, are there any limits on the information that MAS can require? For instance, would MAS be able to obtain aggregated user data or individually-identifiable information?”
“Certainly, the provision of payment services that affect individuals in Singapore will raise similar risks, whether or not the provider is physically located in Singapore or overseas. Can the Minister clarify how it intends to enforce these provisions against non-Singapore businesses that do not operate in Singapore? Further, these foreign businesses may already be regulated in their home jurisdictions. For instance, payment services based in Hong Kong would be subject to the Payment Systems and Stored Value Facilities Ordinance 2015, while those based in the UK are regulated by the Payment Services Regulations 2017. How would the local regime interact with those of other countries? For instance, would designations under foreign regimes be recognised in Singapore? Next, in the Singapore Payments Roadmap report mentioned earlier, KPMG noted that the lack of interoperability between electronic payment systems was a cause of limited adoption and high costs of electronic payments. Establishing interoperability was a key topic discussed by the Payments Council at its inaugural meeting in August 2017. The Bill addresses this by providing MAS the powers relating to access regimes, common platforms and common standards. Section 25 and 26 give MAS broad powers to direct that payment service providers ensure interoperability between payment accounts and payment system, and between payment systems. Division 4 of Part 3 of the Bill allows MAS to impose access regimes to payment systems. Alongside MAS’ regulatory powers, the Payments Council plays an advisory function and is tasked with promoting the interoperability of systems. It set up an industry taskforce in August 2017, which developed the SGQR Code to consolidate multiple payment schemes.”
“Sir, I stand in support of this Bill, which reflects the delicate balance that has to be struck between the Government’s roles of regulating risks and promoting innovation in the payments industry. This balance is struck by the calibrated approach taken in applying safeguards relating to standards of consumer protection, anti-money laundering controls, and cybersecurity. Beyond this, the Bill also recognises that regulation may be beneficial, even necessary, for competition and innovation. In the 2016 Singapore Payments Roadmap report commissioned by MAS, the limited adoption of electronic payments was attributed to decentralised governance and lack of coordination of infrastructure. This suggests that the payment systems market, when left to its own devices, does not lead to the best outcomes for consumers. This Bill addresses this by providing MAS with regulatory powers relating to interoperability, allowing the regulator to play the role of innovator as well. That said, I would like to seek some clarifications and make proposals for the businesses that raise funds through the Initial Coin Offers (ICOs). Firstly, MAS had indicated that the Bill will regulate any entity, whether local or foreign, as long as it provides payment services and has a clear nexus to Singapore. Section 5(1) prohibits any person from providing any type of payment services in Singapore without a licence, if a licence is required. Many of the definitions of the various payment services refer to the provision of services to persons in Singapore, but the provider himself does not have to be in Singapore to be required to obtain a licence.”
“I would further urge the Minister to extend this principle to the work injury compensation regime in future reviews of WICA. I understand that the assessment and diagnosis of the first treating doctor who is often also the doctor chosen by the employer is often preferred over doctors the employee may subsequently consult in the assessment of permanent incapacity under WICA. It would be appropriate to harmonise the positions under the EA and WICA by recognising that the injured employee is both entitled to consult and to have their permanent incapacity assessed by a medical practitioner of their choice. Sir, notwithstanding my clarifications, I stand in support of this Bill.”
“Can the Minister also shed some light on how the written consent requirement will be implemented in practice? How will the Ministry keep track of whether written consent has been obtained and how will the Ministry ensure that such written consent is not obtained coercively? I welcome the new section 27(1A) and (1B) which clarifies that an employee cannot be penalised for withdrawing written consent to deductions. Section 27(1A) requires that the employee withdraw their consent any time before the deduction is made. Can the Minister confirm that an employee is only required to withdraw consent before a specific deduction transaction is made, in other words, it remains open to an employee to withdraw consent for a certain category of deduction throughout the course of employment? Further, what are the penalties and consequences for an employer who penalises an employee for withdrawing written consent? Next, the new section 21(1A) of the Employment Claims Act 2016 allows the ECT to draw adverse inferences where a party fails to produce evidence in breach of their obligation under other written laws. Can I confirm that this would mean that adverse inferences may be drawn against employers if they fail to produce Key Employment Terms and salary slips, which they are required to maintain under the EA? Would the Minister consider taking this a step further in future reviews of the EA and Employment Claims Act in reversing the burden of proof where the employer is required by statute to retain certain records? Lastly, I welcome the amendments to section 89, which recognise employees’ freedom to consult medical doctors or institutions of their choice without prejudicing their entitlement to medical leave.”
“Can the Minister clarify if the intended effect of section 27(1)(i) is to permit any kind of deduction as long as there is written consent? For instance, section 27(1)(c) which permits deductions for meals supplied by the employer at the request of the employee will be removed. Would it be permissible for an employer to now deduct the costs of meals with the employee's written consent? If that is the case, what is the rationale behind removing section 27(1)(c) if such a deduction would still be allowed under section 27(1)(i) as long as the employee's consent is obtained? It is worrying if section 27(1)(i) is intended to be interpreted so broadly that all deductions, unless specifically prohibited, are permitted with the employee's consent. As I mentioned at the start, our labour laws provide additional protection on top of contractual consent. Permitting deductions as long as there is written consent by the employee seems to be a regression in the protection of our labour laws. It is undisputed that, in reality, many employees can be pressurised or coerced into giving false consent. Can the Minister confirm that the new section 27(1)(i) remains limited by prohibited deductions under other statutes, such as sections 22A and 25(6) of the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act (EFMA)? Can the Minister also clarify whether section 27(1)(i) is subject to any other limitations? Next, under the new section 27(1)(f), an employer can make deductions from an employee's salary to recover any advance or loan. This is a potential loophole for improper deductions to be made. Can the Minister clarify whether employers will have to maintain and produce documentation of such loan or advance to prove the legitimacy of deductions under this section?”
“While poor work performance was cited for the reason of the dismissal, the company did not seem to have a problem with her work performance prior to her pregnancy, even praising her for being an exemplary role model. The odd actions of her employers, such as locking her out of her work email account which she could only access using a temporary password and hiring a new person whose job scope and job title were similar to hers, only occurred after she returned from hospitalisation. The hospitalisation and one incident of lateness to work, which were both caused by her pregnancy, seemed to have escalated into her dismissal. In a disability discrimination case, a stroke survivor with mobility issues was dismissed after a colleague had reported witnessing the individual slipping and falling on the way to the toilet. Can the Minister provide examples of unfair dismissals? Would the Minister further consider providing clear definitions of what constitute dismissal without just cause or excuse under subsidiary legislation or as guidelines? Can such regulations or guidelines also include specific forms of discrimination on the basis of gender or disability? This would clarify for employees their rights on discriminatory dismissals and assist the ECT in adjudicating unfair dismissal claims. Next, section 27(1) currently specifies a list of permissible deductions. No deductions beyond this limited list may be made from an employee's salary. However, this defined list seems to have been expanded by the new section 27(1)(i) which authorises any deduction made with the written consent of the employee. It appears all deductions are permissible with the employee's written consent unless it is specifically prohibited.”
“Sir, I stand in support of this Bill. The EA is the cornerstone of our employment regime. It provides an additional layer of protection for employees beyond contract law. It recognises that there are certain fundamental protections that employees and employers should not be allowed to contract out of. It also recognises that there are underlying power imbalances that may weaken the nature of the consent in an employment relationship. It is thus important to regularly review the EA to ensure that its provisions take into account the reality of the employee-employer relationship. With this in mind, I have a number of clarifications to make on the interpretation and application of the proposed amendments. Section 14(1) is intended to protect employees against unfair dismissal by allowing an employee to lodge a claim with the ECT where he has been dismissed without just cause or excuse. However, there is no definition of what constitutes dismissal without just cause or excuse. Without a clear definition, the protection against unfair dismissal may be ineffective because instances of unfair dismissals are often not clear cut and can be easily disguised. Civil society groups have documented examples of such stories. In one case, a mother was told to leave when she returned from her maternity leave as the company had carried out a retrenchment exercise while she was away. However, she also reported being "nitpicked" and "mentally abused" by her superior while she was pregnant and strongly suspected that the superior took the retrenchment exercise as a chance to "get rid" of her. In another case, a pregnant lady was dismissed shortly after returning from hospitalisation leave for severe morning sickness.”